B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED February 15, 2012

PNR vs Vizcara PNR vs Vizcara

I. Recit-ready summary to safely cross the track. Likewise, there was no crossing bar to prevent them from proceeding
or, at least, a stoplight or signage to forewarn them of the approaching peril. Thus, relying on
Reynaldo Vizcara, together with his 5 companions, was riding a passenger jeepney on their way his faculties of sight and hearing, Reynaldo had no reason to anticipate the impending
to Bicol to deliver oinion crops when they were rammed by a PNR train operated by Estranas. danger. He proceeded to cross the track and, all of a sudden, his jeepney was rammed by the
The collision killed 4 people including the driver, Reynaldo. The 2 other passengers sustained train being operated by the petitioners. Even then, the circumstances before the collision negate
injuries. the imputation of contributory negligence on the part of the respondents. What clearly appears
is that the accident would not have happened had the petitioners installed reliable and
The survivors and the heirs of the deceased victims filed an action for damages against PNR, adequate safety devices along the crossing to ensure the safety of all those who may utilize
the driver of the train, and its alternate driver. Plaintiffs argued that the proximate cause of the the same.
accident was PNR’s gross negligence in not providing adequate safety measures to prevent
injury to persons and properties. The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties are negligent:
1. but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other,
Respondents argued that they exercised due diligence in operating the train and monitoring its or
road worthiness. They argued that the jeepney had the last clear chance to prevent the accident 2. where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the
occurrence of the incident,
Is the doctrine of last clear chance applicable? the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do
so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom.
The doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable because only PNR was negligent, and not
the driver of the passenger jeepney. Stated differently, the rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude
recovery of damages caused by the supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last
Definition of negligence. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.
guided by considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or
the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It is the failure to The proximate cause of the collision was the petitioners' negligence in ensuring that motorists
observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and and pedestrians alike may safely cross the railroad track. The unsuspecting driver and
vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. passengers of the jeepney did not have any participation in the occurrence of the unfortunate
The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of incident which befell them. Likewise, they did not exhibit any overt act manifesting disregard
ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that. for their own safety. Thus, absent preceding negligence on the part of the respondents, the
doctrine of last clear chance cannot be applied.
PNR, the driver, and the alternate driver were negligent. At the time of the accident:
1. there was no level crossing installed at the railroad crossing. II. Facts of the case
2. The "Stop, Look and Listen" signage was poorly maintained.
a. The "Stop" signage was already faded On May 14, 2004, at 3AM, Reynaldo Vizcara was driving a passenger jeepney headed towards
b. The "Listen" signage was partly blocked by another signboard. Bicol to deliver onion crops, with his 5 companions: Cresencio, Crispin, Samuel, Dominador,
3. No lighting equipment or bell installed. and Joel. While crossing the railroad track in Tiaong, Quezon, a Philippine National Railways
It is the responsibility of the railroad company to use reasonable care to keep the signal devices (PNR) train, then being operated by respondent Japhet Estranas (Estranas), suddenly turned up
in working order. Failure to do so would be an indication of negligence. and rammed the passenger jeepney. The collision resulted to the instantaneous death of
Reynaldo, Cresencio, Crispin, and Samuel. On the other hand, Dominador and Joel survived
There was no contributory negligence on the part of Vizcara. The respondents could not and only sustained serious physical injuries.
have contributed to their injury when they were not even aware of the forthcoming danger. The
jeepney carrying the respondents was following a ten-wheeler truck which was only about 3-5 At the time of the accident, there was no level crossing installed at the railroad crossing.
meters ahead. When the truck proceeded to traverse the railroad track, the driver of the jeepney Additionally, the "Stop, Look and Listen" signage was poorly maintained. The "Stop" signage
simply followed through, under the impression that it was safe to proceed. It bears noting that was already faded while the "Listen" signage was partly blocked by another signboard.
the prevailing circumstances immediately before the collision did not manifest even the
slightest indication of an imminent harm. To begin with, the truck they were trailing was able

G.R. NO: 190022 PONENTE: Reyes, J.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Last clear chance DIGEST MAKER: Eon Penafiel
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED February 15, 2012

