LBC Air Cargo, Inc., et. al. vs. CA

LBC Air Cargo, Inc., et. al. vs. CA
G.R. No. 101683. 23 February 1995.
Petition for review of a decision of the CA reversing that of the RTC and holding LBC and Tano liable.
Vitug, J.:

Facts: At about 11:30 am of 15 Nov 1987, Rogelio Monterola was traveling on board his Suzuki motorcycle towards Mangaggoy on the right lane along a dusty road in Bislig, Surigao del Sur. At about the same time, a cargo van of LBC, driven by petitioner herein, Tano, Jr., was coming from the opposite direction on its way to Bislig Airport. When Tano was approaching the airport entrance on his left, he saw two vehicles racing against each other from the opposite direction. Tano stopped the van and waited for the 2 vehicles to pass by. The dust made the visibility extremely bad. Instead of waiting Tano started to make a sharp left turn and when he was about to reach the center of the right lane, the motorcycle driven by Monterola suddenly emerged from the dust and smashed head-on against the LBC van. Monterola died.

Issue:WON the negligence of Monterola is the proximate cause of the accident.

Ruling: The proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of petitioner Tano, who, despite poor visibility, hastily executed a left turn w/o waiting for the dust to settle.
Petitioners poorly invoke the doctrine of "last clear chance." In the instant case, the victim was travelling along the lane where he was rightl supposd to be. The incident occured in an instant. No apreciable time had elapsed that could have afforded the victim a last clear opportunity to avoid the collision. However, the deceased was contributorily negligent in evidently speeding.
The SC agrees w the CA that there was contributory negligence on the victim's part that warrants a mitigation of petitioner's liability for damages.

*Dan'q

PLDT vs. CA

Facts: On July, 30, 1968, respondent spouses Esteban had their jeep ran over a sand of earth and fell into an open trench, an excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the installation of its underground conduit system. Respondent Antonio Esteban failed to notice the open trench which was left uncovered because of the creeping darkness and the lack of warning light or signs. Respondent spouses suffered physical injuries and their jeeps windshield was shattered. PLDT alleged that the respondents were negligent and that it should be the independent contractor L.R. Barte and Company which undertook said conduit system to be the one liable.The latter claimed to have complied with its contract and had installed necessary barricades.

Issue: WON PLDT and L.R. Barte and Co. are liable.

Ruling: Private Respondent´s negligence was not merely contributory but goes to the very cause of the accident, hence he has no right to recover damages for the injuries which he and his wife suffered. Private respondent cannot recover notwithstanding the negligence he imputes on PLDT considering that he had ¨the last clear chance¨, to avoid the injury. One who claims damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proof to show existence of such fault or negligence causative thereof.

*Dre

NAPOCOR vs. CA

Facts: On Nov. 4, 1967, a typhoon called ¨Welming¨ hit Central Luzon passing through NAPOCOR´s Angat Hydro-Electric Project Dam in Bulacan. The water level had reach the danger height of 212 meters above sea level and abruptly opened the spillway gates. This action by NAPOCOR had an extraordinary large volume of water rushed and hit the installations and construction works of ECI (Engineering Construction, Inc.) a contractor of NAWASA for its tunnel in Bulacan. The negligent manner of opening the spillway gates by NAPOCOR had washed away, lost or destroyed ECI´s facilities and structures. NAPOCOR alleged that the destruction and loss was due to force majeure.

Issue: WON NAPOCOR is liable for the destruction.

Ruling: Petition Dismissed

Ratio: NAPOCOR cannot escape liability because it´s negligence was the proximate cause of the loss and damage even though the typhoon was an act of God. It was undoubtly negligent when it only opened the spillway gates at the height of typhoon ¨Welming¨ when it knew very well that it was safer to open it gradually. To be exempt from liability, NAPOCOR must be free from any previous negligence.

*Dre