DE GUZMAN v. CA

14. DE GUZMAN v.
CA offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis; neither does

G.R. No. L-47822 / DEC 22, 1988 / FELICIANO, J./ DEFINITION AND TEST OF COMMON Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the "general public"
CARRIER CONCEPT
PETITIONERS PEDRO DE GUZMAN -Under Section 13, par. b of the Public Service Act, “public service” includes:
RESPONDENTS COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO CENDANA
“... every person that now or hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control
FACTS. in the Philippines, for hire or compensation, with general or limited clientele,
 Respondent Ernesto Cendana (junk dealer) would load his vehicle with cargo which various whether permanent, occasional or accidental, and done for general business
merchants wanted to be delivered, charging fee lower than the commercial rates on return purposes, any common carrier, railroad, street railway, traction railway etc..”
trips to Manila from Pangasinan.
 -Respondent Ernesto is properly characterized as a common carrier even though he
 Petitioner Pedro de Guzman (merchant and authorized dealer of General Milk Company, merely “back-hauled” goods for other merchants from Manila to Pangasinan, although
Inc.) contracted with respondent Ernesto for hauling 750 cartons of Liberty milk from a such back-hauling was done on a periodic or occasional rather than regular or
warehouse in Makati to petitioner Pedro’s establishment in Urdaneta. scheduled manner, and even though it was not his principal occupation  but there is
 no dispute that Ernesto charged his customers a fee for hauling their goods
 Respondent Ernesto loaded in Makati the merchandise on his truck: 150 cartons were
loaded on the truck by Ernesto, while 600 were placed on board the other truck drive by -The liability arises the moment a person or firm acts as a common carrier, without
Manuel Estrada (Ernesto’s driver and employee). regard to whether or not such carrier has also complied with the requirements of the
 applicable regulatory statute and implementing regulations and has been granted a
 Only 150 boxes of milk were delivered to petitioner Pedro and the other 600 never reached certificate of public convenience or other franchise
him since the truck which carried these boxes was hijacked somewhere along MacArthur
Highway by armed men who took with them the truck, its driver, his helper, and cargo. -The law imposes duties and liabilities upon common carriers for the safety and
 protection of those who utilize their services and the law cannot allow a common
 Petitioner Pedro commenced an action against respondent Ernesto in CFI, demanding carrier to render such duties and liabilities merely facultative by simply failing to obtain
payment of P22k for value of the lost merchandise, arguing that being a common carrier and the necessary permits and authorizations
failing to exercise extraordinary diligence required of him by law should be liable for the
loss. With regard to respondent Ernesto’s liability:

-The hijacking of the carrier’s truck does not fall within the 5 categories of exempting
 Respondent Ernesto denied that he was a common carrier and argued that he cannot be held
causes listed in Art. 1734
responsible for such loss was due to force majeure.
 -However, the Court holds that the limits of duty of extraordinary diligence in the
 Trial court found respondent Ernesto to be a common carrier and ordered him to pay for the vigilance over the goods carried were reached where the goods are lost as a result of
value of undelivered goods. robbery which is attended by grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force

 Ernesto filed appeal with CA  REVERESED trial court judgment and held that Ernesto -The occurrence of the loss must be reasonably regarded as quite beyond the control
had been engaged in transporting return loads of freight as casual occupation (a sideline to of the common carrier and properly regarded as fortuitous event  it must be recalled
his scrap business and not as a common carrier) and held no certificate of public that even common carriers are not made absolute insurers against all risks of travel
convenience and transport of goods which cannot be foreseen or are inevitable provided, they shall
have complies with standard of extraordinary diligence
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON respondent Ernesto Cendana can be considered a common carrier. – YES. DECISION.
-Art. 1732 Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations Petition is DENIED.
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by Winner: Petitioner Ernesto de Guzman
land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the public.
-The above article makes no distinction between one whose principal business
activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying
only as an ancillary activity ("a sideline")
-Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or
enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one

DE GUZMAN v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DE GUZMAN v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DE GUZMAN v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14. DE GUZMAN v.

CA offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis; neither does

You might also like