Lara vs. Valencia

A driver who transports a passenger gratuitously owes only the duty to exercise reasonable or ordinary care in the operation of the vehicle and not unreasonably to expose the guest to danger and injury. The driver is not held to the extraordinary diligence required of a common carrier, and is not liable for injuries caused by an unforeseen accident where he took the precautions that an ordinary prudent man would have taken under similar circumstances.

The plaintiffs are the heirs of Demetrio Lara, Sr., an inspector of the Bureau of Forestry stationed in Davao with an annual salary of P1,800. The defendant, Brigido R. Valencia, was engaged in the business of exporting logs from his lumber concession in Cotabato. Lara went to the defendant's concession upon instructions of his chief to classify logs that were about to be loaded on a ship anchored in the port of Parang. The case concerns the standard of care owed by a private vehicle owner who gratuitously transports passengers, as distinguished from the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers under the Civil Code.

Demetrio Lara, Sr., an inspector of the Bureau of Forestry stationed in Davao, went to the lumber concession of Brigido R. Valencia in Parang, Cotabato upon instructions of his chief to classify logs that were about to be loaded on a ship anchored in the port of Parang. Lara's work lasted six days, during which he contracted malaria fever. On the morning of January 9, 1954, Lara, who was in a hurry to return to Davao, asked the defendant if he could take him in his pick-up as there was no other means of transportation. The defendant agreed, and the pick-up left Parang bound for Davao with six passengers, including Lara.

The pick-up had a front seat accommodating the driver and two passengers, and a back with a steel flooring enclosed with steel walling 16 to 17 inches tall on the sides and 19 inches tall at the back. Before leaving Parang, the defendant was at the wheel with Mrs. Valencia and Nicanor Quinain in the front seat. At the back, on two improvised benches placed on each side, sat Ricardo Alojipan and Antonio Lagahit on the right bench, and Bernardo and Pastor Geronimo on the left. A person named Leoning sat on a box on the left side, while Lara sat on a bag in the middle. The defendant invited Lara to sit in the front seat, but Lara declined. It was their understanding that upon reaching barrio Samoay, Cotabato, the passengers would alight and take a bus bound for Davao, but when they arrived, only Bernardo alighted. The other passengers requested the defendant to allow them to ride with him up to Davao because there was no available bus, and the defendant again accommodated them.

When they continued their trip, the sitting arrangement remained the same, Lara 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 suffered serious injuries. Valencia stopped the pick-up, sought the help of residents, and applied water to Lara to no avail. They brought Lara to the nearest place where they could find a doctor, and not having found any, took him to St. Joseph's Clinic of Kidapawan, but Lara was already dead upon arrival. They proceeded to Davao City and notified the local authorities. An investigation was made regarding the circumstances of Lara's death, but no criminal action was taken against the defendant.

The trial court found that the defendant's export business had a volume of P1,200, that Lara was a government employee not paid by the defendant, that Lara had not slept the whole night on his last day of work, and that he was attacked by malaria with a swollen face and body, headaches, and eruptions on his face and body. The trial court also found that the trip from Cotabato to Davao took no less than eight hours over a road in bad condition, uneven, with protruding stones and potholes, making the vehicle unstable. The trial court concluded that the defendant should have known it was extremely dangerous to carry five passengers in the back of the pick-up, particularly for Lara's health, and that Lara's refusal to occupy the front seat did not constitute a defense.

• Actual Damages: Plaintiffs claimed that the court a quo erred in disregarding their claim of P41,400 as actual or compensatory damages.
• Attorney's Fees: Plaintiffs claimed that the court a quo erred in awarding only P1,000 as attorney's fees instead of the P3,000 agreed upon between plaintiffs and their counsel.

• Negligence: Defendant disputed the finding of the court a quo that the death of Demetrio Lara, Sr. was due to the defendant's negligence.
• Unavoidable Accident: Defendant contended that the court should have declared that the death of Lara was due to an unavoidable accident.
• Damages: Defendant disputed the portion of the judgment ordering him to pay moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees.

• Standard of Care: Whether the defendant, as a gratuitous carrier of the deceased, failed to observe the ordinary care or diligence required in transporting the deceased from Parang to Davao.
• Award of Damages: Whether the trial court properly awarded moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees to the plaintiffs.

• Standard of Care: No. The defendant did not fail to observe ordinary care or diligence. As an accommodation passenger or invited guest, the deceased was owed only the duty of reasonable care, and the evidence failed to show that the defendant acted negligently or without taking the precautions an ordinary prudent man would have taken under similar circumstances.
• Award of Damages: No. Because the accident occurred not due to the negligence of the defendant but due to circumstances beyond his control, the defendant should be exempt from liability, and the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees was reversed.

