Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    Bustamante Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Mark Gabriel B. Maranga
    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision. [1] A collision occurred between a sand and gravel truck and passenger bus, resulting in several passenger deaths. [2] While the bus driver saw the truck wheels wiggling and heading towards his lane, he did not slow down due to believing the truck driver was joking. [3] The court found that the last clear chance doctrine did not apply to absolve the truck driver of liability, as this was a suit by deceased passengers' heirs against both vehicle owners and drivers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bustamante Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Mark Gabriel B. Maranga
    60 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision. [1] A collision occurred between a sand and gravel truck and passenger bus, resulting in several passenger deaths. [2] While the bus driver saw the truck wheels wiggling and heading towards his lane, he did not slow down due to believing the truck driver was joking. [3] The court found that the last clear chance doctrine did not apply to absolve the truck driver of liability, as this was a suit by deceased passengers' heirs against both vehicle owners and drivers.

    Original Title

    Bustamante vs CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision. [1] A collision occurred between a sand and gravel truck and passenger bus, resulting in several passenger deaths. [2] While the bus driver saw the truck wheels wiggling and heading towards his lane, he did not slow down due to believing the truck driver was joking. [3] The court found that the last clear chance doctrine did not apply to absolve the truck driver of liability, as this was a suit by deceased passengers' heirs against both vehicle owners and drivers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    60 views2 pages

    Bustamante Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Mark Gabriel B. Maranga
    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision. [1] A collision occurred between a sand and gravel truck and passenger bus, resulting in several passenger deaths. [2] While the bus driver saw the truck wheels wiggling and heading towards his lane, he did not slow down due to believing the truck driver was joking. [3] The court found that the last clear chance doctrine did not apply to absolve the truck driver of liability, as this was a suit by deceased passengers' heirs against both vehicle owners and drivers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Bustamante v.

    CA (1991)

    G.R. No. 89880 February 6, 1991


    Lessons Applicable: Last Clear Chance (Torts and Damages)

    FACTS:

     April 20, 1983 6:30 am: a collision occurred between a 1947


    model gravel and sand truck driven by Montesiano and owned by Del
    Pilar and a Mazda passenger bus driven Susulin along the national
    road at Calibuyo, Tanza, Cavite
     front left side portion (barandilla) of the body of the truck sideswiped
    the left side wall of the passenger bus, ripping off the wall from the
    driver's seat to the last rear seat 
     several passengers of the bus were thrown out and died as a result of
    the injuries they sustained:
     1. Rogelio Bustamante, 40, husband of Emma Adriano
    Bustamante and father of Rossel, Gloria, Yolanda, Ericson,
    and Ederic, all surnamed Bustamante;

    2. Maria Corazon Jocson, 16, daughter of spouses Salvador


    and Patria Jocson;

    3. Jolet C. Ramos, 16, daughter of spouses Jose and


    Enriqueta Ramos;

    4. Enrico Himaya, 18, son of spouses Narciso and Adoracion


    Himaya; and

    5. Noel Bersamina, 17, son of spouses Jose and Ma.


    Commemoracion Bersamina

     The bus was registered in the name of Novelo but was owned and/or
    operated as a passenger bus jointly by Magtibay and Serrado

     before the collision, the cargo truck and the passenger bus were
    approaching each other, coming from the opposite directions of the
    highway. While the truck was still about 30 meters away, Susulin, the
    bus driver, saw the front wheels of the vehicle wiggling. He also
    observed that the truck was heading towards his lane. Not minding
    this circumstance due to his belief that the driver of the truck was
    merely joking, Susulin shifted from fourth to third gear in order to give
    more power and speed to the bus, which was ascending the inclined
    part of the road, in order to overtake or pass a Kubota hand tractor
    being pushed by a person along the shoulder of the highway

     RTC: liability of the two drivers for their negligence must be solidary


     CA: owner and driver of the sand and gravel truck appealed was
    granted

    ISSUE: W/N the last clear chance can apply making the bus negligent in
    failing to avoid the collision and his act in proceeding to overtake the hand
    tractor was the proximate cause of the collision making him solely liable

    HELD: NO. Petition is granted. CA reversed.

     the doctrine of last clear chance means that even though a person's
    own acts may have placed him in a position of peril, and an injury
    results, the injured person is entitled to recovery. 
     a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an
    accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or that of
    a third person imputed to the opponent is considered in law solely
    responsible for the consequences of the accident. 
     since the case at bar is not a suit between the owners and drivers of
    the colliding vehicles but a suit brought by the heirs of the deceased
    passengers against both owners and drivers of the colliding vehicles
    the court erred in absolving the owner and driver of the cargo truck
    from liability

    You might also like