TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz,
Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²
VDA. DE NUECA v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.
Facts:
- At 3 p.m. on Dec. 22, 1958, Fermin Nueca brought 7
sacks of palay to Manila Railroad Co. (MRC) at its station
in Barrio del Rosario, Camarines Sur, to be shipped to
the municipality of Libmanan of the same province.
- He paid P 0.70 as freight charge and was issued Way Bill
No. 56515.
- The cargo was loaded on the freight wagon of Train 537.
Passengers boarded the train and shunting operations
started to hook a wagon thereto.
- Before the train reached the turnoff switch, its passenger
coach fell on its side some 40 m from the station. The
wagon pinned Nueca, killing him instantly.
- Nueca’s widow and children bring this claim for damages,
alleging that the Nueca was a passenger and his death
was caused by MRC’s negligence.
- MRC disclaimed liability stating: (1) it exercised due care
in safeguarding the passengers during the shunting
operation, (2) Nueca was not a passenger but a
trespasser, (3) even if Nueca were a passenger, he
illegally boarded the train without permission by not
paying the fare, (4) the mishap was not attributable to any
defect in MRC equipment, (5) that the accident happened
due to force majeur.
- MRC presented evidence showing there was no
mechanical defect, but it did not explain why the accident
occurred or show that force majeur caused the mishap.
- The lower court absolved MRC of liability and held that
Nueca was a trespasser since he did not buy any ticket,
and in any case, was not in a proper place for
passengers.
Issue:
1. W/N Nueca was a passenger?
2. W/N MRC is liable?
3. Was the accident due to MRC’s negligence or force
majeur?
4. Is Nueca liable for contributory negligence?
Held:
1. No, Nueca was not a passenger thus, MRC did not owe
him extraordinary diligence.
A passenger is one who travels in a public conveyance by virtue
of a contract, express or implied, with the carrier as to the
payment of the fare, or that which is accepted as an equivalent.
The relation of passenger and carrier commences when one
puts himself in the care of the carrier, or directly under its
control, with the bona fide intention of becoming a passenger,
and is accepted as such by the carrier – as where he makes a
contract for trasportation and presents himself at the proper
place and in a proper manner to be transported.
Even disregarding the matter of tickets, and assuming Nueca
intended to be a passenger, he was never accepted as such by
MRC as he did not present himself at the proper place and in a
proper manner to be transported.
2. Yes, the liability of railroad companies to persons upon
the premises is determined by the general rules of
negligence relating to duties of owners/occupiers of
property.
1
 TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²
While railroad companies are not bound to the same degree of
care in regard to strangers who are unlawfully upon the
premises of its passengers, it may still be liable to such
strangers for negligent or tortious acts.
Here, Nueca was not on the track, but either unlawfully inside
the baggage car or beside the track.
It is normal for people to walk on the track or roadbed when
there is no oncoming train and to walk beside the track when a
train passes. This practice is tolerated by MRC. Generally,
MRC’s stations are not enclosed, and is easily accessible to the
public.
3. MRC is negligent; doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied.
The train was under the complete control of the railroad
company at the time of the accident. The baggage car would not
have been derailed if the train had been properly operated.
Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence peculiar to the law of
negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may
be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for
specific proof of negligence.
4. No.
An invitation to stay in the premises is implied from the lack of
prohibition to outsiders to keep off the premises, hence, a
stranger who is injured by a derailed train while staying beside a
railroad track is not guilty of contributory negligence.
Note: Our law on common carriers is lifted from Anglo-
American statutes.
Baliwag Transit Inc. v. CA
G.R. No. 116110. May 15,1996
CASE:
A Baliwag bus driven by Santiago rammed into a stalled
cargo truck that was parked at the shoulder of the nat’l highway
with its left rear portion jutted to the outer lane. A kerosene lamp
was placed at the edge of the road to serve as an EWD.
Santiago was driving at a very fast speed and failed to notice
the truck and the kerosene lamp. Prior to the collision, the
passengers urged him to slow down but he did not listen and he
even carried animated conversations with his co-employees
while driving. The collision caused the instant death of Santiago
and Escala, and injury to several others, among which were
Leticia and her son, Allan. 
W/N Baliwag is liable for the injuries suffered by Leticia
and Allan Garcia in the accident
SC: As a common carrier, Baliwag breached its contract
of carriage when it failed to deliver its passengers, Leticia and
Allan Garcia to their destination safe and sound. A common
carrier is bound to carry its passengers safely as far as human
care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of a
very cautious person, with due regard for all the circumstances. 
In a contract of carriage, it is presumed that the common
carrier was at fault or was negligent when a passenger dies or is
injured. Unless the presumption is rebutted, the court need not
even make an express finding of fault or negligence on the part
of the common carrier. This statutory presumption may only be
overcome by evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary
diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Civil
Code. 