• Standard of Care: The deceased and his companions who rode in the defendant's pick-up were merely accommodation passengers who paid nothing for the service, and thus they can be considered invited guests within the meaning of the law. As such, the defendant, as owner and driver of the pick-up, owed them merely the duty to exercise reasonable care so that they may be transported safely to their destination. The rule established by the weight of authority is that the owner or operator of an automobile owes an invited guest the duty to exercise ordinary or reasonable care to avoid injuring him. The defendant was only required to observe ordinary care, and was not in duty bound to exercise extraordinary diligence as required of a common carrier under Articles 1755 and 1756 of the new Civil Code. Even admitting as true the facts found by the trial court, they are not sufficient to show that the defendant failed to take the precaution necessary to conduct his passengers safely to their destination. Lara went to the lumber concession in answer to a call of duty and contracted malaria in the course of that duty. The defendant was not in duty bound to take the deceased in his own pick-up, and if he agreed to do so, it was only to accommodate him considering his feverish condition. The passengers took their respective seats at their own choice, and the defendant even invited the deceased to sit in the front seat, which invitation the deceased declined, likely because he preferred to sit on a bag and travel in a reclining position due to his feverish condition. All the circumstances clearly indicate that the defendant had done what a reasonable prudent man would have done under the circumstances. The unfortunate happening was due to an unforeseen accident, as the deceased 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 bumpy, rough, and full of stones. The trial court's finding that the pick-up was running at more than 40 kilometers per hour was a mere surmise not supported by the evidence, and even if correct, such speed was not unreasonable on a national road with light traffic. The incident may be attributed to lack of care on the part of the deceased, considering that the pick-up was open and he was in a crouching position. Under Article 1761 of the new Civil Code, a passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid injury to himself, and if the injury is proximately caused by his own negligence, the carrier cannot be held liable.
• Award of Damages: Because the accident occurred not due to the negligence of the defendant but to circumstances beyond his control, the defendant should be exempt from liability. Consequently, the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees cannot stand.

• Duty of Care to a Gratuitous Passenger — The owner or operator of an automobile owes an invited guest the duty to exercise ordinary or reasonable care in its operation, and not unreasonably to expose him to danger and injury by increasing the hazard of travel. One riding in an automobile is no less a guest because he asked for the privilege of doing so, and the same obligation of care is imposed upon the driver as in the case of one expressly invited to ride. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the defendant, who transported the deceased gratuitously, was only required to observe ordinary care, not the extraordinary diligence required of common carriers.
• Unavoidable Accident — An accident is unavoidable when it occurs due to circumstances beyond the control of the party charged, without negligence on his part. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that the deceased's fall from the pick-up was due to an unforeseen accident, as he was half asleep and must have fallen when the vehicle ran into stones causing it to jerk on a bumpy, rough road.
• Contributory Negligence of the Passenger — Under Article 1761 of the new Civil Code, a passenger must observe the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid injury to himself. If the injury to the passenger has been proximately caused by his own negligence, the carrier cannot be held liable. The Court applied this principle in attributing the incident to the deceased's own lack of care, considering that the pick-up was open and he was in a crouching position.

• "The rule is established by the weight of authority that 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. This rule, as frequently stated by the courts, is that an owner of an automobile owes a guest the duty to exercise ordinary or reasonable care to avoid injuring him. 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." — This passage, quoted from 5 Am. Jur. 626-627, defines the controlling standard of care owed to a gratuitous passenger and is the doctrinal foundation of the decision.
• "Defendant, 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)." — This statement distinguishes the standard of care for a gratuitous carrier from that of a common carrier, which is central to the Court's reasoning.
• "All things considered, we are persuaded to conclude that the accident occurred not due to the negligence of defendant but to circumstances beyond his control and so he should be exempt from liability." — This is the ratio decidendi of the case, stating the conclusion that the defendant is exempt from liability because the accident was due to circumstances beyond his control.
• "Indeed, the law provides that '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." — This passage applies the principle of contributory negligence to the passenger, supporting the Court's finding that the deceased's own lack of care may have caused the accident.

• 5 Am. Jur. 626-627 — Cited as the weight of authority establishing the rule that the owner or operator of an automobile owes an invited guest the duty to exercise reasonable or ordinary care in its operation. This authority was followed in defining the standard of care applicable to the defendant as a gratuitous carrier.

• Article 1755, New Civil Code — Requires common carriers to carry passengers safely with the utmost diligence of very cautious persons. The Court held this provision inapplicable because the defendant was not a common carrier but a gratuitous carrier owing only ordinary care.
• Article 1756, New Civil Code — Provides that common carriers are presumed to have been negligent in case of death or injury to passengers. The Court held this provision inapplicable for the same reason.
• Article 1761, New Civil Code — Requires a passenger to observe the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid injury to himself. The Court applied this provision to attribute the accident to the deceased's own lack of care, as he was in a crouching position in an open pick-up.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Reyes, A., Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concurred.