8/12/2019 Recent Juris 2007 2009

1/2

Recent Jurisprudence

2007

SOLIDBANK CORPORATION/ METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY versusSPOUSES PETER and SUSAN TAN 1

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 exercisethe diligence required of banking institutions. The Supreme Court ruled that the court of Appealsdid not err in applying doctrines of common carriers particularly the doctrine of last clear chanceand finding liability for Solidbank.

Again, the court in this case ignored the pronouncements in the Tiu and Phoenix cases andinstead made reference to the cases of Canlas versus Asian Savings Bank 2 and Bank of

Philippine Islands versus Court of Appeals 3 where the doctrine of last clear chance was appliedto 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 evenreasoned that the application of the doctrine emphasizes the degree of negligence requiredfor banking transactions which is the same as that of common carriers - extraordinarydiligence . Thus the court held:

In one case , (Canlas vs. Asian Savings ) the Court did not hesitate to apply the doctrine oflast clear chance (commonly used in transportation laws involving common carriers) to abanking 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 morethan that of a good father of a family in keeping with their responsibility to exercise thenecessary care and prudence in hand ling their clients money.

We find no compelling reason to disallow the application of the provisions on commoncarriers 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 standardsof integrity and performance, and utmost assiduousness as well.

Months later, the doctrine was again used in the case of:

____________________________1 G.R. No. 167346, April 2, 2007, First Division

2 G.R. No. 175172, September 29, 2009, Third Division

3 G.R. No. 127469. January 15, 2004 First Division

4 G.R. No. 138060, September 1, 2004, Second Division

5 G.R. No. L-65295, March 10, 1987, Second Division

8/12/2019 Recent Juris 2007 2009

2/2

Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation versus Micheal Angala 6

The court applied the doctrine of last clear chance in a case involving a collision between avehicle 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 lastclear chance would apply ; and placed liability on the rear vehicle who had the last clear chanceof 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 lastclear chance made in the cases of Tiu versus Arriesgado and in Phoenix versusIntermediate Appellate Court (IAC ). It did however made reference to the case of Philippine

National Railways versus Brunty 7 where the court also used the doctrine of last chance to resolvethe issue ( although the court ruled that the doctrine did not apply based on the facts).

2009

CRESENCIA ACHEVARA et al versus ELVIRA RAMOS et al 8

In this case involving a vehicular accident, the doctrine of last clear chance was again useddespite 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 caseof Pantranco v. North Express, Inc 9 where it was primarily utilized by the court to determineliability. It is interesting to note that the said case which involved another vehicularaccident 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 doctrineof last clear chance was not applicable based on the facts; it nonetheless used or at the veryleast, exerted quite an effort in order to determine whether the doctrine can be applied ornot. This shows that the court itself, despite its former pronouncements of the abolishmentof the doctrine of last clear chance, still recognizes the doctrine as a tool to determineliability.

________________________6 G.R. No. 153076, June 21, 2007, Second Division

7 G.R. No. 169891 November 2, 2006, First Division

8 G.R. No. 175172, September 29, 2009, Third Division

9 G.R. Nos. 79050-51. November 14, 1989, Third Division