SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 101089. April 7, 1993.] ESTRELLITA M. BASCOS, petitioners, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and RODOLFO A. CIPRIANO, respondents. Modesto S. Bascos for petitioner. Pelaez, Adriano & Gregorio for private respondent. SYLLABUS 1. CIVIL LAW; COMMON CARRIERS; DEFINED; TEST TO DETERMINE COMMON CARRIER. Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a common carrier as "(a) person, corporation or 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." 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." . . . The holding of the Court in De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals is instructive. In referring to Article 1732 of the Civil Code, it held thus: "The above article 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 ancillary activity (in local idiom, as a "sideline"). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction 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. Neither does Article 1732 distinguished between a carrier offering its services to the "general public," i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. We think that Article 1732 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions." 2. ID.; ID.; DILIGENCE REQUIRED IN VIGILANCE OVER GOODS TRANSPORTED; WHEN PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE ARISES; HOW PRESUMPTION OVERCAME; WHEN PRESUMPTION MADE ABSOLUTE. Common carriers are obliged to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them. Accordingly, they are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated. There are very few instances when the presumption of negligence does not attach and these instances are enumerated in Article 1734. In those cases where the presumption is applied, the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence in order to overcome the presumption . . . 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. 3. ID.; ID.; HIJACKING OF GOODS; CARRIER PRESUMED NEGLIGENT; HOW CARRIER ABSOLVED FROM LIABILITY. In De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that hijacking, not being included in the provisions of Article 1734, must be dealt with under

the provisions of Article 1735 and thus, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or negligent. To exculpate the carrier from liability arising from hijacking, he must prove that the robbers or the hijackers acted with grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force. This is in accordance with Article 1745 of the Civil Code which provides: "Art. 1745. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy . . . (6) That the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violences or force, is dispensed with or diminished"; In the same case, the Supreme Court also held that: "Under Article 1745 (6) above, a common carrier is held responsible and will not be allowed to divest or to diminish such responsibility even for acts of strangers like thieves or robbers, except where such thieves or robbers in fact acted "with grave of irresistible threat, violence of force," We believe and so hold that the limits of the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried are reached where the goods are lost as a result of a robbery which is attended by "grave or irresistible threat, violence or force." 4. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS CONCLUSIVE. In this case, petitioner herself has made the admission that she was in the trucking business, offering her trucks to those with cargo to move. Judicial admissions are conclusive and no evidence is required to prove the same. 5. ID.; ID.; BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS WITH PARTY WHO ALLEGES A FACT. Petitioner presented no other proof of the existence of the contract of lease. He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. 6. ID.; ID.; AFFIDAVITS NOT CONSIDERED BEST EVIDENCE IF AFFIANTS AVAILABLE AS WITNESSES. While the affidavit of Juanito Morden, the truck helper in the hijacked truck, was presented as evidence in court, he himself was a witness as could be gleaned from the contents of the petition. Affidavits are not considered the best evidence if the affiants are available as witnesses. 7. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; CONTRACT IS WHAT LAW DEFINES IT TO BE. Granting that the said evidence were not self-serving, the same were not sufficient to prove that the contract was one of lease. 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. DECISION CAMPOS, JR., J p: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision ** of the Court of Appeals in "RODOLFO A. CIPRIANO, doing business under the name CIPRIANO TRADING ENTERPRISES plaintiff-appellee, vs. ESTRELLITA M. BASCOS, doing business under the name of BASCOS TRUCKING, defendant-appellant," C.A.-G.R. CV No. 25216, the dispositive portion of which is quoted hereunder: "PREMISES considered, We find no reversible error in the decision appealed from, which is hereby affirmed in toto. Costs against appellant." 1

The facts, as gathered by this Court, are as follows: Rodolfo A. Cipriano representing Cipriano Trading Enterprise (CIPTRADE for short) entered into a hauling contract 2 with Jibfair Shipping Agency Corporation whereby the former bound itself to haul the latter's 2,000 m/tons of soya bean meal from Magallanes Drive, Del Pan, Manila to the warehouse of Purefoods Corporation in Calamba, Laguna. To carry out its obligation, CIPTRADE, through Rodolfo Cipriano, subcontracted with Estrellita Bascos (petitioner) to transport and to deliver 400 sacks of soya bean meal worth P156,404.00 from the Manila Port Area to Calamba, Laguna at the rate of P50.00 per metric ton. Petitioner failed to deliver the said cargo. As a consequence of that failure, Cipriano paid Jibfair Shipping Agency the amount of the lost goods in accordance with the contract which stated that: "1. CIPTRADE shall be held liable and answerable for any loss in bags due to theft, hijacking and non-delivery or damages to the cargo during transport at market value, . . ." 3 Cipriano demanded reimbursement from petitioner but the latter refused to pay. Eventually, Cipriano filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages with writ of preliminary attachment 4 for breach of a contract of carriage. The prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Attachment was supported by an affidavit 5 which contained the following allegations: "4. That this action is one of those specifically mentioned in Sec. 1, Rule 57 the Rules of Court, whereby a writ of preliminary attachment may lawfully issue, namely: "(e) in an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors;" 5. That there is no sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the present action; 6. That the amount due to the plaintiff in the above-entitled case is above all legal counterclaims;" The trial court granted the writ of preliminary attachment on February 17, 1987. In her answer, petitioner interposed the following defenses: that there was no contract of carriage since CIPTRADE leased her cargo truck to load the cargo from Manila Port Area to Laguna; that CIPTRADE was liable to petitioner in the amount of P11,000.00 for loading the cargo; that the truck carrying the cargo was hijacked along Canonigo St., Paco, Manila on the night of October 21, 1988; that the hijacking was immediately reported to CIPTRADE and that petitioner and the police exerted all efforts to locate the hijacked properties; that after preliminary investigation, an information for robbery and carnapping were filed against Jose Opriano, et al.; and that hijacking, being a force majeure, exculpated petitioner from any liability to CIPTRADE. prLL After trial, the trial court rendered a decision *** the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant ordering the latter to pay the former: 1. The amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FOUR PESOS (P156,404.00) as an (sic) for actual damages with legal interest of 12% per cent per annum to be counted from December 4, 1986 until fully paid; 2. 3. The amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) as and for attorney's fees; and The costs of the suit.

The "Urgent Motion To Dissolve/Lift preliminary Attachment" dated March 10, 1987 filed by defendant is DENIED for being moot and academic. SO ORDERED." 6 Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals but respondent Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. Consequently, petitioner filed this petition where she makes the following assignment of errors; to wit: "I. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONER AND PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS CARRIAGE OF GOODS AND NOT LEASE OF CARGO TRUCK. II. GRANTING, EX GRATIA ARGUMENTI, THAT THE FINDING OF THE RESPONDENT COURT THAT THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PETITIONER AND PRIVATE RESPONDENT WAS CARRIAGE OF GOODS IS CORRECT, NEVERTHELESS, IT ERRED IN FINDING PETITIONER LIABLE THEREUNDER BECAUSE THE LOSS OF THE CARGO WAS DUE TO FORCE MAJEURE, NAMELY, HIJACKING. III. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISSOLVE/LIFT THE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT HAS BEEN RENDERED MOOT AND ACADEMIC BY THE DECISION OF THE MERITS OF THE CASE." 7 The petition presents the following issues for resolution: (1) was petitioner a common carrier?; and (2) was the hijacking referred to a force majeure? The Court of Appeals, in holding that petitioner was a common carrier, found that she admitted in her answer that she did business under the name A.M. Bascos Trucking and that said admission dispensed with the presentation by private respondent, Rodolfo Cipriano, of proofs that petitioner was a common carrier. The respondent Court also adopted in toto the trial court's decision that petitioner was a common carrier, Moreover, both courts appreciated the following pieces of evidence as indicators that petitioner was a common carrier: the fact that the truck driver of petitioner, Maximo Sanglay, received the cargo consisting of 400 bags of soya bean meal as evidenced by a cargo receipt signed by

Maximo Sanglay; the fact that the truck helper, Juanito Morden, was also an employee of petitioner; and the fact that control of the cargo was placed in petitioner's care. cdphil In disputing the conclusion of the trial and appellate courts that petitioner was a common carrier, she alleged in this petition that the contract between her and Rodolfo A. Cipriano, representing CIPTRADE, was lease of the truck. She cited as evidence certain affidavits which referred to the contract as "lease". These affidavits were made by Jesus Bascos 8 and by petitioner herself. 9 She further averred that Jesus Bascos confirmed in his testimony his statement that the contract was a lease contract. 10 She also stated that: she was not catering to the general public. Thus, in her answer to the amended complaint, she said that she does business under the same style of A.M. Bascos Trucking, offering her trucks for lease to those who have cargo to move, not to the general public but to a few customers only in view of the fact that it is only a small business. 11 We agree with the respondent Court in its finding that petitioner is a common carrier. Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a common carrier as "(a) person, corporation or 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." 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." 12 In this case, petitioner herself has made the admission that she was in the trucking business, offering her trucks to those with cargo to move. Judicial admissions are conclusive and no evidence is required to prove the same. 13 But petitioner argues that there was only a contract of lease because they offer their services only to a select group of people and because the private respondents, plaintiffs in the lower court, did not object to the presentation of affidavits by petitioner where the transaction was referred to as a lease contract. Regarding the first contention, the holding of the Court in De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals 14 is instructive. In referring to Article 1732 of the Civil Code, it held thus: "The above article 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 ancillary activity (in local idiom, as a "sideline"). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction 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. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the "general public," i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. We think that Article 1732 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions." Regarding the affidavits presented by petitioner to the court, both the trial and appellate courts have dismissed them as self-serving and petitioner contests the conclusion. We are bound by the appellate court's factual conclusions. Yet, granting that the said evidence were not self-serving, the same were not sufficient to prove that the contract was one of lease. 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. 15 Furthermore, petitioner presented no other proof of the existence of the contract of lease. He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. 16 Likewise, We affirm the holding of the respondent court that the loss of the goods was not due to force majeure. Common carriers are obliged to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them. 17 Accordingly, they are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated. 18 There are very few instances when the presumption of negligence does not attach and these instances are enumerated in Article 1734. 19 In those cases where the presumption is applied, the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence in order to overcome the presumption. Cdpr In this case, petitioner alleged that hijacking constituted force majeure which exculpated her from liability for the loss of the cargo. In De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, 20 the Court held that hijacking, not being included in the provisions of Article 1734, must be dealt with under the provisions of Article 1735 and thus, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or negligent. To exculpate the carrier from liability arising from hijacking, he must prove that the robbers or the hijackers acted with grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force. This is in accordance with Article 1745 of the Civil Code which provides: "Art. 1745. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy; xxx xxx xxx

(6) That the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violences or force, is dispensed with or diminished;" In the same case, 21 the Supreme Court also held that: "Under Article 1745 (6) above, a common carrier is held responsible and will not be allowed to divest or to diminish such responsibility even for acts of strangers like thieves or robbers except where such thieves or robbers in fact acted with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force. We believe and so hold that the limits of the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried are reached where the goods are lost as a result of a robbery which is attended by "grave or irresistible threat, violence or force." To establish grave and irresistible force, petitioner presented her accusatory affidavit, 22 Jesus Bascos' affidavit, 23 and Juanito Morden's 24 "Salaysay". However, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals have concluded that these affidavits were not enough to overcome the presumption. Petitioner's affidavit about the hijacking was based on what had been told her by Juanito Morden. It was not a first-hand account. While it had been admitted in court for lack of objection on the part of private respondent, the respondent

Court had discretion in assigning weight to such evidence. We are bound by the conclusion of the appellate court. In a petition for review on certiorari, We are not to determine the probative value of evidence but to resolve questions of law. Secondly, the affidavit of Jesus Bascos did not dwell on how the hijacking took place. Thirdly, while the affidavit of Juanito Morden, the truck helper in the hijacked truck, was presented as evidence in court, he himself was a witness as could be gleaned from the contents of the petition. Affidavits are not considered the best evidence if the affiants are available as witnesses. 25 The subsequent filing of the information for carnapping and robbery against the accused named in said affidavits did not necessarily mean that the contents of the affidavits were true because they 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. Having affirmed the findings of the respondent Court on the substantial issues involved, We find no reason to disturb the conclusion that the motion to lift/dissolve the writ of preliminary attachment has been rendered moot and academic by the decision on the merits. llcd In the light of the foregoing analysis, it is Our opinion that the petitioner's claim cannot be sustained. The petition is DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C .J ., Padilla, Regalado and Nocon, JJ ., concur.

EN BANC [G.R. No. L-25599. April 4, 1968.] HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC., and LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION, defendants, AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES, INC., defendant-appellant. Ross, Selph, Salcedo, del Rosario, Bito and Misa for appellants. Quasha, Asperilla, Blanco, Zafra and Tayag for appellee. SYLLABUS 1. CONTRACTS; TRANSPORTATION; CHARTER PARTY; EFFECT WHERE CONTRACT IS ONE OF AFFREIGHTMENT. Where the charter party contract shows that altho possession and control of the ship were not entirely transferred to the charterer, the vessel was chartered to its full and complete capacity and the charterer had the option to go north or south or vice-versa, loading, stowing and discharging at its risk and expense, said contract is one of affreightment rather than a demise. As such, in the absence of stipulation, the liability of the shipowner for acts or negligence of its captain and crew would remain. 2. ID.; ID.; ID.; STIPULATION ABSOLVING THE OWNER FROM LIABILITY FOR LOSS DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF ITS AGENT VALID. The Civil Code provisions on common carriers, taken from Anglo-American law, should, following American jurisprudence on the matter, not be applied where the carrier is not acting as such but as a private carrier. The stipulation in the charter party absolving the owner from liability for loss due to the negligence of its agent would be void only if the strict public policy governing common carriers is applied. Such policy has no force where the public at large is not involved, as in the case of a ship totally chartered for the use of a single party. DECISION BENGZON, J.P., J p: "Consorcio Pesquero del Peru of South America" shipped freight pre-paid at Chimbate, Peru, 21,740 jute bags of Peruvian fish meal through SS Crowborough, covered by clean bills of lading Numbers 1 and 2, both dated January 17, 1963. The cargo, consigned to San Miguel Brewery, Inc., now San Miguel Corporation, and insured by Home Insurance Company for $202,505, arrived in Manila on March 7, 1963 and was discharged into the lighters of Luzon Stevedoring Company. When the cargo was delivered to consignee San Miguel Brewery, Inc., there were shortages amounting to P12,033.85, causing the latter to lay claims against Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, Home Insurance Company and the American Steamship Agencies, owner and operator of SS Crowborough. Because the others denied liability, Home Insurance Company paid the consignee P14,870.71 the insurance value of the loss, as full settlement of the claim. Having been

refused reimbursement by both the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation and American Steamship Agencies, Home Insurance Company, as subrogee to the consignee, filed against them on March 6, 1964 before the Court of First Instance of Manila a complaint for recovery of P14,870.71 with legal interest, plus attorney's fees. In answer, Luzon Stevedoring Corporation alleged that it delivered with due diligence the goods in the same quantity and quality that it had received the same from the carrier. It also claimed that plaintiff's claim had prescribed under Article 366 of the Code of Commerce stating that the claim must be made within 24 hours from receipt of the cargo. American Steamship Agencies denied liability by alleging that under the provisions of the Charter party referred to in the bills of lading, the charterer, not the shipowner, was responsible for any loss or damage of the cargo. Furthermore, it claimed to have exercised due diligence in stowing the goods and that as a mere forwarding agent, it was not responsible for losses or damages to the cargo. On November 17, 1965, the Court of First Instance, after trial, absolved Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, having found the latter to have merely delivered what it received from the carrier in the same condition and quality, and ordered American Steamship Agencies to pay plaintiff P14,870.71 with legal interest plus P1,000 attorneys fees. Said court cited the following grounds: (a) The non-liability claim of American Steamship Agencies under the charter party contract is not tenable because Article 587 of the Code of Commerce makes the ship agent also civilly liable for damages in favor of third persons due to the conduct of the captain of the carrier; (b) The stipulation in the charter party contract exempting the owner from liability is against public policy under Article 1744 of the Civil Code; (c) In case of loss, destruction or deterioration of goods, common carriers are presumed at fault or negligent under Article 1735 of the Civil Code unless they prove extraordinary diligence, and they cannot by contract exempt themselves from liability resulting from their negligence or that of their servants; and (d) When goods are delivered to the carrier in good order and the same are in bad order at the place of destination, the carrier is prima facie liable. Disagreeing with such judgment, American Steamship Agencies appealed directly to Us. The appeal brings forth for determination this legal issue: Is the stipulation in the charter party of the owner's non-liability valid so as to absolve the American Steamship Agencies from liability for loss? The bills of lading, 1 covering the shipment of Peruvian fish meal provide at the back thereof that the bills of lading shall be governed by and subject to the terms and conditions of the charter party, if any, otherwise, the bills of lading prevail over all the agreements. 2 On the face of the bills are stamped "Freight prepaid as per charter party. Subject to all terms, conditions and exceptions of charter party dated London, Dec. 13, 1962."

A perusal of the charter party 3 referred to shows that while the possession and control of the ship were not entirely transferred to the charterer, 4 the vessel was chartered to its full and complete capacity (Exh. 3). Furthermore, the charterer had the option to go north or south or vice-versa, 5 loading, stowing and discharging at its risk and expense. 6 Accordingly, the charter party contract is one of affreightment over the whole vessel rather than a demise. As such, the liability of the shipowner for acts or negligence of its captain and crew, would remain in the absence of stipulation. Section 2, paragraph 2 of the charter party, provides that the owner is liable for loss or damage to the goods caused by personal want of due diligence on its part or its manager to make the vessel in all respects seaworthy and to secure that she be properly manned, equipped and supplied or by the personal act or default of the owner or its manager. Said paragraph, however, exempts the owner of the vessel from any loss or damage or delay arising from any other source, even from the neglect or fault of the captain or crew or some other person employed by the owner on board, for whose acts the owner would ordinarily be liable except for said paragraph. Regarding the stipulation, the Court of First Instance declared the contract as contrary to Article 587 of the Code of Commerce making the ship agent civilly liable for indemnities suffered by third persons arising from acts or omissions of the captain in the care of the goods and Article 1744 of the Civil Code under which a stipulation between the common carrier and the shipper or owner limiting the liability of the former for loss or destruction of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary diligence is valid provided it be reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy. The release from liability in this case was held unreasonable and contrary to the public policy on common carriers. The provisions of our Civil Code on common carriers were taken from Anglo-American law. 7 Under American jurisprudence, a common carrier undertaking to carry a special cargo or chartered to a special person only, becomes a private carrier. 8 As a private carrier, a stipulation exempting the owner from liability for the negligence of its agent is not against public policy, 9 and is deemed valid. Such doctrine We find reasonable. The Civil Code provisions on common carriers should not be applied where the carrier is not acting as such but as a private carrier. The stipulation in the charter party absolving the owner from liability for loss due to the negligence of its agent would be void only if the strict public policy governing common carriers is applied. Such policy has no force where the public at large is not involved, as in the case of a ship totally chartered for the use of a single party. And furthermore, in a charter of the entire vessel, the bill of lading issued by the master to the charterer, as shipper, is in fact and legal contemplation merely a receipt and a document of title, not a contract, for the contract is the charter party. 10 The consignee may not claim ignorance of said charter party because the bills of lading expressly referred to the same. Accordingly, the consignees under the bills of lading must likewise abide by the terms of the charter party. And as stated recovery cannot be had thereunder, for loss or damage to the cargo, against the shipowners, unless the same is due to personal acts or negligence of said owner or its manager, as distinguished from its other agents or employees. In this case, no such personal act or negligence has been proved.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and appellant is absolved from liability to plaintiff. No costs. SO ORDERED. Reyes, J.B.L.,(Acting C.J.), Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 98243. July 1, 1992.] ALEJANDRO ARADA, doing business under the name and style "SOUTH NEGROS ENTERPRISES", petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, respondents. Vicente R. Acsay for petitioner. SYLLABUS 1. CIVIL LAW; COMMON CARRIER; DEFINED. 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 (Art. 1732 of the New Civil Code). 2. ID.; ID.; BURDENED WITH THE DUTY OF EXERCISING EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF PASSENGER AND GOODS TRANSPORTED BY IT. A common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for insistent reasons of public policy is burdened by law with the duty of exercising extraordinary diligence not only in ensuring the safety of passengers, but in caring for the goods transported by it. 3. ID.; ID.; PRESUMED NEGLIGENT IN CASE OF LOSS OR DESTRUCTION OR DETERIORATION OF THE GOOD TRANSPORTED BY IT; EXCEPTION. The loss or destruction or deterioration of goods turned over to the common carrier for the conveyance to a designated destination raises instantly a presumption of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier, save only where such loss, destruction of damage arises from extreme circumstances such as a natural disaster or calamity . . . (Benedicto v. IAC, G.R. No. 70876, July 19, 1990, 187 SCRA 547). 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NATURAL DISASTER AS A GROUND FOR EXEMPTION; MUST HAVE BEEN THE PROXIMATE AND ONLY CAUSE OF THE LOSS. In order that the common carrier may be exempted from responsibility, the natural disaster must have been the proximate

and only cause of the loss. However, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during and after the occurrence of flood, storm or other natural disaster in order that the common carrier may be exempted from liability for the destruction or deterioration of the foods (Art. 1739, New Civil Code). DECISION PARAS, J p: This is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to annul and set aside the decision* of the Court of Appeals dated April 8, 1991 in CA-G.R. CV No. 20597 entitled "San Miguel Corporation v. Alejandro Arada, doing business under the name and style "South Negros Enterprises", reversing the decision of the RTC, Seventh Judicial Region, Branch XII, Cebu City ordering petitioner to pay the private respondent the amount of P172,284.80 representing the value of the cargo lost on board the ill-fated, M/L Maya with interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the complaint on March 25, 1983 until fully paid, and the costs. cdphil The undisputed facts of the case are as follows: Alejandro Arada, herein petitioner, is the proprietor and operator of the firm South Negros Enterprises which has been organized and established for more than ten (10) years. It is engaged in the business of small scale shipping as a common carrier, servicing the hauling of cargoes of different corporations and companies with the five (5) vessels it was operating (Rollo, p. 121). On March 24, 1982, petitioner entered into a contract with private respondent to safely transport as a common carrier, cargoes of the latter from San Carlos City, Negros Occidental to Mandaue City using one of petitioner's vessels, M/L Maya. The cargoes of private respondent consisted of 9,824 cases of beer empties valued at P176,824.80, were itemized as follows: NO. OF CASES CARGO VALUE PPW STENIE MTS P136,773.00 PLW GRANDE MTS 23,438.40

9,824 CS

P176,824.80

On March 24, 1982, petitioner thru its crew master, Mr. Vivencio Babao, applied for a clearance with the Philippine Coast Guard for M/L Maya to leave the port of San Carlos City, but due to a typhoon, it was denied clearance by SNI Antonio Prestado PN who was then assigned at San Carlos City Coast Guard Detachment (Rollo, p. 122). On March 25, 1982 M/L Maya was given clearance as there was no storm and the sea was calm. Hence, said vessel left for Mandaue City. While it was navigating towards Cebu, a typhoon developed and said vessel was buffeted on all its sides by big waves. Its rudder was destroyed and it drifted for sixteen (16) hours although its engine was running. On March 27, 1982 at about 4:00 a.m., the vessel sank with whatever was left of its cargoes. The crew was rescued by a passing pump boat and was brought to Calanggaman Island. Later in the afternoon, they were brought to Palompon, Leyte, where Vivencio Babao filed a marine protest (Rollo, p. 10). On the basis of such marine protest, the Board of Marine Inquiry conducted a hearing of the sinking of M/L Maya wherein private respondent was duly represented. Said Board made it findings and recommendation dated November 7, 1983, the dispositive portion of which reads as: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Board recommends as it is hereby recommended that the owner/operator, officers and crew of M/L Maya be exonerated or absolved from any administrative liability on account of this incident" (Exh. 1). The Board's report containing its findings and recommendation was then forwarded to the headquarters of the Philippine Coast Guard for appropriate action. On the basis of such report, the Commandant of the Philippine Coast Guard rendered a decision dated December 21, 1984 in SBMI Adm. Case No. 88-82 exonerating the owner/operator officers and crew of the ill-fated M/L Maya from any administrative liability on account of said incident (Exh. 2). On March 25, 1983, private respondent filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court its first cause of action being for the recovery of the value of the cargoes anchored on breach of contract of carriage. After due hearing, said court rendered a decision dated July 18, 1988, the dispositive portion of which reads "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: (1) With respect to the first cause of action, claim of plaintiff is hereby dismissed;

7,515 CS 1,542 CS 58 CS 24 CS 37 CS 8 CS

G.E. PLASTIC MTS 1,276.00 PLP MTS 456.00 CS WOODEN MTS 673.40 LAGERLITE PLASTIC MTS 128.00 14,080.00

(2) Under the second cause of action, defendant must pay plaintiff the sum of P2,000.00; (3) In the third cause of action, the defendant must pay plaintiff the sum of P2,849.20;

640 CS STENEI PLASTIC MTS

(4) Since the plaintiff has withheld the payment of P12,997.47 due the defendant, the plaintiff should deduct the amount of P4,849.20 from the P12,997.47 and the balance of P8,148.27 must be paid to the defendant; and (5) Defendant's counterclaim not having been substantiated by evidence, is likewise dismissed. NO COSTS." (Orig. Record, pp. 193-195). Thereafter, private respondent appealed said decision to the Court of Appeals claiming that the trial court erred in (1) holding that nothing was shown that the defendant, or any of his employees who manned the M/L Maya was negligent in any way nor did they fail to observe extraordinary diligence over the cargoes of the plaintiff; and (2) holding that the sinking of said vessel was caused by the storm, consequently, dismissing the claim of plaintiff in its first cause of action for breach of contract of carriage of goods (Rollo, pp. 33-34; Decision, pp. 3-4). In its decision promulgated on April 8, 1991, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the court a quo, the dispositive portion and the dispositive part of its decision reads as: "WHEREFORE, that part of the judgment appealed from is REVERSED and the appellee Alejandro Arada, doing business by the name and style, "South Negros Enterprises", ordered (sic) to pay unto the appellant San Miguel Corporation the amount of P176,824.80 representing the value of the cargo lost on board the ill-fated vessel, M/L Maya, with interest thereon at the legal rate from date of the filing of the complaint on March 25, 1983, until fully paid, and the costs." (Rollo, p. 37) The Court of Appeals ruled that "in view of his failure to observe extraordinary diligence over the cargo in question and his negligence previous to the sinking of the carrying vessel, as above shown, the appellee is liable to the appellant for the value of the lost cargo. LexLib Hence, the present recourse. On November 20, 1991, this Court gave due course to the petition. The pivotal issue to be resolved is whether or not petitioner is liable for the value of the lost cargoes. Petitioner contends that it was not in the exercise of its function as a common carrier when it entered into a contract with private respondent, but was then acting as a private carrier not bound by the requirement of extraordinary diligence (Rollo, p. 15) and that the factual findings of the Board of Marine Inquiry and the Special Board of Marine Inquiry are binding and conclusive on the Court (Rollo, pp. 16-17). Private respondent counters that M/L Maya was in the exercise of its function as a common carrier and its failure to observe the extraordinary diligence required of it in the vigilance over their cargoes makes petitioner liable for the value of said cargoes.

The petition is devoid of merit. 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 (Art. 1732 of the New Civil Code). In the case at bar, there is no doubt that petitioner was exercising its function as a common carrier when it entered into a contract with private respondent to carry and transport the latter's cargoes. This fact is best supported by the admission of petitioner's son, Mr. Eric Arada, who testified as the officer-in-charge for operations of South Negros Enterprises in Cebu City. In substance his testimony on January 14, 1985 is as follows: Q A How many vessels are you operating? There were all in all around five (5).

Q And you were entering to service hauling of cargoes to different companies, is that correct? A Yes, sir.

Q In one word, the South Negros Enterprises is engaged in the business of common carriers, is that correct? A Yes, sir.

Q And in fact, at the time of the hauling of the San Miguel Beer, it was also in the same category as a common carrier? A Yes, sir.

(TSN, pp. 3-4, Jan. 29, 1985) A common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for insistent reasons of public policy is burdened by law with the duty of exercising extraordinary diligence not only in ensuring the safety of passengers, but in caring for the goods transported by it. The loss or destruction or deterioration of goods turned over to the common carrier for the conveyance to a designated destination raises instantly a presumption of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier, save only where such loss, destruction or damage arises from extreme circumstances such as a natural disaster or calamity . . . (Benedicto v. IAC, G.R. No. 70876, July 19, 1990, 187 SCRA 547) (Emphasis supplied). In order that the common carrier may be exempted from responsibility, the natural disaster must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss. However, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during and after the occurrence of flood, storm or other natural disaster in order that the common carrier may be exempted from liability for the destruction or deterioration of the goods (Article 1739, New Civil Code).

