ASIA LIGHTERAGE & SHIPPING v.

CA In this case, the principal business of Asia Lighterage is that of a lighterage and drayage
GR NO. 147246 / AUG 19, 2003 / PUNO, J. / DEFINITION AND TEST OF COMMON CARRIER CONCEPT /
KO
NATURE Petition for Review
PETITIONERS Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc
RESPONDENTS Court of Appeals, and Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc
SUMMARY.Petitioner was contracted as a carrier to deliver to the consignee’s warehouse in
Pasig. The cargo, however, never reached the consignee as the barge that carried the cargo
sank completely, resulting in damage to the cargo. Private respondent, as insurer,
indemnified the consignee for the lost cargo and thus, as subrogee, sought recovery from
petitioner. Both the trial court and the appellate court ruled in favor of private respondent.
DOCTRINE. Art. 1732 of the Civil Code defines common carriers as persons, corporations,
firms, or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or
goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.
and it offers its barges to the public for carrying or transporting goods by water for
compensation. It is clearly a common carrier.
The court also applied the test of a common carrier laid down in Bascos v CA. The test to
determine a common carrier is “whether the given undertaking is a part of the business
engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to the general public as his occupation
rather than the quantity or extent of the business transacted.” In this case, Asia
Lighterage admitted that it is engaged in the business of shipping and lighterage, offering
its barges to the public, despite its limited clientele for carrying or transporting goods by
water for compensation.
DECISION.
Petition denied. The decision of the CA is affirmed.

FACTS.
 Asia Lighterage was contracted as a carrier by General Milling (consignee) to deliver a
cargo to its warehouse in Pasig. However, the cargo never reached General Milling as the
barge that carried the cargo sank.
 Prudential Guarantee and Assurance indemnified General Milling for the lost cargo and
sought to recover from Asia Lighterage and filed a complaint for recovery. Asia
Lighterage filed a counterclaim.
 RTC: Dismissed Asia Llighterage’s counterclaim and held it liable to Prudential Guarantee
and Assurance

ISSUES & RATIO.

1. WON Asia Lighterage is a common carrier – YES.
A common carriers is a person, corporation, firm, or association engaged in the
business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or
air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.

Art. 1732 of the Civil Code defines common carriers as persons, corporations, firms, or
associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or
both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.

It was held that the definition of common carriers in Art. 1732 of the Civil Code makes 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 auxiliary activity. The court also
did not distinguish between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a
regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or
unscheduled basis.

Further, the court ruled that Art. 1732 does not distinguish between a carrier offering its
services to the general public and one who offers services or solicits business only from a
narrow segment of the general population. A common carrier also need not have a fixed
and publicly known routes. Neither does it have to maintain terminals or issue tickets.