BASCOS vs.

CA and CIPRIANO DIGEST occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the
MARCH 26, 2011 ~ VBDIAZ business transacted.” 12 In this case, petitioner
BASCOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RODOLFO A. herself has made the admission that she was in the
CIPRIANO trucking business, offering her trucks to those with
G.R. No. 101089 cargo to move. Judicial admissions are conclusive
April 7, 1993 and no evidence is required to prove the same. 13
FACTS: Rodolfo A. Cipriano representing Cipriano But petitioner argues that there was only a contract
Trading Enterprise (CIPTRADE for short) entered into of lease because they offer their services only to a
a hauling contract with Jibfair Shipping Agency Corp select group of people. Regarding the first
whereby the former bound itself to haul the latter’s contention, the holding of the Court in De Guzman
2,000 m/tons of soya bean meal to the warehouse in vs. Court of Appeals 14 is instructive. In referring to
Calamba, Laguna. To carry out its obligation, Article 1732 of the Civil Code, it held thus:
CIPTRADE, through Cipriano, subcontracted with “The above article makes no distinction between
Bascos to transport and to deliver 400 sacks of soya one whose principal business activity is the carrying
bean meal from the Manila Port Area to Calamba, of persons or goods or both, and one who does such
Laguna. Petitioner failed to deliver the said cargo. As carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local idiom,
a consequence of that failure, Cipriano paid Jibfair as a “sideline”). Article 1732 also carefully avoids
Shipping Agency the amount of the lost goods in making any distinction between a person or
accordance with their contract. enterprise offering transportation service on a
Cipriano demanded reimbursement from petitioner regular or scheduled basis and one offering such
but the latter refused to pay. Eventually, Cipriano service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled
filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between
with writ of preliminary attachment for breach of a a carrier offering its services to the “general public,”
contract of carriage. The trial court granted the writ i.e., the general community or population, and one
of preliminary attachment. who offers services or solicits business only from a
In her answer, petitioner interposed the defense narrow segment of the general population. We think
that there was no contract of carriage since that Article 1732 deliberately refrained from making
CIPTRADE leased her cargo truck to load the cargo such distinctions.”
from Manila Port Area to Laguna and that the truck 2. NO
carrying the cargo was hijacked and being a force Likewise, We affirm the holding of the respondent
majeure, exculpated petitioner from any liability court that the loss of the goods was not due to force
After trial, the trial court rendered a decision in favor majeure.
of Cipriano and against Bascos ordering the latter to Common carriers are obliged to observe
pay the former for actual damages for attorney’s extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
fees and cost of suit. goods transported by them. Accordingly, they are
The “Urgent Motion To Dissolve/Lift preliminary presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
Attachment” Bascos is DENIED for being moot and negligently if the goods are lost, destroyed or
academic. deteriorated. There are very few instances when the
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals but presumption of negligence does not attach and
respondent Court affirmed the trial court’s these instances are enumerated in Article 1734. 19
judgment. In those cases where the presumption is applied, the
Hence this petition for review on certiorari common carrier must prove that it exercised
ISSUE: extraordinary diligence in order to overcome the
(1) WON petitioner a common carrier presumption.
(2) WON the hijacking referred to a force majeure In this case, petitioner alleged that hijacking
HELD: The petition is DISMISSED and the decision of constituted force majeure which exculpated her
the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. from liability for the loss of the cargo. In De Guzman
1. YES vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that hijacking,
In disputing the conclusion of the trial and appellate not being included in the provisions of Article 1734,
courts that petitioner was a common carrier, she must be dealt with under the provisions of Article
alleged in this petition that the contract between her 1735 and thus, the common carrier is presumed to
and Cipriano was lease of the truck. She also stated have been at fault or negligent. To exculpate the
that: she was not catering to the general public. carrier from liability arising from hijacking, he must
Thus, in her answer to the amended complaint, she prove that the robbers or the hijackers acted with
said that she does business under the same style of grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force. This is
A.M. Bascos Trucking, offering her trucks for lease to in accordance with Article 1745 of the Civil Code
those who have cargo to move, not to the general which provides:
public but to a few customers only in view of the fact “Art. 1745. Any of the following or similar
that it is only a small business. stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust
We agree with the respondent Court in its finding and contrary to public policy; xx
that petitioner is a common carrier. (6) That the common carrier’s liability for acts
Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a common committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act
carrier as “(a) person, corporation or firm, or with grave or irresistible threat, violences or force, is
association engaged in the business of carrying or dispensed with or diminished;” xx
transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, NOTES:
water or air, for compensation, offering their 1. She cited as evidence certain affidavits which
services to the public.” The test to determine a referred to the contract as “lease”. These affidavits
common carrier is “whether the given undertaking is were made by Jesus Bascos and by petitioner herself
a part of the business engaged in by the carrier and Cipriano and CIPTRADE did not object to the
which he has held out to the general public as his presentation of affidavits by petitioner where the
transaction was referred to as a lease contract. Both not brave such stormy weather and put other
the trial and appellate courts have dismissed them people’s lives at
as self-serving and petitioner contests the risk. The extraordinary diligence required of
conclusion. We are bound by the appellate court’s common carriers demandsthat they take care of the
factual conclusions. Yet, granting that the said goods or lives entrusted to their hands as ifthey
evidence were not self-serving, the same were not were their own. This respondent failed to do.
