1.
UNIVERSITY OF
NUEVA CACERES
School of Law

2.
The Doctrine of Last
Clear Chance
2
Torts and Damages
2nd Sem. A/Y 2020-2021

3.
3
WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF
THE LAST CLEAR CHANCE?

4.
Let’s have drill…
4

5.
“
The Alphabet Family namely A-the father, B-the mother and
their 4 children C,D,E and F and 7 other people boarded a
passenger jeepney driven by X to go to a swimming in
Pasacao on a summer vacation. While they were proceeding
towards Pamplona River at a speed of about 20kph, a
speeding Raymund Bus from Manila, on route to Naga City,
encroached on the jeepney’s lane while negotiating a curve,
and collided with it. As a result, the entire Alphabet Family
except for their daughter C, as well as X died, and the rest
suffered from injuries. C through her guardian filed separate
actions for damages arising from quasi-delict against
Raymund Bus.
5

6.
issue
Whether or not the last clear
chance applies thereby making X
who had the chance to avoid the
collision negligent in failing to
utilize with reasonable care and
competence?
6

7.
The Doctrine of Last Clear
Chance
Definition, Conditions and Application
7

8.
Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil. 809.
He turned to the right but passed so
closely to the horse that the latter
being frightened, jumped around and
was killed by the passing car. Picart
was thrown off his horse and suffered
contusions. He sued Smith for the
value of his animal, medical expenses,
and damage to his apparel.
ISSUE: Who is at fault?
8
FACTS:
Plaintiff Picart was riding a
pony on a bridge. He saw an
approaching automobile and be
improperly pulled his horse over to
the railing in the right, the wrong side
of the bridge. The driver of the
automobile sounded his horn but
Picart made no move to go to the right
side. The driver guided his car to the
right without diminution of speed until
he was only a few feet away.

9.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Plaintiff Picart was originally at fault but defendant
Smith had the last clear chance to avoid the
impending harm by merely swerving. Smith failed to
do this and he should therefore be chargeable for the
consequence of his acts, without reference to the
prior negligence of the other party.
9

10.
In other words, even if
the injured party was
originally at fault (such as
when he is on the wrong side
of the road or wrong side of
the bridge), still if the person
who finally caused the
accident had the last clear
chance to avoid the
impending harm and could
have prevented the injury,
but did not do so, he is still
liable.
10
Where both parties
are negligent but the
negligent act of one
succeeds that of the other
by an appreciable interval
of time, the one who has
the last reasonable
opportunity to avoid the
impending harm and fails
to do so, is chargeable with
the consequences, without
reference to the prior
negligence of the other
party.

11.
IS THE DOCTRINE IN PICART VS. SMITH STILL
APPLICABLE?
YES.
In fact the same doctrine was used in People’s Lumber and Hardware vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, GR. No. 704493, May 18, 1989.
Both drivers, as the Appellate Court found, had had a full view of each
other’s vehicle from a distance of 150 meters. The truck had been brought
to a stop while the jeep was still thirty meters away. From these facts the
logical conclusion emerges that the driver of the jeep had what judicial
doctrine has appropriately called the last clear chance to avoid the
accident, while still at that distance of thirty meters from the truck, by
stopping in his turn or swerving his jeep away from the truck, either of
which he had sufficient time to do while running at a speed of only thirty
kilometers per hour. In those circumstances, his duty was to seize that
opportunity of avoidance, not merely rely on a supposed right to expect
the truck to swerve and leave him a clear path.
11

12.
Allied Banking Corporation v. Bank of the Philippine Islands
GR. 188363, 27 February 2013
12
The doctrine of last clear chance, stated broadly, is that the
negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence
of the defendant where it appears that the defendant, by exercising
reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences
to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff’s negligence. The doctrine
necessarily assumes negligence on the part of the defendant and
contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and does not apply
except upon that assumption. Stated differently, the antecedent negligence
of the plaintiff does not preclude him from recovering damages caused by
the supervening negligence of the defendant, who had the last fair chance to
prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. Moreover, in
situations where the doctrine has been applied, it was defendant’s failure to
exercise such ordinary care, having the last clear chance to avoid loss or
injury, which was the proximate cause of the occurrence of such loss or
injury.

13.
Cases Where the
Doctrine was Held
Inapplicable
13

14.
Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Baesa; Mc Kee vs. IAC, supra.
14
a. It does not apply if the plaintiff was not negligent,
that is, only the defendant was negligent.

15.
15
(Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District; Mc Kee vs. IAC, supra; Rogelio
Engada vs. Court of Appeals, No. 140698, June 30, 2003).
b. It cannot also apply where the party charged (defendant)
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; at least in cases
in which any previous negligence of the party charged
cannot be said to have contributed to the injury.

16.
16
c. It cannot be applied if defendant’s negligence is a concurrent cause
and which was still in operation up to the time the injury was
inflicted.
In other words, it cannot be applied in the field of joint tortfeasors
and it cannot be invoked as between defendants who are concurrently
negligent.
Bustamante vs. Court of Appeals, supra

17.
17
d. It does not arise where the plaintiff, a passenger,
filed an action against a carrier based on contract.
(Anuran vs. Buno, supra; Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, August 30, 1990; Bustamante vs. Court of Appeals).

18.
18
e. It is not applicable if the actor, though negligent,
was not aware of the danger or risk brought about
by a prior fraud or negligent act.
(Bank of Philippine Islands vs. Court of Appeals, supra; LBC Air Cargo, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals, supra).

19.
issue
Whether or not the last clear
chance applies thereby making X
who had the chance to avoid the
collision negligent in failing to
utilize with reasonable care and
competence?
19

20.
▣ 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 X 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
20

21.
Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. Baesa; Mc Kee vs. IAC, supra.
21
a. It does not apply if the plaintiff was not negligent,
that is, only the defendant was negligent.

22.
CONCLUSION
22
“The rulings are nothing more than statements that the damages or injuries are
foreseeable. A ruling that the defendant was negligent because he has the last
clear chance of avoiding the damage is nothing more than a finding that the
defendant can reasonably foresee the injury and that a reasonable man in his
position should have and could have avoided the same.”
(See: Edna A. Raynera, et al. v. Freddie Hiceta, et al., No. 120027, April 21, 1999, 306
SCRA 102).

23.
23