Recent Jurisprudence 2007 SOLIDBANK CORPORATION/ METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY versus SPOUSES PETER and SUSAN

TAN1 In this case, Sps Tan sued Solidbank for the loss of a check that was earlier deposited with it. The Sps contended that Solidbank was negligent for the loss of the check as it failed to exercise the diligence required of banking institutions. The Supreme Court ruled that the court of Appeals did not err in applying doctrines of common carriers particularly the doctrine of last clear chance and finding liability for Solidbank. Again, the court in this case ignored the pronouncements in the Tiu and Phoenix cases and instead made reference to the cases of Canlas versus Asian Savings Bank2 and Bank of Philippine Islands versus Court of Appeals3 where the doctrine of last clear chance was applied to cases which involve banking transactions. In fact, despite the existence of William Tiu vs. Pedro A. Arriesgado et.al4 and Pheonix Construction versus Intermediate Appellate Court5, the court even said that the doctrine of last clear chance is a commonly used doctrine and even reasoned that the application of the doctrine emphasizes the degree of negligence required for banking transactions which is the same as that of common carriers - extraordinary diligence. Thus the court held: In one case, (Canlas vs. Asian Savings) the Court did not hesitate to apply the doctrine of last clear chance (commonly used in transportation laws involving common carriers) to a banking transaction where it adjudged the bank responsible for the encashment of a forged check. There, we enunciated that the degree of diligence required of banks is more than that of a good father of a family in keeping with their responsibility to exercise the necessary care and prudence in handling their clients money. We find no compelling reason to disallow the application of the provisions on common carriers to this case if only to emphasize the fact that banking institutions (like petitioner) have the duty to exercise the highest degree of diligence when transacting with the public. By the nature of their business, they are required to observe the highest standards of integrity and performance, and utmost assiduousness as well. Months later, the doctrine was again used in the case of:

____________________________
1 2 3 4 5

G.R. No. 167346, April 2, 2007, First Division G.R. No. 175172, September 29, 2009, Third Division G.R. No. 127469. January 15, 2004 First Division G.R. No. 138060, September 1, 2004, Second Division G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987, Second Division

Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation versus Micheal Angala6 The court applied the doctrine of last clear chance in a case involving a collision between a vehicle taking a U-turn and the vehicle behind it. It ruled that since both parties are at fault, (the front vehicle was in outside lane while the rear vehicle was speeding), the doctrine of last clear chance would apply; and placed liability on the rear vehicle who had the last clear chance of avoiding the collision as he had the responsibility of watching out the vehicle in front of him. There was no mention in this case of the categorical abolishment of the doctrine of last clear chance made in the cases of Tiu versus Arriesgado and in Phoenix versus Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). It did however made reference to the case of Philippine National Railways versus Brunty7 where the court also used the doctrine of last chance to resolve the issue (although the court ruled that the doctrine did not apply based on the facts).

2009 CRESENCIA ACHEVARA et al versus ELVIRA RAMOS et al8 In this case involving a vehicular accident, the doctrine of last clear chance was again used despite the pronouncements made in the Tiu and Pheonix cases. In order to justify its usage of the doctrine, the Court, in its decision, made reference to the case of Pantranco v. North Express, Inc9 where it was primarily utilized by the court to determine liability. It is interesting to note that the said case which involved another vehicular accident was decided in November 1989; just less than three years from the Phoenix versus IAC case, which held that the doctrine of last clear chance has no application in our jurisdiction. Although ultimately, the court found in both Pantranco and in the instant case that the doctrine of last clear chance was not applicable based on the facts; it nonetheless used or at the very least, exerted quite an effort in order to determine whether the doctrine can be applied or not. This shows that the court itself, despite its former pronouncements of the abolishment of the doctrine of last clear chance, still recognizes the doctrine as a tool to determine liability.

________________________
6 7 8 9

G.R. No. 153076, June 21, 2007, Second Division G.R. No. 169891 November 2, 2006, First Division G.R. No. 175172, September 29, 2009, Third Division G.R. Nos. 79050-51. November 14, 1989, Third Division