ALLIED BANK VS BPI

FACTS

A check in the amount of P1,000,000.00 payable to MMGI was presented for

deposit and accepted at petitioner's Kawit Branch. The check, post-dated
"Oct. 9, 2003", was drawn against the account of Marciano Silva, Jr. with
BPI Bel-Air Branch. Upon receipt, petitioner sent the check for clearing to
respondent through the PCHC. The check was cleared by respondent and
petitioner credited the account of MMGI with P1,000,000.00. Subsequently
MMGIs account was closed and all the funds therein were withdrawn. A
month later, Silva discovered the debit of P1,000,000.00 from his account.
Respondent credited his account. On March 21, 2003, respondent returned a
photocopy of the check to petitioner for the reason: "Postdated." Petitioner,
however, refused to accept and sent back to respondent a photocopy of the
check. Thereafter, the Charge Slip, was tossed several times from petitioner
to respondent, and back to petitioner, until on May 6, 2003, respondent
requested the PCHC to take custody of the check. Acting on the request,
PCHC directed the respondent to deliver the original check and informed it of
PCHCs authority under Clearing House Operating Memo (CHOM) No. 279 to
split 50/50 the amount of the check subject of a "Ping-Pong" controversy
which shall be implemented thru the issuance of Debit Adjustment Tickets
against the outward demands of the banks involved.

Issue

Whether the doctrine of last clear chance applies

Held

In this case, the evidence clearly shows that the proximate cause of the
unwarranted encashment of the subject check was the negligence of
respondent who cleared a post-dated check sent to it thru the PCHC clearing
facility without observing its own verification procedure. As correctly found
by the PCHC and upheld by the RTC, if only respondent exercised ordinary
care in the clearing process, it could have easily noticed the glaring defect
upon seeing the date written on the face of the check "Oct. 9, 2003".
Respondent could have then promptly returned the check and with the check
thus dishonored, petitioner would have not credited the amount thereof to
the payees account. Thus, notwithstanding the antecedent negligence of the
petitioner in accepting the post-dated check for deposit, it can seek
reimbursement from respondent the amount credited to the payees account
covering the check.

PANTRANCO v. BAESA, GR No. 79050, Nov. 14, 1989

Facts

The family Baesa together with family Ico, were aboard a passenger jeepney
on their way to a picnic to celebrate the fifth wedding anniversary of Ceasar
and Marilyn Baesa. The group rode in the passenger jeepney driven by David
Ico, who was also the registered owner thereof. Upon reaching the highway,
the jeepney turned right and proceeded to Malalam River at a speed of about
20 kph. While they were proceeding towards Malalam River, a speeding
PANTRANCO bus from Aparri encroached on the jeepneys lane while
negotiating a curve, and collided with it. As a result of the accident some
passengers died while the rest of the passengers suffered injuries. The
jeepney was extensively damaged. After the accident the driver of the bus,
Ambrosio Ramirez, boarded a car and proceeded to Santiago, Isabela. From
that time on up to the present, Ramirez has never been seen and has
apparently remained in hiding

Issue

Whether last clear chance applies

Held

No

In this case, there is nothing to show that the jeepney driver David Ico 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 from the opposite direction. There was nothing to indicate to
David Ico that the bus could not return to its own lane or was prevented from
returning to the proper lane by anything beyond the control of its driver. Leo
Marantan, an alternate driver of the Pantranco bus who was seated beside
the driver Ramirez at the time of the accident, testified that Ramirez had no
choice but to swerve the steering wheel to the left and encroach on the
jeepneys lane because there was a steep precipice on the right. However,
this is belied by the evidence on record which clearly shows that there was
enough space to swerve the bus back to its own lane without any danger.

PEOPLES LUMBER v. IAC, GR No. 70493, May 18, 1989

FACTS

Engr. Calibo, Roranes, and Patos were on the jeep owned by the Bacnotan
Consolidated Industries, Inc., with Calibo at the wheel. A cargo truck, loaded
with cement bags, GI sheets, plywood, driven by defendant Paul coming from
the opposite direction, had just crossed the bridge. At about 59 yards after
crossing the bridge, the cargo truck and the jeep collided as a consequence
of which Engineer Calibo died while Roranes and Patos sustained physical
injuries. Zacarias was unhurt. As a result of the impact, the left side of the
truck was slightly damaged while the left side of the jeep, including its fender
and hood, was extensively damaged. The heirs of Engineer Calibo filed a
complaint for damages against the driver and owners of the cargo truck.

Issue

Whether last clear chance applies

Held

It was rather Engr. Calibos negligence which was the proximate cause of the
accident. Evidence and testimonies show that the jeep had been
zigzagging or was driven erratically at that time and that its driver had
been on a drinking spree on the occasion prior.Even, however, ignoring
thereof negligence on the part of Calibo, and assuming some antecedent
negligence on the part of Zacarias in failing to keep within his designated
lane, incorrectly demarcated as it was, the physical facts, would still absolve
the latter of any actionable responsibility for the accident under the rule of
the last clear chance.
DE ROY vs. CA, January 29, 1988

FACTS:

The firewall of a burned-out building owned by petitioners collapsed and

destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of private respondents,
resulting in injuries to private respondents and the death of Marissa Bernal.
Private respondents had been warned by petitioners to vacate their shop in
view of its proximity to the weakened wall but the former failed to do so. The
RTC rendered judgment finding petitioners guilty of gross negligence and
awarding damages to private respondents. On appeal, the decision of the
trial court was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition.

Issue

Whether petitioners are free of liability since respondents had the last clear
chance of avoiding the incident.

Held

This Court finds that the CA committed no grave abuse of discretion in

affirming the trial court's decision holding petitioner liable under Article 2190
of the Civil Code, which provides that "the proprietor of a building or
structure is responsible for the damage resulting from its total or partial
collapse, if it should be due to the lack of necessary repairs. Nor was there
error in rejecting petitioners argument that private respondents had the "last
clear chance" to avoid the accident if only they heeded the warning to
vacate the tailoring shop and , therefore, petitioners prior negligence should
be disregarded, since the doctrine of "last clear chance," which has been
applied to vehicular accidents, is inapplicable to this case.