Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Pedro de Guzman v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Dianne Bernadeth Cos-agon
    Respondent Ernesto Cendana transported scrap metal and bottles for resale in his trucks. He also occasionally transported goods for other merchants. Petitioner Pedro de Guzman contracted with Cendana to transport 750 cartons of milk, but only 150 cartons arrived due to hijackers. The court ruled that Cendana was liable for the lost cartons because hijacking did not fall under the exemptions for common carriers. The court also ruled that Cendana was a common carrier as he transported goods for other merchants, even if occasionally, and common carriers are responsible for lost or damaged goods unless due to specific exemptions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pedro de Guzman v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Dianne Bernadeth Cos-agon
    16 views1 page
    Respondent Ernesto Cendana transported scrap metal and bottles for resale in his trucks. He also occasionally transported goods for other merchants. Petitioner Pedro de Guzman contracted with Cendana to transport 750 cartons of milk, but only 150 cartons arrived due to hijackers. The court ruled that Cendana was liable for the lost cartons because hijacking did not fall under the exemptions for common carriers. The court also ruled that Cendana was a common carrier as he transported goods for other merchants, even if occasionally, and common carriers are responsible for lost or damaged goods unless due to specific exemptions.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent Ernesto Cendana transported scrap metal and bottles for resale in his trucks. He also occasionally transported goods for other merchants. Petitioner Pedro de Guzman contracted with Cendana to transport 750 cartons of milk, but only 150 cartons arrived due to hijackers. The court ruled that Cendana was liable for the lost cartons because hijacking did not fall under the exemptions for common carriers. The court also ruled that Cendana was a common carrier as he transported goods for other merchants, even if occasionally, and common carriers are responsible for lost or damaged goods unless due to specific exemptions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    16 views1 page

    Pedro de Guzman v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Dianne Bernadeth Cos-agon
    Respondent Ernesto Cendana transported scrap metal and bottles for resale in his trucks. He also occasionally transported goods for other merchants. Petitioner Pedro de Guzman contracted with Cendana to transport 750 cartons of milk, but only 150 cartons arrived due to hijackers. The court ruled that Cendana was liable for the lost cartons because hijacking did not fall under the exemptions for common carriers. The court also ruled that Cendana was a common carrier as he transported goods for other merchants, even if occasionally, and common carriers are responsible for lost or damaged goods unless due to specific exemptions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Pedro de Guzman v.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. L-47822
    Facts:
    Herein respondent Ernesto Cendana was engaged in buying up used bottles and scrap metal in
    Pangasinan. Normally, after collection respondent would bring such material to Manila for resale. He
    utilized (2) two six-wheelers trucks which he owned for the purpose. Upon returning to Pangasinan, he
    would load his vehicle with cargo belonging to different merchants to different establishments in
    Pangasisnan which respondents charged a freight fee for.
    Sometime in November 1970, herein petitioner Pedro de Guzman, a merchant and dealer of
    General Milk Company Inc. in Pangasinan contracted with respondent for hauling 750 cartons of milk.
    Unfortunately, only 150 cartons made it, as the other 600 cartons were intercepted by hijackers along
    Marcos Highway. Hence, petitioners commenced an action against private respondent.
    In his defense, respondent argued that he cannot be held liable due to force majuere, and that he
    is not a common carrier and hence is not required to exercise extraordinary diligence.
    Issues:
    1. Whether or not respondent can be held liable for loss of the cartons of milk due to force majeure.
    2. Whether or not respondent is a common carrier.
    Held:
    1. The court ruled the affirmative. The circumstances do not fall under the exemption from liability as
    enumerated in Article 1734 of the Civil Code. The general rule is established by the article that
    common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods which they
    carry, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:
    a. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disasters;
    b. Act of the public enemy, whether international or civil;
    c. Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
    d. Character of the goods or defects in the packing;
    e. Order or act of competent public authority.
    2. The court ruled the affirmative. Article 1732 of the New Civil Code avoids any 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. It also avoids a distinction between a person or
    enterprise offering transportation services on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such
    services on an occasional, episodic, and unscheduled basis.

    You might also like