[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
528 views2 pages

Lara, Et Al. vs. Valencia

1. Demetrio Lara was an inspector who was transported in Brigido Valencia's pickup truck from Parang to Davao as an accommodation passenger after completing work at Valencia's logging concession. 2. During the trip, Lara fell from the open-air pickup and suffered serious injuries that led to his death. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that Valencia was not negligent and exercised ordinary care as required, as Lara's death was due to circumstances beyond Valencia's control and likely due to Lara's own lack of care while in a crouching position in the open pickup. Valencia was therefore not liable.

Uploaded by

Cloudy Mari
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
528 views2 pages

Lara, Et Al. vs. Valencia

1. Demetrio Lara was an inspector who was transported in Brigido Valencia's pickup truck from Parang to Davao as an accommodation passenger after completing work at Valencia's logging concession. 2. During the trip, Lara fell from the open-air pickup and suffered serious injuries that led to his death. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that Valencia was not negligent and exercised ordinary care as required, as Lara's death was due to circumstances beyond Valencia's control and likely due to Lara's own lack of care while in a crouching position in the open pickup. Valencia was therefore not liable.

Uploaded by

Cloudy Mari
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

III.

Transportation of Passengers

1. Extra Ordinary Diligence b) Accommodation Passenger

Lourdes Lara, et al vs. Brigido Valencia

GR No. L-9907 June 30, 1958

www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1958/jun1958/gr_l-9907_1958.html

FACTS:

The deceased. Demetrio Lara, Sr., was an inspector of the Bureau of Forestry
stationed in Davao.
Defendant, Brigido 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 loaded on a ship anchored in the port of
Parang. His work lasted for six days during which he contracted malaria fever.
One morning, Lara asked Valencia if he could take him in his pick up to Davao
as there was then no other means of transportation, to which Valencia
agreed.
The pick-up left Parang bound to Davao taking along six passengers including
Lara. Lara was invited by the defendant to come sit with him on the front
seat, but he declined. During the trip, Lara sat at the back of the pick-up, on a
bag in the middle with his arms on a suitcase and his head cove red by a
jacket.
Upon reaching barrio Catidtuan, Lara accidentally fell from the pick-up and
then suffered serious injuries. They brought Lara to the nearest place where
they could find a doctor and not having to found any, they took him to St.
Josephs Clinic of Kidapawan. But when Lara arrived, he was already dead.
It therefore appears that the deceased as well as his companions who rode in
the pick-up of defendant, were merely accommodation passengers who paid
nothing for the service, and so they can be considered as invited guests.
As accommodation passengers or invited guests, defendant 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.
Defendant is only required to observe ordinary care, and is not duty bound to
exercise extraordinary diligence as required of a common carrier by the law.

ISSUE:
o Whether or not the defendant failed to observe ordinary care or diligence in
transporting the deceased from Parang to Davao

HELD:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, reversing the decision
appealed from. The Supreme Court held that all things considered, the accident
occurred not due to the negligence of the defendant but to circumstances beyond
his control and that he should be exempt from liability.

The Supreme Court stated that there is nothing to indicate that defendant
has acted with negligence or without taking the precaution that an ordinary prudent
man would have taken under similar circumstances. There is every reason to
believe that the unfortunate happening was only due to an unforeseen accident by
the fact that at the time 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 then bumpy, rough and full of stones. The Supreme Court also states that they
may rather attribute the incident to lack of care on the part of the deceased
considering that the pick-up was open and he was then in crouching position.
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, NCC), which means that if
the injury to the passenger has been proximately caused by his own negligence, the
carrier cannot be held liable.

You might also like