THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 175172. September 29, 2009.]

CRESENCIA ACHEVARA, ALFREDO ACHEVARA, and BENIGNO

VALDEZ , petitioners, vs . ELVIRA RAMOS, JOHN ARNEL RAMOS, and
KHRISTINE CAMILLE RAMOS , respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA , J : p

This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 of the Decision dated April 25, 2006 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 67027, and its Resolution dated October 23,
2006, denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals a rmed
with modi cation the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur,
Branch 22, dated February 14, 2000, holding petitioners solidarily liable to respondents
for damages incurred due to a vehicular accident, which resulted in the death of Arnulfo
Ramos.
The facts are as follows:
On June 27, 1995, respondents Elvira Ramos and her two minor children, namely,
John Arnel Ramos and Khristine Camille Ramos, led with the RTC of Ilocos Sur a
Complaint 2 for damages under Article 2176 3 of the Civil Code against petitioners
Cresencia Achevara, Alfredo Achevara and Benigno Valdez for the death of Arnulfo
Ramos, husband of Elvira Ramos and father of her two children, in a vehicular accident
that happened on April 22, 1995 at the national highway along Barangay Tablac,
Candon, Ilocos Sur. Crescencia Achevara was sued as the operator of the passenger
jeep with Plate No. DKK-995, which was involved in the vehicular accident. Alfredo
Achevara was impleaded as the husband of the operator and as the administrator of
the conjugal partnership properties of the Spouses Achevara.
In their Complaint, 4 respondents alleged that in the morning of April 22, 1995,
Benigno Valdez was driving a passenger jeep heading north on the national highway in
Barangay Tablac, Candon, Ilocos Sur in a reckless, careless, and negligent manner. He
tried to overtake a motorcycle, causing the passenger jeep to encroach on the opposite
lane and bump the oncoming vehicle driven by Arnulfo Ramos. The injuries sustained by
Arnulfo Ramos caused his death, notwithstanding prompt medical assistance.
Respondents alleged that Crescencia Achevara failed to exercise due diligence in the
selection and supervision of Benigno Valdez as driver of the passenger jeep.
Respondents sought to recover actual damages for medical expenses in the sum of
P33,513.00 and funeral expenses in the sum of P30,000.00, as well as moral and
exemplary damages, lost earnings, attorney's fees and litigation expenses. cDTIAC

In their Answer, 5 petitioners denied respondents' allegation that Benigno Valdez

