Transcript
Lara v. Valencia
June 30, 1958
LOURDES J. LARA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS
VS.
BRIGIDO R. VALENCIA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
NATURE: Action for damages
SUMMARY: Deceased Lara went to Parang to classify Valencia's logs but during said period he contracted malaria fever so he wanted
to return to Davao immediately. Since there were no available buses, he, together with other passengers, asked for a ride in Valencia's
pick-up up to Cotabato. However, there were still no buses so they continued towards Davao in Valencia's pick-up. On the way, Lara,
fell and suffered fatal injuries which caused his death. CFI held Valencia civilly liable. SC: Reverse CFI. Lara is only an accommodation
passenger and therefore, Valencia is only required to observe ordinary care, and is not in duty bound to exercise extraordinary
diligence as required of a common carrier by our law. There is nothing there to indicate that Valencia has acted with negligence or
without taking the precaution that an ordinary prudent man would have taken under similar circumstances. Incident can be attributed to
lack of care on the part of the deceased considering that the pick-up was open and he was then in a crouching position.
DOCTRINE: The owner or operator of an automobile owes the duty to an invited guest to exercise reasonable care in its operation, and
not unreasonably to expose him to danger and injury by increasing the hazard of travel. A passenger must observe the diligence of a
good father of a family to avoid injury to himself", which means that if the injury to the passenger has been proximately caused by his
own negligence, the carrier cannot be held liable.
FACTS:
Deceased Demetrio Lara, Sr. was an inspector of the Bureau of Forestry stationed in Davao with an annual salary of P1,800
while defendant Valencia is engaged in the business of exporting logs from his lumber concession in Cotabato.
Lara went to said concession upon instructions of his chief to classify the logs of Valencia which were about to be exported
and loaded on a ship anchored in the port of Parang. The work of Lara lasted for 6 days during which he contracted malaria
fever and for that reason he evinced a desire to return immediately to Davao. However, at that time, there was no available
bus that could take him back to Davao
Jan 9, 1954 (AM): Lara, who was then in a hurry to return to Davao, asked Valencia if he could take him in his pick-up
as there was then no other means of transportation, to which Valencia agreed, and in that same morning the pick-up left
Parang bound for Davao taking along 6 passengers who were gov't employees, including Lara.
o The pick-up has a front seat where the driver and 2 passengers can be accommodated and the back has a steel
flooring enclosed with a steel walling of 16 to 17 inches tall on the sides and with a 19 inches tall walling at the back.
Before leaving Parang, the sitting arrangement was as follows:
o Valencia was at the wheel and seated with him in the front seat were Mrs. Valencia and Nicanor Quinain
o On the back of the pick-up were 2 improvised benches placed on each side, and seated on the right bench were
Ricardo Alojipan and Antonio Lagahit, and on the left one Bernardo and Pastor Geronimo.
o A person by the name of Leoning was seated on a box located on the left side while in the middle Lara sat on a
bag.
Before leaving Parang, Valencia invited Lara to sit with him on the front seat but Lara declined. It was their understanding that
upon reaching barrio Samoay, Cotabato, the passengers (including Lara) were to alight and take a bus bound for Davao, but
when they arrived at that place, only Bernardo alighted and the other passengers requested Valencia to allow them to ride with
him up to Davao because there was then no available bus that they could take in going to that place. Valencia again
accommodated the passengers.
When they continued their trip, the sitting arrangement of the passengers remained the same, Lara being seated on a bag in
the middle with his arms on a suitcase and his head covered by a jacket.
Upon reaching Km. 96, barrio Catidtuan, Lara accidentally fell from the pick-up and as a result he suffered serious
injuries.
Valencia stopped the pick-up to see what happened to Lara. He sought the help of the residents of that place and applied
water to Lara but to no avail.
They brought Lara to the nearest place where they could find a doctor and not having found any they took him to St. Joseph's
Clinic of Kidapawan. But when Lara arrived he was already dead.
From there they proceeded to Davao City and immediately notified the local authorities. An investigation was made regarding
the circumstances surrounding the death of Lara but no criminal action was taken against defendant.
An action for damages was brought by plaintiffs (relatives of Lara) against Valencia in CFI of Davao for Lara's death allegedly
caused by the negligent act of Valencia.
Valencia denied the charge of negligence and set up certain affirmative defenses and a counterclaim.
