Case Summary (G.R. No. L-47822)
Trial Court Findings: Common Carrier Liability
The CFI ruled that respondent was a common carrier under Civil Code Article 1732, failed to exercise “extraordinary diligence,” and awarded P22,150 for the value of goods, P4,000 damages, and P2,000 attorney’s fees.
Appellate Ruling: Occasional Carrier Exemption
The Court of Appeals held respondent was merely engaged in casual, sideline hauling and not a common carrier. It further deemed the hijacking a force majeure and absolved respondent of liability.
Supreme Court Issue: Characterization as Common Carrier
The Supreme Court examined whether habitual or ancillary carriage for compensation, even on an unscheduled basis, suffices to render one a common carrier.
Definition of Common Carrier Under Civil Code and Public Service Act
Civil Code Article 1732 defines a common carrier as any person or entity offering transport of goods or passengers to the public for compensation, without distinguishing principal from ancillary business or scheduled from occasional services. The Public Service Act similarly treats any for-hire carrier with general or limited clientele as a public service operator.
Obligation of Common Carriers: Extraordinary Diligence Standard
Common carriers owe “extraordinary diligence” under Article 1733, further detailed in Articles 1734–1735. They are liable for loss of goods unless caused by (1) natural disaster, (2) public enemy act, (3) shipper’s fault, (4) goods’ nature or packing, or (5) public authority act. Outside these exceptions, Article 1735 presumes carrier negligence, rebuttable only by proof of extraordinary diligence.
Exemption from Liability: Scope of Force Majeure under Articles 1734–1735
Hijacking does not fall within the five causes in Article 1734; thus, loss by robbery invokes the presumption of fault under Article 1735, which a carrier may overcome by demonstrating extraordinary vigilance. Article 1745(6) disallows contractual exemption from liability for robberies unless committed with “grave or irresistible threat, violence or force.”
Application to Hijacking Incident and Evidence of Force Majeure
Record in Tarlac criminal case established that armed robbers kidnapped
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-47822)
Procedural History
- Private respondent Ernesto Cendana, a junk dealer and occasional freight hauler, was sued by petitioner Pedro de Guzman in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for P22,150.00 (value of undelivered goods), plus damages and attorney’s fees.
- Trial court (10 December 1975) found Cendana a common carrier, held him liable for P22,150.00, awarded P4,000.00 damages and P2,000.00 attorney’s fees.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that Cendana was a casual, sideline hauler—not a common carrier—and that the hijacking constituted force majeure.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court, challenging (1) classification of Cendana as non-common carrier, (2) force majeure finding, and (3) non-liability for value of cargo.
Facts
- Ernesto Cendana purchased scrap in Pangasinan, hauled it to Manila in two six-wheeler trucks, and on return carried merchants’ goods at preferential freight rates.
- In November 1970, Pedro de Guzman contracted for transport of 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from Makati to Urdaneta on or before 4 December 1970.
- On 1 December 1970, 150 cartons were delivered by Cendana himself; 600 cartons were entrusted to his driver Manuel Estrada.
- En route on MacArthur Highway in Paniqui, Tarlac, armed men hijacked the second truck, driver, helper, and 600 cartons.
- The hijacked truck was later recovered; driver and helper released after several days in Zambales.
- An information for robbery in band was filed; trial court convicted the accused of robbery (not in band).
Issue 1 – Common Carrier Status
- Whether Ernesto Cendana, hauling return loads by his own initiative as a sideline to his scrap business, qualifies as a “common carrier.”