Case Digest (G.R. No. 254787)
Facts:
Pedro De Guzman v. Court of Appeals and Ernesto Cendana, G.R. No. L-47822, December 22, 1988, Supreme Court Third Division, Feliciano, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Pedro de Guzman, a merchant and authorized dealer of General Milk Company (Philippines), Inc., contracted in November 1970 with respondent Ernesto Cendana, a junk dealer who owned two six‑wheeler trucks, to haul 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from a General Milk warehouse in Makati to Urdaneta, Pangasinan, for delivery on or before December 4, 1970. On December 1, 1970, respondent loaded 150 cartons on a truck he drove and 600 cartons on a second truck driven by his employee Manuel Estrada.
Only the 150 cartons carried by respondent personally were delivered; the truck carrying 600 cartons was hijacked along MacArthur Highway in Paniqui, Tarlac, by armed men who took the truck, its driver, helper and the cargo. An information for robbery was later filed (Criminal Case No. 198, CFI of Tarlac), and the accused were convicted of robbery (though not robbery in band).
On January 6, 1971, petitioner sued respondent in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for P22,150.00 (value of the lost goods), damages and attorney’s fees, alleging respondent was a common carrier who failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required by law. Respondent denied being a common carrier and pleaded force majeure.
On December 10, 1975, the trial court found respondent a common carrier and held him liable for the value of the goods, P4,000 damages and P2,000 attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed by Decision dated August 3, 1977, concluding respondent had transported return loads as a casual sideline and was not a common carrier, and that the hijacking was force majeure exempting him from liability.
Petitioner brought the case to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45), assigning errors to the Court of Appeals’...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was respondent Ernesto Cendana a common carrier under Article 1732 of the Civil Code?
- Did the hijacking of the truck constitute a force majeure (an exempting cause) under Articles 1734–1735 of the Civil Code and related provisions?
- Is respondent liable for the value of t...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)