Duty to accept: instances when the carrier can validly refuse to

accept passenger’s goods.)

FC Fisher v Yangco Steamship Co., et al
Facts:
The board of Yangco Steamship Co. adopted a
resolution which was ratifiedby the stockholders
declaring classes of merchandise which are not
to be carried bythe vessels of the company and
prohibiting the employees to carry
dynamite,powder or other explosives. The
Collector of Customs suspended the issuance of
clearances for the vessels unless they carry the
explosives. Fisher, a stockholder of YSC, filed a
petition for prohibition.
GENERAL RULE: A common carrier cannot
ordinarily refuse to carry a particular class of
goods.
EXCEPTION: For some sufficient reason
the discrimination against the traffic in such
goods is reasonable and necessary. (Fisher
vs. Yangco Steamship Co. 31 Phil 1).
Grounds for valid refusal to accept goods:
a.1. Hazardous and Dangerous Substances
a.2. Unfit for transport

Issue: Art 356, Code of Commerce – Carriers may

Whether or not the refusal of the board of YFC refuse to accept goods that are unfit for
to accept for carriage"dynamite, powder or transportation. These provisions on overland
other explosives" from any and all shippers who transportation apply to marine transportation
may offersuch explosives for carriage can be held and domestic air transportation subject to the
to be a lawful act. rules promulgated by the MARINA and
CAB.
Held:
No. In construing Act 98 for the alleged
violation, the test is whether the refusal of YSC
to carry the explosives without qualification or
conditions may have the effect of subjecting any
person or locality or the traffic is such explosives
to an unduly unreasonable or unnecessary
prejudice or discrimination. Common carriers in
this jurisdiction cannot lawfully decline to accept
a particular class of goods unless it appears that
for some sufficient reason the discrimination for
such is reasonable and necessary. YSC has not
met those conditions. The nature of the business
of a common carrier as a public employment is
such that it is within the power of the State to
impose such just regulations in the interest of
the public as the legislator may deem proper.

The rule prohibiting carriers engaged in public

transportation from selecting its passengers or
cargoes is obviously not absolute. There are