Pantranco North Express, Inc. v.

Maricar
Baesa (1989)
G.R. 79050-51 November 14, 1989
Lessons Applicable: Last Clear Chance (Torts and
Damages)
FACTS:
Spouses Baesa, their 4 children, the Ico
spouses and their son and 7 other people
boarded a passenger jeep driven by David Ico to
go to a picnic in Isabela, to celebrate the 5th
wedding anniversary of the Baesa spouses
While they were proceeding towards Malalam
River at a speed of about 20 kph, a speeding
PANTRANCO bus from Aparri, on a route to
Manila, encroached on the jeepneys lane while
negotiating a curve, and collided with it.
As a result, the entire Baesa family, except for
their daughter Maricar Baesa, as well as David
Ico, died, and the rest suffered from injuries.
Maricar Baesa, through her guardian filed
separate actions for damages arising from quasidelict against PANTRANCO.
PANTRANCO: alleged David Ico's negligence
as a proximate cause of the accident and invoked
the defense of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of its driver.
CA upheld RTC: favor of Baesa
ISSUE: W/N the last clear chance applies thereby
making David Ico who had the chance to avoid
the collision negligent in failing to utilize with
reasonable care and competence
HELD: NO.
Generally, the last clear change doctrine is
invoked for the purpose of making a defendant
liable to a plaintiff who was guilty of prior or
antecedent negligence, although it may also be
raised as a defense to defeat claim for damages
For the last clear chance doctrine to apply, it
is necessary to show that the person who
allegedly has the last opportunity to avert the
accident was aware of the existence of the peril,
or should, with exercise of due care, have been
aware of it. There is nothing to show that the
jeepney driver David Ico knew of the impending
danger.
When he saw at a distance that the
approaching bus was encroaching on his lane, he
did not immediately swerve the jeepney to the
dirt shoulder on his right since he must have
assumed that the bus driver will return the bus to
its own lane upon seeing the jeepney
approaching form the opposite direction
Even assuming that the jeepney driver
perceived the danger a few seconds before
the actual collision, he had no opportunity
to avoid it
last clear chance doctrine can never apply
where the party charged is required to act

instantaneously, and if the injury cannot

be avoided by the application of all means
at hand after the peril is or should have
been discovered

HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC. vs. BALANDAN,

et al.-

Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

Attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not
applicable to bodies of water, artificial (e.g. water
tanks) as well as natural, in the absence of some
unusual condition or artificial feature other than
the mere water and its location.

FACTS:
Guillermo Balandan and his wife is claiming
damages in the sum of P2,000 for the death of
their son, Mario. Petitioner was the owner of an
Ice plant, who had in their premises 2 tanks filled
of water, 9 feet deep. The factory was fenced but
Ingress and egress was easily made because the
gates were always open and there was no guard
assigned in the said gate. Also the tanks didnt
have any barricade or fence. One day when Mario
was playing with his friend, they saw the tank
inside the factory and began playing and
swimming inside it. While bathing, Mario sank to
the bottom of the tank, only to be fished out
later, already as a cadaver, having died of
asphyxia secondary to drowning. The lower
decided in the favor of the parents saying that
the petitioner is liable for damages due to the
doctrine of attractive nuisance.

ISSUE: Whether or not the doctrine of attractive

nuisance is applicable in this case?

RULING: NO.
The doctrine of attractive nuisance states that
One who maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character
likely to attract children in play, and who fails to

exercise ordinary care to prevent children from

playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to
a child of tender years who is injured thereby,
even if the child is technically a trespasser in the
premises. American Jurisprudence shows us that
the attractive nuisance doctrine generally is not
applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as
natural, in the absence of some unusual condition
or artificial feature other than the mere water and
its location. In the case bar, the tanks themselves
cannot fall under such doctrine thus the
petitioners cannot be held liable for Marios
death.

Spouses Africa et al vs Caltex Philippines,

Boquiren and the Court of Appeals
16 SCRA 448 Civil Law Torts and Damages
Res Ipsa Loquitur
In March 1948, in Rizal Avenue, Manila, a
tank truck was hosing gasoline into the
underground storage of Caltex. Apparently, a fire
broke out from the gasoline station and the fire
spread and burned several houses including the
house of Spouses Bernabe and Soledad Africa.
Allegedly, someone (a passerby) threw a
cigarette while gasoline was being transferred
which caused the fire. But there was no evidence
presented to prove this theory and no other
explanation can be had as to the real reason for
the fire. Apparently also, Caltex and the branch
owner (Mateo Boquiren) failed to install a
concrete firewall to contain fire if in case one
happens.

ISSUE: Whether or not Caltex and Boquiren are

liable to pay for damages.