sufficient to prove that the contract was one of
lease. It must be understood that a contract is what Westwind Shipping Corp. vs. UCPB General
the law defines it to be and not what it is called by Insurance
the contracting parties. Furthermore, petitioner G.R. No. 200289, November 25, 2013
presented no other proof of the existence of the By: Alba, Ma. Angela Beatriz
contract of lease. He who alleges a fact has the Doctrine: The extraordinary responsibility of the
burden of proving it. common carrier lasts until the time the goods are
2. Having affirmed the findings of the respondent actually
Court on the substantial issues involved, We find no or constructively delivered by the carrier to the
reason to disturb the conclusion that the motion to consignee or to the person who has a right to receive
lift/dissolve the writ of preliminary attachment has them.
been rendered moot and academic by the decision There is actual delivery in contracts for the transport
on the merits. of goods when possession has been turned over to
the
consignee or to his duly authorized agent and a
Cruz vs. Sun Holidays622 SCRA 389 reasonable time is given him to remove the goods.
Parties:
Facts:In 2000 newly weds Ruelito and his wife Westwind Shipping Corporation – Common Carrier
brought a package tourcontract from Sun Holidays. UCPB General Insurance – Insurer
The tour was scheduled from September 9-11, 2016 San Miguel Corporation – Consignee
inclusive of transportation to and from the resort. Kinsho-Mataichi Corporation – Shipper
On the lastday, due to heavy rains the day before Orient Freight International, Inc. (OFII) – Customs
and heavy winds, the couplealong with other guests Broker
trekked to the other side of the beach wherethey FACTS:
boarded M/B Coco Beach III. Shortly after the boat Kinsho-Mataichi Corporation shipped from the port
sailed, itstarted to rain and when the reached the of Kobe, Japan, 197 metal containers/skids of tin-
open seas the wind gotstronger causing the boat to free
tilt from side to side and eventuallycapsized putting steel for delivery to the consignee, San Miguel
all passengers underwater. Ruelito and his Corporation. The shipment was loaded and received
wifeperished from the accident which, prompted his clean
parents to filed acomplaint for damages against Sun on board M/V Golden Harvest Voyage No. 66, a
Holidays alleging that the latterfailed to observed vessel owned and operated by Westwind Shipping
extraordinary diligence as common carrier Corporation (Westwind). SMC insured the cargoes
inallowing the boat to sail despite a storm warning. against all risks with UCPB General Insurance Co.,
Sun Holidays deniedresponsibility claiming that they Inc.
are not a common carrier hence theyare only The shipment arrived in Manila, Philippines and was
required to observe ordinary diligence and the discharged in the custody of the arrastre operator,
accident wasdue to a fortuitous event. Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI). During the unloading
operation, six containers/skids sustained dents and
Issue:W/N Sun Holidays is a common carrier within punctures from the forklift used by the stevedores of
the ambit of the lawhence liable for damages. Ocean Terminal Services, Inc. (OTSI) in centering
and shuttling the containers/skids. As a
consequence, the local ship agent of the vessel,
Ruling: YES. Article 1732 of the Civil Code defining Baliwag Shipping
“common carriers”has deliberately refrained from Agency, Inc., issued two Bad Order Cargo Receipt
making distinctions on whether thecarrying of dated September 1, 1993.
persons or goods is the carrier’s principal business, Orient Freight International, Inc. (OFII), the customs
whetherit is offered on a regular basis, or whether it broker of SMC, withdrew from ATI the 197
is offered to the generalpublic. The intent of the law containers/skids, including the six in damaged
is thus to not consider such distinctions.Otherwise, condition, and delivered the same at SMC’s
there is no telling how many other distinctions may warehouse in
beconcocted by unscrupulous businessmen engaged Calamba, Laguna through J.B. Limcaoco Trucking
in the carrying ofpersons or goods in order to avoid (JBL). It was discovered upon discharge that
the legal obligations and liabilities ofcommon additional
carriers.The evidence shows that PAGASA issued 24- nine containers/skids were also damaged due to the
hour public weatherforecasts and tropical cyclone forklift operations; thus, making the total number of
warnings for shipping on September 10and 11, 2000 15
advising of tropical depressions in Northern Luzon, containers/skids in bad order.
whichwould also affect the province of Mindoro. By Almost a year after, SMC filed a claim against UCPB,
the testimony of Dr.Frisco Nilo, supervising weather Westwind, ATI, and OFII to recover the amount
specialist of PAGASA, squalls are to beexpected corresponding to the damaged 15 containers/skids.
under such weather condition.A very cautious When UCPB paid the total sum of Philippine Pesos:
person exercising the utmost diligence wouldthus Two Hundred Ninety-Two Thousand Seven Hundred
Thirty-Two and Eighty Centavos (₱292,732.80),
SMC signed the subrogation receipt. Thereafter, in 2. Whether OFII is liable for the additional nine
the exercise of its right of subrogation, UCPB damaged containers/skids.
instituted HELD:
on August 30, 1994 a complaint for damages against 1. Yes. Cargoes, while being unloaded, generally
Westwind, ATI, and OFII. The RTC dismissed remain under the custody of the carrier. In
UCPB’s complaint and the counterclaims of Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc. v. Wallem Phils.