CFI: Valencia failed to observe ordinary care or diligence in transporting the deceased from Parang to Davao. Pay Lara et al:
(a) P10k (MD) (b) P3k (ED) and (c) P1k (AF)
o The journey from Cotabato to Davao is not less than 8 hours, the road is in poor condition, uneven, with protruding
rocks and potholes that make up not stable in their vehicle. Lara was sick of a certain severity, had the body and
swollen face, attacked by malaria, headaches and rashes on the face and body.
o Valencia ought to know that it was extremely dangerous to carry 5 passengers in the back of the pick-up, particularly
for the health of Lara. He did not exercise the proper precautions to avoid possible fatal accidents.
o Lara's refusal to occupy the front seat does not constitute a defense because Valencia, knowing the poor health of
Lara, should not have allowed him to return to Davao in his pickup. If he wanted to accommodate Lara, he should
have provided Lara of an automobile to return to Davao or left Lara in Samoay to catch a passenger bus from
Cotabato to Davao. (di ako sure, Spanish e)
Both parties appealed to SC because the damages claimed in the complaint exceed the sum of P50,000.
o Lara et al: CFI erred in disregarding their claim of P41,400 as AD and P3000 as AF
o Valencia: Death of Demetrio Lara, Sr. was not due to his negligence but to unavoidable accident.
ISSUE: Whether Valencia as driver & owner of the vehicle should be held liable for the death of his passenger, Lara Sr.? (NO)
RATIO:
The accident occurred not due to the negligence of Valencia but to circumstances beyond his control and so he should be
exempt from liability.
Deceased Lara, as well as his companions who rode in the pick-up of Valencia were merely accommodation passengers
who paid nothing for the service and so they can be considered as invited guests within the meaning of the law.
As accommodation passengers or invited guests, Valencia as owner and driver of the pick-up owes to them merely the duty
to exercise reasonable care so that they may be transported safely to their destination.
OBLIGATION OF OWNER TO INVITED GUESTS/ACCOMMODATION PASSENGERS: REASONABLE/ORDINARY CARE
The owner or operator of an automobile owes the duty to an invited guest to exercise reasonable care in its
operation, and not unreasonably to expose him to danger and injury by increasing the hazard of travel.
An owner of an automobile owes a guest the duty to exercise ordinary or reasonable care to avoid injuring him.
5 Am. Jur., 626-627: Since one riding in an automobile is no less a guest because he asked for the privilege of doing so, the
same obligation of care is imposed upon the driver as in the case of one expressly invited to ride".
Valencia, therefore, is only required to observe ordinary care, and is not in duty bound to exercise extraordinary
diligence as required of a common carrier by our law (Articles 1755 and 1756, new Civil Code).
ORDINARY CARE: PRESENT
Facts found CFI are not sufficient to show that Valencia has failed to take the precaution necessary to conduct his passengers
safely to their place of destination. There is nothing there to indicate that Valencia has acted with negligence or without
taking the precaution that an ordinary prudent man would have taken under similar circumstances.
Lara went to the lumber concession of Valencia in answer to a call of duty which he was bound to perform because of the
requirement of his office and he contracted the malaria fever in the course of the performance of that duty.
Valencia was not in duty bound to take the deceased in his own pick-up to Davao because from Parang to Cotabato there was
a line of transportation that regularly makes trips for the public, and if Valencia agreed to take the deceased in his own car, it
was only to accommodate him considering his feverish condition and his request that he be so accommodated.
The passengers who rode in the pick-up of Valencia took their respective seats therein at their own choice and not upon
indication of Valencia with the particularity that Valencia invited the deceased to sit with him in the front seat but which
invitation the deceased declined.
It was Lara's own desire to be at the back so that he could sit on a bag and travel in a, reclining position because such was
more convenient for him due to his feverish condition.
Unfortunate happening was only due to an unforeseen accident caused by the fact that at the time Lara was half asleep and
must have fallen from the pick-up when it ran into some stones causing it to jerk considering that the road was then bumpy,
rough and full of stones.
CFI: Pick-up was running at more than 40 kmh
SC: Not supported by the evidence. This is a mere surmise made by CFI considering the time the pick-up left barrio Samoay
and the time the accident occured in relation to the distance covered by the pick-up. And even if this is correct, such speed is
not unreasonable considering that they were traveling on a national road and the traffic then was not heavy.
DUTY OF PASSENGER: Incident can be attributed to lack of care on the part of the deceased considering that the pick-up
was open and he was then in a crouching position. "A passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family
to avoid injury to himself" (Article 1761, new Civil Code), which means that if the injury to the passenger has been
proximately caused by his own negligence, the carrier cannot be held liable.
DISPOSITIVE: Decision appealed from is reversed.