Phoenix Construction v IAC

- basis for saying that there is doubt in the application of the Last Clear Chance Doctrine because of Art. 2179. However, the statements made on the Last Clear Chance Doctrine were merely obiter FACTS: Dionisio was on his way home from a cocktails and dinner-meeting when he collided with the dumptruck of Phoenix which was parked askew at the side of the road. Thus, Dionisio filed an action for damages against Phoenix. Phoenix invoked the Last Clear Chance Doctrine: Dionisio had the Last Clear Chance of avoiding the accident and so Dionisio, having failed to take the last clear chance, must bear his own injuries alone RATIO: The Last Clear Chance doctrine of the Common Law was imported into our jurisdiction by Picart vs. Smith but it is still a matter of debate whether, or to what extent, it has found its way into the Civil Code of the Philippines. The doctrine was applied by Common Law because they had a rule that contributory negligence prevented any recovery at all by a negligent plaintiff. BUT in the Philippines we have Article 2179 of the Civil Code which rejects the Common Law doctrine of contributory negligence. Thus, the court in this case stated that it does not believe so that the general concept of Last Clear Chance has been utilized in our jurisdiction. Article 2179 on contributory negligence is not an exercise in chronology or physics but what is important is the negligent act or omission of each party and the character and gravity of the risks created by such act or omission for the rest of the community. To say that Phoenix should be absolved from liability would come close to wiping out the fundamental law that a man must respond for the foreseeable consequences of his own negligent act or omission. -LCCD was not applied because the court thinks that it is not applicable in our jurisdiction

CLASS

NOT ES

The issue on the element of foreseeability: There is no general concept of last clear chance. Rather, what is more important is the nature, not the order of events. In last clear chance, timing is of the essence. In the case at hand, the truck drivers parking askew led to an increased diligence for the driver of the car. court should allocate risks (policy of consideration) Historical function of last clear chance: mitigate harshness of doctrine of contributory negligence Nature of negligent act should determine liability, not sequence of events Does the last clear chance doctrine still stand? Yes, because it was still used in later cases Phoenix-1987, PBC-1997: appreciably later in time