Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    Bascos v. CA: Facts

    Uploaded by

    reese93
    (1) Petitioner Estrellita Bascos entered into a subcontract to transport 400 sacks of soya beans for CIPTRADE, who had a main contract to haul soya beans. However, Petitioner failed to deliver the cargo. (2) The Court ruled that Petitioner was a common carrier based on her own admission that she was in the trucking business, offering her trucks to transport cargo. As a common carrier, Petitioner was presumed negligent for losing the cargo unless she could prove she exercised extraordinary diligence. (3) Petitioner claimed the hijacking of her truck was a force majeure, but the Court held she failed to overcome the presumption of negligence against her by providing sufficient proof of

    Copyright:

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

    Bascos v. CA: Facts

    Uploaded by

    reese93
    17 views1 page
    (1) Petitioner Estrellita Bascos entered into a subcontract to transport 400 sacks of soya beans for CIPTRADE, who had a main contract to haul soya beans. However, Petitioner failed to deliver the cargo. (2) The Court ruled that Petitioner was a common carrier based on her own admission that she was in the trucking business, offering her trucks to transport cargo. As a common carrier, Petitioner was presumed negligent for losing the cargo unless she could prove she exercised extraordinary diligence. (3) Petitioner claimed the hijacking of her truck was a force majeure, but the Court held she failed to overcome the presumption of negligence against her by providing sufficient proof of

    Original Description:

    Bascos v. CA

    Original Title

    Bascos v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) Petitioner Estrellita Bascos entered into a subcontract to transport 400 sacks of soya beans for CIPTRADE, who had a main contract to haul soya beans. However, Petitioner failed to deliver the cargo. (2) The Court ruled that Petitioner was a common carrier based on her own admission that she was in the trucking business, offering her trucks to transport cargo. As a common carrier, Petitioner was presumed negligent for losing the cargo unless she could prove she exercised extraordinary diligence. (3) Petitioner claimed the hijacking of her truck was a force majeure, but the Court held she failed to overcome the presumption of negligence against her by providing sufficient proof of

    Copyright:

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

    Bascos v. CA: Facts

    Uploaded by

    reese93
    (1) Petitioner Estrellita Bascos entered into a subcontract to transport 400 sacks of soya beans for CIPTRADE, who had a main contract to haul soya beans. However, Petitioner failed to deliver the cargo. (2) The Court ruled that Petitioner was a common carrier based on her own admission that she was in the trucking business, offering her trucks to transport cargo. As a common carrier, Petitioner was presumed negligent for losing the cargo unless she could prove she exercised extraordinary diligence. (3) Petitioner claimed the hijacking of her truck was a force majeure, but the Court held she failed to overcome the presumption of negligence against her by providing sufficient proof of

    Copyright:

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

    Bascos v.

    CA
    Facts:
    Rodolfo Cipriano, representing CIPTRADE, entered into a hauling contract with Jibfair
    Shipping Agency Corporation whereby the former bound itself to haul the latters 2000m/tons
    of soya bean meal from Manila to Calamba. CIPTRADE subcontracted with petitioner Estrellita
    Bascos to transport and deliver the 400 sacks of soya beans. Petitioner failed to deliver the
    cargo, and as a consequence, Cipriano paid Jibfair the amount of goods lost in accordance with
    their contract. Cipriano demanded reimbursement from petitioner but the latter refused to pay.
    Cipriano filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage. Petitioner denied that there was no
    contract of carriage since CIPTRADE leased her cargo truck, and that the hijacking was a force
    majeure. The trial court ruled against petitioner.
    Issues:
    (1) Was petitioner a common carrier?
    (2) Was the hijacking referred to a force majeure?
    Held:
    (1) Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a common carrier as "(a) person, corporation or firm, or
    association engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by
    land, water or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public." The test to determine
    a common carrier is "whether the given undertaking is a part of the business engaged in by the
    carrier which he has held out to the general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or
    extent of the business transacted." In this case, petitioner herself has made the admission that
    she was in the trucking business, offering her trucks to those with cargo to move. Judicial
    admissions are conclusive and no evidence is required to prove the same.
    (2) Common carriers are obliged to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
    goods transported by them. Accordingly, they are presumed to have been at fault or to have
    acted negligently if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated. There are very few instances
    when the presumption of negligence does not attach and these instances are enumerated in
    Article 1734. In those cases where the presumption is applied, the common carrier must prove
    that it exercised extraordinary diligence in order to overcome the presumption. The
    presumption of negligence was raised against petitioner. It was petitioner's burden to overcome
    it. Thus, contrary to her assertion, private respondent need not introduce any evidence to prove
    her negligence. Her own failure to adduce sufficient proof of extraordinary diligence made the
    presumption conclusive against her.

    You might also like