Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47822) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Pedro de Guzman vs. Court of Appeals and Ernesto Cendana, G.R. No. L-47822, decided December 22, 1988 under the 1973 Philippine Constitution, petitioner Pedro de Guzman, an authorized dealer of General Milk Company in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, contracted in November 1970 with respondent Ernesto Cendana, a Pangasinan junk dealer who owned and operated two six-wheeler trucks hauling scrap to Manila and backhauling cargo for merchants at discounted rates. On December 1, 1970, Cendana personally loaded 150 cartons of Liberty filled milk on one truck and assigned his employee, Manuel Estrada, to drive the other truck carrying the remaining 600 cartons. While 150 cartons were duly delivered, the second truck was hijacked by armed men along MacArthur Highway in Paniqui, Tarlac; the assailants abducted the driver and helper, absconded with the truck and cargo, and later released the hostages in Zambales. On January 6, 1971, petitioner filed suit in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pa Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47822) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Ernesto Cendana, respondent, was a junk dealer in Pangasinan who back-hauled goods from Manila to Pangasinan using his two six-wheeler trucks, charging below-market freight rates.
- Pedro de Guzman, petitioner, was a merchant and authorized dealer of General Milk Company in Urdaneta, Pangasinan.
- Contract and Loss of Goods
- In November 1970, Guzman contracted Cendana for the hauling of 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from Makati to Urdaneta, delivery by December 4, 1970.
- On December 1, 1970, Cendana loaded 150 cartons on his own‐driven truck and 600 cartons on a second truck driven by his employee Manuel Estrada. Only the 150 cartons reached petitioner; the second truck was hijacked along MacArthur Highway in Paniqui, Tarlac, by armed men who took the vehicle, its driver, helper, and cargo.
- Procedural History
- On January 6, 1971, Guzman sued in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for P22,150.00 (value of lost goods), damages, and attorney’s fees, alleging Cendana was a common carrier liable for non-delivery.
- The trial court (Dec. 10, 1975) found Cendana a common carrier and awarded the full claim plus damages and fees.
- The Court of Appeals reversed on August 3, 1977, ruling that Cendana was not a common carrier but merely engaged in casual back‐hauling, and that the hijacking was force majeure.
Issues:
- Whether Ernesto Cendana was properly characterized as a common carrier under Article 1732 of the Civil Code.
- Whether the hijacking of the truck constituted force majeure exempting the carrier from liability under Articles 1734 and 1735 of the Civil Code.
- Whether Cendana, as a common carrier, was liable for the value of the undelivered milk cartons.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)