HELD: Yes. This is pursuant to the application on

the principle of res ipsa loquitur (the transaction
speaks for itself) which states: where the thing
which caused injury, without fault of the injured
person, is under the exclusive control of the
defendant and the injury is such as in the
ordinary course of things does not occur if he
having such control use proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of the
explanation, that the injury arose from
defendants want of care. The gasoline station,

with all its appliances, equipment and employees,

was under the control of Caltex and Boquiren. A
fire occurred therein and spread to and burned
the neighboring houses. The persons who knew
or could have known how the fire started were
Boquiren, Caltex and their employees, but they
gave no explanation thereof whatsoever. It is a
fair and reasonable inference that the incident
happened because of want of care.
Note that ordinarily, he who charges negligence
shall prove it. However, res ipsa loquitur is the
exception because the burden of proof is shifted
to the party charged of negligence as the latter is
the one who had exclusive control of the thing
that caused the injury complained of.

Air France vs Rafael Carrascoso

Civil Law Torts and Damages Negligence
Malfeasance Quasi-Delict
Remedial Law Evidence Hearsay Rule Res
Gestae Startling Event
In March 1958, Rafael Carrascoso and
several other Filipinos were tourists en route to
Rome from Manila. Carrascoso was issued a first
class round trip ticket by Air France. But during a
stop-over in Bangkok, he was asked by the plane
manager of Air France to vacate his seat because
a white man allegedly has a better right than
him. Carrascoso protested but when things got
heated and upon advise of other Filipinos on
board, Carrascoso gave up his seat and was
transferred to the planes tourist class.
After their tourist trip when Carrascoso
was already in the Philippines, he sued Air France
for damages for the embarrassment he suffered
during his trip. In court, Carrascoso testified,
among others, that he when he was forced to
take the tourist class, he went to the planes
pantry where he was approached by a plane
purser who told him that he noted in the planes
journal the following:
First-class passenger was forced to go to
the tourist class against his will, and that the
captain refused to intervene
The said testimony was admitted in favor
of Carrascoso. The trial court eventually awarded
damages in favor of Carrascoso. This was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Air France is assailing the decision of the
trial court and the CA. It avers that the issuance
of a first class ticket to Carrascoso was not an
assurance that he will be seated in first class
because allegedly in truth and in fact, that was
not the true intent between the parties.
Air
France
also
questioned
the
admissibility of Carrascosos testimony regarding
the note made by the purser because the said
note was never presented in court.

ISSUE 1: Whether or not Air France is liable for

damages and on what basis.
ISSUE 2: Whether or not the testimony of
Carrasoso regarding the note which was not
presented in court is admissible in evidence.
HELD 1: Yes. It appears that Air Frances liability
is based on culpa-contractual and on culpa
aquiliana.
Culpa Contractual
There exists a contract of carriage
between Air France and Carrascoso. There was a
contract to furnish Carrasocoso a first class
passage; Second,
That
said contract was
breached when Air France failed to furnish first
class transportation at Bangkok; and Third, that
there was bad faith when Air Frances employee
compelled Carrascoso to leave his first class
accommodation berth after he was already,
seated and to take a seat in the tourist class, by
reason of which he suffered inconvenience,
embarrassments
and
humiliations,
thereby
causing him mental anguish, serious anxiety,
wounded feelings and social humiliation, resulting
in moral damages.
The Supreme Court did not give credence
to Air Frances claim that the issuance of a first
class ticket to a passenger is not an assurance
that he will be given a first class seat. Such claim
is simply incredible.
Culpa Aquiliana
Here, the SC ruled, even though there is a
contract of carriage between Air France and
Carrascoso, there is also a tortuous act based on

culpa aquiliana. Passengers do not contract

merely for transportation. They have a right to be
treated by the carriers employees with kindness,
respect, courtesy and due consideration. They are
entitled to be protected against personal
misconduct, injurious language, indignities and
abuses from such employees. So it is, that any
rule or discourteous conduct on the part of
employees towards a passenger gives the latter
an action for damages against the carrier. Air
Frances contract with Carrascoso is one attended
with public duty. The stress of Carrascosos action
is placed upon his wrongful expulsion. This is a
violation of public duty by the Air France a case
of quasi-delict. Damages are proper.
HELD: 2: Yes. The testimony of Carrascoso must
be admitted based on res gestae. The subject of
inquiry is not the entry, but the ouster incident.
Testimony on the entry does not come within the
proscription of the best evidence rule. Such
testimony is admissible. Besides, when the
dialogue between Carrascoso and the purser
happened, the impact of the startling occurrence
was still fresh and continued to be felt. The
excitement had not as yet died down. Statements
then, in this environment, are admissible as part
of the res gestae. The utterance of the purser
regarding his entry in the notebook was
spontaneous, and related to the circumstances of
the ouster incident. Its trustworthiness has been
guaranteed. It thus escapes the operation of the
hearsay rule. It forms part of the res gestae.