In the instant case, the appellate court was correct in finding that petitioner failed to observe the extraordinary diligence over the cargo in question and he or the master in his employ was negligent previous to the sinking of the carrying vessel. In substance, the decision reads: ". . . VIVENCIO BABAO, the master of the carrying vessel, knew that there was a typhoon coming before his departure but did not check where it was. xxx xxx xxx

8 AM

15

1-2

slight

cloudy skies w/rainshowers

2 PM

20-25

2.0-3.0 moderate

overcast skies

to rough w/ some rains. 8 PM 30 3.7 rough sea heaps up white foam from breaking waves begin to be blown in streaks along the direction of the wind; Spind-rift begins 2 AM 30 3.7 rough sea heaps up white foam from breaking waves begin to be blowin streaks along the direction of the wind; Spindrift begins. (Exh. 3) A common carrier is obliged to observe extraordinary diligence and the failure of Babao to ascertain the direction of the storm and the weather condition of the path they would be traversing, constitute lack of foresight and minimum vigilance over its cargoes taking into account the surrounding circumstances of the case. While the goods are in the possession of the carrier, it is but fair that it exercises extraordinary diligence in protecting them from loss or damage, and if loss occurs, the law presumes that it was due to the carrier's fault or negligence; that is necessary to protect

"If only for the fact that he was first denied clearance to depart on March 24, 1982, obviously because of a typhoon coming, Babao, as master of the vessel, should have verified first where the typhoon was before departing on March 25, 1982. True, the sea was calm at departure time. But that might be the calm before the storm. Prudence dictates that he should have ascertained first where the storm was before departing as it might be on his path." (Rollo, pp. 35-36) Respondent court's conclusion as to the negligence of petitioner is supported by evidence. It will be noted that Vivencio Babao knew of the impending typhoon on March 24, 1982 when the Philippine Coast Guard denied M/L Maya the issuance of a clearance to sail. Less than 24 hours elapsed since the time of the denial of said clearance and the time a clearance to sail was finally issued on March 25, 1982. Records will show that Babao did not ascertain where the typhoon was headed by the use of his vessel's barometer and radio (Rollo, p. 142). Neither did the captain of the vessel monitor and record the weather conditions everyday as required by Art. 612 of the Code of Commerce (Rollo, pp. 142-143). Had he done so while navigating for 31 hours, he could have anticipated the strong winds and big waves and taken shelter (Rollo, pp. 36; 145). His testimony on May 4, 1982 is as follows: prLL Q A Did you not check on your own where the typhoon was? No, sir. (TSN, May 4, 1982, pp. 58-59)

Noteworthy is the fact that as per official records of the Climatological Division of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAG-ASA for brevity) issued by its Chief of Climatological Division, Primitivo G. Ballan, Jr. as to the weather and sea conditions that prevailed in the vicinity of Catmon, Cebu during the period March 25-27, 1982, the sea conditions on March 25, 1982 were slight to rough and the weather conditions then prevailing during those times were cloudy skies with rainshowers and the small waves grew larger and larger, to wit: SPEED KNOTS March 25 WAVE HT. (METERS) SEA WEATHER

CONDITIONS

the interest of the shipper which is at the mercy of the carrier (Art. 1756, Civil Code, Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89757, Aug. 6, 1990, 188 SCRA 387). Furthermore, the records show that the crew of M/L Maya did not have the required qualifications provided for in P.D. No. 97 or the Philippine Merchant Marine Officers Law, all of whom were unlicensed. While it is true that they were given special permit to man the vessel, such permit was issued at the risk and responsibility of the owner (Rollo, p. 36). LexLib Finally, petitioner claims that the factual findings of the Special Board of Marine Inquiry exonerating the owner/operator, crew officers of the ill-fated vessel M/L Maya from any administrative liability is binding on the court. In rejecting petitioner's claim, respondent court was correct in ruling that "such exoneration was but with respect to the administrative liability of the "owner/operator, officers and crew of the ill-fated" vessel. It could not have meant exoneration of appellee from liability as a common carrier for his failure to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods it was transporting and for the negligent acts or omissions of his employees. Such is the function of the Court, not the Special Board of Marine Inquiry." (Rollo, p. 37, Annex A, p. 7) The Philippine Merchant Marine Rules and Regulations particularly Chapter XVI thereof entitled "Marine Investigation and Suspension and Revocation Proceedings" prescribes the Rules governing maritime casualties or accidents, the rules and procedures in administrative investigation of all maritime cases within the jurisdiction or cognizance of the Philippine Coast Guard and the grounds for suspension and revocation of licenses/certificates of marine officers and seamen (1601 SCOPE); clearly, limiting the jurisdiction of the Board of Marine Inquiry and Special Board of Marine Inquiry to the administrative aspect of marine casualties in so far as it involves the shipowners and officers. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C .J ., Regalado and Nocon, JJ ., concur.

FIRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 101503. September 15, 1993.] PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SORIAMONT STEAMSHIP AGENCIES AND KYOSEI KISEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA, respondents. Gonzales, Sinense, Jimenez & Associates for petitioner. Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako Law Office for private respondents. DECISION BELLOSILLO, J p: Does a charter-party 1 between a shipowner and a charterer transform a common carrier into a private one as to negate the civil law presumption of negligence in case of loss or damage to its cargo? Planters Products, Inc. (PPI), purchased from Mitsubishi International Corporation (MITSUBISHI) of New York, U.S.A., 9,329.7069 metric tons (M/T) of Urea 46% fertilizer which the latter shipped in bulk on 16 June 1974 aboard the cargo vessel M/V "Sun Plum" owned by private respondent Kyosei Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha (KKKK) from Kenai, Alaska, U.S.A., to Poro Point, San Fernando, La Union, Philippines, as evidenced by Bill of Lading No. KP-1 signed by the master of the vessel and issued on the date of departure. On 17 May 1974, or prior to its voyage, a time charter-party on the vessel M/V "Sun Plum" pursuant to the Uniform General Charter 2 was entered into between Mitsubishi as shipper/charterer and KKKK as shipowner, in Tokyo, Japan. 3 Riders to the aforesaid charter-party starting from par. 16 to 40 were attached to the pre-printed agreement. Addenda Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the charter-party were also subsequently entered into on the 18th, 20th, 21st and 27th of May 1974, respectively. Before loading the fertilizer aboard the vessel, four (4) of her holds 4 were all presumably inspected by the charterer's representative and found fit to take a load of urea in bulk pursuant to par. 16 of the charter-party which reads: "16. . . . At loading port, notice of readiness to be accomplished by certificate from National Cargo Bureau inspector or substitute appointed by charterers for his account certifying the vessel's readiness to receive cargo spaces. The vessel's hold to be properly swept, cleaned and dried at the vessel's expense and the vessel to be presented clean for use in bulk to the satisfaction of the inspector before daytime commences" (emphasis supplied). After the Urea fertilizer was loaded in bulk by stevedores hired by and under the supervision of the shipper, the steel hatches were closed with heavy iron lids, covered with three (3) layers of tarpaulin, then tied with steel bonds. The hatches remained closed and tightly sealed throughout the entire voyage. 5

Upon arrival of the vessel at her port of call on 3 July 1974, the steel pontoon hatches were opened with the use of the vessel's boom. Petitioner unloaded the cargo from the holds into its steel-bodied dump trucks which were parked alongside the berth, using metal scoops attached to the ship, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the charter-party (which provided for an F.I.O.S. clause). 6 The hatches remained open throughout the duration of the discharge. 7 Each time a dump truck was filled up, its load of Urea was covered with tarpaulin before it was transported to the consignee's warehouse located some fifty (50) meters from the wharf. Midway to the warehouse, the trucks were made to pass through a weighing scale where they were individually weighed for the purpose of ascertaining the net weight of the cargo. The port area was windy, certain portions of the route to the warehouse were sandy and the weather was variable, raining occasionally while the discharge was in progress. 8 The petitioner's warehouse was made of corrugated galvanized iron (GI) sheets, with an opening at the front where the dump trucks entered and unloaded the fertilizer on the warehouse floor. Tarpaulins and GI sheets were placed in-between and alongside the trucks to contain spillages of the fertilizer. 9 It took eleven (11) days for PPI to unload the cargo, from 5 July to 18 July 1974 (except July 12th, 14th and 18th). 10 A private marine and cargo surveyor, Cargo Superintendents Company Inc. (CSCI), was hired by PPI to determine the "outturn" of the cargo shipped, by taking draft readings of the vessel prior to and after discharge. 11 The survey report submitted by CSCI to the consignee (PPI) dated 19 July 1974 revealed a shortage in the cargo of 106.726 M/T and that a portion of the Urea fertilizer approximating 18 M/T was contaminated with dirt. The same results were contained in a Certificate of Shortage/Damaged Cargo dated 18 July 1974 prepared by PPI which showed that the cargo delivered was indeed short of 94.839 M/T and about 23 M/T were rendered unfit for commerce, having been polluted with sand, rust and dirt. 12 Consequently, PPI sent a claim letter dated 18 December 1974 to Soriamont Steamship Agencies (SSA), the resident agent of the carrier, KKKK, for P245,969.31 representing the cost of the alleged shortage in the goods shipped and the diminution in value of that portion said to have been contaminated with dirt. 13 Respondent SSA explained that they were not able to respond to the consignee's claim for payment because, according to them, what they received was just a request for shortlanded certificate and not a formal claim, and that this "request" was denied by them because they "had nothing to do with the discharge of the shipment." 14 Hence, on 18 July 1975, PPI filed an action for damages with the Court of First Instance of Manila. The defendant carrier argued that the strict public policy governing common carriers does not apply to them because they have become private carriers by reason of the provisions of the charter-party. The court a quo however sustained the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant carrier for the value of the goods lost or damaged when it ruled thus: 15 ". . . Prescinding from the provision of the law that a common carrier is presumed negligent in case of loss or damage of the goods it contracts to transport, all that a shipper has to do in a suit to recover for loss or damage is to show receipt by the carrier of the goods and delivery by it of less than what it received. After that, the burden of proving that the loss or damage was due to any of the causes which exempt him from liability is

shifted to the carrier, common or private he may be. Even if the provisions of the charterparty aforequoted are deemed valid, and the defendants considered private carriers, it was still incumbent upon them to prove that the shortage or contamination sustained by the cargo is attributable to the fault or negligence on the part of the shipper or consignee in the loading, stowing, trimming and discharge of the cargo. This they failed to do. By this omission, coupled with their failure to destroy the presumption of negligence against them, the defendants are liable" (italics supplied). On appeal, respondent Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and absolved the carrier from liability for the value of the cargo that was lost or damaged. 16 Relying on the 1968 case of Home Insurance Co. v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc., 17 the appellate court ruled that the cargo vessel M/V "Sun Plum" owned by private respondent KKKK was a private carrier and not a common carrier by reason of the time charter-party. Accordingly, the Civil Code provisions on common carriers which set forth a presumption of negligence do not find application in the case at bar. Thus ". . . In the absence of such presumption, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff-appellee to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the negligence of the defendant carrier as alleged in its complaint. It is an old and well settled rule that if the plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense (Moran, Commentaries on the Rules of Court, Volume 6, p. 2, citing Belen v. Belen, 13 Phil. 202). "But, the record shows that the plaintiff-appellee dismally failed to prove the basis of its cause of action, i.e., the alleged negligence of defendant carrier. It appears that the plaintiff was under the impression that it did not have to establish defendant's negligence. Be that as it may, contrary to the trial court's finding, the record of the instant case discloses ample evidence showing that defendant carrier was not negligent in performing its obligations . . ." 18 (emphasis supplied). Petitioner PPI appeals to us by way of a petition for review assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner theorizes that the Home Insurance case has no bearing on the present controversy because the issue raised therein is the validity of a stipulation in the charter-party delimiting the liability of the shipowner for loss or damage to goods caused by want of due diligence on its part or that of its manager to make the vessel seaworthy in all respects, and not whether the presumption of negligence provided under the Civil Code applies only to common carriers and not to private carriers. 19 Petitioner further argues that since the possession and control of the vessel remain with the shipowner, absent any stipulation to the contrary, such shipowner should be made liable for the negligence of the captain and crew. In fine, PPI faults the appellate court in not applying the presumption of negligence against respondent carrier, and instead shifting the onus probandi on the shipper to show want of due diligence on the part of the carrier, when he was not even at hand to witness what transpired during the entire voyage. As earlier stated, the primordial issue here is whether a common carrier becomes a private carrier by reason of a charter-party; in the negative, whether the shipowner in the instant case was able to prove that he had exercised that degree of diligence required of him under the law.

It is said that etymology is the basis of reliable judicial decisions in commercial cases. This being so, we find it fitting to first define important terms which are relevant to our discussion. A "charter-party" is defined as a contract by which an entire ship, or some principal part thereof, is let by the owner to another person for a specified time or use; 20 a contract of affreightment by which the owner of a ship or other vessel lets the whole or a part of her to a merchant or other person for the conveyance of goods, on a particular voyage, in consideration of the payment of freight. 21 Charter parties are of two types: (a) contract of affreightment which involves the use of shipping space on vessels leased by the owner in part or as a whole, to carry goods for others; and, (b) charter by demise or bareboat charter, by the terms of which the whole vessel is let to the charterer with a transfer to him of its entire command and possession and consequent control over its navigation, including the master and the crew, who are his servants. Contract of affreightment may either be time charter, wherein the vessel is leased to the charterer for a fixed period of time, or voyage charter, wherein the ship is leased for a single voyage. 22 In both cases, the charter-party provides for the hire of the vessel only, either for a determinate period of time or for a single or consecutive voyage, the shipowner to supply the ship's stores, pay for the wages of the master and the crew, and defray the expenses for the maintenance of the ship. Upon the other hand, the term "common or public carrier" is defined in Art. 1732 of the Civil Code. 23 The definition extends to carriers either by land, air or water which hold themselves out as ready to engage in carrying goods or transporting passengers or both for compensation as a public employment and not as a casual occupation. The distinction between a "common or public carrier" and a "private or special carrier" lies in the character of the business, such that if the undertaking is a single transaction, not a part of the general business or occupation, although involving the carriage of goods for a fee, the person or corporation offering such service is a private carrier. 24 Article 1733 of the New Civil Code mandates that common carriers, by reason of the nature of their business, should observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods they carry. 25 In the case of private carriers, however, the exercise of ordinary diligence in the carriage of goods will suffice. Moreover, in case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, and the burden of proving otherwise rests on them. 26 On the contrary, no such presumption applies to private carriers, for whosoever alleges damage to or deterioration of the goods carried has the onus of proving that the cause was the negligence of the carrier. It is not disputed that respondent carrier, in the ordinary course of business, operates as a common carrier, transporting goods indiscriminately for all persons. When petitioner chartered the vessel M/V "Sun Plum", the ship captain, its officers and compliment were under the employ of the shipowner and therefore continued to be under its direct supervision and control. Hardly then can we charge the charterer, a stranger to the crew and to the ship, with the duty of caring for his cargo when the charterer did not have any control of the means in doing so. This is evident in the present case considering that the steering of the ship, the manning of the decks, the determination of the course of the

voyage and other technical incidents of maritime navigation were all consigned to the officers and crew who were screened, chosen and hired by the shipowner. 27 It is therefore imperative that a public carrier shall remain as such, notwithstanding the charter of the whole or portion of a vessel by one or more persons, provided the charter is limited to the ship only, as in the case of a time-charter or voyage-charter. It is only when the charter includes both the vessel and its crew, as in a bareboat or demise that a common carrier becomes private, at least insofar as the particular voyage covering the charter-party is concerned. Indubitably, a shipowner in a time or voyage charter retains possession and control of the ship, although her holds may, for the moment, be the property of the charterer. 28 Respondent carrier's heavy reliance on the case of Home Insurance Co. v. American Steamship Agencies, supra, is misplaced for the reason that the meat of the controversy therein was the validity of a stipulation in the charter-party exempting the shipowner from liability for loss due to the negligence of its agent, and not the effects of a special charter on common carriers. At any rate, the rule in the United States that a ship chartered by a single shipper to carry special cargo is not a common carrier, 29 does not find application in our jurisdiction, for we have observed that the growing concern for safety in the transportation of passengers and/or carriage of goods by sea requires a more exacting interpretation of admiralty laws, more particularly, the rules governing common carriers. We quote with approval the observations of Raoul Colinvaux, the learned barrister-at-law 30 "As a matter of principle, it is difficult to find a valid distinction between cases in which a ship is used to convey the goods of one and of several persons. Where the ship herself is let to a charterer, so that he takes over the charge and control of her, the case is different; the shipowner is not then a carrier. But where her services only are let, the same grounds for imposing a strict responsibility exist, whether he is employed by one or many. The master and the crew are in each case his servants, the freighter in each case is usually without any representative on board the ship; the same opportunities for fraud or collussion occur; and the same difficulty in discovering the truth as to what has taken place arises . . ." In an action for recovery of damages against a common carrier on the goods shipped, the shipper or consignee should first prove the fact of shipment and its consequent loss or damage while the same was in the possession, actual or constructive, of the carrier. Thereafter, the burden of proof shifts to respondent to prove that he has exercised extraordinary diligence required by law or that the loss, damage or deterioration of the cargo was due to fortuitous event, or some other circumstances inconsistent with its liability. 31 To our mind, respondent carrier has sufficiently overcome, by clear and convincing proof, the prima facie presumption of negligence. The master of the carrying vessel, Captain Lee Tae Bo, in his deposition taken on 19 April 1977 before the Philippine Consul and Legal Attach in the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, Japan, testified that before the fertilizer was loaded, the four (4) hatches of the vessel

