Scribd
Upload
101 views2 pages

Pantranco VS Baesa

This case digest summarizes a 1989 Supreme Court case regarding a collision between a passenger jeep and a bus that killed most of the jeep's passengers. The key facts are that the bus encroached on the jeep's lane while negotiating a curve, causing the collision. The plaintiff sued the bus company for damages. The bus company argued the jeep driver was negligent. The Supreme Court held that the last clear chance doctrine did not apply because there was no evidence the jeep driver was aware of the impending danger in time to avoid it, as he had no opportunity to react between perceiving the danger and the collision. The last clear chance doctrine requires awareness of peril in time to avoid the accident through reasonable care.

Uploaded by

Dan Anthony Barriga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
101 views2 pages

Pantranco VS Baesa

This case digest summarizes a 1989 Supreme Court case regarding a collision between a passenger jeep and a bus that killed most of the jeep's passengers. The key facts are that the bus encroached on the jeep's lane while negotiating a curve, causing the collision. The plaintiff sued the bus company for damages. The bus company argued the jeep driver was negligent. The Supreme Court held that the last clear chance doctrine did not apply because there was no evidence the jeep driver was aware of the impending danger in time to avoid it, as he had no opportunity to react between perceiving the danger and the collision. The last clear chance doctrine requires awareness of peril in time to avoid the accident through reasonable care.

Uploaded by

Dan Anthony Barriga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Torts and Damages Case Digest: Pantranco

North Express, Inc. v. Maricar Baesa (1989)


G.R. 79050-51 November 14, 1989
Lessons Applicable: Last Clear Chance (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:
 Spouses Baesa, their 4 children, the Ico spouses and their son and 7
other people boarded a passenger jeep driven by David Ico to go to a
picnic in Isabela, to celebrate the 5th wedding anniversary of the Baesa
spouses
 While they were proceeding towards Malalam River at a speed of about
20 kph, a speeding PANTRANCO bus from Aparri, on a route to Manila,
encroached on the jeepney’s lane while negotiating a curve, and collided
with it.
 As a result, the entire Baesa family, except for their daughter Maricar
Baesa, as well as David Ico, died, and the rest suffered from injuries.
Maricar Baesa, through her guardian filed separate actions for damages
arising from quasi-delict against PANTRANCO.
 PANTRANCO: alleged David Ico's negligence as a proximate cause of the
accident and invoked the defense of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of its driver.
 CA upheld RTC: favor of Baesa

ISSUE: W/N the last clear chance applies thereby making David Ico who
had the chance to avoid the collision negligent in failing to utilize with
reasonable care and competence

HELD: NO.
 Generally, the last clear change doctrine is invoked for the purpose of
making a defendant liable to a plaintiff who was guilty of prior or
antecedent negligence, although it may also be raised as a defense to
defeat claim for damages
 For the last clear chance doctrine to apply, it is necessary to show that
the person who allegedly has the last opportunity to avert the accident
was aware of the existence of the peril, or should, with exercise of due
care, have been aware of it
 there is nothing to show that the jeepney driver David Ico knew of the
impending danger
 When he saw at a distance that the approaching bus was encroaching on
his lane, he did not immediately swerve the jeepney to the dirt shoulder
on his right since he must have assumed that the bus driver will return
the bus to its own lane upon seeing the jeepney approaching form the
opposite direction
 Even assuming that the jeepney driver perceived the danger a few
seconds before the actual collision, he had no opportunity to avoid it
 last clear chance doctrine can never apply where the party charged is required to
act instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all
means at hand after the peril is or should have been discovered

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy