PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES VS.

IAC
189 SCRA 158 (1990)
Digested by: Mangida, Shamgar Douglas Jr. T.

FACTS:

Catalina Pascua and her company bound from Mabalacat, Pampanga to Rosales,
Pangasinan to spend Christmas at their respective homes. Due to unavailability of buses,
they boarded at about 11 AM on December 24, 1966 at the jeepney owned by spouses
Isidro and Guillerma Carreon and driven by Tranquilino Manalo with a contract to pay
them P24.00 for the trip. .

Upon reaching barrio Sinayoan, San Manuel, Tarlac, the right rear wheel of the
jeepney was detached, so it was running in an unbalanced position. The jeepney which
was then running on its right of way-the eastern and made a U-turn, invading and
eventually stopping on the western lane of the road in such a manner that the jeepney's
front faced the south -from where it came- and its rear faced the north -towards where it
was going. The jeepney 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. As a result of
the collision, Catalina Pascua, Erlinda Meriales and Adelaida Estomo died while the
other jeepney passengers sustained physical injuries.

After conducting the investigation, the police filed with the Municipal Court of
San Manuel, Tarlac, a criminal complaint against the two drivers for Multiple Homicide.
At the preliminary investigation, a probable cause was found with respect to the case of
Manalo while as regards to delos Reyes, the Court dismissed it. In the Court of the First
Instance, Manalo was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment. Not having
appealed, he served his sentence. The heirs of the deceased passengers filed three
separate complaints for recovery of damages were then filed before the Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan where spouses Mangune and Carreon, Manalo, Rabbit and delos
Reyes were all impleaded as defendants. Plaintiffs anchored their suits against spouses
Mangune and Carreon and Manalo on their contractual liability. As against Rabbit and
delos Reyes, plaintiffs based their suits on their culpability for a quasi-delict.

On December 27, 1978, the trial court rendered its decision finding Manalo
negligent. Costs are adjudged against defendants Mangune, Carreon and Manalo and
Filriters Guaranty.

On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court reversed the trials courts decision by
finding delos Reyes negligent. The intermediate Appellate Court ruled that applying
primarily the doctrine of last clear chance, the presumption that drivers who bump the
rear of another vehicle guilty and the cause of the accident unless contradicted by other
evidence, and the substantial factor test concluded that delos Reyes was negligent.

The motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE: Whether the principle of last clear chance can be applied against a passenger?

HELD. The doctrine cannot be applied against a passenger.

The Court cited the landmark decision in Anuran, et al v. Buno, et al., where the
Court ruled that the principle of last clear chance applies in 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. 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.