G.R. No. 112160.

 February 28, 2000.* September 3, 1982 - Mañosca was able to mortgage the same parcels of Asian Savings Bank (ASB) had the last clear chance. Since it failed to
OSMUNDO S. CANLAS and ANGELINA CANLAS, land for P100,000.00 to a certain Attorney Manuel Magno, with the help of prevent the fraud, ASB must bear the loss.
petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ASIAN SAVINGS BANK, impostors who misrepresented themselves as Sps. Canlas.
MAXIMO C. CONTRERAS and VICENTE MAÑOSCA, respondents. Doctrine of Last Clear Chance;  The rule is that the antecedent
September 29, 1982 - Asian Savings Bank (ASB) granted Manosca a negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance;  The rule is that the antecedent P500,000.00 loan, using subject parcels of land as security, and with the caused by the supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last
negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages involvement of the same impostors. fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due
caused by the supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last diligence.—–
fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due Unpaid loan. Asian Savings Bank extrajudicially foreclosed the real
diligence.—– estate mortgage. Under the doctrine of last clear chance, “which is applicable here, the
respondent bank must suffer the resulting loss.
Under the doctrine of last clear chance, “which is applicable here, the January 15, 1983 - Canlas wrote a letter informing Asian Savings Bank
respondent bank must suffer the resulting loss. that the execution of subject mortgage over the two parcels of land in In essence, the doctrine of last clear chance is to the effect that where:
question was without their (Canlas spouses) authority, and request that
In essence, the doctrine of last clear chance is to the effect that where: steps be taken to annul and/or revoke the questioned mortgage. - both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is
appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or
- both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is January 18, 1983 - Canlas also wrote the office of Sheriff Maximo C.
appreciably later in point of time than that of the other, or Contreras, asking that the auction sale scheduled on February 3, 1983 be - where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence
cancelled or held in abeyance. brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the
- where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do
brought about the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the But Sheriff Contreras and Asian Savings Bank refused to heed petitioner so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom.
last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but failed to do Canlas’ stance and proceeded with the scheduled auction sale.
so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. In the case at bar:
February 3, 1983 – Sps. Canlas instituted the present case for annulment
PURISIMA, J.: of deed of real estate mortgage with prayer for the issuance of a writ of Assuming that Canlas was negligent in giving Mañosca the opportunity to
FACTS: preliminary injunction perpetrate the fraud, by entrusting to latter the owner’s copy of the transfer
certificates of title of subject parcels of land, it cannot be denied that the
August, 1982 – Canlas (petitioner) and Mañosca (respondent) decided to RTC bank had the last clear chance to prevent the fraud, by the simple
venture in business and to raise the capital needed therefor. May 23, 1983 - restrained the Sheriff Contreras from issuing the expedient of faithfully complying with the requirements for banks to
corresponding Certificate of Sheriffs Sale. ascertain the identity of the persons transacting with them.
Canlas executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing Mañosca to
mortgage two parcels of land situated in San Dionisio, (BF Homes) Vicente Mañosca was declared in default (failure to file his answer) For not observing the degree of diligence required of banking
Parañaque, Metro Manila, each lot with semi-concrete residential house institutions (extraordinary diligence – more than that of a good father of
existing thereon (1 parcel named after him, 1 parcel named after Canlas’ June 1, 1989 – RTC annulled subject deed of mortgage. the family), whose business is impressed with public interest, respondent
wife). - REM null and void Asian Savings Bank has to bear the loss sued upon.
- public auction sale illegal and without binding effect
Subsequently, Canlas agreed to sell the said parcels of land to Mañosca for - ASB, Contreras, and Manosca, jointly and severally, to pay the Resolutory Portion
and in consideration of P850,000.00. plaintiffs the sum of P20,000.00 representing attorney’s fees
- P500,000.00 of which shall be payable within one week, and CA Decision set aside. RTC Decision reinstated.
CA
- the balance of P350,000.00 to serve as his (Canlas’) investment in September 30, 1983 – RTC decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED RTC annulled subject deed of mortgage.
the business. and SET ASIDE and a new one is hereby entered DISMISSING the - REM null and void
complaint of the spouses Osmundo and Angelina Canlas - public auction sale illegal and without binding effect
Canlas delivered to Vicente Mañosca the TCTs of the parcels of land
involved. Mañosca, as his part of the transaction, issued two postdated ISSUE: Modification: Canlas not deserving of atty’s fees.
checks in favor of Osmundo Canlas in the amounts of P40,000.00 and Who had the last clear chance to prevent the fraud? BANK
P460,000.00, respectively, but it turned out that the check covering the Since fraud happened, who should bear the loss? BANK Osmundo Canlas was undoubtedly negligent, which negligence made them
bigger amount was not sufficiently funded. (petitioners) undeserving of an award of Attorney’s fees.
RULING: