Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 126 views

    Asia Lighterage and Shipping v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Er Burgos
    Petitioner was contracted to deliver cargo by barge from Oregon to the Philippines but the barge sank, damaging the cargo. The insurer paid the consignee and sued petitioner as subrogee. The court ruled petitioner is a common carrier. A common carrier offers transportation services to the public for compensation, which petitioner did through its lighterage and shipping business, even if on an irregular basis and with limited clients. To be a common carrier, one need not have fixed routes, terminals, or issue tickets, but must hold out transportation as their occupation to the public. Therefore, the court held petitioner is a common carrier.

    Copyright:

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

    Asia Lighterage and Shipping v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Er Burgos
    126 views1 page
    Petitioner was contracted to deliver cargo by barge from Oregon to the Philippines but the barge sank, damaging the cargo. The insurer paid the consignee and sued petitioner as subrogee. The court ruled petitioner is a common carrier. A common carrier offers transportation services to the public for compensation, which petitioner did through its lighterage and shipping business, even if on an irregular basis and with limited clients. To be a common carrier, one need not have fixed routes, terminals, or issue tickets, but must hold out transportation as their occupation to the public. Therefore, the court held petitioner is a common carrier.

    Original Description:

    For transpo law.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner was contracted to deliver cargo by barge from Oregon to the Philippines but the barge sank, damaging the cargo. The insurer paid the consignee and sued petitioner as subrogee. The court ruled petitioner is a common carrier. A common carrier offers transportation services to the public for compensation, which petitioner did through its lighterage and shipping business, even if on an irregular basis and with limited clients. To be a common carrier, one need not have fixed routes, terminals, or issue tickets, but must hold out transportation as their occupation to the public. Therefore, the court held petitioner is a common carrier.

    Copyright:

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

    Asia Lighterage and Shipping v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Er Burgos
    Petitioner was contracted to deliver cargo by barge from Oregon to the Philippines but the barge sank, damaging the cargo. The insurer paid the consignee and sued petitioner as subrogee. The court ruled petitioner is a common carrier. A common carrier offers transportation services to the public for compensation, which petitioner did through its lighterage and shipping business, even if on an irregular basis and with limited clients. To be a common carrier, one need not have fixed routes, terminals, or issue tickets, but must hold out transportation as their occupation to the public. Therefore, the court held petitioner is a common carrier.

    Copyright:

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

    ASIA LIGHTERAGE AND SHIPPING, INC. V. CA, GR NO. 147246, AUG.

    19, 2003
    Petitioner was contracted as a carrier by a corporation from Portland, Oregon to deliver a cargo to the
    consignee’s warehouse at Pasig City. The cargo, however, never reached the consignee as the barge
    that carried the cargo sank completely, resulting in damage to the cargo. Private respondent, as
    insurer, indemnified the consignee for the lost cargo and thus, as subrogee, sought recovery from
    petitioner. Both the trial court and the appellate court ruled in favor of private respondent.

    The issue here is whether the petitioner is a common carrier. We rule that petitioner is a common
    carrier. Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines common carriers as persons, corporations, firms or
    associations 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. Petitioner contends that it is not a
    common carrier but a private carrier. Allegedly, it has no fixed and publicly known route, maintains no
    terminals, and issues no tickets. It points out that it is not obliged to carry indiscriminately for any
    person. It is not bound to carry goods unless it consents. In short, it does not hold out its services to
    the general public. We disagree. In De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, we held that the definition of
    common carriers in Article 1732 of the Civil Code 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. We also did not distinguish between a person or enterprise offering
    transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an
    occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Further, we ruled that Article 1732 does not distinguish
    between a carrier offering its services to the general public, and one who offers services or solicits
    business only from a narrow segment of the general population. In the case at bar, the principal
    business of the petitioner is that of lighterage and drayage and it offers its barges to the public for
    carrying or transporting goods by water for compensation. Petitioner is clearly a common carrier. In
    De Guzman, we considered private respondent to be a common carrier even if his principal
    occupation was not the carriage of goods for others, but that of buying used bottles and scrap metal
    in Pangasinan and selling these items in Manila. We therefore hold that petitioner is a common
    carrier whether its carrying of goods is done on an irregular rather than scheduled manner, and
    with an only limited clientele. A common carrier need not have fixed and publicly known routes.
    Neither does it have to maintain terminals or issue tickets. To be sure, petitioner fits the test of a
    common carrier as laid down in Bascos vs. Court of Appeals. 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 the case at bar, the petitioner admitted that it is engaged in the business of
    shipping and lighterage, offering its barges to the public, despite its limited clientele for carrying or
    transporting goods by water for compensation.

    You might also like