Dear PAO,
I came across a clip of an accident that has gone viral, wherein a motorcycle was pinned between a truck and an SUV. Prior to the collision, the driver of the motorcycle can be seen counterflowing when a truck emerged from the oncoming lane. Instead of yielding and allowing the motorcycle to perform an invasive maneuver on his side of the road, the driver of the SUV continued to drive off, which resulted to the motorcycle getting pinned between the SUV and a truck. Can the driver of the SUV be held liable even if the accident was technically caused by the motorcycle rider himself after he made a reckless counterflow?
Ram
Dear Ram,
Article 2176 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines provides that “[w]hoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. xxx”
In relation to this, pursuant to Article 2185 of the said Code, unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if, at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation.
Here, the act of the driver of the motorcycle in counterflowing or encroaching on the outer left lane is, in itself, a violation of Section 37 of Republic Act (RA) 4136, otherwise known as the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, which mandates all motorists to drive and operate vehicles on the right side of the road or highway. If it can be shown that said traffic violation, or the act of counterflowing itself, was the proximate or legal cause of the accident, then the presumption of negligence under Article 2185 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines may be applied as against the driver of the motorcycle.
On the other hand, the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance is applicable in a situation wherein both parties to an accident are negligent, but the negligent act of one is evidently later than that of the other. It is likewise applicable to instances where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss or accident, in which case the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the accident but failed to do so shall be held liable. (Raul Ofracio vs. People of the Philippines, GR 221981, Nov. 4, 2020, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Mario Victor Leonen)
In Michael John Robles vs. People of the Philippines, GR 223810, Aug. 2, 2023, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the Supreme Court explained that a “liability for a road accident is not determined simply by who among the parties had the right of way or was in the proper lane. Rather, the same is determined by various factors, which include, among others, the relative distances and respective speeds of the vehicles, or who among the parties had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.”
The foregoing principles find utmost relevance here. First, if from every indication it can be shown that it was the driver of the motorcycle’s act of counterflowing that caused the accident, or that a causal connection between his traffic violation and the accident can be reasonably drawn, then, the driver of the motorcycle may be presumed negligent. He will shoulder the damages he caused on himself. However, negligence may also be ascribed to the driver of the SUV, in view of the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance, supposing said driver had enough time to either slow down — if not stop altogether his vehicle, or steer clear of the motorcycle to prevent the collision. If this be the case, he will be liable for the damages caused to the motorcycle driver, but his liability will be mitigated due to the contributory negligence of the motorcycle driver following Article 2179 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