were cleaned, dried and fumigated. After completing the loading of the cargo in bulk in the ship's holds, the steel pontoon hatches were closed and sealed with iron lids, then covered with three (3) layers of serviceable tarpaulins which were tied with steel bonds. The hatches remained close and tightly sealed while the ship was in transit as the weight of the steel covers made it impossible for a person to open without the use of the ship's boom. 32 It was also shown during the trial that the hull of the vessel was in good condition, foreclosing the possibility of spillage of the cargo into the sea or seepage of water inside the hull of the vessel. 33 When M/V "Sun Plum" docked at its berthing place, representatives of the consignee boarded, and in the presence of a representative of the shipowner, the foreman, the stevedores, and a cargo surveyor representing CSCI, opened the hatches and inspected the condition of the hull of the vessel. The stevedores unloaded the cargo under the watchful eyes of the shipmates who were overseeing the whole operation on rotation basis. 34 Verily, the presumption of negligence on the part of respondent carrier has been efficaciously overcome by the showing of extraordinary zeal and assiduity exercised by the carrier in the care of the cargo. This was confirmed by respondent appellate court thus ". . . Be that as it may, contrary to the trial court's finding, the record of the instant case discloses ample evidence showing that defendant carrier was not negligent in performing its obligations. Particularly, the following testimonies of plaintiff-appellee's own witnesses clearly show absence of negligence by the defendant carrier; that the hull of the vessel at the time of the discharge of the cargo was sealed and nobody could open the same except in the presence of the owner of the cargo and the representatives of the vessel (TSN, 20 July 1977, p. 14); that the cover of the hatches was made of steel and it was overlaid with tarpaulins, three layers of tarpaulins and therefore their contents were protected from the weather (TSN, 5 April 1978, p. 24); and, that to open these hatches, the seals would have to be broken, all the seals were found to be intact (TSN, 20 July 1977, pp. 15-16)" (italics supplied). The period during which private respondent was to observe the degree of diligence required of it as a public carrier began from the time the cargo was unconditionally placed in its charge after the vessel's holds were duly inspected and passed scrutiny by the shipper, up to and until the vessel reached its destination and its hull was re-examined by the consignee, but prior to unloading. This is clear from the limitation clause agreed upon by the parties in the Addendum to the standard "GENCON" time charter-party which provided for an F.I.O.S., meaning, that the loading, stowing, trimming and discharge of the cargo was to be done by the charterer, free from all risk and expense to the carrier. 35 Moreover, a shipowner is liable for damage to the cargo resulting from improper stowage only when the stowing is done by stevedores employed by him, and therefore under his control and supervision, not when the same is done by the consignee or stevedores under the employ of the latter. 36 Article 1734 of the New Civil Code provides that common carriers are not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods if caused by the character of the goods or defects in the packaging or in the containers. The Code of Commerce also provides that all losses and deteriorations which the goods may suffer during the transportation by

reason of fortuitous event, force majeure, or the inherent defect of the goods, shall be for the account and risk of the shipper, and that proof of these accidents is incumbent upon the carrier. 37 The carrier, nonetheless, shall be liable for the loss and damage resulting from the preceding causes if it is proved, as against him, that they arose through his negligence or by reason of his having failed to take the precautions which usage has established among careful persons. 38 Respondent carrier presented a witness who testified on the characteristics of the fertilizer shipped and the expected risks of bulk shipping. Mr. Estanislao Chupungco, a chemical engineer working with Atlas Fertilizer, described Urea as a chemical compound consisting mostly of ammonia and carbon monoxide compounds which are used as fertilizer. Urea also contains 46% nitrogen and is highly soluble in water. However, during storage, nitrogen and ammonia do not normally evaporate even on a long voyage, provided that the temperature inside the hull does not exceed eighty (80) degrees centigrade. Mr. Chupungco further added that in unloading fertilizer in bulk with the use of a clamped shell, losses due to spillage during such operation amounting to one percent (1%) against the bill of lading is deemed "normal" or "tolerable." The primary cause of these spillages is the clamped shell which does not seal very tightly. Also, the wind tends to blow away some of the materials during the unloading process. The dissipation of quantities of fertilizer, or its deterioration in value, is caused either by an extremely high temperature in its place of storage, or when it comes in contact with water. When Urea is drenched in water, either fresh or saline, some of its particles dissolve. But the salvaged portion which is in liquid form still remains potent and usable although no longer saleable in its original market value. The probability of the cargo being damaged or getting mixed or contaminated with foreign particles was made greater by the fact that the fertilizer was transported in "bulk," thereby exposing it to the inimical effects of the elements and the grimy condition of the various pieces of equipment used in transporting and hauling it. The evidence of respondent carrier also showed that it was highly improbable for sea water to seep into the vessel's holds during the voyage since the hull of the vessel was in good condition and her hatches were tightly closed and firmly sealed, making the M/V "Sun Plum" in all respects seaworthy to carry the cargo she was chartered for. If there was loss or contamination of the cargo, it was more likely to have occurred while the same was being transported from the ship to the dump trucks and finally to the consignee's warehouse. This may be gleaned from the testimony of the marine and cargo surveyor of CSCI who supervised the unloading. He explained that the 18 M/T of alleged "bad order cargo" as contained in their report to PPI was just an approximation or estimate made by them after the fertilizer was discharged from the vessel and segregated from the rest of the cargo. The Court notes that it was in the month of July when the vessel arrived port and unloaded her cargo. It rained from time to time at the harbor area while the cargo was being discharged according to the supply officer of PPI, who also testified that it was windy at the waterfront and along the shoreline where the dump trucks passed enroute to the consignee's warehouse.

Indeed, we agree with respondent carrier that bulk shipment of highly soluble goods like fertilizer carries with it the risk of loss or damage. More so, with a variable weather condition prevalent during its unloading, as was the case at bar. This is a risk the shipper or the owner of the goods has to face. Clearly, respondent carrier has sufficiently proved the inherent character of the goods which makes it highly vulnerable to deterioration; as well as the inadequacy of its packaging which further contributed to the loss. On the other hand, no proof was adduced by the petitioner showing that the carrier was remiss in the exercise of due diligence in order to minimize the loss or damage to the goods it carried. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court, is AFFIRMED. Consequently, Civil Case No. 98623 of the then Court of the First Instance, now Regional Trial Court, of Manila should be, as it is hereby, DISMISSED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr. and Quiason, JJ ., concur. Cruz, J ., took no part. Grio-Aquino, J ., is on leave.

THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 70876. July 19, 1990.] MA. LUISA BENEDICTO, petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and GREENHILLS WOOD INDUSTRIES COMPANY, INC., respondents. Britanico, Panganiban, Benitez, Africa, Linsangan and Barinaga for petitioner. Abelardo V. Viray for private respondent. DECISION FELICIANO, J p: This Petition for Review asks us to set aside the Decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court dated 30 January 1985 in A.C.-G.R. CV No. 01454, which affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Dagupan City in Civil Case No. 5206. There, the RTC held petitioner Ma. Luisa Benedicto liable to pay private respondent Greenhills Wood Industries Company, Inc. ("Greenhills") the amounts of P16,016.00 and P2,000.00 representing the cost of Greenhills' lost sawn lumber and attorney's fees, respectively.

Private respondent Greenhills, a lumber manufacturing firm with business address at Dagupan City, operates a sawmill in Maddela, Quirino. Sometime in May 1980, private respondent bound itself to sell and deliver to Blue Star Mahogany, Inc. ("Blue Star"), a company with business operations in Valenzuela, Bulacan 100,000 board feet of sawn lumber with the understanding that an initial delivery would be made on 15 May 1980. 1 To effect its first delivery, private respondent's resident manager in Maddela, Dominador Cruz, contracted Virgilio Licuden, the driver of a cargo truck bearing Plate No. 225 GA TH to transport its sawn lumber to the consignee Blue Star in Valenzuela, Bulacan. This cargo truck was registered in the name of petitioner Ma. Luisa Benedicto, the proprietor of Macoven Trucking, a business enterprise engaged in hauling freight, with main office in B.F. Homes, Paraaque. On 15 May 1980, Cruz in the presence and with the consent of driver Licuden, supervised the loading of 7,690 board feet of sawn lumber with invoice value of P16,918.00 aboard the cargo truck. Before the cargo truck left Maddela for Valenzuela, Bulacan, Cruz issued to Licuden Charge Invoices Nos. 3259 and 3260 both of which were initialed by the latter at the bottom left corner. 2 The first invoice was for the amount of P11,822.80 representing the value of 5,374 board feet of sawn lumber, while the other set out the amount of P5,095.20 as the value of 2,316 board feet. Cruz instructed Licuden to give the original copies of the two (2) invoices to the consignee upon arrival in Valenzuela, Bulacan 3 and to retain the duplicate copies in order that he could afterwards claim the freightage from private respondent's Manila office. 4 On 16 May 1980, the Manager of Blue Star called up by long distance telephone Greenhills' president, Henry Lee Chuy, informing him that the sawn lumber on board the subject cargo truck had not yet arrived in Valenzuela, Bulacan. The latter in turn informed Greenhills' resident manager in its Maddela sawmill of what had happened. In a letter 5 dated 18 May 1980, Blue Star's administrative and personnel manager, Manuel R. Bautista, formally informed Greenhills' president and general manager that Blue Star still had not received the sawn lumber which was supposed to arrive on 15 May 1980 and because of this delay, "they were constrained to look for other suppliers." On 25 June 1980, after confirming the above with Blue Star and after trying vainly to persuade it to continue with their contract, private respondent Greenhills filed Criminal Case No. 668 against driver Licuden for estafa. Greenhills also filed against petitioner Benedicto Civil Case No. D-5206 for recovery of the value of the lost sawn lumber plus damages before the RTC of Dagupan City. LexLib In her answer, 6 petitioner Benedicto denied liability alleging that she was a complete stranger to the contract of carriage, the subject truck having been earlier sold by her to Benjamin Tee, on 28 February 1980 as evidenced by a deed of sale. 7 She claimed that the truck had remained registered in her name notwithstanding its earlier sale to Tee because the latter had paid her only P50,000.00 out of the total agreed price of P68,000.00 However, she averred that Tee had been operating the said truck in Central Luzon from that date (28 February 1980) onwards, and that, therefore, Licuden was Tee's employee and not hers.

On 20 June 1983, based on the finding that petitioner Benedicto was still the registered owner of the subject truck, and holding that Licuden was her employee, the trial court adjudged as follows: "WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, this Court hereby renders judgment against defendant Maria Luisa Benedicto, ordering her to pay the Greenhills Wood Industries Co. Inc., thru its President and General Manager, the amount of P16,016 cost of the sawn lumber loaded on the cargo truck, with legal rate of interest from the filing of the complaint; to pay attorney's fees in the amount of P2,000.00; and to pay the costs of this suit. SO ORDERED." 8 On 30 January 1985, upon appeal by petitioner, the Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed 9 the decision of the trial court in toto. Like the trial court, the appellate court held that since petitioner was the registered owner of the subject vehicle, Licuden, the driver of the truck, was her employee, and that accordingly petitioner should be responsible for the negligence of said driver and bear the loss of the sawn lumber plus damages. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, without success. 10 In the present Petition for Review, the sole issue raised is whether or not under the facts and applicable law, the appellate court was correct in finding that petitioner, being the registered owner of the carrier, should be held liable for the value of the undelivered or lost sawn lumber. Petitioner urges that she could not be held answerable for the loss of the cargo, because the doctrine which makes the registered owner of a common carrier vehicle answerable to the public for the negligence of the driver despite the sale of the vehicle to another person, applies only to cases involving death of or injury to passengers. What applies in the present case, according to petitioner, is the rule that a contract of carriage requires proper delivery of the goods to and acceptance by the carrier. Thus, petitioner contends that the delivery to a person falsely representing himself to be an agent of the carrier prevents liability from attaching to the registered owner. The Court considers that petitioner has failed to show that appellate court committed reversible error in affirming the trial court's holding that petitioner was liable for the cost of the sawn lumber plus damages. There is no dispute that petitioner Benedicto has been holding herself out to the public as engaged in the business of hauling or transporting goods for hire or compensation. Petitioner Benedicto is, in brief, a common carrier. The prevailing doctrine on common carriers makes the registered owner liable for consequences flowing from the operations of the carrier, even though the specific vehicle involved may already have been transferred to another person. This doctrine rests upon the principle that in dealing with vehicles registered under the Public Service Law, the public has the right to assume that the registered owner is the actual or lawful owner thereof. It would be very difficult and often impossible as a practical matter, for members of the general public to enforce the rights of action that they may have for injuries inflicted

by the vehicles being negligently operated if they should be required to prove who the actual owner is. 11 The registered owner is not allowed to deny liability by proving the identity of the alleged transferee. Thus, contrary to petitioner's claim, private respondent is not required to go beyond the vehicle's certificate of registration to ascertain the owner of the carrier. In this regard, the letter presented by petitioner allegedly written by Benjamin Tee admitting that Licuden was his driver, had no evidentiary value not only because Benjamin Tee was not presented in court to testify on this matter but also because of the aforementioned doctrine. To permit the ostensible or registered owner to prove who the actual owner is, would be to set at naught the purpose or public policy which infuses that doctrine. cdphil In fact, private respondent had no reason at all to doubt the authority of Licuden to enter into a contract of carriage on behalf of the registered owner. It appears that, earlier, in the first week of May 1980, private respondent Greenhills had contracted Licuden who was then driving the same cargo truck to transport and carry a load of sawn lumber from the Maddela sawmill to Dagupan City. 12 No one came forward to question that contract or the authority of Licuden to represent the owner of the carrier truck. Moreover, assuming the truth of her story, petitioner Benedicto retained registered ownership of the freight truck for her own benefit and convenience, that is, to secure the payment of the balance of the selling price of the truck. She may have been unaware of the legal security device of chattel mortgage; or she, or her buyer, may have been unwilling to absorb the expenses of registering a chattel mortgage over the truck. In either case, considerations both of public policy and of equity require that she bear the consequences flowing from registered ownership of the subject vehicle. Petitioner Benedicto, however, insists that the said principle should apply only to cases involving negligence and resulting injury to or death of passengers, and not to cases involving merely carriage of goods. We believe otherwise. A common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for insistent reasons of public policy, is burdened by the law with the duty of exercising extraordinary diligence not only in ensuring the safety of passengers but also in caring for goods transported by it. 13 The loss or destruction or deterioration of goods turned over to the common carrier for conveyance to a designated destination, raises instantly a presumption of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier, save only where such loss, destruction or damage arises from extreme circumstances such as a natural disaster or calamity or act of the public enemy in time of war, or from an act or omission of the shipper himself or from the character of the goods or their packaging or container. 14 This presumption may be overcome only by proof of extraordinary diligence on the part of the carrier. 15 Clearly, to permit a common carrier to escape its responsibility for the passengers or goods transported by it by proving a prior sale of the vehicle or means of transportation to an alleged vendee would be to attenuate drastically the carrier's duty of extraordinary diligence. It would also open wide the door to collusion between the carrier and the supposed vendee and to shifting liability from the carrier to one without financial capability to respond for the resulting damages. In other words, the thrust of the public policy here involved is as sharp and real in the case of carriage of goods as it is in the transporting of human beings. Thus, to sustain petitioner Benedicto's contention, that is, to

require the shipper to go behind a certificate of registration of a public utility vehicle, would be utterly subversive of the purpose of the law and doctrine. Petitioner further insists that there was no perfected contract of carriage for the reason that there was no proof that her consent or that of Tee had been obtained; no proof that the driver, Licuden, was authorized to bind the registered owner; and no proof that the parties had agreed on the freightage to be paid. Once more, we are not persuaded by petitioner's arguments which appear to be a transparent attempt to evade statutory responsibilities. Driver Licuden was entrusted with possession and control of the freight truck by the registered owner (and by the alleged secret owner, for that matter). Driver Licuden, under the circumstances, was clothed with at least implied authority to contract to carry goods and to accept delivery of such goods for carriage to a specified destination. That the freight to be paid may not have been fixed before loading and carriage, did not prevent the contract of carriage from arising, since the freight was at least determinable if not fixed by the tariff schedules in petitioner's main business office. Put in somewhat different terms, driver Licuden is in law regarded as the employee and agent of the petitioner, for whose acts petitioner must respond. A contract of carriage of goods was shown; the sawn lumber was loaded on board the freight truck; loss or non-delivery of the lumber at Blue Star's premises in Valenzuela, Bulacan was also proven; and petitioner has not proven either that she had exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent such loss or non-delivery or that the loss or non-delivery was due to some casualty or force majeure inconsistent with her liability. 16 Petitioner's liability to private respondent Greenhills was thus fixed and complete, without prejudice to petitioner's right to proceed against her putative transferee Benjamin Tee and driver Licuden for reimbursement or contribution. 17 WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED for lack of merit and the Decision of the former Intermediate Appellate Court dated 30 January 1985 is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr. and Cortes, JJ., concur. Bidin, J., took no part.

THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 98275. November 13, 1992.] BA FINANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ANGELES CITY, BRANCH LVI, CARLOS OCAMPO, INOCENCIO TURLA, SPOUSES MOISES AGAPITO AND SOCORRO M. AGAPITO AND NICOLAS CRUZ, respondents. Agbayani, Leal, Ebarle and Venturanza for petitioner.

Ocampo, Sicat, Ayson, Pangilinan & Associates Law Office for private respondent. SYLLABUS 1. COMMERCIAL LAW; LAND TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CODE; REGISTRATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES; PRINCIPAL PURPOSES; REGISTERED OWNER PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE TO THIRD PERSONS FOR INJURIES AND DAMAGES CAUSED BY OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE SOLD OR LEASED TO ANOTHER; REASON THEREFOR; RECOURSE AVAILABLE TO REGISTERED OWNER; CASE AT BAR. Petitioner asseverates that it should not have been haled to court and ordered to respond for the damage in the manner arrived at by both the trial and appellate courts since paragraph 5 of the complaint lodged by the plaintiffs below would indicate that petitioner was not the employer of the negligent driver who was under the control and supervision of Lino Castro at the time of the accident, apart from the fact that the Isuzu truck was in the physical possession of Rock Component Philippines by virtue of the lease agreement. Aside from casting clouds of doubt on the propriety of invoking the Perez and Erezo doctrines, petitioner continues to persist with the idea that the pronouncements of this Court in Duavit vs. Court of Appeals (173 SCRA 490 [1989]) and Duquillo vs. Bayot (67 Phil 131 [1939]) dovetail with the factual and legal scenario of the case at hand. Furthermore, petitioner assumes, given the so-called hiatus on the basis for the award of damages as decreed by the lower and appellate courts, that Article 2180 of the new Civil Code on vicarious liability will divest petitioner of any responsibility absent as there is any employer-employee relationship between petitioner and the driver. Contrary to petitioner's expectations, the recourse instituted from the rebuffs it encountered may not constitute a sufficient foundation for reversal of the impugned judgment of respondent court. Petitioner is of the impression that the Perez and Erezo cases are inapplicable due to the variance of the generative facts in said cases as against those obtaining in the controversy at bar. A contrario, the lesson imparted by Justice Labrador in Erezo is still good law, thus: ". . . In previous decisions, We already have held that the registered owner of a certificate of public convenience is liable to the public for the injuries or damages suffered by passengers or third persons caused by the operation of said vehicle, even though the same had been transferred to a third person. (Montoya vs. Ignacio, 94 Phil., 182, 50 Off. Gaz., 108; Roque vs. Malibay Transit, Inc., G.R. No. L-8561, November 18, 1955; Vda. de Medina vs. Cresencia, 99 Phil., 506, 52 Off. Gaz., [10], 4606.) The principle upon which this doctrine is based is that in dealing with vehicles registered under the Public Service Law, the public has the right to assume or presume that the registered owner is the actual owner thereof, for it would be difficult for the public to enforce the actions that they may have for injuries caused to them by the vehicles being negligently operated if the public should be required to prove who the actual owner is. How would the public or third persons know against whom to enforce their rights in case of subsequent transfers of the vehicles? We do not imply by this doctrine, however, that the registered owner may not recover whatever amount he had paid by virtue of his liability to third persons from the person to whom he had actually sold, assigned or conveyed the vehicle. "Under the same principle the registered owner of any vehicle, even if not used for a public service, should primarily be responsible to the public or to third persons for injuries caused the latter while the vehicle is being driven on the highways or streets. The members of the Court are in agreement that the defendantappellant should be held liable to plaintiff-appellee for the injuries occasioned to the latter because of the negligence of the driver, even if the defendant-appellant was no longer the owner of the vehicle at the time of the damage because he had previously sold it to

another. What is the legal basis for his (defendant-appellant's) liability? "There is a presumption that the owner of the guilty vehicle is the defendant-appellant as he is the registered owner in the Motor Vehicles Office. Should he not be allowed to prove the truth, that he had sold it to another and thus shift the responsibility for the injury to the real and actual owner? The defendant holds the affirmative of this proposition, the trial court held the negative. "The Revised Motor Vehicles Law (Act No. 3992, as amended) provides that no vehicle may be used or operated upon any public highway unless the same is properly registered. It has been stated that the system of licensing and the requirement that each machine must carry a registration number, conspicuously displayed, is one of the precautions taken to reduce the danger of injury to pedestrians and other travellers from the careless management of automobiles, and to furnish a means of ascertaining the identity of persons violating the laws and ordinances, regulating the speed and operation of machines upon the highways (2 R. C. L. 1176). Not only are vehicles to be registered and that no motor vehicles are to be used or operated without being properly registered for the current year, but that dealers in motor vehicles shall furnish the Motor Vehicles Office a report showing the name and address of each purchaser of motor vehicle during the previous month and the manufacturer's serial number and motor number. (Section 5[c], Act No. 3992, as amended.). "Registration is required not to make said registration the operative act by which ownership in vehicles is transferred, as in land registration cases, because the administrative proceeding of registration does not bear any essential relation to the contract of sale between the parties (Chinchilla vs. Rafael and Verdaguer, 39 Phil. 888), but to permit the use and operation of the vehicle upon any public highway (section 5 [a], Act No. 3992, as amended). The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the public highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definite individual, the registered owner. Instances are numerous where vehicles running on public highways caused accidents or injuries to pedestrians or other vehicles without positive identification of the owner or drivers, or with very scant means of identification. It is to forestall these circumstances, so inconvenient or prejudicial to the public, that the motor vehicle registration is primarily ordained, in the interest of the determination of persons responsible for damages or injuries caused on public highways. 'One of the principal purposes of motor vehicles legislation is identification of the vehicle and of the operator, in case of accident; and another is that the knowledge that means of detection are always available may act as a deterrent from lax observance of the law and of the rules of conservative and safe operation. Whatever purpose there may be in these statutes, it is subordinate at the last to the primary purpose of rendering it certain that the violator of the law or of the rules of safety shall not escape because of lack of means to discover him.' The purpose of the statute is thwarted, and the displayed number becomes a 'snare and delusion,' if courts would entertain such defenses as that put forward by appellee in this case. No responsible person or corporation could be held liable for the most outrageous acts of negligence, if they should be allowed to pace a "middleman" between them and the public, and escape liability by the manner in which they recompense their servants.' (King vs. Brenham Automobile Co., Inc. 145 S. W. 278, 279.). "With the above policy in mind, the question that defendant-appellant poses is: should not the registered owner be allowed at the trial to prove who the actual and real owner is, and in accordance with such proof escape or evade responsibility and lay the same on the person actually owning the vehicle? We hold with the trial court that the law does not allow him to do so; the law, with its aim and policy in mind, does not relieve him directly of the responsibility that the law fixes and places upon him as an incident or consequence of registration. Were

a registered owner allowed to evade responsibility by proving who the supposed transferee or owner is, it would be easy for him, by collusion with others or otherwise, to escape said responsibility and transfer the same to an indefinite person, or to one who possesses no property with which to respond financially for the damage or injury done. A victim of recklessness on the public highways is usually without means to discover or identify the person actually causing the injury or damage. He has no means other than by a recourse to the registration in the Motor Vehicles Office to determine who is the owner. The protection that the law aims to extend to him would become illusory were the registered owner given the opportunity to escape liability by disproving his ownership. If the policy of the law is to be enforced and carried out, the registered owner should not be allowed to prove the contrary to the prejudice of the person injured, that is, to prove that a third person or another has become the owner, so that he may thereby be relieved of the responsibility to the injured person. "The above policy and application of the law may appear quite harsh and would seem to conflict with truth and justice. We do not think it is so. A registered owner who has already sold or transferred a vehicle has the recourse to a third-party complaint, in the same action brought against him to recover for the damage or injury done, against the vendee or transferee of the vehicle. The inconvenience of the suit is no justification for relieving him of liability; said inconvenience is the price he pays for failure to comply with the registration that the law demands and requires. "In synthesis, we hold that the registered owner, the defendant-appellant herein, is primarily responsible for the damage caused to the vehicle of the plaintiff-appellee, but he (defendant-appellant) has a right to be indemnified by the real or actual owner of the amount that he may be required to pay as damage for the injury caused to the plaintiffappellant." If the foregoing words of wisdom were applied in solving the circumstance whereof the vehicle had been alienated or sold to another, there certainly can be no serious exception against utilizing the same rationale to the antecedents of this case where the subject vehicle was merely leased by petitioner to Rock Component Philippines, Inc., with petitioner retaining ownership over the vehicle. 2. CIVIL LAW; QUASI-DELICTS; LIABILITY OF THE EMPLOYERS FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY THEIR EMPLOYEES ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ASSIGNED TASKS; DOCTRINE ENUNCIATED IN DUAVIT VS. COURT OF APPEALS (173 SCRA 490 [1989]) And DUQUILLO VS. BAYOT (67 PHIL. 131 [1939] NOT APPLICABLE TO CASE AT BAR. Petitioner's reliance on the rulings of this Court in Duavit vs. Court of Appeals and in Duquillo vs. Bayot (supra) is legally unpalatable for the purpose of the present discourse. The vehicles adverted to in the two cases shared a common thread, so to speak, in that the jeep and the truck were driven in reckless fashion without the consent or knowledge of the respective owners. Cognizant of the inculpatory testimony spewed by defendant Sabiniano when he admitted that he took the jeep from the garage of defendant Duavit without the consent or authority of the latter, Justice Gutierrez, Jr. in Duavit remarked: ". . . Herein petitioner does not deny ownership of the vehicle involved in the mishap but completely denies having employed the driver Sabiniano or even having authorized the latter to drive his jeep. The jeep was virtually stolen from the petitioner's garage. To hold, therefore, the petitioner liable for the accident caused by the negligence of Sabiniano who was neither his driver nor employee would be absurd as it would be like holding liable the owner of a stolen vehicle for an accident caused by the person who stole such vehicle. In this regard, we cannot ignore the many cases of vehicles forcibly taken from their owners at gunpoint or stolen from garages and parking areas and the instances of service station attendants or mechanics of auto repair shops using, without the owner's consent, vehicles entrusted to them for

servicing or repair." In the Duquillo case, the defendant therein cannot, according to Justice Diaz, be held liable for anything because of circumstances which indicated that the truck was driven without the consent or knowledge of the owner thereof. DECISION MELO, J p: The question of petitioner's responsibility for damages when on March 6, 1983, an accident occurred involving petitioner's Isuzu ten-wheeler truck then driven by an employee of Lino Castro is the thrust of the petition for review on certiorari now before Us considering that neither the driver nor Lino Castro appears to be connected with petitioner. On October 13, 1988, the disputed decision in the suit below was rendered by the court of origin in this manner: LLphil "1. Ordering Rock, B.A. and Rogelio Villar y Amare jointly and severally to pay the plaintiffs as follow: a) b) c) d) 2. 3. 4. To the plaintiff Carlos Ocampo P121,650.00; to the plaintiff Moises Ocampo P298,500.00 To the plaintiff Nicolas Cruz P154,740.00 To the plaintiff Inocencio Turla, Sr. 48,000.00. Dismissing the case against Lino Castro Dismissing the third-party complaint against STRONGHOLD Dismissing all the counterclaims of the defendants and third party defendants.

5. Ordering ROCK to reimburse B.A. the total amount of P622,890.00 which the latter is adjudged to pay to the plaintiffs." (p. 46, Rollo) prcd Respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the appealed disposition in toto through Justice Rasul, with Justices De Pano, Jr. and Imperial concurring, on practically the same grounds arrived at by the court a quo (p. 28, Rollo). Efforts exerted towards re-evaluation of the adverse judgment were futile (p. 37, Rollo). Hence, the instant petition. The lower court ascertained after due trial that Rogelio Villar y Amare, the driver of the Isuzu truck, was at fault when the mishap occurred in as much as he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in triple homicide with multiple physical injuries with damage to property in a decision rendered on February 16, 1984 by the Presiding Judge of Branch 6 of the Regional Trial Court stationed at Malolos, Bulacan. Petitioner was adjudged liable far damages in as much as the truck was registered in its name during the incident in question, following the doctrines laid down by this Court in Perez vs. Gutierrez (53 SCRA 149 [1973]) and Erezo, et al. vs. Jepte (102 Phil. 103 [1957]).

