CARPIO, J.

:
G.R. No. 153076. June 21, 2007.*
LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (LADECO),
HENRY BERENGUEL, and APOLONIO R. DEOCAMPO, petitioners, vs. MICHAEL The Case
RAYMOND ANGALA, respondent. Before the Court is a petition for review1 assailing the 25 July 2001 Decision2 and 11
Quasi-Delicts; Torts; Motor Vehicles; Doctrine of Last Clear Chance; Words and March 2002 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51134.
Phrases; The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent
but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is The Antecedent Facts
impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the On 4 May 1993, at about 2:45 p.m., a Datsun crewcab with plate no. PEC-903 driven by
last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so is chargeable with the loss; A Apolonio Deocampo (Deocampo) bumped into a 1958 Chevy pick-up with plate no.
U-turn is done at a much slower speed to avoid skidding and overturning, compared to MAM-475 owned by Michael Raymond Angala (respondent) and driven by Bernulfo
running straight ahead.—Since both parties are at fault in this case, the doctrine of Borres (Borres). Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation (LADECO)
last clear chance applies. The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both owned the crewcab which was assigned to its manager Manuel Mendez (Mendez).
parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the Deocampo was the driver and bodyguard of Mendez. Both vehicles were running along
other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, Rafael Castillo St., Agdao, Davao City heading north towards Lanang, Davao City. The
the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so is left door, front left fender, and part of the front bumper of the pick-up were damaged.
chargeable with the loss. In this case, Deocampo had the last clear chance to avoid the Respondent filed an action for Quasi-Delict, Damages, and Attorney’s Fees against
collision. Since Deocampo was driving the rear vehicle, he had full control of the LADECO, its administrative officer Henry Berenguel4 (Berenguel) and Deocampo.
situation since he was in a position to observe the vehicle in front of him. Deocampo Respondent alleged that his pick-up was slowing down to about five to ten kilometers
had the responsibility of avoiding bumping the vehicle in front of him. A U-turn is done per hour (kph) and was making a left turn preparatory to turning south when it was
at a much slower speed to avoid skidding and overturning, compared to running bumped from behind by the crewcab which was running at around 60 to 70 kph. The
straight ahead. Deocampo could have avoided the vehicle if he was not driving very fast crewcab stopped 21 meters from the point of impact. Respondent alleged that he heard
while following the pick-up. Deocampo was not only driving fast, he also admitted that a screeching sound before the impact. Respondent was seated beside the driver and
he did not step on the brakes even upon seeing the pick-up. He only stepped on the was looking at the speedometer when the accident took place. Respondent testified that
brakes after the collision. Borres made a signal because he noticed a blinking light while looking at the
Same; Same; Same; Labor Law; Where the employer failed to substantiate speedometer.5
allegation that it exercised due diligence in the supervision and selection of its Respondent sent a demand letter to LADECO for the payment of the damages he
employees.—LADECO alleges that it should not be held jointly and severally liable incurred because of the accident but he did not receive any reply. Thus, respondent
with Deocampo because it exercised due diligence in the supervision and selection of its filed the case against LADECO, Berenguel, and Deocampo.
employees. Aside from this statement, LADECO did not proffer any proof to show how Deocampo alleged that the pick-up and the crewcab he was driving were both
it exercised due diligence in the supervision and selection of its employees. LADECO running at about 40 kph. The pick-up was running along the outer lane. The pick-up
did not show its policy in hiring its drivers, or the manner in which it supervised its was about 10 meters away when it made a U-turn towards the left. Deocampo testified
drivers. LADECO failed to substantiate its allegation that it exercised due diligence in that he did not see any signal from the pick-up.6 Deocampo alleged that he tried to
the supervision and selection of its employees. Hence, we hold LADECO solidarily avoid the pick-up but he was unable to avoid the collision. Deocampo stated that he did
liable with Deocampo. not apply the brakes because he knew the collision was unavoidable. Deocampo
Damages; Moral damages are awarded to allow a plaintiff to obtain means, admitted that he stepped on the brakes only after the collision.
diversion, or amusement that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has The Ruling of the Trial Court
undergone due to the defendant’s culpable action.—We sustain the award of moral In its 3 March 1995 Decision,7 the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 15 (trial
damages. Moral damages are awarded to allow a plaintiff to obtain means, diversion, court) ruled:
or amusement that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone due to “WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendants LADECO and
the defendant’s culpable action. The trial court found that respondent, who was on Apolonio Deocampo to solidarily pay the plaintiffs the following sums:
board the pick-up when the collision took place, suffered shock, serious anxiety, and
fright when the crewcab bumped his pick-up. We sustain the trial court and the Court
of Appeals in ruling that respondent sufficiently showed that he suffered shock, serious 1. 1.Twenty three thousand two hundred (P23,200.00) pesos as actual damages.
anxiety, and fright which entitle him to moral damages. 2. 2.Ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos as moral damages.
Same; Attorney’s Fees; Judgments; Awards of attorney’s fees must be based on 3. 3.Ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos as attorney’s fees.
findings of fact and of law and stated in the decision of the trial court.—Both the trial 4. 4.Costs of suit.
court and the Court of Appeals failed to give any justification for the award of
attorney’s fees. Awards of attorney’s fees must be based on findings of fact and of law SO ORDERED.”8
and stated in the decision of the trial court. Further, no premium should be placed on The trial court found that the crewcab was running very fast while following the pick-
the right to litigate. Hence, we delete the award of attorney’s fees. up and that the crewcab’s speed was the proximate cause of the accident. The trial
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of court observed that the crewcab stopped 21 meters away from the point of impact
Appeals. despite Deocampo’s claim that he stepped on the brakes moments after the collision.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. The trial court ruled that Deocampo had the last opportunity to avoid the accident.
