Tranpo DIgest
Common Carrier
De Guzman vs Court of Appeals
G.R. No. L-47822, December 22, 1988
Ponente : Feliciano, J.:
Facts:
Ernesto Cendana was engaged in buying up used bottles and scrap metal in Pangasinan and upon gathering sufficient quantities of such scrap material, respondent would bring such material to Manila for resale.
On the return trip to Pangasinan, respondent would load his vehicles with cargo which various merchants wanted delivered to differing establishments in Pangasinan. For that service, respondent charged freight rates which were commonly lower than regular commercial rates.
Pedro de Guzman contracted Cendana for the hauling of 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from a warehouse of General Milk in Makati, Rizal but only 150 boxes of Liberty filled milk were delivered to petitioner.
The other 600 boxes never reached petitioner, since the truck which carried these boxes was hijacked somewhere along the MacArthur Highway in Paniqui, Tarlac, by armed men who took with them the truck, its driver, his helper and the cargo.
Thus, de Guzman commenced an action against Cendana in the CFI Pangasinan demanding payment for the lost goods and further argued that, being a common carrier, and having failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of him by the law, should be held liable for the value of the undelivered goods. In his Answer, private respondent denied that he was a common carrier and argued that he could not be held responsible for the value of the lost goods, such loss having been due to force majeure.
The trial court find Cendana to be a common carrier but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision upon appeal declaring that Cendana is engaged in transporting return loads of freight "as a casual occupation — a sideline to his scrap iron business" and not as a common carrier.
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not Ernesto Cendana is considered as a common carrier.
Ruling:
YES. Article 1732 of the CC provides
De Guzman vs Court of Appeals
G.R. No. L-47822, December 22, 1988
Ponente : Feliciano, J.:
Facts:
Ernesto Cendana was engaged in buying up used bottles and scrap metal in Pangasinan and upon gathering sufficient quantities of such scrap material, respondent would bring such material to Manila for resale.
On the return trip to Pangasinan, respondent would load his vehicles with cargo which various merchants wanted delivered to differing establishments in Pangasinan. For that service, respondent charged freight rates which were commonly lower than regular commercial rates.
Pedro de Guzman contracted Cendana for the hauling of 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from a warehouse of General Milk in Makati, Rizal but only 150 boxes of Liberty filled milk were delivered to petitioner.
The other 600 boxes never reached petitioner, since the truck which carried these boxes was hijacked somewhere along the MacArthur Highway in Paniqui, Tarlac, by armed men who took with them the truck, its driver, his helper and the cargo.
Thus, de Guzman commenced an action against Cendana in the CFI Pangasinan demanding payment for the lost goods and further argued that, being a common carrier, and having failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of him by the law, should be held liable for the value of the undelivered goods. In his Answer, private respondent denied that he was a common carrier and argued that he could not be held responsible for the value of the lost goods, such loss having been due to force majeure.
The trial court find Cendana to be a common carrier but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision upon appeal declaring that Cendana is engaged in transporting return loads of freight "as a casual occupation — a sideline to his scrap iron business" and not as a common carrier.
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not Ernesto Cendana is considered as a common carrier.
Ruling:
YES. Article 1732 of the CC provides