overtook a motorcycle and bumped the vehicle driven by Arnulfo Ramos. They alleged
that on April 22, 1995, Benigno Valdez was driving southward at a moderate speed
when he saw an owner-type jeep coming from the south and heading north, running in a
zigzag manner, and encroaching on the west lane of the road. To avoid a collision,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Valdez drove the passenger jeep towards the shoulder of the road, west of his lane, but
the owner-type jeep continued to move toward the western lane and bumped the left
side of the passenger jeep. Petitioners alleged that it was Arnulfo Ramos who was
careless and negligent in driving a motor vehicle, which he very well knew had a
mechanical defect. Hence, respondents had no cause of action against petitioners.
During trial on the merits, respondents presented three witnesses: Alfredo
Gamera, Dr. Emilio Joven and Elvira Ramos.
Alfredo Gamera testi ed that at about 10:00 a.m. of April 22, 1995, he and his
wife were seated at the waiting shed along the national highway in Tablac, Candon,
Ilocos Sur, waiting for a ride to the town proper of Candon. He saw a motorcycle, driven
by Police O cer 3 (PO3) Baltazar de Peralta, coming from the interior part of Tablac
and proceeding south toward the town proper. He also saw a southbound passenger
jeep, driven by Benigno Valdez, that wanted to overtake the motorcycle of PO3 De
Peralta. As it tried to overtake the motorcycle, the passenger jeep encroached on the
lane of the northbound owner-type jeep driven by Arnulfo Ramos, which resulted in the
collision. Gamera stated that the point of impact was on the lane of the vehicle of
Arnulfo Ramos. Thereafter, the passenger jeep screeched to a halt at the fence of the
Funtanilla family. The owner-type jeep was destroyed and the windshield was broken. 6
Gamera testi ed that he was about 100 meters from the place where the
vehicular accident occurred. The speed of the passenger jeep was about 70 kilometers
per hour, while that of the owner-type jeep was about 30 kilometers per hour. 7
On cross-examination, it was found that Gamera went to the Police Station in
Candon, Ilocos Sur to execute his sworn statement only on May 30, 1992, one month
after the incident and after respondent Elvira Ramos talked to him. Moreover, at the
preliminary investigation, Gamera did not mention in his sworn statement that his wife
was present during the incident, which fact was admitted by respondent's counsel.
Further, at that time, Gamera was working as a jueteng collector at the same joint
where the deceased Arnulfo Ramos was also employed, and he had known Ramos for
five years. 8
Dr. Emilio Joven, a surgeon of the Lorma Medical Center, San Fernando, La Union,
testi ed that Arnulfo Ramos was admitted at the Lorma Hospital at about 12:50 p.m.
on April 22, 1995. The latter sustained external injuries, mostly on the left side of the
body, which could have been caused by a vehicular accident. The CT scan result of
Arnulfo Ramos showed blood clots inside the brain, scattered small hemorrhagic
contusions, and swelling and blood clots on the base of the brain, which internal injuries
caused his death. 9 The immediate cause of death was "acute cranio-cerebral injury". 1 0
SCaEcD

Respondent Elvira Ramos testi ed on the damages she incurred due to the
vehicular accident, which resulted in the death of her husband. She spent P33,513.00
for hospitalization and P30,000.00 for the funeral. She prayed for the award of lost
earnings, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, appearance fees and
other costs of litigation. 1 1
She also testi ed that the owner-type jeep was registered in the name of Matilde
Tacad 1 2 of Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur. 1 3
Petitioners presented six witnesses, namely, PO3 Baltazar de Peralta, Special
Police O cer 2 (SPO2) Marvin Valdez, Herminigildo Pagaduan, Benigno Valdez, Emilia
Achevara and Alfredo Achevara.
PO3 Baltazar de Peralta stated that he was assigned to Santiago, Ilocos Sur. He
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 testi ed that at about 9:00 a.m. of April 22, 1995, he was on board his motorcycle at
the waiting shed erected on the eastern side of the national highway in Tablac, Ilocos
Sur. He was about to go southward, but waited a while to let a southbound passenger
jeep pass by. Then he followed behind the passenger jeep.
When the passenger jeep was about 75 meters away from him on the western
lane of the national highway, PO3 De Peralta spotted an owner-type jeep coming from
the south on the eastern lane of the road. He observed that the owner-type jeep was
running in a zigzag manner as it went over the many holes on the road. It did not slacken
speed, causing the jeep's front wheels to wiggle, before it bumped the passenger jeep
coming from the north. The collision occurred on the lane of the passenger jeep, about
two feet away from the center line of the road, causing the owner-type jeep to turn
around and return to its former position, with its right wheel removed; while the
passenger jeep veered to the right lane. 1 4
After the collision, PO3 De Peralta assisted the owner-type jeep's driver, who fell
to the ground, and helped load him into a tricycle that would take him to the hospital.
Then he went to the driver of the passenger jeep and asked him what happened. The
driver remarked, "Even if you do not like to meet an accident, if that is what happened,
you cannot do anything". Thereafter, PO3 De Peralta proceeded on his way southward.
He reported the incident at the Police Station of Candon, Ilocos Sur. 1 5
STECDc