In the same breadth, Rock Component Philippines, Inc. was ordered to reimburse petitioner for any amount that the latter may be adjudged liable to pay herein private respondents as expressly stipulated in the contract of lease between petitioner and Rock Component Philippines, Inc. Moreover, the trial court applied Article 2194 of the new Civil Code on solidary accountability of joint tortfeasors insofar as the liability of the driver, herein petitioner and Rock Component Philippines was concerned (pp. 6-7, Decision; pp. 44-45, Rollo). To the question of whether petitioner can be held responsible to the victims albeit the truck was leased to Rock Component Philippines when the incident occurred, the appellate court answered in the affirmative on the basis of the jurisprudential dogmas which, as aforesaid, were relied upon by the trial court although respondent court was quick to add the caveat embodied in the lease covenant between petitioner and Rock Component Philippines relative to the latter's duty to reimburse any amount which may be adjudged against petitioner (pp. 32-33, Rollo). Petitioner asseverates that it should not have been haled to court and ordered to respond for the damage in the manner arrived at by both the trial and appellate courts since paragraph 5 of the complaint lodged by the plaintiffs below would indicate that petitioner was not the employer of the negligent driver who was under the control and supervision of Lino Castro at the time of the accident, apart from the fact that the Isuzu truck was in the physical possession of Rock Component Philippines by virtue of the lease agreement. LibLex Aside from casting clouds of doubt on the propriety of invoking the Perez and Erezo doctrines, petitioner continues to persist with the idea that the pronouncements of this Court in Duavit vs. Court of Appeals (173 SCRA 490 [1989]) and Duquillo vs. Bayot (67 Phil 131 [1939]) dovetail with the factual and legal scenario of the case at hand. Furthermore, petitioner assumes, given the so-called hiatus on the basis for the award of damages as decreed by the lower and appellate courts, that Article 2180 of the new Civil Code on vicarious liability will divest petitioner of any responsibility absent as there is any employer-employee relationship between petitioner and the driver. Contrary to petitioner's expectations, the recourse instituted from the encountered may not constitute a sufficient foundation for reversal of the judgment of respondent court. Petitioner is of the impression that the Perez cases are inapplicable due to the variance of the generative facts in said cases those obtaining in the controversy at bar. A contrario, the lesson imparted Labrador in Erezo is still good law, thus: rebuffs it impugned and Erezo as against by Justice

have for injuries caused to them by the vehicles being negligently operated if the public should be required to prove who the actual owner is. How would the public or third persons know against whom to enforce their rights in case of subsequent transfers of the vehicles? We do not imply by this doctrine, however, that the registered owner may not recover whatever amount he had paid by virtue of his liability to third persons from the person to whom he had actually sold, assigned or conveyed the vehicle. "Under the same principle the registered owner of any vehicle, even if not used for a public service, should primarily be responsible to the public or to third persons for injuries caused the latter while the vehicle is being driven on the highways or streets. The members of the Court are in agreement that the defendant-appellant should be held liable to plaintiff-appellee for the injuries occasioned to the latter because of the negligence of the driver, even if the defendant-appellant was no longer the owner of the vehicle at the time of the damage because he had previously sold it to another. What is the legal basis for his (defendant-appellant's) liability? "There is a presumption that the owner of the guilty vehicle is the defendant-appellant as he is the registered owner in the Motor Vehicles Office. Should he not be allowed to prove the truth, that he had sold it to another and thus shift the responsibility for the injury to the real and actual owner? The defendant holds the affirmative of this proposition, the trial court held the negative. "The Revised Motor vehicles Law (Act No. 3992, as amended) provides that no vehicle may be used or operated upon any public highway unless the same is properly registered. It has been stated that the system of licensing and the requirement that each machine must carry a registration number, conspicuously displayed, is one of the precautions taken to reduce the danger of injury to pedestrians and other travellers from the careless management of automobiles, and to furnish a means of ascertaining the identity of persons violating the laws and ordinances, regulating the speed and operation of machines upon the highways (2 R. C. L. 1176). Not only are vehicles to be registered and that no motor vehicles are to be used or operated without being properly registered for the current year, but that dealers in motor vehicles shall furnish the Motor Vehicles Office a report showing the name and address of each purchaser of motor vehicle during the previous month and the manufacturer's serial number and motor number. (Section 5[c], Act No. 3992, as amended.). "Registration is required not to make said registration the operative act by which ownership in vehicles is transferred, as in land registration cases, because the administrative proceeding of registration does not bear any essential relation to the contract of sale between the parties (Chinchilla vs. Rafael and Verdaguer, 39 Phil. 888), but to permit the use and operation of the vehicle upon any public highway (section 5 [a], Act No. 3992, as amended). The main aim of motor vehicle registration is to identify the owner so that if any accident happens, or that any damage or injury is caused by the vehicle on the public highways, responsibility therefor can be fixed on a definite individual, the registered owner. Instances are numerous where vehicles running on public highways caused accidents or injuries to pedestrians or other vehicles without positive identification of the owner or drivers, or with very scant means of identification. It is to forestall these circumstances, so inconvenient or prejudicial to the public, that the motor vehicle

". . . In previous decisions, We already have held that the registered owner of a certificate of public convenience is liable to the public for the injuries or damages suffered by passengers or third persons caused by the operation of said vehicle, even though the same had been transferred to a third person. (Montoya vs. Ignacio, 94 Phil., 182, 50 Off. Gaz., 108; Roque vs. Malibay Transit, Inc., G.R. No. L-8561, November 18, 1955; Vda. de Medina vs. Cresencia, 99 Phil., 506, 52 Off. Gaz., [10], 4606.) The principle upon which this doctrine is based is that in dealing with vehicles registered under the Public Service Law, the public has the right to assume or presume that the registered owner is the actual owner thereof, for it would be difficult for the public to enforce the actions that they may

registration is primarily ordained, in the interest of the determination of persons responsible for damages or injuries caused on public highways. 'One of the principal purposes of motor vehicles legislation is identification of the vehicle and of the operator, in case of accident; and another is that the knowledge that means of detection are always available may act as a deterrent from lax observance of the law and of the rules of conservative and safe operation. Whatever purpose there may be in these statutes, it is subordinate at the last to the primary purpose of rendering it certain that the violator of the law or of the rules of safety shall not escape because of lack of means to discover him.' The purpose of the statute is thwarted, and the displayed number becomes a 'snare and delusion,' if courts would entertain such defenses as that put forward by appellee in this case. No responsible person or corporation could be held liable for the most outrageous acts of negligence, if they should be allowed to pace a "middleman" between them and the public, and escape liability by the manner in which they recompense their servants.' (King vs. Brenham Automobile Co., Inc. 145 S. W. 278, 279.). "With the above policy in mind, the question that defendant-appellant poses is: should not the registered owner be allowed at the trial to prove who the actual and real owner is, and in accordance with such proof escape or evade responsibility and lay the same on the person actually owning the vehicle? We hold with the trial court that the law does not allow him to do so; the law, with its aim and policy in mind, does not relieve him directly of the responsibility that the law fixes and places upon him as an incident or consequence of registration. Were a registered owner allowed to evade responsibility by proving who the supposed transferee or owner is, it would be easy for him, by collusion with others or otherwise, to escape said responsibility and transfer the same to an indefinite person, or to one who possesses no property with which to respond financially for the damage or injury done. A victim of recklessness on the public highways is usually without means to discover or identify the person actually causing the injury or damage. He has no means other than by a recourse to the registration in the Motor Vehicles Office to determine who is the owner. The protection that the law aims to extend to him would become illusory were the registered owner given the opportunity to escape liability by disproving his ownership. If the policy of the law is to be enforced and carried out, the registered owner should not be allowed to prove the contrary to the prejudice of the person injured, that is, to prove that a third person or another has become the owner, so that he may thereby be relieved of the responsibility to the injured person. "The above policy and application of the law may appear quite harsh and would seem to conflict with truth and justice. We do not think it is so. A registered owner who has already sold or transferred a vehicle has the recourse to a third-party complaint, in the same action brought against him to recover for the damage or injury done, against the vendee or transferee of the vehicle. The inconvenience of the suit is no justification for relieving him of liability; said inconvenience is the price he pays for failure to comply with the registration that the law demands and requires. "In synthesis, we hold that the registered owner, the defendant-appellant herein, is primarily responsible for the damage caused to the vehicle of the plaintiff-appellee, but he (defendant-appellant) has a right to be indemnified by the real or actual owner of the amount that he may be required to pay as damage for the injury caused to the plaintiffappellant." (at pp. 106-110.).

If the foregoing words of wisdom were applied in solving the circumstance whereof the vehicle had been alienated or sold to another, there certainly can be no serious exception against utilizing the same rationale to the antecedents of this case where the subject vehicle was merely leased by petitioner to Rock Component Philippines, Inc., with petitioner retaining ownership over the vehicle. Cdpr Petitioner's reliance on the rulings of this Court in Duavit vs. Court of Appeals and in Duquillo vs. Bayot (supra) is legally unpalatable for the purpose of the present discourse. The vehicles adverted to in the two cases shared a common thread, so to speak, in that the jeep and the truck were driven in reckless fashion without the consent or knowledge of the respective owners. Cognizant of the inculpatory testimony spewed by defendant Sabiniano when he admitted that he took the jeep from the garage of defendant Duavit without the consent or authority of the latter, Justice Gutierrez, Jr. in Duavit remarked: ". . . Herein petitioner does not deny ownership of the vehicle involved in the mishap but completely denies having employed the driver Sabiniano or even having authorized the latter to drive his jeep. The jeep was virtually stolen from the petitioner's garage. To hold, therefore, the petitioner liable for the accident caused by the negligence of Sabiniano who was neither his driver nor employee would be absurd as it would be like holding liable the owner of a stolen vehicle for an accident caused by the person who stole such vehicle. In this regard, we cannot ignore the many cases of vehicles forcibly taken from their owners at gunpoint or stolen from garages and parking areas and the instances of service station attendants or mechanics of auto repair shops using, without the owner's consent, vehicles entrusted to them for servicing or repair." (at p. 496.). In the Duquillo case, the defendant therein cannot, according to Justice Diaz, be held liable for anything because of circumstances which indicated that the truck was driven without the consent or knowledge of the owner thereof. Consequently, there is no need for Us to discuss the matter of imputed negligence because petitioner merely presumed, erroneously, however, that judgment was rendered against it on the basis of such doctrine embodied under Article 2180 of the new Civil Code. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and decision under review AFFIRMED without special pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ ., concur.

EN BANC DECISION March 31, 1915

G.R. No. L-8095 F.C. FISHER, plaintiff, vs. YANGCO STEAMSHIP COMPANY, J.S. STANLEY, as Acting Collector of Customs of the Philippine Islands, IGNACIO VILLAMOR, as Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands, and W.H. BISHOP, as prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, respondents. Haussermann, Cohn and Fisher for plaintiff. Office of the Solicitor-General Harvey for respondents. CARSON, J.: The real question involved in these proceedings is whether the refusal of the owners and officers of a steam vessel, duly licensed to engage in the coastwise trade of the Philippine Islands and engaged in that trade as a common carrier, to accept for carriage dynamite, powder or other explosives from any and all shippers who may offer such explosives for carriage can be held to be a lawful act without regard to any question as to the conditions under which such explosives are offered to carriage, or as to the suitableness of the vessel for the transportation of such explosives, or as to the possibility that the refusal to accept such articles of commerce in a particular case may have the effect of subjecting any person or locality or the traffic in such explosives to an undue, unreasonable or unnecessary prejudice or discrimination. Summarized briefly, the complaint alleges that plaintiff is a stockholder in the Yangco Steamship Company, the owner of a large number of steam vessels, duly licensed to engage in the coastwise trade of the Philippine Islands; that on or about June 10, 1912, the directors of the company adopted a resolution which was thereafter ratified and affirmed by the shareholders of the company, expressly declaring and providing that the classes of merchandise to be carried by the company in its business as a common carrier do not include dynamite, powder or other explosives, and expressly prohibiting the officers, agents and servants of the company from offering to carry, accepting for carriage said dynamite, powder or other explosives; that thereafter the respondent Acting Collector of Customs demanded and required of the company the acceptance and carriage of such explosives; that he has refused and suspended the issuance of the necessary clearance documents of the vessels of the company unless and until the company consents to accept such explosives for carriage; that plaintiff is advised and believes that should the company decline to accept such explosives for carriage, the respondent Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands and the respondent prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila intend to institute proceedings under the penal provisions of sections 4, 5, and 6 of Act No. 98 of the Philippine Commission against the company, its managers, agents and servants, to enforce the requirements of the Acting Collector of Customs as to the acceptance of such explosives for carriage; that notwithstanding the demands of the plaintiff stockholder, the manager, agents and servants of the company decline and refuse to cease the carriage of such explosives, on the ground that by reason of the severity of the penalties with which they are threatened upon failure to carry such explosives, they cannot subject themselves to the ruinous consequences which would inevitably result from failure on their part to obey the demands and requirements of the Acting Collector of Customs as to the acceptance for carriage of explosives; that plaintiff believes that the Acting Collector of Customs erroneously construes the provisions of Act No. 98 in holding that they require the company to accept such explosives for carriage notwithstanding the above mentioned resolution of the directors and stockholders of the company, and that if the Act does in fact require the company to carry such explosives it is to that extent unconstitutional and void; that notwithstanding this belief of complainant as to the true

meaning of the Act, the questions involved cannot be raised by the refusal of the company or its agents to comply with the demands of the Acting Collector of Customs, without the risk of irreparable loss and damage resulting from his refusal to facilitate the documentation of the companys vessels, and without assuming the company to test the questions involved by refusing to accept such explosives for carriage. The prayer of the complaint is as follows: Wherefore your petitioner prays to this honorable court as follows: First. That to the due hearing of the above entitled action be issued a writ of prohibition perpetually restraining the respondent Yangco Steamship Company, its appraisers, agents, servants or other representatives from accepting to carry and from carrying, in steamers of said company dynamite, powder or other explosive substance, in accordance with the resolution of the board of directors and of the shareholders of said company. Second. That a writ of prohibition be issued perpetually enjoining the respondent J.S. Stanley as Acting Collector of Customs of the Philippine Islands, his successors, deputies, servants or other representatives, from obligating the said Yangco Steamship Company, by any means whatever, to carry dynamite, powder or other explosive substance. Third. That a writ of prohibition be issued perpetually enjoining the respondent Ignacio Villamor as Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands, and W.H. Bishop as prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, their deputies representatives or employees, from accusing the said Yangco Steamship Company, its officers, agents or servants, of the violation of Act No. 98 by reason of the failure or omission of the said company to accept for carriage out to carry dynamite powder or other explosive. Fourth. That the petitioner be granted such other remedy as may be meet and proper. To this complaint the respondents demurred, and we are of opinion that the demurrer must be sustained, on the ground that the complaint does not set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It will readily be seen that plaintiff seeks in these proceedings to enjoin the steamship company from accepting for carriage on any of its vessels, dynamite, powder or other explosives, under any conditions whatsoever; to prohibit the Collector of Customs and the prosecuting officers of the government from all attempts to compel the company to accept such explosives for carriage on any of its vessels under any conditions whatsoever; and to prohibit these officials from any attempt to invoke the penal provisions of Act No. 98, in any case of a refusal by the company or its officers so to do; and this without regard to the conditions as to safety and so forth under which such explosives are offered for carriage, and without regard also to any question as to the suitableness for the transportation of such explosives of the particular vessel upon which the shipper offers them for carriage; and further without regard to any question as to whether such conduct on the part of the steamship company and its officers involves in any instance an undue, unnecessary or unreasonable discrimination to the prejudice of any person, locality or particular kind of traffic. There are no allegations in the complaint that for some special and sufficient reasons all or indeed any of the companys vessels are unsuitable for the business of transporting explosives; or that shippers have declined or will in future decline to comply with such reasonable regulations and to take such reasonable precautions as may be necessary and proper to secure the safety of the vessels of the company in transporting such explosives.

