Case Summary (G.R. No. 220400)
Key Dates
- February 3, 1994: Great Harvest engaged Tan to transport soya beans from Tacoma Port Area, Manila to Selecta Feeds in Quezon City.
- February 3, 1994: Goods loaded; driver dispatched.
- February 7, 1994: Great Harvest notified of missing delivery.
- February 19, 1994: NBI located Tan’s truck in Cavite, stripped of cargo.
- June 2, 1994: Great Harvest filed a Complaint for sum of money.
- January 3, 2012: Regional Trial Court rendered judgment for Great Harvest.
- March 13, 2015 and September 15, 2015: Court of Appeals affirmed and denied reconsideration.
- March 20, 2019: Supreme Court issued its Decision.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution – public policy support for contractual obligations and protection of public service operations.
- Civil Code of the Philippines
• Article 1732 – Definition of common carriers.
• Article 1733 – Extraordinary diligence required of common carriers.
• Article 1734 – Liability for loss of goods, subject to enumerated exceptions.
• Article 1736 – Duration of extraordinary responsibility.
• Article 1745(6) – Exceptions for robbery with grave or irresistible violence. - Rule 45, Rules of Civil Procedure – scope of review on certiorari.
Factual Background
Great Harvest contracted Tan to haul 430 bags of soya beans worth ₱230,000.00 from Tacoma Port Area in Manila to Selecta Feeds in Quezon City. After loading, the shipment was rejected by Selecta Feeds. Per standard practice, Great Harvest instructed Cabugatan to return the cargo to Great Harvest’s Malabon warehouse. The truck never arrived. Tan initially undertook efforts to locate both vehicle and cargo, eventually filing reports with the Western Police District Anti-Carnapping Unit and the NBI. The truck was later recovered in Cavite, cannibalized and empty. Tan spent over ₱200,000.00 on repairs and filed criminal charges against Cabugatan and Karamihan. Great Harvest demanded payment twice; Tan refused.
Procedural History
Great Harvest’s civil suit for sum of money was filed June 2, 1994. Tan denied a contract of carriage, contending that she merely “accommodated” Great Harvest and that any deviation in destination excused her liability. The RTC of Quezon City (January 3, 2012) found a verbal hauling contract, held Tan strictly liable as common carrier for her driver’s failure to deliver, and awarded ₱230,000.00 plus 12% interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The CA (March 13, 2015 Decision; September 15, 2015 Resolution) affirmed. Tan’s Rule 45 petition asserted misapprehension of facts.
Issue
Whether petitioner Annie Tan is liable, under her role as common carrier, for the value of the stolen soya beans.
Analysis
- Rule 45 of Court Rules limits Supreme Court review to questions of law; factual findings supported by substantial evidence are binding.
- Articles 1732–1733 define common carriers and prescribe extraordinary diligence over goods from receipt until delivery to consignee or rightful receiver.
- Article 1734 makes common carriers liable for loss of goods unless caused by specified exceptions; none apply here, as theft by driver does not fall under natural calamity, shipper’s act, defective packaging, public enemy, or public authority order.
- Tan’s assertion that her obligation ended at Selecta Feeds is co
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 220400)
Facts
- On February 3, 1994, Great Harvest Enterprises, Inc. (“Great Harvest”) hired Annie Tan (“Tan”) to transport 430 bags of soya beans worth ₱230,000.00 from Tacoma Integrated Port Services, Inc. in Manila to Selecta Feeds in Novaliches, Quezon City.
- The shipment was loaded onto Tan’s hauling truck and delivered by her employee, Rannie Sultan Cabugatan.
- Selecta Feeds rejected the entire shipment. Great Harvest then instructed Cabugatan to unload the soya beans at its warehouse in Malabon.
- The truck never reached Great Harvest’s warehouse and both the vehicle and cargo went missing.
- Tan initially assured Great Harvest she would locate the missing shipment but ultimately reported the vehicle stolen to the Western Police District Anti-Carnapping Unit and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
- On February 19, 1994, the NBI found the truck in Cavite, stripped of all cargo. Tan spent over ₱200,000.00 on repairs.
- Tan filed a criminal complaint against Cabugatan and Rody Karamihan, accusing them of conspiring to steal the cargo. Karamihan was charged as an accessory after the fact, and Cabugatan with qualified theft.
- Great Harvest made repeated demand letters for full payment of the missing cargo, which Tan ignored.
Procedural History
- June 2, 1994: Great Harvest filed a civil Complaint for sum of money against Tan in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-94-20745).
- August 4, 2000: RTC of Manila found Karamihan guilty as an accessory after the fact of theft and ordered him to indemnify Tan ₱75,000.00.
- January 3, 2012: RTC of Quezon City granted Great Harvest’s civil complaint, finding a verbal hauling contract and Tan’s liability for her driver’s failure to deliver. It ordered Tan to pay ₱230,000.00 plus