Title
LBC Air Cargo, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 101683
Decision Date
Feb 23, 1995
A 1987 collision caused by a van's unsafe left turn in poor visibility led to a motorcyclist's death. Tano and LBC Air Cargo were held liable, with damages reduced by 20% due to the victim's contributory negligence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 83699)

Relevant Facts

At approximately 11:30 AM on the aforementioned date, Rogelio Monterola, traveling on a motorcycle, collided with a cargo van operated by Jaime Tano, Jr. The van was approaching the Bislig Airport when Tano, hampered by poor visibility due to dust raised by two racing vehicles, attempted a left turn without ensuring it was safe to do so. As a result, Monterola's motorcycle crashed into the right side of Tano's van, leading to Monterola's death.

Procedural History

Following the collision, a criminal charge for "homicide through reckless imprudence" was filed against Tano, alongside a civil case initiated by Monterola's heirs for damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 29, Surigao del Sur dismissed both cases on July 29, 1990, attributing the accident to the negligence of the deceased Monterola. The heirs appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, which rendered a verdict reversing the RTC's ruling on July 18, 1991, ordering Tano and LBC Air Cargo to compensate the plaintiffs.

Issues Raised

The petitioners, Tano and LBC Air Cargo, contested the Court of Appeals’ findings, arguing that the appellate court erred in determining negligence and identifying the proximate cause of the accident. They claimed that Monterola's speeding constituted contributory negligence that should absolve Tano of liability.

Appellate Court's Findings on Negligence

The appellate court assessed the conditions under which Tano executed his left turn. It established that Tano admitted visibility was poor at that time, leading him to signal with his left signal and headlights but ultimately failing to ensure safety before making the turn. The court concluded that Tano's decision to turn left in such conditions constituted negligence, creating a dangerous environment directly contributing to the accident.

Application of Legal Doctrines

The doctrines of "proximate cause" and "last clear chance" were pivotal in the appellate court's reasoning. Proximate cause was attributed to Tano's negligent actions, which made him primarily responsible despite any contributory negligence from Monterola. Tano's failure to maintain the necessary level of caution in poor visibility led to the assumption of risk that Monterola’s motorcycle would ultimately collide with the van.

Contributory Negligence Considerations

While the appellate court held Tano primarily liable, it acknowledged Monterola's contributory negligence for traveling at a high speed in unsafe conditions. Thus, the court decreed a reduction of the damages awarded to the plaintiffs by twenty percent, reflecting Monterola's partial responsibility for the accident.

Damages Awarded

The appellate court outlined specific damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs, including indemnity for death, actual damages for motorcycle repa

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.