Indeed the contention of petitioner is that a common carrier in the Philippine Islands may decline to accept for carriage any shipment of merchandise of a class which it expressly or impliedly declines to accept from all shippers alike, because as he contends the duty of a common carrier to carry for all who offer arises from the public profession he has made, and limited by it. In support of this contention counsel cites for a number of English and American authorities, discussing and applying the doctrine of the common law with reference to common carriers. But it is unnecessary now to decide whether, in the absence of statute, the principles on which the American and English cases were decided would be applicable in this jurisdiction. The duties and liabilities of common carriers in this jurisdiction are defined and fully set forth in Act No. 98 of the Philippine Commission, and until and unless that statute be declared invalid or unconstitutional, we are bound by its provisions. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act are as follows: SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in the transportation of passengers or property as above set forth to make or give any unnecessary or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation or locality, or any particular kind of traffic in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation or locality, or any particular kind of traffic, to undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination whatsoever, and such unjust preference or discrimination is also hereby prohibited and declared to be unlawful. SEC. 3. No common carrier engaged in the carriage of passengers or property as aforesaid shall, under any pretense whatsoever, fail or refuse to receive for carriage, and as promptly as it is able to do so without discrimination, to carry any person or property offering for carriage, and in the order in which such persons or property are offered for carriage, nor shall any such common carrier enter into any arrangement, contract or agreement with any other person or corporation whereby the latter is given an exclusive or preferential or monopolize the carriage any class or kind of property to the exclusion or partial exclusion of any other person or persons, and the entering into any such arrangement, contract or agreement, under any form or pretense whatsoever, is hereby prohibited and declared to be unlawful. SEC. 4. Any willful violation of the provisions of this Act by any common carrier engaged in the transportation of passengers or property as hereinbefore set forth is hereby declared to be punishable by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars money of the United States, or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, within the discretion of the court. The validity of this Act has been questioned on various grounds, and it is vigorously contended that in so far as it imposes any obligation on a common carrier to accept for carriage merchandise of a class which he makes no public profession to carry, or which he has expressly or impliedly announced his intention to decline to accept for carriage from all shippers alike, it is ultra vires, unconstitutional and void. We may dismiss without extended discussion any argument or contention as to the invalidity of the statute based on alleged absurdities inherent in its provisions or on alleged unreasonable or impossible requirements which may be read into it by a strained construction of its terms.

We agree with counsel for petitioner that the provision of the Act which prescribes that, No common carrier shall, under any pretense whatsoever, fail or refuse to receive for carriage to carry any person or property offering for carriage, is not to be construed in its literal sense and without regard to the context, so as to impose an imperative duty on all common carriers to accept for carriage, and to carry all and any kind of freight which may be offered for carriage without regard to the facilities which they may have at their disposal. The legislator could not have intended and did not intend to prescribe that a common carrier running passenger automobiles for hire must transport coal in his machines; nor that the owner of a tank steamer, expressly constructed in small watertight compartments for the carriage of crude oil must accept common carrier must accept and carry contraband articles, such as opium, morphine, cocaine, or the like, the mere possession of which is declared to be a criminal offense; nor that common carriers must accept eggs offered for transportation in paper parcels or any merchandise whatever do defectively packed as to entail upon the company unreasonable and unnecessary care or risks. Read in connection with its context this, as well as all the other mandatory and prohibitory provisions of the statute, was clearly intended merely to forbid failures or refusals to receive persons or property for carriage involving any unnecessary or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular kind of traffic in any respect whatsoever, or which would subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation or locality, or any particular kind of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination whatsoever. The question, then, of construing and applying the statute, in cases of alleged violations of its provisions, always involves a consideration as to whether the acts complained of had the effect of making or giving an unreasonable or unnecessary preference or advantage to any person, locality or particular kind of traffic, or of subjecting any person, locality, or particular kind of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination. It is very clear therefore that the language of the statute itself refutes any contention as to its invalidity based on the alleged unreasonableness of its mandatory or prohibitory provisions. So also we may dismiss without much discussion the contentions as to the invalidity of the statute, which are based on the alleged excessive severity of the penalties prescribed for violation of its provisions. Upon general principles it is peculiarly and exclusively within the province of the legislator to prescribe the pains and penalties which may be imposed upon persons convicted of violations of the laws in force within his territorial jurisdiction. With the exercise of his discretion in this regard where it is alleged that excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments have been prescribed, and even in such cases the courts will not presume to interfere in the absence of the clearest and most convincing argument and proof in support of such contentions. (Weems vs. United States, 217 U.S., 349; U.S. vs. Pico, 18 Phil. Rep., 386.) We need hardly add that there is no ground upon which to rest a contention that the penalties prescribed in the statute under consideration are either excessive or cruel and unusual, in the sense in which these terms are used in the organic legislation in force in the Philippine Islands. But it is contended that on account of the penalties prescribed the statute should be held invalid upon the principles announced in Ex parte Young (209 U.S., 123, 147, 148); Cotting vs. Goddard (183 U.S., 79, 102); Mercantile Trust Co. vs. Texas Co. (51 Fed., 529); Louisville Ry. vs. McCord (103 Fed., 216); Cons. Gas Co. vs. Mayer (416 Fed., 150). We are satisfied however that the reasoning of those cases is not applicable to the statute under consideration. The principles announced in those decisions are fairly indicated in the following citations found in petitioners brief:

But when the legislature, in an effort to prevent any inquiry of the validity of a particular statute, so burdens any challenge thereof in the courts that the party affected is necessarily constrained to submit rather than take the chances of the penalties imposed, then it becomes a serious question whether the party is not deprived of the equal protection of the laws. (Cotting vs. Goddard, 183 U. S., 79, 102.) It may therefore be said that when the penalties for disobedience are by fines so enormous and imprisonment so severe as to intimidate the company and its officers from resorting to the courts to test the validity of the legislation, the result is the same as if the law in terms prohibited the company from seeking judicial construction of laws which deeply affect its rights. It is urged that there is no principle upon which to base the claim that a person is entitled to disobey a statute at least once, for the purpose of testing its validity, without subjecting himself to the penalties for disobedience provided by the statute in case it is valid. This is not an accurate statement of the case. Ordinarily a law creating offenses in the nature of misdemeanors or felonies relates to a subject over which the jurisdiction of the legislature is complete in any event. In the case, however, of the establishment of certain rates without any hearing, the validity of such rates necessarily depends upon whether they are high enough to permit at least some return upon the investment (how much it is not now necessary to state), and an inquiry as to that fact is a proper subject of judicial investigation. If it turns out that the rates are too low for that purpose, then they are illegal. Now, to impose upon a party interested the burden of obtaining a judicial decision of such a question (no prior hearing having been given) only upon the condition that, if unsuccessful, he must suffer imprisonment and pay fines, as provided in these acts, is, in effect, to close up all approaches to the courts, and thus prevent any hearing upon the question whether the rates as provided by the acts are not too low, and therefore invalid. The distinction is obvious between a case where the validity of the act depends upon the existence of a fact which can be determined only after investigation of a very complicated and technical character, and the ordinary case of a statute upon a subject requiring no such investigation, and over which the jurisdiction of the legislature is complete in any event. We hold, therefore, that the provisions of the acts relating to the enforcement of the rates, either for freight or passengers, by imposing such enormous fines and possible imprisonment as a result of an unsuccessful effort to test the validity of the laws themselves, are unconstitutional on their face, without regard to the question of the insufficiency of those rates. (Ex parte Young, 209 U.S., 123 147, 148.) An examination of the general provisions of our statute, of the circumstances under which it was enacted, the mischief which it sought to remedy and of the nature of the penalties prescribed for violations of its terms convinces us that, unlike the statutes under consideration in the above cited cases, its enactment involved no attempt to prevent common carriers from resorting to the courts to test the validity of the legislation; no effort to prevent any inquiry as to its validity. It imposes no arbitrary obligation upon the company to do or to refrain from doing anything. It makes no attempt to compel such carriers to do business at a fixed or arbitrarily designated rate, at the risk of separate criminal prosecutions for every demand of a higher or a different rate. Its penalties can be imposed only upon proof of unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discriminations, and range from a maximum which is certainly not excessive for willful, deliberate and contumacious violations of its provisions by a great and powerful corporation, to a minimum which may be a merely nominal fine. With so wide a range of discretion for a contention on the part of any common carrier that it or its officers are intimidated from resorting to the courts to test the validity of the provisions of the statute prohibiting such

unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discriminations, or to test in any particular case whether a given course of conduct does in fact involve such discrimination. We will presume, for the purpose of declaring the statute invalid, that there is so real a danger that the Courts of First Instance and this court on appeal will abuse the discretion thus conferred upon us, as to intimidate any common carrier, acting in good faith, from resorting to the courts to test the validity of the statute. Legislative enactments, penalizing unreasonable discriminations, unreasonable restraints of trade, and unreasonable conduct in various forms of human activity are so familiar and have been so frequently sustained in the courts, as to render extended discussion unnecessary to refute any contention as to the invalidity of the statute under consideration, merely it imposes upon the carrier the obligation of adopting one of various courses of conduct open to it, at the risk of incurring a prescribed penalty in the event that the course of conduct actually adopted by it should be held to have involved an unreasonable, unnecessary or unjust discrimination. Applying the test announced in Ex parte Young, supra, it will be seen that the validity of the Act does not depend upon the existence of a fact which can be determined only after investigation of a very complicated and technical character, and that the jurisdiction of the legislature over the subject with which the statute deals is complete in any event. There can be no real question as to the plenary power of the legislature to prohibit and to penalize the making of undue, unreasonable and unjust discriminations by common carriers to the prejudice of any person, locality or particular kind of traffic. (See Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U.S., 113, and other cases hereinafter cited in support of this proposition.) Counsel for petitioner contends also that the statute, if construed so as to deny the right of the steamship company to elect at will whether or not it will engage in a particular business, such as that of carrying explosives, is unconstitutional because it is a confiscation of property, a taking of the carriers property without due process of law, and because it deprives him of his liberty by compelling him to engage in business against his will. The argument continues as follows: To require of a carrier, as a condition to his continuing in said business, that he must carry anything and every thing is to render useless the facilities he may have for the carriage of certain lines of freight. It would be almost as complete a confiscation of such facilities as if the same were destroyed. Their value as a means of livelihood would be utterly taken away. The law is a prohibition to him to continue in business; the alternative is to get out or to go into some other business the same alternative as was offered in the case of the Chicago & N.W. Ry. vs. Dey (35 Fed. Rep., 866, 880), and which was there commented on as follows: Whatever of force there may be in such arguments, as applied to mere personal property capable of removal and use elsewhere, or in other business, it is wholly without force as against railroad corporations, so large a proportion of whose investment is in the soil and fixtures appertaining thereto, which cannot be removed. For a government, whether that government be a single sovereign or one of the majority, to say to an individual who has invested his means in so laudable an enterprise as the construction of a railroad, one which tends so much to the wealth and prosperity of the community, that, if he finds that the rates imposed will cause him to do business at a loss, he may quit business, and abandon that road, is the very irony of despotism. Apples of Sodom were fruit of joy in comparison. Reading, as I do, in the preamble of the Federal Constitution, that it was ordained to establish justice, I can never believe that it is within the property of an individual invested in and used for a purpose in which even the Argus eyes of the police power can see nothing injurious to public morals, public health, or the general welfare. I read also in the first section of the bill of rights of this state that all men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing

and obtaining safety and happiness; and I know that, while that remains as the supreme law of the state, no legislature can directly or indirectly lay its withering or destroying hand on a single dollar invested in the legitimate business of transportation. (Chicago & N.W. Ry. vs. Dey, 35 Fed. Rep., 866, 880.) It is manifest, however, that this contention is directed against a construction of the statute, which, as we have said, is not warranted by its terms. As we have already indicated, the statute does not require of a carrier, as a condition to his continuing in said business, that he must carry anything and everything, and thereby render useless the facilities he may have for the carriage of certain lines of freight. It merely forbids failures or refusals to receive persons or property for carriage which have the effect of giving an unreasonable or unnecessary preference or advantage to any person, locality or particular kind of traffic, or of subjecting any person, locality or particular kind of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination. Counsel expressly admits that the statute, as a prohibition against discrimination is a fair, reasonable and valid exercise of government, and that it is necessary and proper that such discrimination be prohibited and prevented, but he contends that on the other hand there is no reasonable warrant nor valid excuse for depriving a person of his liberty by requiring him to engage in business against his will. If he has a rolling boat, unsuitable and unprofitable for passenger trade, he may devote it to lumber carrying. To prohibit him from using it unless it is fitted out with doctors and stewards and staterooms to carry passengers would be an invalid confiscation of this property. A carrier may limit his business to the branches thereof that suit his convenience. If his wagon be old, or the route dangerous, he may avoid liability for loss of passengers lives and limbs by carrying freight only. If his vehicles require expensive pneumatic tires, unsuitable for freight transportation, ha may nevertheless carry passengers. The only limitation upon his action that it is competent for the governing authority to impose is to require him to treat all alike. His limitations must apply to all, and they must be established limitations. He cannot refuse to carry a case of red jusi on the ground that he has carried for others only jusi that he was green, or blue, or black. But he can refuse to carry red jusi, if he has publicly professed such a limitation upon his business and held himself out as unwilling to carry the same for anyone. To this it is sufficient answer to say that there is nothing in the statute which would deprive any person of his liberty by requiring him to engage in business against his will. The prohibitions of the statute against undue, unnecessary or unreasonable regulations which the legislator has seen fit to prescribe for the conduct of the business in which the carrier is engaged of his own free will and accord. In so far as the self-imposed limitations by the carrier upon the business conducted by him, in the various examples given by counsel, do not involve an unreasonable or unnecessary discrimination the statute would not control his action in any wise whatever. It operates only in cases involving such unreasonable or unnecessary preferences or discriminations. Thus in the hypothetical case suggested by the petitioner, a carrier engaged in the carriage of green, blue or black jusi, and duly equipped therefor would manifestly be guilty of giving an unnecessary and unreasonable preference to a particular kind of traffic and of subjecting to an undue and reasonable prejudice a particular kind of traffic, should he decline to carry red jusi, to the prejudice of a particular shipper or of those engaged in the manufacture of that kind of jusi, basing his refusal on the ground of mere whim or caprice or of mere personal convenience. So a public carrier of passengers would not be permitted under this statute to absolve himself from liability for a refusal to carry a Chinaman, a Spaniard, an American, a Filipino, or a mestizo by proof that from mere whim or caprice or personal scruple, or to suit his own convenience, or in the hope of increasing his business and thus