J.V. Yap Law Office for petitioners. The trial court found that Berenguel was not liable because he was not the owner
Rodolfo B. Ta-asan for respondent. of the crewcab.
 LADECO and Deocampo (petitioners)9 filed a motion for reconsideration. The trial “Art. 2185. Unless there is proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a
court denied petitioners’ motion in its 13 June 1995 Order.10 motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any
Petitioners filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. traffic regulation.”
We rule that both parties were negligent in this case. Borres was at the outer lane
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
when he executed a U-turn. Following Section 45(b) of RA 4136, Borres should have
The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the trial court’s decision.
stayed at the inner lane which is the lane nearest to the center of the highway.
The Court of Appeals sustained the finding of the trial court that Deocampo was
However, Deocampo was equally negligent. Borres slowed down the pick-up
negligent. The Court of Appeals
preparatory to executing the U-turn. Deocampo should have also slowed down when
applied the doctrine of last clear chance and ruled that Deocampo had the
the pick-up slowed down. Deocampo admitted that he noticed the pick-up when it was
responsibility of avoiding the pick-up.
still about 20 meters away from him.13 Vehicular traffic was light at the time of the
The Court of Appeals also sustained the solidary liability of LADECO and
incident. The pick-up and the crewcab were the only vehicles on the road.14 Deocampo
Deocampo. The Court of Appeals ruled that under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the
could have avoided the crewcab if he was not driving very fast before the collision, as
negligence of the driver is presumed to be the negligence of the owner of the vehicle.
found by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals. We sustain this finding since
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals’ Decision reads:
factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are conclusive
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit, and
and binding on this Court.15 Further, the crewcab stopped 21 meters from the point of
the assailed Decision of the Court a quo in Civil Case No. 22067-93 is AFFIRMED
impact. It would not have happened if Deocampo was not driving very fast.
in toto. Costs against defendants-appellants.
SO ORDERED.”11 Doctrine of Last Clear Chance Applies
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 11 March 2002 Resolution, the Since both parties are at fault in this case, the doctrine of last clear chance applies.
Court of Appeals denied the motion for lack of merit. The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but
Hence, the petition before this Court. the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is
impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the
The Issues
last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so is chargeable with the
The issues before the Court are the following:
loss.16 In this case, Deocampo had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. Since
Deocampo was driving the rear vehicle, he had full control of the situation since he was
1. 1.Whether the provisions of Section 45(b) of Republic Act No. 4136 12 (RA in a position to observe the vehicle in front of him. 17 Deocampo had the responsibility of
4136) and Article 2185 of the Civil Code apply to this case; and avoiding bumping the vehicle in front of him.18 A U-turn is done at a much slower
2. 2.Whether respondent is entitled to the damages awarded. speed to avoid skidding and overturning, compared to running straight
ahead.19 Deocampo could have avoided the vehicle if he was not driving very fast while
following the pick-up. Deocampo was not only driving fast, he also admitted that he did
The Ruling of this Court not step on the brakes even upon seeing the pick-up. He only stepped on the brakes
The petition is partly meritorious. after the collision.
Both Drivers are Negligent Petitioners are Solidarily Liable
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that Deocampo was at fault LADECO alleges that it should not be held jointly and severally liable with Deocampo
because he was driving very fast prior to the collision. The Court of Appeals sustained because it exercised due diligence in the supervision and selection of its employees.
the trial court’s finding that Deocampo was running more than the normal cruising Aside from this statement, LADECO did not proffer any proof to show how it exercised
speed. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals noted that the crewcab stopped 21 due diligence in the supervision and selection of its employees. LADECO did not show
meters away from the point of impact. Deocampo admitted that he stepped on the its policy in hiring its drivers, or the manner in which it supervised its drivers.
brakes only after the collision. LADECO failed to substantiate its allegation that it exercised due diligence in the
Petitioners allege that Borres did not take the proper lane before executing the U- supervision and selection of its employees.
turn. Petitioners allege that Borres violated Section 45(b) of RA 4136 and it was his Hence, we hold LADECO solidarily liable with Deocampo.
recklessness that was the proximate cause of the accident.
Respondent is Entitled to Moral Damages
Section 45(b) of RA 4136 states:
“Sec. 45. Turning at intersections. x x x We sustain the award of moral damages. Moral damages are awarded to allow a
plaintiff to obtain means, diversion, or amusement that will serve to alleviate the
moral suffering he has undergone due to the defendant’s culpable action. 20 The trial
(b) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left shall approach such intersection court found that respondent, who was on board the pickup when the collision took
in the lane for traffic to the right of and nearest to the center line of the highway, and, place, suffered shock, serious anxiety, and fright when the crewcab bumped his pick-
in turning, shall pass to the left of the center of the intersection, except that, upon up. We sustain the trial court and the Court of Appeals in ruling that respondent
highways laned for traffic and upon one-way highways, a left turn shall be made from sufficiently showed that he suffered shock, serious anxiety, and fright which entitle
the left lane of traffic in the direction in which the vehicle is proceeding.” him to moral damages.
Petitioners further allege that since Borres was violating a traffic rule at the time of Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals failed to give any justification for the
the accident, respondent and Borres were the parties at fault. Petitioners cite Article award of attorney’s fees. Awards of attorney’s fees must be based on findings of fact
2185 of the Civil Code, thus: and of law and stated in the decision of the trial court.21Further, no premium should be
placed on the right to litigate.22 Hence, we delete the award of attorney’s fees.
 WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the 25 July 2001 Decision and 11 March 2002
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51134 with MODIFICATION by
deleting the award of attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED.