De Guzman v.

CA
Facts:
Respondent Ernesto Cendana was a junk dealer. He buys scrap materials and brings
tose tat e gatered to !anila "or resale using # si$%weeler trucks. &n te return trip
to 'angasinan( respondent would load is veicle wit cargo wic various mercants
wanted delivered( carging "ee lower tan te commercial rates. )ometime in *ovember
+,-.( petitioner 'edro de Guzman contracted wit respondent "or te delivery o" -/.
cartons o" 0iberty !ilk. &n December +( +,-.( respondent loaded te cargo. &nly +/.
bo$es were delivered to petitioner because te truck carrying te bo$es was ijacked
along te way. 'etitioner commenced an action claiming te value o" te lost
mercandise. 'etitioner argues tat respondent( being a common carrier( is bound to
e$ercise e$traordinary diligence( wic it "ailed to do. 'rivate respondent denied tat e
was a common carrier( and so e could not be eld liable "or "orce majeure. 1e trial
court ruled against te respondent( but suc was reversed by te Court o" Appeals.
Issues:
2+3 4eter or not private respondent is a common carrier
2#3 4eter private respondent is liable "or te loss o" te goods
Held:
2+3 Article +-5# makes no distinction between one wose principal business activity is
te carrying o" persons or goods or bot( and one wo does suc carrying only as an
ancillary activity. Article +-5# also care"ully avoids making any distinction between a
person or enterprise o""ering transportation service on a regular or sceduled basis and
one o""ering suc service on an occasional( episodic or unsceduled basis. *eiter does
Article +-5# distinguis between a carrier o""ering its services to te 6general public(6
i.e.( te general community or population( and one wo o""ers services or solicits
business only "rom a narrow segment o" te general population. 7t appears to te Court
tat private respondent is properly caracterized as a common carrier even toug e
merely 6back%auled6 goods "or oter mercants "rom !anila to 'angasinan( altoug
suc backauling was done on a periodic or occasional rater tan regular or sceduled
manner( and even toug private respondent8s principal occupation was not te carriage
o" goods "or oters. 1ere is no dispute tat private respondent carged is customers a
"ee "or auling teir goods9 tat "ee "re:uently "ell below commercial "reigt rates is not
relevant ere. A certi"icate o" public convenience is not a re:uisite "or te incurring o"
liability under te Civil Code provisions governing common carriers.
2#3 Article +-5; establises te general rule tat common carriers are responsible "or te
loss( destruction or deterioration o" te goods wic tey carry( 6unless te same is due
to any o" te "ollowing causes only<
a. =lood( storm( eart:uake( ligtning( or oter natural disaster or calamity9
b. Act o" te public enemy in war( weter international or civil9
c. Act or omission o" te sipper or owner o" te goods9
d. 1e caracter o" te goods or de"ects in te packing or in te containers9 and
e. &rder or act o" competent public autority.6
1e ijacking o" te carrier8s truck % does not "all witin any o" te "ive 2/3 categories o"
e$empting causes listed in Article +-5;. 'rivate respondent as common carrier is
presumed to ave been at "ault or to ave acted negligently. 1is presumption( owever(
may be overtrown by proo" o" e$traordinary diligence on te part o" private
respondent. 4e believe and so old tat te limits o" te duty o" e$traordinary diligence
in te vigilance over te goods carried are reaced were te goods are lost as a result o"
a robbery wic is attended by 6grave or irresistible treat( violence or "orce.6 we old
tat te occurrence o" te loss must reasonably be regarded as :uite beyond te control
o" te common carrier and properly regarded as a "ortuitous event. 7t is necessary to
recall tat even common carriers are not made absolute insurers against all risks o"
travel and o" transport o" goods( and are not eld liable "or acts or events wic cannot
be "oreseen or are inevitable( provided tat tey sall ave complied wit te rigorous
standard o" e$traordinary diligence.
4. FABRE VS. CA (259 SCRA 426 G.R. NO. 111127, JULY 26, 1996)
Facts
Petitioners Engracio Fabre, Jr. and his wife were owners of a Mazda
minibus. They used the bus principally in connection with a bus
service for school children which they operated in Manila. t was driven by
Por!rio "abil. #n $ovember %, &'() private respondent *ord for the *orld
"hristian Fellowship nc. +**"F, arranged with the petitioners for the
transportation of -- members of its .oung /dults Ministry from Manila to
0a 1nion and bac2 inconsideration of which private respondent paid
petitioners the amount of P-,333.33.The usual route to "aba, 0a 1nion
was through "armen, Pangasinan. 4owever, the bridge at "armen was
under repair, so that petitioner "abilwho was unfamiliar with the
area +it being his !rst trip to 0a 1nion,, was forced to ta2e a detour
through the town of 5a6ay in 0ingayen, Pangasinan. /t&&7-3 that night,
petitioner "abil came upon a sharp curve on the highway. The road
was slippery because it was raining, causing the bus, which was
runni ng at t he speed of 83 2i l omet ers per hour, t o s2i d t o
t he l ef t road shoulder. The bus hit the left tra9ic steel brace and
sign along the road and rammed the fence of one Jesus Escano, then
turned over and landed on its left side, coming to a full stop only after a
series of impacts. The bus came to rest o9 the road. / coconut tree which it
had hit fell on it and smashed its front portion. 5ecause of the mishap,
several passengers were in:ured particularly /myline /ntonio.
"riminal complaint was !led against the driver and the
spouses were also made :ointly liable. ;pouses Fabre on
the other hand contended that they are not liable since
they are not a common carrier. The <T" of Ma2ati ruled in
favor of the plainti9 and the defendants were ordered to pay
:ointly and severally to the plainti9s. The "ourt of /ppeals
a9irmed the decision of the trial court.
!ss"#
*hether the spouses Fabre are common carriers=
$#%&
Petition was denied. ;pouses Fabre are common carriers. The
;upreme "ourt held that this case actually involves a
contract of carriage. Petitioners, the Fabres, did not have to be
engaged in the business
of publ i c transportati on f or the provi si ons of the "i vi l
"ode on common carriers to apply to them. /s this
"ourt has held7 &3 /rt. &>-%,
"ommoncarriers are persons, corporations, !rms or asso
ciations engaged in thebusiness of carrying or transporting
passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for
compensation, o9ering their services to the public.The above
article ma2es no distinction between one whose principal
business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both,
and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity +in
local idiom, as ?a sideline?,./rticle &>-% also carefully avoids
ma2ing any distinction between a person or enterprise o9ering
transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis andone
o9ering such service on an occasional, episodic or
unscheduled basis. $either does /rticle &>-% distinguish
between a carrier o9ering its services to the ?general public,?
i.e., the general community or population, and one who
o9ers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of
the general population. *e thin2 that /rticle &>-% deliberately
refrained from ma2ing such distinctions.
F!RS' ($!L!((!NES !N)US'R!AL COR(. VS. CA (*++ SCRA
661)
Facts7
Petitioner is a grantee of a pipeline concession under <./. $o.
-(>, as amended, a contract, install and operate oil
pipelines. The original pipeline concession was granted in
&'@> and renewed by the Energy <egulatory 5oard in
&''%.;ometime in January &''8, petitioner applied for a mayorAs
permit with the #9ice of the Mayor of 5atangas "ity. 4owever,
before the mayorAs permit could be issued, the respondent
"ity Treasurer reBuired petitioner to pay a local taC based
on its gross receipts for the !scal year &''- pursuant to the
0ocal Dovernment "ode. The respondent "ity Treasure assessed
a business taC on the petitioner amounting to P'8@,3>@.3)
payable in four instalments based on the gross receipts for
products pumped at DP;6& for the !scal
year &''- whi ch amounted to P&(&, @(&, &8&. 33. n ord
er not to hamper i tsoperations, petitioner paid the taC but
under protest in the amount of P%-',3&'.3& for the !rst
Buarter of &''-.#n June &8, &''), petitioner !led with the
<T" of 5atangas "ity a complaint for taC refund with
prayer for writ of preliminary in:unction against respondents
"ity of 5atangas and /doracion /rellano in her capacity as
"ity Treasurer.
Traversing the complaint, the respondents argued that p
etitioner cannot be eCempt from taCes under ;ec. &--+J,
of the 0ocal
Dovernment"ode as said eCemption applied only to Etran
sportation contractors andpersons engaged in the
transportation by hire and common carriers by air land
and water.F <espondents assert that pipelines are not
included in
theterm Ecommon carrierF which refers solely to ordinar
y carriers as truc2s, trains, ships and the li2e. <espondents
further posit that the term Ecommon carrierF under the
said "ode pertains to the mode or manner by which a
product is delivered to its destination.
!ss"#
*hether the petitioner, an oil pipeline operator is a common
carrier, and therefore eCempted from paying local taCes=
$#%&
.es. Petitioner is a common carrier. /rticle &>-% of the "ivil
"ode de!nes a Ecommon carrierF as Eanyperson,
corporation, !rm or association engaged in the business of
carryingor transporti ng passengers or goods or both,
by l and, water, or ai r, f or compensation, o9ering their
services to the public. / Ecommon carrierF may be de!ned,
broadly, as one who holds himself out to the publ i c as
engaged i n the busi ness of transporti ng persons
or property from place to place, for compensation, o9ering
his services to the public generally. The test for determining
whether a party is a common carrier of goods is7 &. 4e must
be engaged in the carrying of goods for others as a
publice mp l o y me nt , a nd mus t h o l d h i ms e l f o u t a s
r e a d y t o e ng a g e i n t h e transportation of goods or
persons generally as a business and not as a casual
occupationG %.4e must underta2e to carry goods of the 2ind
to which his business is con!nedG -. 4e must underta2e
to carry by the method by which his business is conducted
and over his established roadsG and ). The transportation
must be for hire. 5ased on the above de!nition and
reBuirements, there is no doubt that the petitioner is a common
carrier.