Westwind, ATI, and OFII. On appeal, the CA ruled in Shipping, Inc., the court held that
favor of “*c+ommon carriers, from the nature of their
UCPB, ordering Westwind and OFII to pay UCPB. business and for reasons of public policy, are bound
Petitioners’ Arguments: to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
Westwind - It no longer had actual or constructive over the goods transported by them. Subject to
custody of the containers/skids at the time they certain exceptions enumerated under Article 1734 of
were the Civil Code, common carriers are
damaged by ATI’s forklift operator during the responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration
unloading operations. In accordance with the of the goods. The extraordinary responsibility
stipulation of of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods
the bill of lading, which allegedly conforms to Article are unconditionally placed in the possession
1736 of the NCC, it contends that its responsibility of, and received by the carrier for transportation
already ceased from the moment the cargoes were until the same are delivered, actually or
delivered to ATI, which is reckoned from the constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to
moment the person who has a right to receive them.”
the goods were taken into the latter’s custody. There is actual delivery in contracts for the transport
Westwind adds that ATI, which is a completely of goods when possession has been turned
independent over to the consignee or to his duly authorized agent
entity that had the right to receive the goods as and a reasonable time is given to remove the
exclusive operator of stevedoring and arrastre goods.
functions in In this case, since the discharging of the
South Harbor, Manila, had full control over its containers/skids, which were covered by only one
employees and stevedores as well as the manner bill of
and lading, had not yet been completed at the time the
procedure of the discharging operations. damage occurred, there is no reason to imply
OFII - It is not a common carrier, but only a customs that there was already delivery, actual or
broker whose participation is limited to facilitating constructive, of the cargoes to ATI.
withdrawal of the shipment in the custody of ATI by 2. Yes. A customs broker has been regarded as a
overseeing and documenting the turnover and common carrier because transportation of goods is
counterchecking if the quantity of the shipments an integral part of its business. Thus, for undertaking
were in tally with the shipping documents at hand, the transport of cargoes from ATI to SMC’s
but warehouse in Calamba, Laguna, OFII is considered a
without participating in the physical withdrawal and common carrier. As long as a person or
loading of the shipments into the delivery trucks of corporation holds itself to the public for the purpose
JBL. of transporting goods as a business, it is
Assuming that it is a common carrier, OFII insists already considered a common carrier regardless of
that there is no need to rely on the presumption of whether it owns the vehicle to be used or has to
the actually hire one.
law — that, as a common carrier, it is presumed to As a common carrier, OFII is mandated to observe,
have been at fault or have acted negligently in case under Article 1733 of the Civil Code,
of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
damaged goods — considering the undisputed fact goods it transports according to the peculiar
that the damages to the containers/skids were circumstances of each case. In the event that the
caused by goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, it is
the forklift blades, and that there is no evidence presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
presented to show that OFII and Westwind were the negligently, unless it proves that it observed
owners/operators of the forklifts. It asserts that the extraordinary diligence. In the case at bar, it was
loading to the trucks were made by way of forklifts established that, except for the six
owned and operated by ATI and the unloading from containers/skids already damaged, OFII received the
the trucks at the SMC warehouse was done by way cargoes from ATI in good order and
of condition; and that upon its delivery to SMC,
forklifts owned and operated by SMC employees. additional nine containers/skids were found to be in
Lastly, OFII avers that neither the undertaking to bad order, as noted in the Delivery Receipts issued
deliver nor the acknowledgment by the consignee of by OFII and as indicated in the Report of Cares
the Marine & Cargo Surveyors.
fact of delivery makes a person or entity a common
carrier, since delivery alone is not the controlling Calvo v. UCPB General Insurance Case Digest
factor Calvo v. UCPB General Insurance
in order to be considered as such. G.R. No. 148496 March 19, 2002
ISSUES:
1. Whether Westwind, and not ATI, is responsible for Facts: Petitioner Virgines Calvo, owner of
the six damaged containers/skids at the time of Transorient Container Terminal Services, Inc. (TCTSI),
its unloading. and a custom broker, entered into a contract with
San Miguel Corporation (SMC) for the transfer of 114
reels of semi-chemical fluting paper and 124 reels of irrigation system, gas, electric light, heat and power,
kraft liner board from the port area to the water supply and power petroleum, sewerage
Tabacalera Compound, Ermita, Manila. The cargo system, wire or wireless communications systems,
was insured by respondent UCPB General Insurance wire or wireless broadcasting stations and other
Co., Inc. similar public services. x x x”

On July 14, 1990, contained in 30 metal vans, arrived De Guzman v. CA

in Manila on board “M/V Hayakawa Maru”. After 24 Facts:
hours, they were unloaded from vessel to the Respondent Ernesto Cendana was a junk dealer. He
custody of the arrastre operator, Manila Port buys scrap materials and brings those that he
Services, Inc. From July 23 to 25, 1990, petitioner, gathered to Manila for resale using 2 six-wheeler
pursuant to her contract with SMC, withdrew the trucks. On the return trip to Pangasinan, respondent
cargo from the arrastre operator and delivered it to would load his vehicle with cargo which various
SMC’s warehouse in Manila. On July 25, the goods merchants wanted delivered, charging fee lower
were inspected by Marine Cargo Surveyors, reported than the commercial rates. Sometime in November
that 15 reels of the semi-chemical fluting paper were 1970, petitioner Pedro de Guzman contracted with
“wet/stained/torn” and 3 reels of kraft liner board respondent for the delivery of 750 cartons of Liberty
were also torn. The damages cost P93,112.00. Milk. On December 1, 1970, respondent loaded the
cargo. Only 150 boxes were delivered to petitioner
SMC collected the said amount from respondent because the truck carrying the boxes was hijacked
UCPB under its insurance contract. Respondent on along the way. Petitioner commenced an action
the other hand, as a subrogee of SMC, brought a suit claiming the value of the lost merchandise.
against petitioner in RTC, Makati City. On December Petitioner argues that respondent, being a common
20, 1995, the RTC rendered judgment finding carrier, is bound to exercise extraordinary diligence,
petitioner liable for the damage to the shipment. which it failed to do. Private respondent denied that
The decision was affirmed by the CA. he was a common carrier, and so he could not be
held liable for force majeure. The trial court ruled
Issue: Whether or not Calvo is a common carrier? against the respondent, but such was reversed by
the Court of Appeals.
