Opic in Yllabus Ummary: CASE #26

Bascos v CA
Date: Apr 7, 1993

TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Common Carrier
G.R. No. 101089

Ponente: Campos
SUMMARY: Ciptrade has hauling contract with Jibfair to transport soya bean meal from manila to
calamba. Ciptrade subcontracts the hauling to Bascos. Bascos fails to deliver because of a
hijacking in Paco. Ciptrade sought to reimburse what he paid to Jibfair, sues Bascos on breach
of contract of carriage. Bascos says it was a lease contract, not a contract of carriage. Court
says it was a contract of carriage because Bascos admitted to having engaged in the trucking
business and 1732 of the Civil Code does not distinguish between offering the service to the
general population or to a narrow segment of the general population. Bascos is liable for the
hijacking because there is a presumption of negligence when the goods are lost, destroyed or
deteriorated and to exculpate from liability for hijacking, they had to prove that there was grave
and irresistible force. The evidence presented did not overcome the presumption.
HOW THE CASE REACHED THE SC: R45 from CA decision
FACTS:
- Rodolfo A. Cipriano representing Cipriano Trading Enterprise (CIPTRADE for
short) entered into a hauling contract with Jibfair Shipping Agency
Corporation
- Cipriano will haul 2,000 m/tons of soya bean meal from Magallanes Drive,
Del Pan, Manila, to warehouse of Purefoods Corp. in Calamba, Laguna
- Ciptrade subcontracted with Estrellita Bascos for the latter to transport 400
sacks of soya bean meal worth 156,404 from Manila Port Area to Calamba for
50 pesos per metric ton
- Bascos failed to do this so Ciptrade paid Jibfair the amount of lost goods on
account of their agreement which stated that: CIPTRADE shall be held liable
and answerable for any loss in bags due to theft, hijacking and non-delivery
or damages to the cargo during transport at market value
- Cipriano wants to reimburse but Bascos refused. Cipriano files complaint for
sum of money for breach of contract of carriage.
- Trial court ruled in favour of Ciptrade, CA affirmed and held that she was based
on her admission that she did business under the name of A.M. Bascos Trucking
- Both courts also appreciated the following to show that she was a common carrier and
both courts appreciated the fact that the truck driver and the truck helper was under the
employ of the petitioner and that the control of the cargo was placed in petitioners care
PETITIONERS ARGUMENT:
- There was no contract of carriage because Ciptrade leased her trucks and that the
contract was referred to as a lease contract and;
- Ciptrade is actually liable to her for loading cargo onto her trucks.
- The trucks were hijacked along Canonigo st. Paco, Manila and the goods were not
located. She is not liable because hijacking is a force majeur
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENT:
ISSUES: is petitioner a common carrier? Is petitioner liable
HELD: on the first issue
CASE #26
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
- The admission of Bascos passes the test above
- Bascos however states that they only offer their services to a select few and
that Ciptrade did not object to affidavits referring to the transaction as a
lease
- Court: in De Guzman v CA discussing article 1732: no distinction between
primary business of carrying persons or goods or merely ancillary (sideline),
no distinction between offering it on a regular or scheduled basis or
unregular, occasional, unscheduled, no distinction between general public
(general population) or a narrow segment of the general population
- Regarding the contract of lease, the contract is what the law says it is, not
what the parties call it. The evidence was also self-serving
On the second issue
- There is a presumption of negligence on common carriers when the goods
are lost, deteriorated or destroyed.
- Art. 1745. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered
unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy:
(6) That the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves, or of
robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violences or force, is
dispensed with or diminished
- To exculpate the carrier from liability arising from hijacking, he must prove
that the robbers or the hijackers acted with grave or irresistible threat,
violence, or force
- In this case, petitioners affidavit of the hijacking was not first-hand account,
lack of objection does not matter because court gives weight to evidence.
- Jesus Bascos affidavit did not dwell on the hijacking
- Affidavit of truck helper is not best evidence because he is a witness as
stated in the petition
- The pieces of evidence do not overcome the presumption of negligence.
-
CASE #26

Opic in Yllabus Ummary: CASE #26

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Opic in Yllabus Ummary: CASE #26

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Opic in Yllabus Ummary: CASE #26

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bascos v CA

Date: Apr 7, 1993

G.R. No. 101089

You might also like