PNR vs Vizcara PNR vs Vizcara

On September 15, 2004, the survivors of the mishap, Joel and Dominador, together with the ● Test of negligence. To determine the existence of negligence, the time-honored test
heirs of the deceased victims filed an action for damages against PNR, Estranas and Ben Saga, was: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and
the alternate driver of the train, before the RTC of Palayan City. They pointed out that in the caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If
railroad track of Tiaong, Quezon where the accident happened, there was no level crossing bar, not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the standard
lighting equipment or bell installed to warn motorists of the existence of the track and of the supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the
approaching train. Roman law. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by
reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law
Petitioners claimed that they exercised due diligence in operating the train and monitoring its considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of
roadworthiness. They asseverate that right before the collision, Estranas was driving the train at ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.
a moderate speed. Four hundred (400) meters away from the railroad crossing, he started
blowing his horn to warn motorists of the approaching train. When the train was only 50 meters PNR, the driver, and the alternate driver were negligent
away from the intersection, respondent Estranas noticed that all vehicles on both sides of the
track were already at a full stop. Thus, he carefully proceeded at a speed of (25) kilometers per Court did not alter the factual findings of RTC and CA. The RTC ruled that it was the
hour, still blowing the train's horn. However, when the train was already ten (10) meters away petitioners' failure to install adequate safety devices at the railroad crossing which proximately
from the intersection, the passenger jeepney being driven by Reynaldo suddenly crossed the caused the collision. This finding was affirmed by the CA. It is a well-established rule that
tracks. Estranas immediately stepped on the brakes to avoid hitting the jeepney but due to the factual findings by the CA are conclusive on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court.
sheer weight of the train, it did not instantly come to a complete stop until the jeepney was
dragged 20 to 30 meters away from the point of collision. Both lower courts ruled that the petitioners fell short of the diligence expected of it, taking into
consideration the nature of its business, to forestall any untoward incident:
TC: ruled in favor of the respondents and ordered PNR, the driver, and the alternate driver 1. Petitioners failed to install safety railroad bars to prevent motorists from crossing the
solidarily liable. tracks in order to give way to an approaching train.
CA: affirmed the TC’s decision but modified the amount of damage 2. Aside from the absence of a crossing bar, the "Stop, Look and Listen" signage
installed in the area was poorly maintained, hence, inadequate to alert the public of
Plaintiffs. The proximate cause of the accident was PNR’s gross negligence in not providing the impending danger. A reliable signaling device in good condition, not just a
adequate safety measures to prevent injury to persons and properties. dilapidated "Stop, Look and Listen" signage, is needed to give notice to the public.

Respondents. Respondents argued that they exercised due diligence in operating the train and Failure to maintain signaling devices; presumption of negligence. It is the responsibility of
monitoring its road worthiness. They argued that the jeepney had the last clear chance to prevent the railroad company to use reasonable care to keep the signal devices in working order. Failure
the accident to do so would be an indication of negligence. Having established the fact of negligence on the
part of the petitioners, they were rightfully held liable for damages.
III. Issue/s
There was no contributory negligence on the part of Vizcara
Can PNR invoke the doctrine of lash clear chance?
Contributory negligence. Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party,
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard which
Negligence he is required to conform for his own protection. It is an act or omission amounting to want of
ordinary care on the part of the person injured which, concurring with the defendant's
Definition of negligence. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury.
guided by considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or
the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It is the failure to No contributory negligence. Here, we cannot see how the respondents could have contributed
observe for the protection of the interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and to their injury when they were not even aware of the forthcoming danger. The jeepney carrying
vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. the respondents was following a ten-wheeler truck which was only about 3-5 meters ahead.
When the truck proceeded to traverse the railroad track, Reynaldo, the driver of the jeepney,
simply followed through. He did so under the impression that it was safe to proceed. It bears

G.R. NO: 190022 PONENTE: Reyes, J.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Last clear chance DIGEST MAKER: Eon Penafiel
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED February 15, 2012

