digest of de Guzman v. CA (G.R. No. 47822)

Pedro de Guzman v. CA and Ernesto Cendana

G.R. No. L-47822 December 22, 1988 Feliciano, J.

FACTS:

Cendana - junk dealer engaged in buying up used bottles and scrap metal in Pangasinan; upon gathering sufficient quantities of such scrap material, he would bring such material to Manila for resale; he utilized 2 6-wheeler trucks which he owned for hauling the material to Manila. On the return trip to Pangasinan, he would load his vehicles with cargo which various merchants wanted delivered to differing establishments establishments in Pangasinan. Pangasinan.  de Guzman - merchant and authorized dealer of General Milk Company, Inc. contracted with Cendana for the hauling of 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from a warehouse of  General Milk in Makati, Rizal, to de Guzman’s establishment in Urdaneta, Pangasinan  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. 

ISSUE:

WON whether or not Cendana is a common carrier

HELD:

Yes.  Article 1732. Common carriers are 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.  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 activity  no distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or sche schedu dule led d basi basis s and and one one offe offeri ring ng such such serv servic ice e on an occa occasi sion onal al,, epis episod odic ic or unscheduled basis distinction ion between a carrier carrier offering offering its services services to the general public public and one who  no distinct offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population Cendana na - common common carri carrier er even even though though he merely merely “back“back-ha haule uled” d” goods goods for other other  Cenda merchants from Manila to Pangasinan, although such back-hauling was done on a periodic or occa occasi sion onal al rath rather er than than regu regula larr or sche schedu dule led d mann manner er,, and and even even thou though gh priv privat ate e respondent’s principal principal occupation was not the carriage of goods for others  Certificate of public convenience – compliance therewith as well as with the requirements of the applicable regulatory statute and implementing regulations is not needed to make one a common carrier for as long as a person or firm acts as a common carrier responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the  Art. 1734 - common carriers are responsible goods which they carry, “unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: 1) flood, flood, storm, storm, earthqua earthquake, ke, lightning lightning or other natural natural disaster disaster or calamity calamity;; 2) act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; 3) act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; 4) the character-of the goods or defects in the packing or-in the containers; and 5) order or act of competent public authority causes s of loss, loss, destru destructi ction on or deteri deteriora oratio tion n which which fall fall outsi outside de Art. Art. 1734 1734 common common  for cause carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence diligence (see Art. 1734 and Art 1733)  hijacking of Cendana’s carrier’s truck is outside Art. 1734; hence he is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, which presumption presumption may be overthrown by proof  of extraordinary diligence

ISSUE:

WON Cendana exercised extraordinary diligence in the care of de Guzman’s goods; what are the specific requirements of the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried in the specific context of hijacking or armed robbery

HELD:

Yes.  Legal basis: Art. 1745 (6); to paraphrase, a common carrier is not liable for acts committed by thieves, thieves, or of robbers robbers who act with grave grave or irresis irresistible tible threat, threat, violence violence or force, force, is dispensed with or diminished