PO3 De Peralta testi ed that the accident happened on a straight part of the
highway, but there were many holes on the eastern lane. He stated that nothing
impeded his view of the incident. 1 6
PO3 De Peralta also testi ed that he had known respondents' witness, Alfredo
Gamera, who was his barangay mate for 20 years. He declared that he never saw
Gamera at the waiting shed or at the scene of the incident on the morning of April 22,
1995. 1 7
Investigator SPO2 Marvin Valdez of the Candon Police Station testi ed that at
about 11:00 a.m. of April 22, 1995, he received a report of the vehicular accident that
occurred at the national highway in Tablac, Candon, Ilocos Sur, which was three
kilometers from the police station. He proceeded to the site with some companions.
He saw a passenger jeep positioned diagonally on the western shoulder of the road
facing southwest, while an owner-type jeep was on the right lane. The driver of the
owner-type jeep was seriously injured and was brought to the hospital. 1 8
SPO2 Valdez testi ed that the owner-type jeep's right tire was detached, and its
left front portion was damaged, while the passenger jeep's left tire was detached, and
its left side portion was damaged. 1 9
Herminigildo Pagaduan testi ed that at 7:00 a.m. of April 22, 1995, he was at the
house of Barangay Captain Victorino Gacusan of San Antonio, Candon, Ilocos Sur.
Gacusan was then the overall monitor of the jueteng joint operation in Candon, Ilocos
Sur. Pagaduan and Gacusan had earlier agreed to attend the wake of an army captain at
Tamorong, Candon, Ilocos Sur that morning. While Pagaduan was waiting for Barangay
Captain Gacusan, the latter made a phone call requesting for a vehicle to take them to
Tamorong. Not long after, a yellow owner-type jeep arrived, which was driven by Arnulfo
Ramos, an employee of the jueteng joint. All of them rode the jeep with Plate No. ACG
713. Barangay Captain Gacusan was on the driver's seat, Pagaduan sat beside
Gacusan, while Arnulfo Ramos and the others sat on the rear seat. 2 0
Pagaduan further testi ed that the group headed west to Tamorong via
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Darapidap. When they reached a bridge, Barangay Captain Gacusan tried to increase the
speed of the jeep, but it suddenly wiggled. Gacusan stopped the jeep, and they all
alighted from it. Gacusan told Arnulfo Ramos to have the mechanical defect repaired at
the auto shop. Hence, they did not proceed to Tamorong, but returned to the house of
Gacusan by tricycle. The next day, he heard from Gacusan that the jeep they had used in
their aborted trip to Tamorong met an accident. 2 1EHITaS

On cross-examination, Pagaduan testi ed that it was defense counsel Atty.

Tudayan who requested him to testify, because Atty. Tudayan had heard him discuss
the incident with some jueteng employees. 2 2
Petitioner Benigno Valdez testi ed that on April 22, 1995, he was driving the
passenger jeep of his aunt, Crescencia Achevara, on the national highway in Tablac,
Candon, Ilocos Sur heading south, while the owner-type jeep of Arnulfo Ramos was
heading north. Valdez stated that the owner-type jeep was wiggling and running fast in
a zigzag manner, when its right front wheel got detached and the owner-type jeep
bumped the left side of his passenger jeep. Valdez swerved the passenger jeep to the
western edge of the road to avoid a collision, but to no avail, as it bumped a post. He
passed out. When he regained consciousness, he saw the driver of the owner-type jeep
being rescued. 2 3
Valdez surrendered himself to the Police Station in Candon, Ilocos Sur. He
informed the police that his vehicle was bumped by the owner-type jeep driven by
Arnulfo Ramos, and he showed his driver's license to the police. 2 4
Valdez branded as false the testimony of respondents' witness, Alfredo Gamera,
that the former tried to overtake the motorcycle of PO3 Baltazar de Peralta and
encroached on the lane of the owner-type jeep driven by Arnulfo Ramos. Valdez
testi ed that before the vehicular accident, he saw a policeman following him, but there
was a tricycle between them. He denied that he was driving fast and stated that his
speed at that time registered only 20 on the speedometer. 2 5
Petitioner Alfredo Achevara testi ed that Crescencia Achevara was his wife,
while Benigno Valdez was the nephew of his wife. He and his wife owned the passenger
jeep with Plate No. DKK-995 that was involved in the vehicular accident. Valdez had
been the driver of the vehicle since 1992, although he drove it only during daytime. 2 6
Alfredo Achevara declared that before they employed Benigno Valdez to drive
the passenger jeep, the former exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in
selecting, training and supervising the latter. 2 7 They required Valdez to show them his
professional driver's license, and investigated his personal background and
training/experience as a driver. For his apprenticeship, they required him to drive from
Metro Manila to Tagaytay City, and then back to Metro Manila for a day.
Achevara stated that he knew Benigno Valdez since 1988. As their driver since
1992, Valdez never committed any tra c violation. On April 22, 1995, he handed the
key of the jeep to Valdez at about 7:30 a.m. at their barangay in Padaoil, Sta. Cruz,
Ilocos Sur to fetch the sound system in Santiago, Ilocos Sur for their esta. He told
Valdez to avoid an accident, bring his license and avoid being hot-tempered. 2 8cDCSET