Held: In this case the contention of the petitioner, Issues:
that he is not a common carrier but a private carrier, (1) Whether or not private respondent is a common
has no merit. carrier
(2) Whether private respondent is liable for the loss
Article 1732 makes no distinction between one of the goods
whose principal business activity is the carrying of Held:
persons or goods or both, and one who does such (1) Article 1732 makes no distinction between one
carrying only as ancillary activity. Article 1732 also whose principal business activity is the carrying of
carefully avoids making any distinction between a persons or goods or both, and one who does such
person or enterprise offering transportation service carrying only as an ancillary activity. Article 1732 also
on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering carefully avoids making any distinction between a
such service on an occasional, episodic or person or enterprise offering transportation service
unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering
distinguish between a carrier offering its services to such service on an occasional, episodic or
the "general public," i.e., the general community or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732
population, and one who offers services or solicits distinguish between a carrier offering its services to
business only from a narrow segment of the general the "general public," i.e., the general community or
population. We think that Article 1733 deliberately population, and one who offers services or solicits
refrained from making such distinction. (De Guzman business only from a narrow segment of the general
v. CA, 68 SCRA 612) population. It appears to the Court that private
respondent is properly characterized as a common
Te concept of “common carrier” under Article 1732 carrier even though he merely "back-hauled" goods
coincide with the notion of “public service”, under for other merchants from Manila to Pangasinan,
the Public Service Act which partially supplements although such backhauling was done on a periodic or
the law on common carrier. Under Section 13, occasional rather than regular or scheduled manner,
paragraph (b) of the Public Service Act, it includes: and even though private respondent's principal
occupation was not the carriage of goods for others.
“ x x x every person that now or hereafter may own, There is no dispute that private respondent charged
operate, manage, or control in the Philippines, for his customers a fee for hauling their goods; that fee
hire or compensation, with general or limited frequently fell below commercial freight rates is not
clientele, whether permanent, occasional or relevant here. A certificate of public convenience is
accidental, and done for general business purposes, not a requisite for the incurring of liability under the
any common carrier, railroad, street railway, traction Civil Code provisions governing common carriers.
railway, subway motor vehicle, either for freight or (2) Article 1734 establishes the general rule that
passenger, or both, with or without fixed route and common carriers are responsible for the loss,
whatever may be its classification, freight or carrier destruction or deterioration of the goods which they
service of any class, express service, steamboat, or carry, "unless the same is due to any of the following
steamship line, pontines, ferries and water craft, causes only:
engaged in the transportation of passengers or a. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other
freight or both, shipyard, marine repair shop, wharf natural disaster or calamity;
or dock, ice plant, ice-refrigeration plant, canal,
b. Act of the public enemy in war, whether Certificate would attest to the seaworthiness
international or civil; of Limar I. As such, under Art. 1733, NCC, common
c. Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the carriers are exempt from liability for loss,
goods; destruction, or deterioration of the goods due to any
d. The character of the goods or defects in the of the following causes, among others:
packing or in the containers; and Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural
e. Order or act of competent public authority." disaster or calamity x
The hijacking of the carrier's truck - does not fall First Philippine Industrial Corp. vs. CA
within any of the five (5) categories of exempting Facts:
causes listed in Article 1734. Private respondent as Petitioner is a grantee of a pipeline concession under
common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or Republic Act No. 387. Sometime in January 1995,
to have acted negligently. This presumption, petitioner applied for mayor’s permit in Batangas.
however, may be overthrown by proof of However, the Treasurer required petitioner to pay a
extraordinary diligence on the part of private local tax based on gross receipts amounting to
respondent. We believe and so hold that the limits P956,076.04. In order not to hamper its operations,
of the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance petitioner paid the taxes for the first quarter of 1993
over the goods carried are reached where the goods amounting to P239,019.01 under protest. On
are lost as a result of a robbery which is attended by January 20, 1994, petitioner filed a letter-protest to
"grave or irresistible threat, violence or force." we the City Treasurer, claiming that it is exempt from
hold that the occurrence of the loss must reasonably local tax since it is engaged in transportation
be regarded as quite beyond the control of the business. The respondent City Treasurer denied the
common carrier and properly regarded as a protest, thus, petitioner filed a complaint before the
fortuitous event. It is necessary to recall that even Regional Trial Court of Batangas for tax refund.
common carriers are not made absolute insurers Respondents assert that pipelines are not included in
against all risks of travel and of transport of goods, the term “common carrier” which refers solely to
and are not held liable for acts or events which ordinary carriers or motor vehicles. The trial court
cannot be foreseen or are inevitable, provided that dismissed the complaint, and such was affirmed by
they shall have complied with the rigorous standard the Court of Appeals.
of extraordinary diligence. Issue:
Whether a pipeline business is included in the term
Philamgem vs. PKS Shippinf Company “common carrier” so as to entitle the petitioner to
the exemption
Facts: Held:
Davao Union Marketing Corporation (DUMC) Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a "common
contracted the services of respondent PKS Shipping carrier" as "any person, corporation, firm or
Company (PKS Shipping) for the shipment to association engaged in the business of carrying or
Tacloban City of seventy-five thousand (75,000) bags transporting passengers or goods or both, by land,
of cement worth Three Million Three Hundred water, or air, for compensation, offering their
Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P3,375,000.00). services to the public."
