GREENSTAR VS ROBINA

FACTS:

At about 6:50 a.m. on February 25, 2003, which was then a declared national holiday, petitioner’s
(Greenstar Express) bus, which was driven by Fruto L. Sayson, Jr., collided head-on with the URC van,
which was then being driven NURC’s Operations Manager, Renante Bicomong.

Bicomong died on the spot, while the colliding vehicles sustained considerable damage. On September
23, 2003, petitioners filed a Complaint against NURC to recover damages sustained during the collision,
premised on negligence. URC and NURC filed their respective Answers, where they particularly alleged
and claimed lack of negligence on their part and on the part of Bicomong.

They argued that Bicomong’s negligence was the proximate cause of the collision, as the van he was
driving swerved to the opposite lane and hit the bus which was then traveling along its proper lane; that
Bicomong’s act of occupying the bus’ lane was illegal and thus constituted a traffic violation; that
respondents are liable for damages as the registered owner of the van and failing to exercise due
diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee, Bicomong. Respondents, countered that the
bus driven by Sayson was running at high speed when the collision occurred, thus indicating that Sayson
was in violation of traffic rules; and that Sayson had the last clear chance to avert collision but he failed
to take the necessary precaution under the circumstances, by reducing his speed and applying the
brakes on time to avoid collision.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER HAS THE LAST CLEAR CHANCE.

RULING:

Respondents succeeded in overcoming the presumption of negligence, having shown that when the
collision took place, Bicomong was not in the performance of his work; that he was in possession of a
service vehicle that did not belong to his employer NURC, but to URC, and which vehicle was not
officially assigned to him, but to another employee; that his use of the URC van was unauthorized —
even if he had used the same vehicle in furtherance of a personal undertaking in the past, this does not
amount to implied permission; that the accident occurred on a holiday and while Bicomong was on his
way home to his family in Quezon province; and that Bicomong had no official business whatsoever in
his hometown in Quezon, or in Laguna where the collision occurred, his area of operations being limited
to the Cavite area.

On the other hand, the evidence suggests that the collision could have been avoided if Sayson exercised
care and prudence, given the circumstances and information that he had immediately prior to the
accident. From the trial court’s findings and evidence on record, it would appear that immediately prior
to the collision, which took place very early in the morning — or at around 6:50 a.m., Sayson saw that
the URC van was traveling fast Quezon-bound on the shoulder of the opposite lane about 250 meters
away from him; that at this point, Sayson was driving the Greenstar bus Manila-bound at 60 kilometers
per hour; that Sayson knew that the URC van was traveling fast as it was creating dust clouds from
traversing the shoulder of the opposite lane; that Sayson saw the URC van get back into its proper lane
but directly toward him; that despite being apprised of the foregoing information, Sayson, instead of
slowing down, maintained his speed and tried to swerve the Greenstar bus, but found it difficult to do so
at his speed; that the collision or point of impact occurred right in the middle of the road;32 and that
Sayson absconded from the scene immediately after the collision.

However, Sayson took no defensive maneuver whatsoever in spite of the fact that he saw Bicomong
drive his van in a precarious manner, as far as 250 meters away — or at a point in time and space where
Sayson had all the opportunity to prepare and avert a possible collision. The collision was certainly
foreseen and avoidable butSayson took no measures to avoid it. Rather than exhibit concern forthe
welfare of his passengers and the driver of the oncoming vehicle,who might have fallen asleep or
suddenly fallen ill at the wheel,Sayson coldly and uncaringly stood his ground, closed his eyes, andleft
everything to fate, without due regard for the consequences.Such a suicidal mindset cannot be
tolerated, for the grave danger itposes to the public and passengers availing of petitioners’ services.To
add insult to injury, Sayson hastily fled the scene of the collisioninstead of rendering assistance to the
victims — thus exhibiting aselfish, cold-blooded attitude and utter lack of concern motivated bythe self-
centered desire to escape liability, inconvenience, and possible detention by the authorities, rather than
secure the well-being of the victims of his own negligent act.