On February 14, 2000, the RTC of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, Branch 22, rendered a
Decision in Civil Case No. 1431-N in favor of respondents.
The trial court found that the testimony of respondents' witness, Alfredo Gamera,
was controverted by the testimony of PO3 Baltazar de Peralta and the nding of police
investigator SPO2 Marvin Valdez. Gamera testi ed that the vehicular accident occurred
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 because the passenger jeep tried to overtake the motorcycle driven by PO3 Baltazar de
Peralta and encroached on the lane of the owner-type jeep driven by Arnulfo Ramos.
Gamera's testimony was, however, refuted by PO3 Baltazar de Peralta, who testi ed
that the passenger jeep did not overtake his motorcycle since he was the one following
behind the passenger jeep. Hence, the trial court concluded that the passenger jeep did
not encroach on the lane of the owner-type jeep on the left side of the road to allegedly
overtake the motorcycle.
Moreover, Gamera testi ed that the collision occurred on the lane of the owner-
type jeep, and one of the wheels of the owner-type jeep was detached, so that it stayed
immobile at the place of collision, about two meters east from the center line of the
national highway. However, SPO2 Marvin Valdez, who investigated the incident, found
both vehicles on the western lane of the national highway. Thus, the trial court stated
that it was undeniable that the collision took place on the western lane of the national
highway, which was the passenger jeep's lane.
The trial court held that, as contended by respondents, the doctrine of last clear
chance was applicable to this case. It cited Picart v. Smith, 2 9 which applied the said
doctrine, thus, where both parties are guilty of negligence, but the negligent act of one
succeeds that of the other by an appreciable interval of time, the person who has the
last fair chance to avoid the impending harm and fails to do so is chargeable with the
consequences, without reference to the prior negligence of the other party.
The trial court held that the driver of the passenger jeep, Benigno Valdez, having
seen the risk exhibited by the wiggling of the front wheels of the owner-type jeep,
causing it to run in a zigzag manner, should have parked his vehicle on the right
shoulder of the road so that the mishap could have been prevented. Since he ignored to
take this reasonable precaution, the omission and/or breach of this duty on his part
was the constitutive legal cause of the mishap. 3 0
The trial court stated that the doctrine of last clear chance, as applied to this
case, implied a contributory negligence on the part of the late Arnulfo Ramos, who knew
of the mechanical defect of his vehicle. aASEcH

Further, the trial court held that the evidence of the Spouses Achevara failed to
show that they exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of Benigno
Valdez as driver of their passenger jeep. 3 1
The dispositive portion of the trial court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, a decision is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and
against the defendants, the latter to account for and to pay jointly and solidarily
to the plaintiffs, because of the contributory negligence on the part of the late
Arnulfo Ramos, the reduced amount itemized as follows to wit:
1) Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) — part of the total receipted
expenses at the hospitals;

2) Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) — for funeral expenses;

3) Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00) — for moral damages;

4) Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) — for exemplary damages;

5) Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) — for attorney's fees, and

6) Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) — for actual and other costs of

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 litigation. 3 2

The Spouses Achevara and Benigno Valdez appealed the trial court's Decision to
the Court of Appeals.
In a Decision dated April 25, 2009, the Court of Appeals a rmed with
modification the Decision of the trial court, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED and
the assailed February 14, 2000 Decision of the RTC of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur,
Branch 22, in Civil Case No. 1431-N, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION,
that in addition to other awards made by the trial court, defendants-appellants are
hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiffs-appellees the sum of
P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Arnulfo Ramos and the moral damages
and attorney's fees awarded by the trial court are hereby REDUCED to P50,000.00
and P10,000.00, respectively, while the awards made by the trial court for
exemplary damages and "for actual and other costs of litigation" are hereby
DELETED. 3 3 AcCTaD

The motion for reconsideration of the Spouses Achevara and Benigno Valdez
was denied for lack of merit by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution 3 4 dated October
23, 2006.
Hence, the Spouses Achevara and Benigno Valdez filed this petition.
The main issue is whether or not petitioners are liable to respondents for
damages incurred as a result of the vehicular accident.
Petitioners contend that the doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable to this
case, because the proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the late
Arnulfo Ramos in knowingly driving the defective owner-type jeep. When the front wheel
of the owner-type jeep was removed, the said jeep suddenly encroached on the western
lane and bumped the left side of the passenger jeep driven by Benigno Valdez.
Considering that the interval between the time the owner-type jeep encroached on the
lane of Valdez to the time of impact was only a matter of seconds, Valdez no longer
had the opportunity to avoid the collision. Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Baesa 3 5
held that the doctrine of last clear chance "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".
Petitioners assert that Arnulfo Ramos' negligence in driving the owner-type jeep
— despite knowledge of its mechanical defect, and his failure to have it repaired rst
before driving, to prevent damage to life and property — did not only constitute
contributory negligence. Ramos' negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of
the accident, which resulted in his untimely demise. Benigno Valdez should not be made
to suffer the unlawful and negligent acts of Ramos. Since forseeability is the
fundamental basis of negligence, Valdez could not have foreseen that an accident
might happen due to the mechanical defect in the vehicle of Ramos. It was Ramos
alone who fully knew and could foresee that an accident was likely to occur if he drove
his defective jeep, which indeed happened. Hence, the proximate cause of the vehicular
accident was the negligence of Ramos in driving a mechanically defective vehicle.
In short, petitioners contend that Arnulfo Ramos' own negligence in knowingly
driving a mechanically defective vehicle was the immediate and proximate cause of his
death, and that the doctrine of last clear chance does not apply to this case.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 Petitioners' arguments are meritorious. SEcITC

