L.G. Foods v. Philadelfa| G.R. No. 158995 | September 26, 2006 | J.

Garcia

Nature of case: Action for damages

Petitioner: L.G. Foods Corporation and Victorino Gabor (Vice President and General Manager)
Respondent: Hon. Philadelfa Pagapong-Agraviador and Sps. Florentino and Theresa Vallejera

Summary: Crisostomo contracted the services of Caravan to arrange and facilitate her booking,
ticketing, and accommodation in a tour dubbed Jewels of Europe. Without checking her delivered travel
documents, she arrived at NAIA, but her flight had already departed the previous day. She asked for a
reimbursement for the sum she had paid. The court held that Caravan cannot be held liable for damages
because it performed the standard of care required of it, which was that of a standard of a good father
of a family under ART 1173. Since it is not a common carrier, as claimed by the petitioner, it is not
required to observe extraordinary diligence.

FACTS:

 7-year-old Charles (son of the spouses Vallejera) died when their car was hit by a van owned by
petitioners and driven by their employee, Yeneza
 An Information for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide was filed against the driver
before the MTCC, but Yeneza committed suicide before the case could conclude, and thus, the
court dismissed the criminal case
 The spouses Vallejera then filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners as employers of
the driver. They alleged that the mishap was due to the negligence of the driver as well as the
fault and negligence of the owner-employer who failed to exercise due diligence (required of a
good father of the family) in the selection and supervision of their employee.
 Defendant-petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss argued that the complaint is a "claim for
subsidiary liability against an employer" under the provision of Article 1035 of the Revised Penal
Code, and since the criminal case was already dismissed, then there was no more cause of
action.
 TC denied the motion to dismiss. The petitioners elevated the case to the CA, but such was also
denied.

WON the spouses Vallejeras’ cause of action is founded on ART 103 of the Revised Penal Code—NO

1. The complaint did not aver the basic elements for subsidiary liability of an employer under ART
103 of the Revised Penal Code such as the prior conviction of the driver in the criminal case filed
against him nor his insolvency, instead, they alleged the gross fault and negligence on the part
of the driver and the lack of due diligence of the employers
2. It is not necessary that the complaint explicitly state that they were suing the defendant for
damages based on quasi-delict.
3. An act or omission may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part of the offender: 1)
civil liability ex delicto or 2) independent civil liabilities, which includes culpa contractual,
intentional torts, and culpa aquiliana
 4. Caravan’s services only include procuring tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas as well as
booking customers for tours, and is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either
passengers or goods and is therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier
5. Caravan’s obligation to petitioner in this regard was simply to see to it that petitioner was
properly booked with the airline for the appointed date and time.
6. It is in this sense that the contract between the parties in this case was an ordinary one for
services and not one of carriage. Petitioners submission is premised on a wrong assumption.
7. “The nature of the contractual relation between petitioner and respondent is determinative of
the degree of care required in the performance of the latters obligation under the contract. For
reasons of public policy, a common carrier in a contract of carriage is bound by law to carry
passengers as far as human care and foresight can provide using the utmost diligence of very
cautious persons and with due regard for all the circumstances.”
8. Since Caravan is not a common carrier, it is not bound under the law to observe extraordinary
diligence, but that of a standard of a good father of a family under ART 1173. This connotes
reasonable care consistent with that which an ordinarily prudent person would have observed
when confronted with a similar situation.
9. Evidence shows that respondent exercised due diligence and performed its prestation: it
followed the standard procedure in rendering its services to petitioner, including providing her a
ticket that clearly reflected the departure date and time. Likewise, the documents were
delivered to her two days before the trip.

WON petitioner was negligent—YES

1. Due diligence on the part of the petitioner would require her to have at least read the
documents in order to assure herself of the important details of the trip. This, she failed to do
2. Her negligence in the performance of the obligation renders her liable for damages

Disposition: Petition is denied for lack of merit. Decision of CA is affirmed.