DUMC insured the goods for its full value with The test for determining whether a party is a
petitioner Philippine American General Insurance common carrier of goods is:
Company (Philamgen). During the transport, the (1) He must be engaged in the business of carrying
barge where the bags of cement were loaded, sank. goods for others as a public employment, and must
Upon demand of payment by DUMC, Philamgen hold himself out as ready to engage in the
immediately paid them. Hence, it sought transportation of goods for person generally as a
reimbursement from PKS Shipping but the latter business and not as a casual occupation;
refused. (2) He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to
Issue: which his business is confined;
Whether PKS Shipping is a common carrier or a (3) He must undertake to carry by the method by
private carrier; and which his business is conducted and over his
WON PKS Shipping exercised the required diligence established roads; and
over the goods they carry. Or, WON PKS Shipping is (4) The transportation must be for hire.
liable. Based on the above definitions and requirements,
Held: there is no doubt that petitioner is a common
PKS Shipping is a common carrier. carrier. It is engaged in the business of transporting
PKS Shipping has engaged itself in the or carrying goods, i.e. petroleum products, for hire
business of carrying goods for others, although for a as a public employment. It undertakes to carry for all
limited clientele, undertaking to carry such goods for persons indifferently, that is, to all persons who
a fee. The regularity of its activities in this area choose to employ its services, and transports the
indicates more than just a casual activity on its part. goods by land and for compensation. The fact that
Neither can the concept of a common carrier change petitioner has a limited clientele does not exclude it
merely because individual contracts are executed or from the definition of a common carrier.
entered into with patrons of the carrier.
PKS Shipping is not liable.
The vessel was suddenly tossed by waves of
extraordinary height of six (6) to eight (8) feet and
buffeted by strong winds of 1.5 knots resulting in the
entry of water into the barge’s hatches. The official
Certificate of Inspection of the barge issued by the
Philippine Coastguard and the Coastwise Load Line
Asia Lighterage & Shipping, Inc. vs CA & Prudential public.InDe Guzman vs. CA(G.R. No. L-47822, 22
Guarantee and Assurance,Inc.Posted onNovember December 1988) it was held thatthe definition of
24, 2012G.R. No. 147246August 19, 2003 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
On appeal is the CAs May 11, 2000 Decision in CA- or both, and one who does such carrying only as an
G.R. CV No. 49195 and February 21, 2001 Resolution ancillary activity. There is alsono distinction between
affirming with modification the April 6,1994 Decision a person or enterprise offering transportation
of the RTC ofManilawhich foundpetitionerliable to service on a regular/scheduled basis and one
pay private respondent the amount of indemnity offering such service on an occasional, episodic or
and attorneys fees.FACTS:Asia Lighterage and unscheduled basis.Further,Article 1732 doesnot
Shipping, Inc was contracted as carrier to deliver distinguish between a carrier offering its services to
3,150 metric tons of Better Western White Wheat in thegeneral public, and one who offers services or
bulk, (US$423,192.35) to theconsignees (General solicits business only from a narrow segment of the
Milling Corporation) warehouse at Bo. Ugong,Pasig general population.Private respondent Ernesto
City. The cargo was transferred to its custody on July Cendaa was considered to be a common carrier even
25, 1990. The shipment was insured by Prudential if his principal occupation was not thecarriage of
Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. against loss/damage goodsfor others, but that of buying used bottles and
for P14,621,771.75.On August 15, 1990, 900 metric scrap metal in Pangasinan and selling these items in
tons of the shipment was loaded on barge PSTSI III Manila.To be sure, petitioner fits thetest of a
for delivery to consignee. However, the cargo did common carrieras laid down inBascos vs. CA(G.R.
