G.R. No.

L-68102

GEORGE MCKEE and ARACELI KOH MCKEE,

vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
JAIME TAYAG and ROSALINDA MANALO

G.R. No. L-68103

CARMEN DAYRIT KOH, LETICIA KOH,

JULIETA KOH TUQUERO, ARACELI KOH
MCKEE, ANTONIO KOH and ELIZABETH KOH
TURLA,
vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
JAIME TAYAG and ROSALINDA MANALO

July 16, 1992

McKee v. Intermediate Appellate Court

PETITIONERS PRIVATE RESPONDENTS

GEORGE MCKEE and ARACELI JAIME TAYAG and ROSALINDA

KOH MCKEE - parents of the MANALO - are the owners of the
minors George Koh McKee, cargo truck which figured in the
Christopher Koh McKee and the mishap; a certain Ruben Galang was
deceased Kim Koh McKee the driver of the truck at the time of
the accident
CARMEN DAYRIT KOH, LETICIA
KOH, JULIETA KOH TUQUERO,
ARACELI KOH MCKEE, ANTONIO
KOH and ELIZABETH KOH - who
are the wife and children,
respectively, of the late Jose Koh,

2
FACTS:

Between nine and ten o'clock in the morning

of 8 January 1977, somewhere between
Angeles City and San Fernando, Pampanga,
Jose Koh was driving his daughter, Araceli
Koh McKee and her minor children,
Christopher, George, and Kim, as well as Kim’s
babysitter, Loida Bondoc. They were
traversing from San Fernando, Pampanga in
the direction of Angeles City (northward) in a
Ford Escort.

3
Meanwhile, a cargo truck owned by Jaime
Tayag and Rosalinda Manalo, driven by
Ruben Galang, was headed in the opposite
direction, from Angeles City to San Fernando
(southward), going to Manila.

The cargo truck was considerable in size as it

was carrying 200 cavans of rice which
weighed about 10 metric tons.

4
As the Escort approached Pulong-Pulo Bridge
from the southern portion, 2 boys suddenly
ran from the right side of the road into the
Escort’s lane. As the boys were going back
and forth, unsure of whether to cross all the
way or turn back, Jose blew his horn to warn
oncoming vehicles.

He was then forced to swerve left and into the

lane where the truck was driving in. Jose
switched his headlights on, applied his brakes,
and attempted to return to his lane. Before he
could do so, the collision occurred in the
truck lane.

5
The collision resulted in the deaths of the
driver, Jose Koh, the one-year-old, Kim, and
her babysitter, Loida, on whose lap she was
sitting. Loida was at that time seated in the
passenger seat. Araceli, Christopher, and
George, who were sitting in the back of the
Escort, received physical injuries.

6
An information was filed against Ruben
Galang, charging him for reckless
imprudence resulting in multiple homicide,
physical injuries, and damage to property.
He was found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of such charge.

The conviction was affirmed by the IAC and

achieved finality after the denial by the IAC of
his MR and the denial by the SC of his Petition
for Review.

7
Two civil cases were instituted against the
respondent truck owners as employers of
Ruben Galang. The first one, by the wife and
children of Jose Koh, and the second one by
Araceli and her husband for the death of Kim
and injuries to Araceli and her other children.

These cases based on quasi-delict were

eventually consolidated.

8
The trial court dismissed the civil cases in
favor of the respondents ruling that Jose Koh
was the person “at fault for having
approached the lane of the truck driven by
Ruben Galang, . . . which was on the right lane
going towards Manila and at a moderate
speed observing all traffic rules and
regulations applicable under the
circumstances then prevailing.”

9
On appeal to the Intermediate Appellate
Court, the dismissal was reversed. The
decision is anchored principally on the
findings that it was Galang's inattentiveness
or reckless imprudence which caused the
accident. The appellate court further said that
the law presumes negligence on the part of
the respondents, as employers of Galang,
who failed to exercise the diligence of a good
father of a family in selecting and supervising
the said employee.

10
However, upon filing by the respondents of a
Motion for Reconsideration, the IAC set aside
its original decision and upheld that of the
trial court because of the fact that Jose
Koh’s car invaded the lane of the truck and
that the collision occurred while the truck was
in its proper lane giving rise to the
presumption that Jose Koh was the negligent
driver.

11
 Whether the IAC erred in reversing its
?
original ruling?
On the basis of the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance

12
RULING

Yes, the IAC erred in ruling that the

car improperly invaded the lane of
the truck and that the collision
occurred in said lane presuming that
the driver of the car, Jose Koh was
negligent.

13
 Last clear chance is a doctrine in the
law of torts which states that the
contributory negligence of the party
injured will not defeat the claim for
“ damages if it is shown that the
defendant might, by the exercise of
reasonable care and prudence, have
avoided the consequences of the
negligence of the injured party.

14
Although it may be said that the act of Jose
Koh, if at all negligent, was the initial act in
the chain of events, it cannot be said that the
same caused the eventual injuries and deaths
because of the occurrence of a sufficient
intervening event, the negligent act of the
truck driver, which was the actual cause of
the tragedy.

15
The entry of the car into the lane of the truck
would not have resulted in the collision had
the latter heeded the emergency signals
given by the former to slow down and give
the car an opportunity to go back into its
proper lane. Instead of slowing down and
swerving to the far right of the road, which
was the proper precautionary measure under
the given circumstances, the truck driver
continued at full speed towards the car.

16
The truck driver's negligence is apparent in
the records as he himself admitted that his
truck was running at 30 miles (48 km) per
hour along the bridge while the maximum
speed allowed by law on a bridge is only 30
kph.

Under Article 2185 of the Civil Code, a person

driving a vehicle is presumed negligent if at
the time of the mishap, he was violating any
traffic regulation.

17
The truck driver's negligence in failing to
exert ordinary care to avoid the collision
which was, in law, is the proximate cause
of the collision.
As employers of the truck driver, the private
respondents are, under Article 2180 of the
Civil Code, directly and primarily liable for
the resulting damages. The presumption
that they are negligent flows from the
negligence of their employee. That
presumption, however, is only juris tantum,
not juris et de jure. Their only possible
defense is that they exercised all the
diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent the damage.
18
END J

19