making larger profits, he had publicly announced his intention not to carry one or other of these classes of passengers. The nature of the business of a common carrier as a public employment is such that it is clearly within the power of the state to impose such just and reasonable regulations thereon in the interest of the public as the legislator may deem proper. Of course such regulations must not have the effect of depriving an owner of his property without due process of law, nor of confiscating or appropriating private property without just compensation, nor of limiting or prescribing irrevocably vested rights or privileges lawfully acquired under a charter or franchise. But aside from such constitutional limitations, the determination of the nature and extent of the regulations which should be prescribed rests in the hands of the legislator. Common carriers exercise a sort of public office, and have duties to perform in which the public is interested. Their business is, therefore, affected with a public interest, and is subject of public regulation. (New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. vs. Merchants Bank, 6 How., 344, 382; Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U.S., 113, 130.) Indeed, this right of regulation is so far beyond question that it is well settled that the power of the state to exercise legislative control over railroad companies and other carriers in all respects necessary to protect the public against danger, injustice and oppression may be exercised through boards of commissioners. (New York etc. R. Co. vs. Bristol, 151 U.S., 556, 571; Connecticut etc. R. Co. vs. Woodruff, 153 U.S., 689.) Regulations limiting of passengers the number of passengers that may be carried in a particular vehicle or steam vessel, or forbidding the loading of a vessel beyond a certain point, or prescribing the number and qualifications of the personnel in the employ of a common carrier, or forbidding unjust discrimination as to rates, all tend to limit and restrict his liberty and to control to some degree the free exercise of his discretion in the conduct of his business. But since the Granger cases were decided by the Supreme Court of the United States no one questions the power of the legislator to prescribe such reasonable regulations upon property clothed with a public interest as he may deem expedient or necessary to protect the public against danger, injustice or oppression. (Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U.S., 113, 130; Chicago etc. R. Co. vs. Cutts, 94 U.S., 155; Budd vs. New York, 143 U.S., 517; Cotting vs. Goddard, 183 U.S., 79.) The right to enter the public employment as a common carrier and to offer ones services to the public for hire does not carry with it the right to conduct that business as one pleases, without regard to the interest of the public and free from such reasonable and just regulations as may be prescribed for the protection of the public from the reckless or careless indifference of the carrier as to the public welfare and for the prevention of unjust and unreasonable discrimination of any kind whatsoever in the performance of the carriers duties as a servant of the public. Business of certain kinds, including the business of a common carrier, holds such a peculiar relation to the public interest that there is superinduced upon it the right of public regulation. (Budd vs. New York, 143 U.S., 517, 533.) When private property is affected with a public interest it ceases to be juris privati only. Property becomes clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use, but so long as he maintains the use he must submit to control. (Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U.S., 113; Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. vs. Smith, 128 U.S., 174; Budd vs. New York, 143 U.S., 517; Louisville etc. Ry. Co. vs. Kentucky, 161 U.S., 677, 695.)

Of course this power to regulate is not a power to destroy, and limitation is not the equivalent of confiscation. Under pretense of regulating fares and freight the state can not require a railroad corporation to carry persons or property without reward. Nor can it do that which in law amounts to a taking of private property for public use without just compensation, or without due process of law. (Chicago etc. R. Co. vs. Minnesota, 134 U.S., 418; Minneapolis Eastern R. Co. vs. Minnesota, 134 U.S., 467.) But the judiciary ought not to interfere with regulations established and palpably unreasonable as to make their enforcement equivalent to the taking of property for public use without such compensation as under all the circumstances is just both to the owner and to the public, that is, judicial interference should never occur unless the case presents, clearly and beyond all doubt, such a flagrant attack upon the rights of property under the guise of regulations as to compel the court to say that the regulation in question will have the effect to deny just compensation for private property taken for the public use. (Chicago etc. R. Co. vs. Wellman, 143 U.S., 339; Smyth vs. Ames, 169 U.S., 466, 524; Henderson Bridge Co. vs. Henderson City, 173 U.S., 592, 614.) Under the common law of England it was early recognized that common carriers owe to the public the duty of carrying indifferently for all who may employ them, and in the order in which application is made, and without discrimination as to terms. True, they were allowed to restrict their business so as to exclude particular classes of goods, but as to the kinds of property which the carrier was in the habit of carrying in the prosecution of his business he was bound to serve all customers alike (State vs. Cincinnati etc. R. Co., 47 Ohio St., 130, 134, 138; Louisville etc. Ry. Co. vs. Quezon City Coal Co., 13 Ky. L. Rep., 832); and it is to be observed in passing that these common law rules are themselves regulations controlling, limiting and prescribing the conditions under which common carriers were permitted to conduct their business. (Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U. S., 113, 133.) It was found, in the course of time, that the correction of abuses which had grown up with the enormously increasing business of common carriers necessitated the adoption of statutory regulations controlling the business of common carriers, and imposing severe and drastic penalties for violations of their terms. In England, the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act was enacted in 1845, the Railway and Canal Traffic Act in 1854, and since the passage of those Acts much additional legislation has been adopted tending to limit and control the conduct of their business by common carriers. In the United States, the business of common carriers has been subjected to a great variety of statutory regulations. Among others Congress enacted The Interstate Commerce Act (1887) and its amendments, and the Elkins Act as amended (1906); and most if not all of the States of the Union have adopted similar legislation regulating the business of common carriers within their respective jurisdictions. Unending litigation has arisen under these statutes and their amendments, but nowhere has the right of the state to prescribe just and reasonable regulations controlling and limiting the conduct of the business of common carriers in the public interest and for the general welfare been successfully challenged, though of course there has been wide divergence of opinion as to the reasonableness, the validity and legality of many of the regulations actually adopted. The power of the Philippine legislator to prohibit and to penalize all and any unnecessary or unreasonable discriminations by common carriers may be maintained upon the same reasoning which justified the enactment by the Parliament of England and the Congress of the United States of the above mentioned statutes prohibiting and penalizing the granting of certain preferences and discriminations in those countries. As we have said before, we find nothing confiscatory or unreasonable in the conditions imposed in the Philippine statute upon the business of common carriers. Correctly construed they do not force him to engage in any business his will or to make use of his facilities in a manner or for a purpose for which they are not reasonably adapted. It is only when he offers his facilities

as a common carrier to the public for hire, that the statute steps in and prescribes that he must treat all alike, that he may not pick and choose which customer he will serve, and, specifically, that he shall not make any undue or unreasonable preferences or discriminations whatsoever to the prejudice not only of any person or locality but also of any particular kind of traffic. The legislator having enacted a regulation prohibiting common carriers from giving unnecessary or unreasonable preferences or advantages to any particular kind of traffic or subjecting any particular kind of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination whatsoever, it is clear that whatever may have been the rule at the common law, common carriers in this jurisdiction cannot lawfully decline to accept a particular class of goods for carriage, to the prejudice of the traffic in those goods, unless it appears that for some sufficient reason the discrimination against the traffic in such goods is reasonable and necessary. Mere whim or prejudice will not suffice. The grounds for the discrimination must be substantial ones, such as will justify the courts in holding the discrimination to have been reasonable and necessary under all circumstances of the case. The prayer of the petition in the case at bar cannot be granted unless we hold that the refusal of the defendant steamship company to accept for carriage on any of its vessels dynamite, gunpowder or other explosives would in no instance involve a violation of the provisions of this statute. There can be little doubt, however, that cases may and will arise wherein the refusal of a vessel engaged in the coastwise trade of the Philippine Islands as a common carrier to accept such explosives for carriage would subject some person, company, firm or corporation, or locality, or particular kind of traffic to a certain prejudice or discrimination. Indeed it cannot be doubted that the refusal of a steamship company, the owner of a large number of vessels engaged in that trade to receive for carriage any such explosives on any of its vessels would subject the traffic in such explosives to a manifest prejudice and discrimination. The only question to be determined therefore is whether such prejudice or discrimination might in any case prove to be undue, unnecessary or unreasonable. This of course is, in each case, a question of fact, and we are of the opinion that the facts alleged in the complaint are not sufficient to sustain a finding in favor of the contentions of the petitioner. It is not alleged in the complaint that dynamite, gunpowder and other explosives can in no event be transported with reasonable safety on board steam vessels engaged in the business of common carriers. It is not alleged that all, or indeed any of the defendant steamship companys vessels are unsuited for the carriage of such explosives. It is not alleged that the nature of the business in which the steamship company is engaged is such as to preclude a finding that a refusal to accept such explosives on any of its vessels would subject the traffic in such explosives to an undue and unreasonable prejudice and discrimination. Plaintiffs contention in this regard is as follows: In the present case, the respondent company has expressly and publicly renounced the carriage of explosives, and expressly excluded the same terms from the business it conducts. This in itself were sufficient, even though such exclusion of explosives were based on no other ground than the mere whim, caprice or personal scruple of the carrier. It is unnecessary, however, to indulge in academic discussion of a moot question, for the decision not a carry explosives rests on substantial grounds which are self-evident.

We think however that the answer to the question whether such a refusal to carry explosives involves an unnecessary or unreasonable preference or advantage to any person, locality or particular kind of traffic or subjects any person, locality or particular to traffic to an undue or unreasonable prejudice and discrimination is by no means selfevident, and that it is a question of fact to be determined by the particular circumstances of each case. The words dynamite, powder or other explosives are broad enough to include matches, and other articles of like nature, and may fairly be held to include also kerosene oil, gasoline and similar products of a highly inflammable and explosive character. Many of these articles of merchandise are in the nature of necessities in any country open to modern progress and advancement. We are not fully advised as to the methods of transportation by which they are made commercially available throughout the world, but certain it is that dynamite, gunpowder, matches, kerosene oil and gasoline are transported on many vessels sailing the high seas. Indeed it is a matter of common knowledge that common carriers throughout the world transport enormous quantities of these explosives, on both land and sea, and there can be little doubt that a general refusal of the common carriers in any country to accept such explosives for carriage would involve many persons, firms and enterprises in utter ruin, and would disastrously affect the interests of the public and the general welfare of the community. It would be going to far to say that a refusal by a steam vessel engaged in the business of transporting general merchandise as a common carrier to accept for carriage a shipment of matches, solely on the ground of the dangers incident to the explosive quality of this class of merchandise, would not subject the traffic in matches to an unnecessary, undue or unreasonable prejudice and discrimination without proof that for some special reason the particular vessel is not fitted to carry articles of that nature. There may be and doubtless are some vessels engaged in business as common carriers of merchandise, which for lack of suitable deck space or storage rooms might be justified in declining to carry kerosene oil, gasoline, and similar products, even when offered for carriage securely packed in cases; and few vessels are equipped to transport those products in bulk. But in any case of a refusal to carry such products which would subject any person, locality or the traffic in such products would be necessary to hear evidence before making an affirmative finding that such prejudice or discrimination was or was not unnecessary, undue or unreasonable. The making of such a finding would involve a consideration of the suitability of the vessel for the transportation of such products ; the reasonable possibility of danger or disaster resulting from their transportation in the form and under the conditions in which they are offered for carriage; the general nature of the business done by the carrier and, in a word, all the attendant circumstances which might affect the question of the reasonable necessity for the refusal by the carrier to undertake the transportation of this class of merchandise. But it is contended that whatever the rule may be as to other explosives, the exceptional power and violence of dynamite and gunpowder in explosion will always furnish the owner of a vessel with a reasonable excuse for his failure or refusal to accept them for carriage or to carry them on board his boat. We think however that even as to dynamite and gunpowder we would not be justified in making such a holding unaided by evidence sustaining the proposition that these articles can never be carried with reasonable safety on any vessel engaged in the business of a common carrier. It is said that dynamite is so erratic an uncontrollable in its action that it is impossible to assert that it can be handled with safety in any given case. On the other hand it is contended that while this may be true of some kinds of dynamite, it is a fact that dynamite can be and is manufactured so as to eliminate any real danger from explosion during transportation. These are of course questions of fact upon which we are not qualified to pass judgment without the assistance

of expert witnesses who have made special studies as to the chemical composition and reactions of the different kinds of dynamite, or attained a thorough knowledge of its properties as a result of wide experience in its manufacture and transportation. As we construe the Philippine statute, the mere fact that violent and destructive explosions can be obtained by the use of dynamite under certain conditions would not be sufficient in itself to justify the refusal of a vessel, duly licensed as a common carrier of merchandise, to accept it for carriage, if it can be proven that in the condition in which it is offered for carriage there is no real danger to the carrier, nor reasonable ground to fear that his vessel or those on board his vessel will be exposed to unnecessary and unreasonable risk in transporting it, having in mind the nature of his business as a common carrier engaged in the coastwise trade in the Philippine Islands, and his duty as a servant of the public engaged in a public employment. So also, if by the exercise of due diligence and the taking of unreasonable precautions the danger of explosions can be practically eliminated, the carrier would not be justified in subjecting the traffic in this commodity to prejudice or discrimination by proof that there would be a possibility of danger from explosion when no such precautions are taken. The traffic in dynamite, gunpowder and other explosives is vitally essential to the material and general welfare of the people of these Islands. If dynamite, gunpowder and other explosives are to continue in general use throughout the Philippines, they must be transported by water from port to port in the various islands which make up the Archipelago. We are satisfied therefore that the refusal by a particular vessel, engaged as a common carrier of merchandise in the coastwise trade of the Philippine Islands, to accept any or all of these explosives for carriage would constitute a violation of the prohibitions against discriminations penalized under the statute, unless it can be shown by affirmative evidence that there is so real and substantial a danger of disaster necessarily involved in the carriage of any or all of these articles of merchandise as to render such refusal a due or a necessary or a reasonable exercise of prudence and discretion on the part of the shipowner. The complaint in the case at bar lacking the necessary allegations under this ruling, the demurrer must be sustained on the ground that the facts alleged do not constitute a cause of action. A number of interesting questions of procedure are raised and discussed in the briefs of counsel. As to all of these questions we expressly reserve our opinion, believing as we do that in sustaining the demurrer on the grounds indicated in this opinion we are able to dispose of the real issue involved in the proceedings without entering upon the discussion of the nice questions which it might have been necessary to pass upon had it appeared that the facts alleged in the complaint constitute a cause of action. We think, however, that we should not finally dispose of the case without indicating that since the institution of these proceedings the enactment of Acts No. 2307 and No. 2362 (creating a Board of Public Utility Commissioners and for other purposes) may have materially modified the right to institute and maintain such proceedings in this jurisdiction. But the demurrer having been formallly submitted for judgment before the enactment of these statutes, counsel have not been heard in this connection. We therefore refrain from any comment upon any questions which might be raised as to whether or not there may be another adequate and appropriate remedy for the alleged wrong set forth in the complaint. Our disposition of the question raised by the demurrer renders that unnecessary at this time, though it may not be improper to observe that a careful examination of those acts confirms us in the holding upon which we base our ruling on this

demurrer, that is to say That whatever may have been the rule at the common law, common carriers in this jurisdiction cannot lawfully decline to accept a particular class of goods for carriage, to the prejudice of the traffic in those goods, unless it appears that for some sufficient reason the discrimination against the traffic in such goods is reasonable and necessary. Mere prejudice or whim will not suffice. The grounds of the discrimination must be substantial ones, such as will justify the courts in holding the discrimination to have been reasonable and necessary under all the circumstances of the case. Unless an amended complaint be filed in the meantime, let judgment be entered ten days hereafter sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint with costs against the complainant, and twenty days thereafter let the record be filed in the archives of original actions in this court. So ordered. Arellano, C.J., and Torres and Johnson, JJ., concur in the result. Trent, J., concur.