Case Summary (G.R. No. 171222)
Applicable Law
The primary legal framework governing this case is found in the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant provisions from the Civil Code related to common carriers and the liability therein, particularly Articles 1732, 1733, 1734, and 1735.
Contractual Relationship and Classification
The core issue revolves around whether Bascos acted as a common carrier or merely engaged in a lease of the truck for transport. The Court of Appeals held that Bascos was indeed a common carrier, referencing her admission of operating under the business name A.M. Bascos Trucking and providing evidence of her business operations. The ruling states that the determination of common carrier status does not depend solely on the scale of operations or the exclusivity of clients but rather on the nature of the services offered to the public.
Admissibility of Evidence and Burden of Proof
Bascos contended that affidavits supporting her claim that the relationship constituted a lease were self-evident. However, both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed these as insufficient to counter the finding of a common carrier relationship. The legal principle articulated emphasizes that the obligation of proof lies with Bascos to establish her assertions, especially in refuting the presumption of negligence that attaches to common carriers when goods are lost or damaged.
Liability and Force Majeure
The case also examines the nature of the loss due to hijacking and whether such an event constitutes force majeure, thereby absolving Bascos of liability. The courts emphasized that common carriers are presumed to have acted negligently unless they can demonstrate they exercised extraordinary diligence. This presumption of negligence applies to situations where goods are lost, barring those exceptions clearly articulated in Article 1734 of the Civil Code. The determination of whether hijacking met the criteria for force majeure became central, with the ruling asserting that
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 171222)
Case Overview
- This case involves a petition for review on certiorari from a decision issued by the Court of Appeals.
- The case originated from a complaint filed by Rodolfo A. Cipriano, representing Cipriano Trading Enterprise (CIPTRADE), against Estrellita M. Bascos, who operated as BASCOS TRUCKING.
- The legal dispute stems from a hauling contract and allegations of breach of contract concerning the delivery of soya bean meal.
Facts of the Case
- Cipriano entered into a hauling contract with Jibfair Shipping Agency Corporation to transport 2,000 metric tons of soya bean meal.
- Cipriano subcontracted the delivery of 400 sacks of soya bean meal, valued at P156,404.00, to Bascos at the rate of P50.00 per metric ton.
- Bascos failed to deliver the cargo, leading Cipriano to compensate Jibfair Shipping Agency for the loss.
- Cipriano demanded reimbursement from Bascos, who refused to pay, prompting Cipriano to file a complaint for breach of contract and damages.
Legal Proceedings
- The trial court granted a writ of preliminary attachment against Bascos' property based on allegations of intent to defraud creditors.
- Bascos defended by claiming there was no contract of carriage, asserting that the agreement was merely a lease of her cargo truck.
- She also argued that the loss occurred due to hijacking