not reach its destination.It appears that on August No. 101089, 07 April 1993, 221 SCRA 318). The test
17, 1990, the transport of said cargo was suspended to determine a common carrier iswhether the given
due to a warning of an incoming typhoon. 5 days undertaking is a part of the business engaged in by
later, the petitioner proceeded to pull the barge to the carrier which he has held out to the general
Engineering Island off Baseco to seek shelter from public as his occupation rather than the quantity or
the approaching typhoon. PSTSI III was tied down to extent of the business transacted. In the case at bar,
otherbargeswhich arrived ahead of it while the petitioner admitted that it is engaged in the
weathering out the storm that night. A few days business of shipping, lighterage and drayage,
after, the barge developed a list because of a hole it offering its barges to the public, despite its limited
sustained after hitting an unseen protuberance clientele for carrying/transporting goods by water
underneath the water. It filed a Marine Protest on for compensation. Petitioner is clearly a common
August 28, 1990 and also secured the services of carrier.Therefore,petitioner is a common
Gaspar Salvaging Corporation to refloat the barge. carrierwhether its carrying of goods is done on an
The hole was then patched with clay and irregular rather than scheduled manner, andwith an
cement.The barge was then towed to ISLOFF only limited clientele. Acommon carrierneed not
terminal before it finally headed towards the have fixed and publicly known routes. Neither does
consignees wharf on September 5, 1990. Upon it have to maintain terminals or issue tickets.2. The
reaching theSta. Mesaspillways, the barge again ran findings of the lower courts should be
aground due to strong current. To avoid the upheld.Petitioner failed to exercise extraordinary
complete sinking of the barge, a portion of the goods diligence in its care and custody of the consignees
was transferred to 3 other barges.The next day, the goods.Common carriers are bound to observe
towing bits of the barge broke. It sank completely, extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
resulting in the total loss of the remaining cargo. A goods transported by them.They arepresumed to
2nd Marine Protest was filed on September 7, have been at faultorto haveacted negligentlyif the
1990.7 days later, a bidding was conducted to goods arelost,destroyedordeteriorated.To overcome
dispose of the damaged wheat retrieved & loaded the presumption of negligencein the case of loss,
on the 3 other barges. The total proceeds from the destruction or deterioration of the goods,the
sale of the salvaged cargo was P201,379.75.On the common carrier must prove that it exercised
same date, consignee sent a claim letter to the extraordinary diligence.There are,
petitioner, and another letter dated September 18, however,exceptionsto this rule.Article 1734of
1990 to the private respondent for the value of the theCivil Codeenumerates theinstances when the
lost cargo. On January 30, 1991, the private presumption of negligence does not attach:Art.
respondent indemnified the consignee in the 1734.Common carriers are responsible for the loss,
amount of P4,104,654.22. Thereafter, as subrogee, it destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the
sought recovery of said amount from the petitioner, same is due to any of the following causes
but to no avail. only:(1)Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other
natural disaster or calamity;(2)Act of the public
ISSUES:1. Whether petitioner is a common carrier.2. enemy in war, whether international or
Assuming petitioner is a common carrier, whether it civil;(3)Act/omission of the shipper/ownerof the
exercised extraordinary care and diligence in its care goods;(4) Thecharacter of the goodsordefects in the
and custody of the consignees cargo. packing orin thecontainers;(5)Order/act of
competent public authority.In the case at bar, the
barge completely sank after its towing bits broke,
HELD:1.Petitioner is a common carrier.Article 1732of resulting in the total loss of its cargo. Petitioner
theCivil Codedefinescommon carriersaspersons, claims that this was caused by a typhoon, hence, it
corporations, firms or associations engaged in the should not be held liable for the loss of the cargo.
business of carrying or transporting passengers or However,petitioner failed to prove that the typhoon
goods or both, by land, water, or air, for is the proximate and only cause of the loss of the
compensation, offering their services to the goods,and that it has exercised due diligence before,
during and after the occurrence of the typhoon to February 13, 1989: Teresita Cañezal and Sotera E.
prevent/minimize the loss. The evidence show that, Cañezal, Sebastian Cañezal’s wife and mother
even before the towing bits of the barge broke, it respectively, filed a complaint for “Damages Arising
had already previously sustained damage when it hit from Breach of Contract of Carriage” against Sulpicio
a sunken object while docked at the Engineering Lines, Inc. for the death of Sebastian E. Cañezal
Island. It even suffered a hole. Clearly, this could not (public school teacher 47 years old) and his 11-year
be solely attributed to the typhoon. The partly- old daughter Corazon G. Cañezal
submerged vessel was refloated but its hole was Sulpicio, in turn, filed a 3rd party complaint against
patched with only clay and cement. The patch work Francisco Soriano, Vector Shipping Corporation and
was merely a provisional remedy, not enough for the Caltex
barge to sail safely.Thus, when petitioner persisted Sulpicio alleged that Caltex chartered MT Vector
to proceed with the voyage, it recklessly exposed the with gross and evident bad faith knowing fully well
cargo to further damage.Moreover,petitioner still that MT Vector was improperly manned, ill-
headed to the consignees wharf despite knowledge equipped, unseaworthy and a hazard to safe
of an incoming typhoon. During the time that the navigation
barge was heading towards the consignees wharf on RTC: dismissed the third party complaint and favored
September 5, 1990, typhoon Loleng has already the Cañezal's against Sulpicio Lines
entered the Philippine area of CA: included Caltex as liable party
responsibility.Accordingly, thepetitioner cannot ISSUE: W/N Caltex as a voyage charterer of a sea
invoke the occurrence of the typhoon as force vessel liable for damages resulting from a collision
majeure to escape liabilityfor the loss sustained by between the chartered vessel and a passenger ship
the private respondent. Surely,meeting a typhoon
head-on falls short of due diligence required from a HELD: NO. Grants Petition. CA set aside.
