FACTS:

The case involves a vehicular collision that occurred on November 15, 1987, at approximately 11:30 in the morning. Rogelio Monterola, a licensed driver, was riding his Suzuki motorcycle on the right lane of a dusty national road in Bislig, Surigao del Sur, going towards Mangagoy. At the same time, a cargo van of LBC Air Cargo Incorporated, driven by defendant Jaime Tano Jr., was heading in the opposite direction towards the Bislig Airport. On board the van were passengers Fernando Yu, the manager of LBC Air Cargo, and his son.

As Tano approached the vicinity of the airport road entrance, he saw two vehicles racing each other from the opposite direction. Due to the poor visibility caused by the stirred cloud of dust, Tano stopped his vehicle and waited for the racing vehicles to pass. Instead of waiting for the dust to settle, Tano proceeded to make a sharp left turn towards the airport road. However, when he reached the center of the right lane, Monterola's motorcycle suddenly emerged from the dust and collided head-on with the right side of the LBC van. Monterola sustained severe injuries and died as a result.

A criminal case for "homicide thru reckless imprudence" was filed against Tano, while a civil suit was brought by the heirs of Monterola against Tano, Fernando Yu, and LBC Air Cargo Incorporated to claim damages. The Regional Trial Court dismissed both cases on the ground that the negligence of Monterola was the proximate cause of the accident. The private respondent appealed the dismissal of the civil case to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision and ordered Tano and LBC Air Cargo Incorporated to pay damages to the heirs of Monterola. The petition for review questions the decision of the Court of Appeals, raising the issue of negligence of Tano and the proximate cause of the accident.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Jaime Tano Jr. was negligent in the driving of his vehicle and in failing to give a signal to approaching vehicles of his intention to make a left turn.

2. Whether the proximate cause of the accident was the victim's negligence in the driving of his motorcycle in a very fast speed and thus hitting the petitioner's cargo van.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals erred in finding that Jaime Tano Jr. was negligent in the driving of his vehicle and in failing to give a signal to approaching vehicles of his intention to make a left turn. The Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the proximate cause of the accident was the victim's negligence in the driving of his motorcycle in a very fast speed and thus hitting the petitioner's cargo van.

PRINCIPLES:

• The driver of any vehicle upon a highway, before starting, stopping or turning from a direct line, is called upon to first see that such movement can be made in safety, and whenever the operation of any other vehicle approaching may be affected by such movement, shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicles. (Doctrine of signals)

• The doctrine of proximate cause establishes that the proximate cause of an injury is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. (Doctrine of proximate cause)

• The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the accident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences thereof. (Doctrine of last clear chance)