How to establish negligence on the part of a motorist. – “Gonzaga v. People states that to establish a motorist’s liability for negligence, the prosecution must show the “direct causal connection between such negligence and the injuries or damages complained.” Gonzaga then stressed that mere negligence in driving a vehicle is not enough to constitute reckless driving. Rather, it must be shown that the motorist acted willfully and wantonly, in utter disregard of the consequences of his or her action as it is the “inexcusable lack of precaution or conscious indifference to the consequences of the conduct which supplies the criminal intent and brings an act of mere negligence and imprudence under the operation of the penal law[.]”[1]
Application of the doctrine of last clear chance. – “The doctrine of last clear chance does not apply when only one of the parties was negligent. For the doctrine to apply, it must be shown that both parties were negligent but the negligent act of one was appreciably later in time than that of the other. It may also apply when it is impossible to determine who caused the resulting harm, thus, the one who had the last opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so will be liable.”[2]
Scenarios covered by the doctrine of last clear chance. – “The doctrine of last clear chance contemplates two (2) possible scenarios. First is when both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one party happens later in time than the negligent act of the other party. Second is when it is impossible to determine which party caused the accident. When either of the two (2) scenarios are present, the doctrine of last clear chance holds liable for negligence the party who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the resulting harm or accident but failed to do so.”[3]
Negligent defendant may be held liable to negligent plaintiff if doctrine of last clear chance present. – “The practical import of the doctrine is that a negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent plaintiff, or even to a plaintiff who has been grossly negligent in placing himself in peril, if he, aware of the plaintiff’s peril, or according to some authorities, should have been aware of it in the reasonable exercise of due care, had in fact an opportunity later than that of the plaintiff to avoid an accident.”[4]
Cases where doctrine of last clear did not find application. –
“A tricycle travelling, within the speed limit, can easily cover four (4) to five (5) meters (or 13-16.5 feet) in a few seconds. A speeding tricycle would traverse the same distance even faster. Hence, from the moment petitioner saw the approaching tricycle, which was barreling towards his lane in an erratic and unpredictable manner, no appreciable time had elapsed which would have afforded him the last clear opportunity to avoid the collision.
Even petitioner’s act of transporting lumber on top of his tricycle cannot be said to be a negligent act per se. This Court takes judicial notice that the use of tricycles to transport heavy objects such as appliances and furniture is a common practice in the Philippines, particularly in rural areas, as tricycles are readily available and a more affordable way of transporting items. Especially for those who cannot afford to rent a truck or jeepney.”[5]
Proximate cause defined. – “Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. And more comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.”[6]
[1] 751 Phil 218 (2018) cited in Valencia v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 235573, November 9, 2020
[2] LBC Air Cargo, Inc. v. Court od Appeals, 311 Phil 717 (1995), cited in Ofracio v. People, G.R. No. 221981, November 04, 2020
[3] Philippine National Railways Corporation v. Vizcara, 682 Phil. 343, cited in in Ofracio v. People, G.R. No. 221981, November 04, 2020
[4] Bustamante v. Court of Appeals, 271 Phil 633 (1991), cited in in Ofracio v. People, G.R. No. 221981, November 04, 2020
[5] Ofracio v. People, G.R. No. 221981, November 04, 2020
[6] Vallacar Transit v. Catubig, G.R. No. 177512, May 30, 2011, cited in Dumayag v. People, G.R. No. 172778, November 26, 2012