BASCOS v CA

FACTS:

CIPTrade entered into a hauling contract with Jibfair Shipping agency, where it bound itself to transfer
2,000 m/tons of Soya Bean meal from Magallanes to the warehouse f Purefoods Corporation in Laguna.

CIPTrade then subcontacted with petitioner Bascos to transfer 400 sacks of soya bean meal. Bascos
failed to transfer the cargo, and as consequence, CIPTrade paid for the amount of lost goods.

CIPTrade demanded reimbursement from the petitioner, but they refused to pay.

Petitioner contends the following:

That there was no contract of carriage since CIPTrade leased her cargo truck and was thus not liable

That the truck carrying the cargo was hijacked at Paco at night

That hijacking was immediately reported and petitioner and police exerted all efforts to locate the
hijacked properties

That they filed a case against Jose Opriano for robbery and carnapping

That this was a hijacking that was considered as force majeure

ISSUES:

1. Was the petitioner a common carrier?

2. Was the hijacking force majeure?

RULING:

Petitioner is a common carrier because the driver of the petitioner received the cargo as evidenced by a
cargo receipt, the truck helper was an employee of the petitioner, and the goods were placed in the
petitioner’s care

Petitioner argues this was only a contact of lease because they offered there services to only a select
group.

The SC sites Art. 1732 of the CC, that the law makes no distinction as to the principal business and
ancillary business nor does it distinguish one who offers business to the general public or only a narrow
segment.

The contract was also not held to be a contract of loan since there is not sufficient evidence for this. It
must be understood that a contract is what the law defines it to be and not what it is called by the
contracting parties. There is also no proof of the existence of the lease, he who alleges has the burden of
proving it.
Regarding force majeure, such is not the case. Petitioner alleged hijacking that would exculpate the
carrier from liability, but must prove that the robbers acted with grave and irresistible threat, violence,
or force. This is in accordance with Art 1745.

To establish this, she had presented Jesus Bascos’ and Juanito Morden’s affidavits. Both TC and CA held
these affidavits were not enough to overcome the presumption. The hijacking was based of off what
Juanito Morden, the assistant, had told her, it was not a first-hand account. The affidavits were not
considered as best evidences since affiants were available as witnesses. The contents of the affidavits
were yet to be determined in the trial of the criminal cases.

The presumption of negligence was raised against petitioner. It was petitioner's burden to overcome it.
Thus, contrary to her assertion, private respondent need not introduce any evidence to prove her
negligence. Her own failure to adduce sufficient proof of extraordinary diligence made the presumption
conclusive against her.