PNR vs Vizcara PNR vs Vizcara

noting that the prevailing circumstances immediately before the collision did not manifest To reiterate, the proximate cause of the collision was the petitioners' negligence in ensuring that
even the slightest indication of an imminent harm. To begin with, the truck they were trailing motorists and pedestrians alike may safely cross the railroad track. The unsuspecting driver and
was able to safely cross the track. Likewise, there was no crossing bar to prevent them from passengers of the jeepney did not have any participation in the occurrence of the
proceeding or, at least, a stoplight or signage to forewarn them of the approaching peril. Thus, unfortunate incident which befell them. Likewise, they did not exhibit any overt act
relying on his faculties of sight and hearing, Reynaldo had no reason to anticipate the manifesting disregard for their own safety. Thus, absent preceding negligence on the part of
impending danger. He proceeded to cross the track and, all of a sudden, his jeepney was the respondents, the doctrine of last clear chance cannot be applied.
rammed by the train being operated by the petitioners. Even then, the circumstances before the
collision negate the imputation of contributory negligence on the part of the respondents. What V. Disposition
clearly appears is that the accident would not have happened had the petitioners installed
reliable and adequate safety devices along the crossing to ensure the safety of all those who WHEREFORE
may utilize the same.
SO ORDERED.
It is the duty of the PNR to promote the safety and security of the general riding public and
provide for their convenience, which to a considerable degree may be accomplished by the VI. Transcript Notes
installation of precautionary warning devices.
1. Barriers. Every railroad crossing must be installed with barriers on each side of the So, who invoked the doctrine of last clear chance? PNR.
track to block the full width of the road until after the train runs past the crossing.
2. Bell/ signal light. To even draw closer attention, the railroad crossing may be Whose negligence was the proximate cause of the injury? PNR.
equipped with a device which rings a bell or turns on a signal light to signify the
danger or risk of crossing. How? PNR failed to install safety railroad bars to prevent motorists from crossing the tracks in
3. Advance warning signs. It is similarly beneficial to mount advance warning signs at order to give way to an approaching train. Aside from the absence of a crossing bar, the Stop,
the railroad crossing, such as a reflectorized crossbuck sign to inform motorists of the Look and Listen signage installed in the area was poorly maintained, hence, inadequate to alert
existence of the track, and a stop, look and listen signage to prompt the public to take the public of the impending danger.
caution. These warning signs must be erected in a place where they will have ample
lighting and unobstructed visibility both day and night. Was the jeepney driver contributorily negligent? No.

Citing Cusi vs PNR, the SC said that if a railroad company maintains a signalling device at a Why? The jeepney was just following a 10-wheeler truck which was only about 3-5 meters
crossing to give warning of the approach of a train, the failure of the device to operate is ahead. When the truck proceeded to traverse the railroad track, Reynaldo, the driver of the
generally held to be evidence of negligence, which may be considered with all the circumstances jeepney, simply followed through. He did so under the impression that it was safe to proceed.
of the case in determining whether the railroad company was negligent as a matter of fact.
And how did the Court formulate the doctrine of last clear chance here? It’s slightly more
Doctrine of last clear chance not applicable complicated than the definition in Picart, right?
The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties are negligent but the negligent
The doctrine of last clear chance provides that where both parties are negligent but act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or where it is impossible to
1. the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who
2. where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable
occurrence of the incident, with the consequences arising therefrom. Stated differently, the rule is that the antecedent
the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is negligence of a person does not preclude recovery of damages caused by the supervening
chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. negligence of the latter, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the
exercise of due diligence.
Stated differently, the rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude
recovery of damages caused by the supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last So, here, PNR invoked the doctrine of last clear chance against? Vizcara.
fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.
Court ruled? That it could not invoke the doctrine.

G.R. NO: 190022 PONENTE: Reyes, J.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Last clear chance DIGEST MAKER: Eon Penafiel
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED February 15, 2012

PNR vs Vizcara PNR vs Vizcara

Why? Because the doctrine of last clear chance presumes that both parties were negligent. But
there was no antecedent negligence on the part of Vizcara. Absent preceding negligence on the
part of Vizcara, the doctrine of last clear chance cannot be applied.

G.R. NO: 190022 PONENTE: Reyes, J.

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Last clear chance DIGEST MAKER: Eon Penafiel