GR 169891; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 169891 ; November 2, 2006
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, Petitioner, vs. ETHEL BRUNTY and JUAN MANUEL M. GARCIA, Respondents.
FACTS
On January 25, 1980, a Mercedes Benz carrying Rhonda Brunty, Juan Manuel Garcia, and driver Rodolfo Mercelita approached a railroad crossing in Moncada, Tarlac. Driving at high speed, Mercelita attempted to overtake another vehicle and collided with PNR Train No. T-71. The collision killed Mercelita and Brunty instantly and severely injured Garcia. Respondents Ethel Brunty (Rhonda’s mother) and Garcia filed a complaint for damages against PNR, alleging gross negligence for failing to provide adequate safety warnings at the crossing, such as a flagbar or red light signal, and for employing a flagman equipped only with a hand flashlight.
PNR, in its defense, asserted it exercised due diligence in supervising its employees and that the railroad had the right of way. It contended the accident’s proximate cause was Mercelita’s own negligence in disregarding visible warning signs, the train’s whistle blasts, and the flagman’s flashlight signals. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the respondents, awarding damages, which the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification. PNR elevated the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Philippine National Railways is liable for damages arising from the fatal collision at its railroad crossing.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision, holding PNR liable. The Court applied the doctrine of last clear chance, which posits that the negligence of the party having the final opportunity to avoid the impending harm is the proximate cause of the injury. The legal logic proceeds from a comparative analysis of fault. While the car’s driver was undoubtedly negligent for speeding and inattentiveness, the train crew, despite seeing the approaching car from a significant distance, failed to take appropriate emergency measures. Evidence showed the train did not slow down or brake sufficiently upon sighting the vehicle, which was visible from 150 meters away. This inaction constituted a failure to exercise the last clear chance to avert the accident.
Furthermore, the Court found PNR negligent in maintaining the crossing. The reliance on a flagman with only a flashlight was insufficient, especially at night, to constitute the adequate warning required for public safety. This failure contributed to the dangerous condition. Consequently, both parties were found contributorily negligent. Under Article 2179 of the Civil Code, when the plaintiff’s negligence is contributory, recovery of damages is allowed but subject to mitigation. The Court thus sustained the award of damages to the respondents, as the immediate and proximate cause of the injury was PNR’s lack of due care, mitigated by the driver’s contributory fault.