The Court notes that respondents' version of the vehicular accident was rebutted
by petitioners. The testimony of respondents' witness, Alfredo Gamera, that the
vehicular accident occurred because the passenger jeep driven by Benigno Valdez tried
to overtake the motorcycle driven by PO3 Baltazar de Peralta and encroached on the
lane of the owner-type jeep, which resulted in the collision, was refuted by PO3 Baltazar
de Peralta, who testi ed that the passenger jeep did not overtake his motorcycle since
he was the one following behind the passenger jeep. Hence, the trial court correctly
concluded that the passenger jeep did not encroach on the lane of the owner-type jeep
on the left side of the road to allegedly overtake the motorcycle.
Gamera also testi ed that the collision took place on the lane of the owner-type
jeep, and one of its wheels was detached and stayed immobile at the place of collision,
about two meters east the center line of the national highway. However, SPO2 Marvin
Valdez, who investigated the incident, found both vehicles on the western lane of the
national highway. The owner-type jeep was diagonally positioned on the right, western
lane; while the passenger jeep was on the western shoulder of the road, diagonally
facing southwest. The trial court, therefore, correctly held that it was undeniable that
the collision took place on the western lane of the national highway or the lane of the
passenger jeep driven by Benigno Valdez. It was the owner-type jeep driven by Arnulfo
Ramos that encroached on the lane of the passenger jeep.
It must be pointed out that Herminigildo Pagaduan testi ed that in the early
morning of April 22, 1995, he and Barangay Captain Gacusan, along with Arnulfo
Ramos, aborted their trip to Tamorong, Candon, Ilocos Sur, using the same owner-type
jeep because it was wiggling. Ramos was advised to have the mechanical defect
repaired. Yet, later in the morning, Ramos was driving the owner-type jeep on the
national highway in Candon. Benigno Valdez testi ed that the owner-type jeep was
wiggling and running fast in a zigzag manner when its right front wheel got detached,
and the owner-type jeep suddenly bumped the passenger jeep he was driving, hitting
the left side of the passenger jeep opposite his seat. Although Valdez swerved the
passenger jeep to the western edge of the road, it was still hit by the owner-type jeep.
Foreseeability is the fundamental test of negligence. To be negligent, a defendant
must have acted or failed to act in such a way that an ordinary reasonable man would
have realized that certain interests of certain persons were unreasonably subjected to a
general but definite class of risks. 3 6
Seeing that the owner-type jeep was wiggling and running fast in a zigzag manner
as it travelled on the opposite side of the highway, Benigno Valdez was made aware of
the danger ahead if he met the owner-type jeep on the road. Yet he failed to take
precaution by immediately veering to the rightmost portion of the road or by stopping
the passenger jeep at the right shoulder of the road and letting the owner-type jeep
pass before proceeding southward; hence, the collision occurred. The Court of Appeals
correctly held that Benigno Valdez was guilty of inexcusable negligence by neglecting
to take such precaution, which a reasonable and prudent man would ordinarily have
done under the circumstances and which proximately caused injury to another. aTHASC

On the other hand, the Court also nds Arnulfo Ramos guilty of gross negligence
for knowingly driving a defective jeep on the highway. An ordinarily prudent man would
know that he would be putting himself and other vehicles he would encounter on the
road at risk for driving a mechanically defective vehicle. Under the circumstances, a
prudent man would have had the owner-type jeep repaired or would have stopped using
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 it until it was repaired. Ramos was, therefore, grossly negligent in continuing to drive on
the highway the mechanically defective jeep, which later encroached on the opposite
lane and bumped the passenger jeep driven by Benigno Valdez. Gross negligence is the
absence of care or diligence as to amount to a reckless disregard of the safety of
persons or property. 3 7 It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without
exerting any effort to avoid them. 3 8
The acts of negligence of Arnulfo Ramos and Benigno Valdez were
contemporaneous when Ramos continued to drive a wiggling vehicle on the highway
despite knowledge of its mechanical defect, while Valdez did not immediately veer to
the rightmost side of the road upon seeing the wiggling vehicle of Ramos — perhaps
because it still kept to its lane and Valdez did not know the extent of its mechanical
defect. However, when the owner-type jeep encroached on the lane of the passenger
jeep, Valdez realized the peril at hand and steered the passenger jeep toward the
western shoulder of the road to avoid a collision. It was at this point that it was
perceivable that Ramos must have lost control of his vehicle, and that it was Valdez
who had the last opportunity to avoid the collision by swerving the passenger jeep
towards the right shoulder of the road.
The doctrine of last clear chance applies to a situation where the plaintiff was
guilty of prior or antecedent negligence, but the defendant — who had the last fair
chance to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so — is made liable for all the
consequences of the accident, notwithstanding the prior negligence of the plaintiff. 3 9
However, the doctrine does not apply where the party charged is required to act
instantaneously, and the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at
hand after the peril is or should have been discovered. 4 0
The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply to this case, because even if it
can be said that it was Benigno Valdez who had the last chance to avoid the mishap
when the owner-type jeep encroached on the western lane of the passenger jeep,
Valdez no longer had the opportunity to avoid the collision. The Answer of petitioners
stated that when the owner-type jeep encroached on the lane of the passenger jeep,
Benigno Valdez maneuvered his vehicle towards the western shoulder of the road to
avoid a collision, but the owner-type jeep driven by Ramos continued to move to the
western lane and bumped the left side of the passenger jeep. Thus, petitioners assert in
their Petition that considering that the time the owner-type jeep encroached on the lane
of Valdez to the time of impact was only a matter of seconds, he no longer had the
opportunity to avoid the collision. Although the records are bereft of evidence showing
the exact distance between the two vehicles when the owner-type jeep encroached on
the lane of the passenger jeep, it must have been near enough, because the passenger
jeep driven by Valdez was unable to avoid the collision. Hence, the doctrine of last clear
chance does not apply to this case. IDTcHa

