19. Lapanday Agricultural & Developent Corporation vs.

Michael Raymond Angala

G.R. No. 153076, June 21, 2007
Doctrine:
The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but the
negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is
impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who has
the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so is chargeable with the
loss.
Facts:
On May 4, 1993, at about 2:45 p.m., Apolonio De Ocampo driving the crew cab
bumped into a 1958 Chevy pick-up owned by Michael Raymond Angala and driven
by Bernulfo Borres. Lapanday Agricultural Development Corporation owned the crew
cab, which was assigned to its manager Manuel Mendez. De Ocampo was the driver
and bodyguard of Mendez. Both vehicles were running along Rafael Castillo St.,
Agdao, Davao City heading north towards Lanang, Davao City.
The left door, front left fender, and part of the front bumper of the pick-up were
damaged. Respondent Angala led an action for Quasi-Delict, Damages, and
Attorneys fees against LADECO, its administrative ocer Henry Berenguel and De
Ocampo. Respondent alleged that his pick-up was slowing down to about ve to ten
kilometers per hour and was making a left turn preparatory to turning south when it
was bumped from behind by the crew cab, which was running at around 60 to 70 kph.
The crew cab stopped twenty-one meters from the point of impact. Respondent
alleged that he heard a screeching sound before the impact. Respondent was seated
beside the driver and was looking at the speedo meter when the accident took place.
Respondent testied that Borres made a signal because he noticed a blinking light
while looking at the speedometer, Respondent sent a demand letter to LADEDO for
the payment of the damages he incurred because of the accident but he did not receive
any reply, thus respondent led the case against LADECO, Berenguel, and De
Ocampo. The Regional Trial Court of Davao City ruled in favor of defendant and
ordered LADECO and De Ocampo to solidarily pay the damages. The trial court
found that Berenguel was not liable because he was not the owner of the crew cab.
LADECO and De Ocampo led a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied
on June13, 1995. Petitioner led an appeal before the Court of Appeals, however the
appellate court armed in toto the trial courts decision, Petitioners led a motion for
reconsideration. In its Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for lack of
merit. Hence, the present petition was led before the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the doctrine of last clear chance applies in the case at bar?
Held:
Yes. Since both parties are at fault in this case, the doctrine of last clear chance
applies. The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent
but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is
impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who has

the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so is chargeable with the
loss.
In this case, De Ocampo had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. Since De
Ocampo was driving the rear vehicle, he had full control of the situation since he was
in a position to observe the vehicle in front of him. De Ocampo had the responsibility
of avoiding from bumping the vehicle in front of him. A U-turn is done at a much
slower speed to avoid skidding and overturning, compared to running straight ahead.
De Ocampo could have avoided the vehicle if he was not driving very fast while
following the pick-up. De Ocampo was not only driving fast, he also admitted that he
did not step on the brakes even upon seeing the pick-up. He only stepped on the
brakes after the collision.