249831942 Phoenix Construction Inc Vs I

005 PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ARMANDO U. CARBONEL, petitioners, 
vs.
THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and LEONARDO DIONISIO, respondents.
[G.R. No. L-65295 March 10, 1987]
TOPIC:
PONENTE: FELICIANO, J.

AUTHOR:
NOTES: (if applicable)

FACTS:
1. In the early morning of 15 November 1975, at about 1:30am, private respondent Leonardo Dionisio was on his way home from a cocktails-and-dinner meeting with his boss, the general manager of a marketing corporation, where he had taken "a shot or two" of liquor.
2. He had just crossed an intersection and while driving down the street, his headlights were turned off. When he switched on his headlights to “bright”, he suddenly saw a Ford dump truck some 2 ½ meters away from his Volkswagen car. It was later found out that he did not a curfew pass that night.
3. The dump truck belonged to co-petitioner Phoenix, and was parked there by the company’ driver, co-petitioner Carbonel. It was parked on the right hand side of the lane that Dionisio was driving on, but it was parked facing the oncoming traffic. It was parked askew so it was sticking out onto the street, partly blocking the way of oncoming traffic. There were no lights nor were there any “early warning” reflector devices set anywhere near the truck, front or rear.
4. Phoenix permitted Carbonel to take home the truck, which was scheduled to be used the next morning.
5. Dionisio, upon seeing the truck, tried to avoid a collision by swerving to the left, but it was too late. His car smashed into the truck.
6. Dionisio suffered physical injuries, including permanent facial scars, “a nervous breakdown” and loss of two gold bridge dentures.
7. Dionision filed an action for damages against Carbonel and Phoenix.
8. Petitioners countered the claim by imputing the accident to respondent’s own negligence in driving at a high speed without curfew pass and headlights, and while intoxicated. It invoked the Last Clear Chance Doctrine: Dionisio had the Last Clear Chance of avoiding theaccident and so Dionisio, having failed to take the last clear chance, must bear his own injuries alone
9. The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondent.

ISSUE(S): Whether the collision was brought by respondent’s own negligence.

HELD: No. Dionisio is guilty of contributory negligent but the legal and proximate cause of the collision was brought about by the way the truck was parked.
RATIO:
The legal and proximate cause of the accident and of Dionisio's injuries was the wrongful or negligent manner in which the dump truck was parked in other words, the negligence of petitioner Carbonel. The collision of Dionisio's car with the dump truck was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the truck driver's negligence.
The defendant cannot be relieved from liability by the fact that the risk or a substantial and important part of the risk, to which the defendant has subjected the plaintiff has indeed come to pass. Foreseeable intervening forces are within the scope original risk, and hence of the defendant's negligence. The courts are quite generally agreed that intervening causes which fall fairly in this category will not supersede the defendant's responsibility. Thus, a defendant who blocks the sidewalk and forces the plaintiff to walk in a street where the plaintiff will be exposed to the risks of heavy traffic becomes liable when the plaintiff is run down by a car, even though the car is negligently driven; and one who parks an automobile on the highway without lights at night is not relieved of responsibility when another negligently drives into it.
We hold that private respondent Dionisio's negligence was "only contributory," that the "immediate and proximate cause" of the injury remained the truck driver's "lack of due care" and that consequently respondent Dionisio may recover damages though such damages are subject to mitigation by the courts.
The Last Clear Chance doctrine of the Common Law was imported into our jurisdiction by Picart vs. Smith but it is still a matter of debate whether, or to what extent, it has found its way into the Civil Code of the Philippines. The doctrine was applied by Common Law because they had a rule that contributory negligence prevented any recovery at all by a negligent plaintiff. But in the Philippines we have Article 2179 of the Civil Code which rejects the Common Law doctrine of contributory negligence. Thus, the court in this case stated that it does not believe so that the general concept of Last Clear Chance has been utilized in our jurisdiction. Article 2179 on contributory negligence is not an exercise in chronology or physics but what is important is the negligent act or omission of each party and the character and gravity of the risks created by such act or omission for the rest of the community. To say that Phoenix should be absolved from liability would come close to wiping out the fundamental law that a man must. respond for the foreseeable consequences of his own negligent act or omission. Thus, the Last Clear Chance Doctrine was not applied because the court thinks that it is not applicable in our jurisdiction.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):