common carrier.More importantly, the
officers/employees themselves of petitioner respective rights and duties of a shipper and the
admitted that when the towing bits of the vessel carrier depends not on whether the carrier is public
broke that caused its sinking and the total loss of the or private, but on whether the contract of carriage:
cargo upon reaching the Pasig River, it was no longer bill of lading or equivalent shipping documents; or
affected by the typhoon.The typhoon then is not the charter party or similar contract on the other
proximate cause of the loss of the cargo; a human Caltex and Vector entered into a contract of
factor, i.e., negligence had intervened. affreightment, also known as a voyage charter
charter party
contract by which an entire ship, or some principal
part thereof, is let by the owner to another person
A. Effect of Charter Party for a specified time or use
Cases: Charter parties fall into three main categories:
Caltex Phils. V Sulpicio Lines (1) Demise or bareboat
315 SCRA 709 (a common carrier may transform into charterer mans the vessel with his own people and
a private carrier) becomes, in effect, the owner for the voyage or
Transportation Case Digest: Caltex V. Sulpicio Lines service stipulated, subject to liability for damages
(1999) caused by negligence
common carrier becomes private
G.R.No. 131166 September 30, 1999 contract of affreightment
Lessons Applicable: Charter Party (Transportation) one by which the owner of a ship or other vessel lets
the whole or part of her to a merchant or other
FACTS: person for the conveyance of goods, on a particular
voyage, in consideration of the payment of freight
December 19, 1987 8 pm: motor tanker MT Vector may be either:
owned and operated by Vector Shipping Corporation (2)time charter - wherein the leased vessel is leased
carried 8,800 barrels of petroleum products of Caltex to the charterer for a fixed period of time
by virtue of a charter contract (3) voyage charter - wherein the ship is leased for a
December 20, 1987 6:30 am: MV Doña Paz single voyage
passenger and cargo vessel owned and operated by charter-party provides for the hire of the vessel only,
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. left the port of Tacloban headed either for a determinate period of time or for a
for Manila with 1,493 passengers indicated in the single or consecutive voyage, the ship owner to
Coast Guard Clear supply the ship’s store, pay for the wages of the
December 20, 1987: MT Vector collided with MV master of the crew, and defray the expenses for the
Doña Paz in the open sea within the vicinity of maintenance of the ship
Dumali Point between Marinduque and Oriental charterer is free from liability to third persons in
Mindoro, killing almost all the passengers and crew respect of the ship
members of both ships except for 24 survivors does not convert the common carrier into a private
MV Doña Paz carried an estimated 4,000 passengers carrier
most were not in the passenger manifest Carriage of Goods by Sea Act :
board of marine inquiry in BMI Case No. 653-87 after
investigation found that the MT Vector, its Sec. 3. (1) The carrier shall be bound before and at
registered operator Francisco Soriano, and its owner the beginning of the voyage to exercise due diligence
and actual operator Vector Shipping Corporation, to -
were at fault and responsible for its collision with
MV Doña Paz (a) Make the ship seaworthy;
(b) Properly man, equip, and supply the ship; (2) Whether Philgen was subrogated into the rights
of the consignee against the carrier
xxx xxx xxx Held:
(1) Pag-asa Sales, Inc. only leased three of
Thus, the carriers are deemed to warrant impliedly petitioner's vessels, in order to carry cargo from one
the seaworthiness of the ship. For a vessel to be point to another, but the possession, command mid
seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for the navigation of the vessels remained with petitioner
voyage and manned with a sufficient number of Coastwise Lighterage. Coastwise Lighterage, by the
competent officers and crew. The failure of a contract of affreightment, was not converted into a
common carrier to maintain in seaworthy condition private carrier, but remained a common carrier and
the vessel involved in its contract of carriage is a was still liable as such. The law and jurisprudence on
clear breach of its duty prescribed in Article 1755 of common carriers both hold that the mere proof of
the Civil Code delivery of goods in good order to a carrier and the
a passenger or a shipper of goods is under no subsequent arrival of the same goods at the place of
obligation to conduct an inspection of the ship and destination in bad order makes for a prima facie case
its crew, the carrier being obliged by law to impliedly against the carrier. It follows then that the
warrant its seaworthiness presumption of negligence that attaches to common
nature of the obligation of Caltex demands ordinary carriers, once the goods it is sports are lost,
diligence like any other shipper in shipping his destroyed or deteriorated, applies to the petitioner.
cargoes This presumption, which is overcome only by proof
Caltex and Vector Shipping Corporation had been of the exercise of extraordinary diligence, remained
doing business since 1985, or for about two years unrebutted in this case. Jesus R. Constantino, the
before the tragic incident occurred in 1987. Past patron of the vessel "Coastwise 9" admitted that he
services rendered showed no reason for Caltex to was not licensed. Coastwise Lighterage cannot safely
observe a higher degree of diligence. claim to have exercised extraordinary diligence, by
Caltex had the right to presume that the ship was placing a person whose navigational skills are
seaworthy as even the Philippine Coast Guard itself questionable, at the helm of the vessel which
was convinced of its seaworthiness eventually met the fateful accident. It may also
logically, follow that a person without license to
navigate, lacks not just the skill to do so, but also the
utmost familiarity with the usual and safe routes
taken by seasoned and legally authorized ones. Had
the patron been licensed he could be presumed to
have both the skill and the knowledge that would
have prevented the vessel's hitting the sunken
Coastwise Literrage Corp V CA derelict ship that lay on their way to Pier 18. As a
24 SCRA 797 1997 (a common carrier is not common carrier, petitioner is liable for breach of the
transformed to a private carrier if the charter party contract of carriage, having failed to overcome the
is a contract of affreightment) presumption of negligence with the loss and
destruction of goods it transported, by proof of its
Coastwise Lighterage Corporation v. CA exercise of extraordinary diligence.