Article 2179 of the Civil Code provides:

When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts
shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. 4 1

In this case, both Arnulfo Ramos and Benigno Valdez failed to exercise
reasonable care and caution that an ordinarily prudent man would have taken to prevent
the vehicular accident. Since the gross negligence of Arnulfo Ramos and the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 inexcusable negligence of Benigno Valdez were the proximate cause of the vehicular
accident, respondents cannot recover damages pursuant to Article 2179 of the Civil
Code.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 67027, dated April 25, 2006, a rming the Decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, Branch 22 in Civil Case No. 1431-N,
dated February 14, 2000, is RE V E RSE D a n d SET ASIDE . The complaint of Elvira
Ramos in Civil Case No. 1431-N is DISMISSED .
No costs.
SO ORDERED .
Ynares-Santiago, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr. and Nachura, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2. Docketed as Civil Case No. 1431-N.
3. Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

4. Records, pp. 1-5.

5. Id. at 11-15.
6. TSN, March 22, 1996, pp. 2-5.
7. Id. at 2; TSN, July 19, 1996, p. 16.
8. TSN, July 19, 1996, pp. 2, 4-5, 8-9.

9. TSN, August 23, 1996, pp. 4-10.

10. Death Certificate, records, p. 140.
11. TSN, June 7, 1996, pp. 5-8.
12. Exhibit "M", records, p. 145.

13. TSN, June 7, 1996, p. 17.

14. TSN, June 20, 1997, pp. 2-6.
15. Id. at 3-4, 9, 10, 14.
16. Id. at 10.
17. Id. at 4-5.
18. TSN, July 28, 1997, pp. 2-3.
19. Id. at 4-5.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 20. TSN, August 18, 1997, pp. 2-5.
21. Id. at 5-6.
22. Id. at 11.
23. TSN, September 5, 1997, pp. 2-6, 8; TSN, September 19, 1997, p. 20.

24. TSN, September 5, 1997, pp. 6-7.

25. TSN, September 5, 1997, pp. 9-10; TSN, September 19, 1997, p. 12.
26. TSN, April 16, 1999, pp. 2-4.
27. Id. at 2.
28. Id. at 5-6.
29. 37 Phil. 809 (1918).
30. Records, pp. 69-70.
31. Id. at 71.
32. Id. at 72-73.
33. Rollo, pp. 36-37.
34. Id. at 38.
35. G.R. Nos. 79050-51, November 14, 1989, 179 SCRA 384.
36. Jarencio, Jarencio on Torts and Damages, p. 138.
37. National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Noble Casionan, G.R. No. 165969, November 27,
2008.
38. Id.
39. Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Baesa, G.R. Nos. 79050-51, November 14, 1989, 179
SCRA 384.

40. Id., citing Ong v. Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil. 397 (1958).
41. Emphasis supplied.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com