BELG!AN OVERSEAS C$AR'ER!NG AN) S$!((!NG N.V.
a,& JAR)!NE )AV!ES 'RANS(OR' SERV!CES,!NC.,
petitioners, vs. ($!L!((!NE F!RS' !NSURANCE CO., !NC.,
respondents,
G.R. N-. 14*1**, J",# 5,2++2

Proof of the delivery of goods in good order to a common carrier
and of their arrival in bad order at their destination constitutes
prima facie fault or negligence on the part of the carrier. f no
adeBuate eCplanation is given as to how the loss, the destruction
or the deterioration of the goods happened, the carrier shall be
held liabletherefor.
Facts
#n June &-, &''3, "M" Trading /.D. shipped on board the MHI
J/nangel ;2yJ at 4amburg, Dermany %)%coils of various Prime
"old <olled ;teel sheets for transportation to Manila consigned
to the Philippine ;teelTrading "orporation. #n July %(,
&''3, MHI /nangel ;2y arrived at the port of Manila and, within
thesubseBuent days, discharged the sub:ect cargo. Four +), coils
were found to be in bad order. Finding the four+), coils in their
damaged state to be un!t for the intended purpose, the
consignee Philippine ;teel Trading"orporation declared the
same as total loss. Petitioners refused to submit to the
consigneeJs claim. "onseBuently, respondent paid the consignee
and was subrogated to the latterJs rights. ;ubseBuently,
respondent instituted this complaint for recovery of the
amount paid by them, to the consignee as insured. Petitioners
imputed that the damage andHor loss was due to pre6shipment
damage. n addition thereto, they argued that their liability, if
there be any, should not eCceed the limitations of liability
provided for in the bill of lading and other pertinent laws. Finally,
they averred that, in any event, they eCercised due diligence and
foresight reBuired by law to prevent any damageHloss to said
shipment.<T" dismissed the "omplaint because respondent had
failed to prove its claims. n reversing the trial court, the "/
ruled that petitioners were liable for the loss or the damage
of the goods shipped, because they had failed to overcome the
presumption of negligence imposed on common carriers.
!ss"# .1
*hether or not a notation in the bill of lading at the time
of loading is su9icient to show pre6shipment damage and
to eCempt herein defendants from liability.
$#%& NO.
Mere proof of delivery of the goods in good order to a common
carrier and of their arrival in bad order at their destination
c-,st/t"t#s a 01/2a 3ac/# cas# -3 3a"%t -1 ,#4%/4#,c#
a4a/,st t5# ca11/#1.
f no adeBuate eCplanation is given as to how the deterioration,
the loss or the destruction of the goods happened, the
transporter shall be held responsible. Petitioners failed to rebut
the prima facie presumption of negligence in the case at bar.
True, the words ?metal envelopes rust stained and slightly
dented? were noted on the 5ill of 0adingG however, t5#1# /s ,-
s5-6/,4 t5at 0#t/t/-,#1s #7#1c/s#& &"# &/%/4#,c# t-
3-1#sta%% -1 %#ss#, t5# %-ss. 4aving failed to discharge the
burden of proving that they have eCercised the eCtraordinary
diligence reBuired by law, 0#t/t/-,#1s ca,,-t #sca0# %/a8/%/t9
3-1 t5# &a2a4# t- t5# 3-"1 c-/%s
.
!ss"# .2
*hether or not the consigneeHplainti9 !led the reBuired notice of
loss within the time reBuired by law.
$#%& YES.
Pursuant to ;ection -, paragraph @ of the "arriage of Doods by
;ea /ct +"#D;/,, a failure to !le a notice of claim within three
days 6/%% ,-t 8a1 1#c-:#19 /3 /t /s ,-,#t5#%#ss ;%#& 6/t5/,
-,# 9#a1. This one6year prescriptive period also a00%/#s t- t5#
s5/00#1, t5# c-,s/4,##, t5# /,s"1#1 -3 t5# 4--&s or any legal
holder of the bill of lading. n the present case, the cargo
was discharged on July -&, &''3, while the "omplaint was !led
by respondent on July %8, &''&, within the one6year prescriptive
period.
!ss"# .*
*hether or not the ?P/"K/DE 0MT/T#$? of liability under
;ection ) +8, of "#D;/ is applicable.
$#%&
YES. n the case before us, there was no stipulation in the 5ill
of 0ading limiting the carrierJs liability. $either did the shipper
declare a higher valuation of the goods to be shipped. This fact
notwithstanding, the insertion of the words ?0H" $o.
'3H3%))> cannot be the basis for petitionersJ liability. / notation
in the 5ill of 0ading which indicated the amount of the 0etter of
"redit obtained by the shipper for the importation of steel sheets
did not e9ect a declaration of the value of the goods as reBuired
by the bill. n the light of the foregoing, 0#t/t/-,#1s< %/a8/%/t9
s5-"%& 8# c--20"t#& 8as#& -, US=5++ 0#1 0ac>a4# and
not on the per metric ton price declared in the 0etter of "redit.