Whether or not the case is considered as caso

fortuito
Held
No, it is not caso fortuito. Spouses Mangune are
liable.
Ratio
The last clear chance doctrine does not apply in
this case. The principle about the last clear
chance would call for application in a suit
between the owners and drivers of the two
colliding vehicles. It does not arise where a
passenger demands responsibility from the carrier
to enforce its contractual obligations. For it would
be inequitable to exempt the negligent driver of
the jeepney and its owners on the ground that
the other driver was likewise guilty of negligence.
The proximate cause of the accident was the
negligence of Manalo and spouses Mangune and
Carreon. They all failed to exercise the
precautions that are needed precisely prohac
vice.
In culpa contractual, the moment a passenger
dies or is injured, the carrier is presumed to have
been at fault or to have acted negligently, and
this disputable presumption may only be
overcome by evidence that he had observed
extra-ordinary diligence.
In an action for damages against the carrier for
his failure to safely carry his passenger to his
destination, an accident caused either by defects
in the automobile or through the negligence of its
driver, is not a caso fortuito which would avoid
the carriers liability for damages. The negligence
of Manalo was proven by the unrebutted
testimonies of the other passengers who were
presented as witnesses and in the application of
res ipsa loquitur.

PHILIPPINE RABBIT INC. VS IAC

In an action for damages against the carrier for
his failure to safely carry his passenger to his
destination, an accident caused either by defects
in the automobile or through the negligence of its
driver, is not a caso fortuito which would avoid
the carriers liability for damages.
Facts
The private respondents boarded the jeepney
owned by the spouses Mangune and was driven
by Manalo. The jeepney was Pampanga bound.
Upon reaching Tarlac, the right rear wheel of the
jeepney was detached, so it was running in an
unbalanced position. Manalo stepped on the
brake. As a result, the jeepney, which was then
running on the eastern lane (its right of way),
made a U- turn, invading and eventually stopping
on the western lane of the road in such a manner
that the jeepneys front faced the south (from
where it came) and its rear faced the north
(towards where it was going). The jeepney
practically occupied and blocked the greater
portion of the western lane, which is the right of
way of vehicles coming from the north, among
which was Bus No. 753 of petitioner Philippine
Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (Rabbit) driven by Tomas
delos Reyes. The bus bumped from behind the
right rear portion of the jeepney.
3 of the passengers died as a result of the
collision. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the
spouses Mangune and Manalo on the breach of
contract of carriage. They also filed a suit against
Rabbit and delos Reyes based on quasi-delict.
The trial court found Manalo (jeepney driver)
liable for damages. The appellate court reversed
the trial courts decision and found delos Reyes
(bus driver) liable based on the last clear chance
doctrine.
Issue