Mckee v. IAC, 286 Phil. 649 (1992)

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

Mckee v. IAC, 286 Phil.

649 (1992)
FACTS: Between nine and ten o'clock in the morning of 8 January 1977, in Pulong Pulo Bridge along MacArthur
Highway, between Angeles City and San Fernando, Pampanga, a head-on-collision took place between an
International cargo truck, Loadstar, owned by private respondents, and driven by Ruben Galang, and a Ford Escort
car driven by Jose Koh. 

The collision resulted in the deaths of Jose Koh, and all passengers of the Ford Escort.

Immediately before the collision, the cargo truck, which was loaded with two hundred (200) cavans of rice weighing
about 10,000 kilos, was traveling southward from Angeles City to San Fernando Pampanga, and was bound for
Manila. The Ford Escort, on the other hand, was on its way to Angeles City from San Fernando. When the
northbound car was about (10) meters away from the southern approach of the bridge, two (2) boys suddenly darted
from the right side of the road and into the lane of the car. The boys were moving back and forth, unsure of whether
to cross all the way to the other side or turn back. Jose Koh blew the horn of the car, swerved to the left and entered
the lane of the truck; he then switched on the headlights of the car, applied the brakes and thereafter attempted to
return to his lane. Before he could do so, his car collided with the truck. The collision occurred in the lane of the
truck, which was the opposite lane, on the said bridge.

Galang admitted that he was traveling at thirty (30) miles (48 kilometers) per hour. 

Thereafter, two (2) cases, Civil Case No. 4477 and No. 4478, were filed before the CFI. They also charged Ruben
Galang with the crime of "Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Multiple Homicide and Physical Injuries and Damage
to Property."

In the criminal case, Galang was found guilty by the RTC. But the civil cases were dismissed by Judge Castaneda
and awarded respondents damages. The CA concluded that it was Jose Koh's negligence that was the immediate and
proximate cause of the collision.

ISSUE: WON Galang is liable.

RULING: YES. Under the emergency rule, "one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required
to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence, if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method,
unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence."

The truck driver's negligence is apparent in the records. He himself said that his truck was running at 30 miles (48
kilometers) per hour along the bridge while the maximum speed allowed by law on a bridge is only 30 kilometers
per hour. Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, a person driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the
mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.

Even if Jose Koh was indeed negligent, the doctrine of last clear chance finds application here. It means that the
negligence of a claimant does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of defendant where it appears that the
latter, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to claimant
notwithstanding his negligence.

The doctrine applies only in 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.

Applying the foregoing doctrine, it was the truck driver’s negligence in failing to exert ordinary care to avoid the
collision which was, in law, the proximate cause of the collision. As employers of the truck driver, the private
respondents are, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, directly and primarily liable for the resulting damages. The
presumption that they are negligent flows from the negligence of their employee. That presumption, however, is
only juris tantum, not juris et de jure. Their only possible defense is that they exercised all the diligence of a good
father of a family to prevent the damage by means of diligence in selection and supervision of its employees. The
answers of the private respondents in Civil Cases Nos. 4477 and 4478 did not interpose this defense. Neither did
they attempt to prove it.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution of the respondent Court of 3 April 1984
is SET ASIDE while its Decision of 29 November 1983 in C.A.-G.R. CV Nos. 69040-41 is REINSTATED, subject
to the modification that the indemnity for death is increased from P12,000.00 to P50,000.00 each for the death of
Jose Koh and Kim Koh McKee.

You might also like