Myline Cordial

Pedro de Guzman vs. Court of Appeals and Ernesto Cendana
G.R. No. L-47822, December 22, 1988

FACTS:
Respondent Ernesto Cendana, a junk dealer, owned two trucks for hauling scrap materials to Manila. The trucks, on their return trip, were loaded with cargoes contracted with various merchants  to be delivered to different establishments in Pangasinan. Respondent charged freight rates which were commonly lower than regular commercial rates. He was contracted by petitioner, an authorized dealer of General Milk Company to haul 750 cartons of milk from its warehouse in Makati. 150 cartons were loaded on a truck driven by respondent himself, while 600 cartons were placed on the other truck respondent’s driver and employee. However, 600 boxes of milk were not delivered because the truck, while on its way to Pangasinan, was held up by armed men and the driver and his helper were kidnapped.

RTC’s finding: Respondent a common carrier.

CA’s decision: Respondent was not liable for the value of the undelivered cargo. The transport of return loads of freight is “a casual occupation — a sideline to his scrap iron business” and was not engaged as a common carrier. The hijacking of respondent’s truck was force majeure

ISSUES:
1. Is the owner of the truck a common carrier?
2. Is he liable for the undelivered goods?

RULING:
SC affirmed the decision of the CA that the truck owner, although found to be a common carrier, is not liable for the value of the undelivered merchandise which was lost because the robbery is attended by grave or irresistible threat, violence or force and he had complied with the rigorous standard of extraordinary diligence.

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. This article 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 or as a mere “sideline”. It makes no distinction 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. Neither it distinguishes between a carrier offering its services to the “general public,” i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population.

If the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, and the cause was not one of those enumerated in Article 1734, the respondent is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently but this presumption may be overthrown by proof of extraordinary diligence on the part of private respondent. He must proved that he observed extraordinary diligence as required by the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy.

Under Article 1745 (6) a stipulation that the common carrier’s liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force, is dispensed with or diminished is considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy.

NOTES:
Article 1734. Common carriers may be exempted from liability under the following causes only:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) The character-of the goods or defects in the packing or-in the containers; and
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.