Facts: (2) Article 2207 of the Civil Code is founded on the
Pag-asa Sales Inc. entered into a contract to well-settled principle of subrogation. If the insured
transport molasses from the province of Negros to property is destroyed or damaged through the fault
Manila with Coastwise Lighterage Corporation or negligence of a party other than the assured, then
(Coastwise for brevity), using the latter's dumb the insurer, upon payment to the assured will be
barges. The barges were towed in tandem by the subrogated to the rights of the assured to recover
tugboat MT Marica, which is likewise owned by from the wrongdoer to the extent that the insurer
Coastwise. Upon reaching Manila Bay, one of the has been obligated to pay. Payment by the insurer to
barges, "Coastwise 9", struck an unknown sunken the assured operated as an equitable assignment to
object. The forward buoyancy compartment was the former of all remedies which the latter may have
damaged, and water gushed in through a hole "two against the third party whose negligence or wrongful
inches wide and twenty-two inches long". As a act caused the loss. The right of subrogation is not
consequence, the molasses at the cargo tanks were dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any
contaminated. Pag-asa filed a claim against private of contract or upon written assignment of,
Philippine General Insurance Company, the insurer claim. It accrues simply upon payment of the
of its cargo. Philgen paid P700,000 for the value of insurance claim by the insurer.
the molasses lost.
Philgen then filed an action against Coastwise to
recover the money it paid, claiming to be subrogated
to the claims which the consignee may have against
the carrier. Both the trial court and the Court of Planters Products Inc. V CA et al
Appeals ruled against Coastwise. No. 101503 Sept 15 1990
226 RA 476, 483-486 (2 types of
Issues: charter parties)
(1) Whether Coastwise was transformed into a
private carrier by virtue of the contract it entered
into with Pag-asa, and whether it exercised the Transportation Case Digest: Planters Products Inc V.
required degree of diligence CA (1993)
 RTC: failure to destroy the presumption of
G.R. No. 101503 September 15, 1993 negligence against them, SSA are liable
Lessons Applicable: Charter Party (Transportation) CA: REVERSED - failed to prove the basis of its cause
of action
FACTS: ISSUE: W/N a time charter between a shipowner and
June 16 1974: Mitsubishi International Corporation a charterer transforms a common carrier into a
(Mitsubishi) of New York, U.S.A., 9,329.7069 M/T of private one as to negate the civil law presumption of
Urea 46% fertilizer bought by Planters Products, Inc. negligence in case of loss or damage to its cargo
(PPI) on aboard the cargo vessel M/V "Sun Plum"
owned by private Kyosei Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha HELD: NO. petition is DISMISSED
(KKKK) from Kenai, Alaska, U.S.A., to Poro Point, San When PPI chartered the vessel M/V "Sun Plum", the
Fernando, La Union, Philippines, as evidenced by Bill ship captain, its officers and compliment were under
of Lading the employ of the shipowner and therefore
May 17 1974: a time charter-party on the vessel M/V continued to be under its direct supervision and
"Sun Plum" pursuant to the Uniform General Charter control. Hardly then can we charge the charterer, a
was entered into between Mitsubishi as stranger to the crew and to the ship, with the duty of
shipper/charterer and KKKK as shipowner, in Tokyo, caring for his cargo when the charterer did not have
Japan any control of the means in doing so
Before loading the fertilizer aboard the vessel, 4 of carrier has sufficiently overcome, by clear and
her holds were all presumably inspected by the convincing proof, the prima facie presumption of
charterer's representative and found fit negligence. The hatches remained close and tightly
The hatches remained closed and tightly sealed sealed while the ship was in transit as the weight of
throughout the entire voyage the steel covers made it impossible for a person to
July 3, 1974: PPI unloaded the cargo from the holds open without the use of the ship's boom.
into its steelbodied dump trucks which were parked bulk shipment of highly soluble goods like fertilizer
alongside the berth, using metal scoops attached to carries with it the risk of loss or damage. More so,
the ship, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the with a variable weather condition prevalent during
charter-partly its unloading
hatches remained open throughout the duration of This is a risk the shipper or the owner of the goods
the discharge has to face. Clearly, KKKK has sufficiently proved the
Each time a dump truck was filled up, its load of inherent character of the goods which makes it
Urea was covered with tarpaulin before it was highly vulnerable to deterioration; as well as the
transported to the consignee's warehouse located inadequacy of its packaging which further
some 50 meters from the wharf contributed to the loss.
Midway to the warehouse, the trucks were made to On the other hand, no proof was adduced by the
pass through a weighing scale where they were petitioner showing that the carrier was remise in the
individually weighed for the purpose of ascertaining exercise of due diligence in order to minimize the
the net weight of the cargo. loss or damage to the goods it carried.
The port area was windy, certain portions of the
route to the warehouse were sandy and the weather
was variable, raining occasionally while the
discharge was in progress.
Tarpaulins and GI sheets were placed in-between
and alongside the trucks to contain spillages of the
ferilizer
It took 11 days for PPI to unload the cargo
Cargo Superintendents Company Inc. (CSCI), private
marine and cargo surveyor, was hired by PPI to
determine the "outturn" of the cargo shipped, by
taking draft readings of the vessel prior to and after
discharge
shortage in the cargo of 106.726 M/T and that a
portion of the Urea fertilizer approximating 18 M/T
was contaminated with dirt
Certificate of Shortage/Damaged Cargo prepared by
PPI
short of 94.839 M/T and about 23 M/T were
rendered unfit for commerce, having been polluted
with sand, rust and dirt
PPI sent a claim letter 1974 to Soriamont Steamship
Agencies (SSA), the resident agent of the carrier,
KKKK, for P245,969.31 representing the cost of the
alleged shortage in the goods shipped and the
diminution in value of that portion said to have been
contaminated with dirt
SSA: what they received was just a request for
shortlanded certificate and not a formal claim, and
that they "had nothing to do with the discharge of
the shipment