BUSTAMANTE V CA - Digest
BUSTAMANTE V CA - Digest
BUSTAMANTE V CA - Digest
BUSTAMANTE v CA
G.R. No. 89880 February 6, 1991
MEDIALDEA, J.:
FACTS:
An old cargo truck and a passenger bus were approaching each other, coming from the opposite directions
of the highway. While the truck was still about 30 meters away, the bus driver observed that the truck’s
front wheels are wiggling and was heading towards its lane. Nevertheless, he still opted to speed up the
bus in the ascending part of the road to overtake a hand tractor which was being pushed at the shoulder
of the highway. While overtaking, the truck was approaching the bus. The truck sideswiped the left side
wall of the bus, ripping off the said wall from the driver's seat to the last rear seat. Due to the impact,
several passengers of the bus were thrown out and died. Among those who are killed are the relatives of
the plaintiffs.
The trial court found that the truck driver was negligent for driving fast despite driving an old vehicle with
wiggling front wheels and in a descending road. Likewise, the bus driver was negligent for not taking the
necessary precaution to avoid the collision considering that he already saw 30 meters away that the front
wheels of the approaching truck is wiggling. Thus, it ruled that the two drivers are solidarily liable for
damages. On appeal, the CA applied the doctrine of last clear chance and exonerated from liability the
driver of the truck and its operator.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA correctly applied the doctrine of last clear chance in the present case.
HELD:
NO. "Last clear chance" applies "in a suit between the owners and drivers of colliding vehicles. It does not
arise where a passenger demands responsibility from the carrier to enforce its contractual obligations.
Furthermore, "as between defendants: The doctrine cannot be extended into the field of joint tortfeasors
as a test of whether only one of them should be held liable to the injured person by reason of his discovery
of the latter's peril, and it cannot be invoked as between defendants concurrently negligent. As against
third persons, a negligent actor cannot defend by pleading that another had negligently failed to take
action which could have avoided the injury.
Thus, the CA committed an error of law in applying the doctrine of last clear chance as between the
defendants, since the case at bar is not a suit between the owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles but
a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding
vehicles. Therefore, the respondent court erred in absolving the owner and driver of the cargo truck from
liability.