Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 101089. April 7, 1993.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
319
_______________
320
“1. CIPTRADE shall be held liable and answerable for any loss in
bags due to theft, hijacking and non-delivery3 or damages to the
cargo during transport at market value. x x x”
_______________
1 Rollo, p. 59.
2 Annex “K” of Memorandum for Petitioner; Rollo, p. 229.
3 Ibid.
4 Civil Case No. 49965, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 83.
5 Annex “L” of Memorandum for Petitioner; Rollo, p. 230.
321
_______________
*** Civil Case No. 49965, October 12, 1989, Penned by Judge Reynaldo Roura.
322
_______________
6 Rollo, p. 217.
7 Rollo, p. 16.
323
_______________
8 Petition, pp. 12-13; Rollo, pp. 20-21; Annex “G” of Memorandum for
Petitioner; Rollo, p. 225.
9 Petition, pp. 13-14; Rollo, pp. 21-22.
10 Ibid.; Rollo, p. 21; Annex “E” of Memorandum for Petitioner; Rollo, p.
222.
11 Court of Appeals Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 55.
324
12
transacted.” 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
13
and no evidence is required to prove the
same.
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
14
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 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.”
_______________
325
_______________
16 Imperial Vitory Shipping Agency vs. NLRC, 200 SCRA 178 (1991).
17 “Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and
for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence
in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers
transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.
Such extraordinary diligence in vigilance over the goods is further
expressed in articles 1734, 1735, and 1745, Nos. 5, 6, and 7, while the
extraordinary diligence for the safety of the passengers is further set forth
in articles 1755 and 1756.”
18 “Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or
deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to
have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed
extraordinary diligence as required in article 1733.”
19 “Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction,
or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following
causes only:
326
_______________
327
_______________
328
JJ., concur.
——o0o——