The records are bereft of any proof to show that Baliwag
exercised extraordinary diligence. On the contrary, the evidence
demonstrates its driver's recklessness. Leticia testified that the
2
 TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²
bus was running at a very high speed despite the drizzle and the
darkness of the highway; the driver did not slow down despite
their plea; the driver was smelling of liquor. Another passenger
testified that immediately before the collision, the bus driver was
conversing with a co-employee. All these prove the bus driver's
wanton disregard for the physical safety of his passengers,
which make Baliwag as a common carrier liable for damages
under Article 1759 of the Civil Code.
FACTS:
 At about 7:30pm, in Gapan, Nueva Ecija, the bus
passengers saw a cargo truck owned by A & J Trading
(AJT) parked at the shoulder of the nat’l highway. Its left
rear portion jutted to the outer lane, the shoulder of the
road was too narrow to accommodate the whole truck. A
kerosene lamp appeared at the edge of the road as a
warning device. The truck driver (Recontique) & his
helper (Escala) were then replacing a flat tire.   CA modified the TC's Decision by absolving AJT from
 Bus driver Santiago was driving at an inordinately fast
speed and failed to notice the truck and the kerosene
lamp at the edge of the road. Santiago's passengers
urged him to slow down but he ignored them. He even
carried animated conversations with his co-employees
while driving. When the danger of collision became
imminent, the bus passengers shouted "Babangga
tayo!" Santiago stepped on the brake, but it was too
late. His bus rammed into the stalled cargo truck causing
the instant death of Santiago and Escala, and injury to
several others, among which were Leticia and Allan
Garcia.

Leticia suffered a fracture and was confined for more
than a month; she underwent an operation for partial hip
prosthesis. Her son Allan broke his leg.
 Spouses Garcia sued Baliwag Transit, Inc., AJT, and
Recontique for damages. 
 Baliwag, AJT, and Recontique disclaimed responsibility
for the mishap. 
o Baliwag alleged that the accident was caused
solely by the fault and negligence of AJT and its
driver; that Recontigue failed to place an EWD at
the corner of the disabled cargo truck to warn
oncoming vehicles.
o AJT and Recontique alleged that the accident was
due to the negligence and reckless driving of the
bus driver.
 Trial court held that both defendants should be held liable
— Baliwag for failing to deliver the plaintiff and her son to
their point of destination safely in violation of their
contractual relation while AJT and Recontique for failure
to provide its cargo truck with an EWD in violation of the
Motor Vehicle Law.
liability
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Baliwag is liable for the injuries suffered
by Leticia and Allan Garcia in the accident
2. Whether or not the amount of damages was proper
HELD & RATIO:
1. YES. As a common carrier, Baliwag breached its
contract of carriage when it failed to deliver its
passengers, Leticia and Allan Garcia to their destination
safe and sound. 
3
TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²

 A common carrier is bound to carry its passengers safely recoverable if the carrier, through its agent, acted
as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the fraudulently or in bad faith.
utmost diligence of a very cautious person, with due  The evidence shows the gross negligence of the
regard for all the circumstances. In a contract of carriage, bus driver which amounted to bad faith. Without
it is presumed that the common carrier was at fault or doubt, Leticia and Allan experienced physical
was negligent when a passenger dies or is suffering, mental anguish and serious anxiety by
injured. Unless the presumption is rebutted, the court reason of the accident.
need not even make an express finding of fault or
negligence on the part of the common carrier. This
statutory presumption may only be overcome by
evidence that the carrier exercised extraordinary Fabre vs CA Case Digest
diligence as prescribed in Articles 1733 and 1755 of the Fabre vs. Court of Appeals 
Civil Code.
 The records are bereft of any proof to show that Baliwag 259 SCRA 426 
exercised extraordinary diligence. On the contrary, the
evidence demonstrates its driver's recklessness. G.R. No. 111127
o Leticia testified that the bus was running at a very
July 26, 1996
high speed despite the drizzle and the darkness of
the highway; passengers pleaded for its driver to
slow down, but their plea was ignored.
o Leticia also revealed that the driver was smelling Facts: Petitioners Engracio Fabre, Jr. and his wife were owners
of liquor. She could smell him as she was seated of a Mazda minibus. They used the bus principally in connection
right behind the driver.  with a bus service for school children which they operated in
o Another passenger testified that immediately Manila. It was driven by Porfirio Cabil. 
before the collision, the bus driver was conversing
with a co-employee.
o All these prove the bus driver's wanton disregard On November 2, 1984 private respondent Word for the World
for the physical safety of his passengers, which Christian Fellowship Inc. (WWCF) arranged with the petitioners
makes Baliwag as a common carrier liable for for the transportation of 33 members of its Young Adults Ministry
damages under Article 1759 of the Civil Code: from Manila to La Union and back in consideration of which
 “This liability of the common carriers do not private respondent paid petitioners the amount of P3,000.00. 
cease upon proof that they exercised all the
diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection or supervision of their employees.”
The usual route to Caba, La Union was through Carmen,
2. The award of moral damages is in accord with law. In a
Pangasinan. However, the bridge at Carmen was under repair,
breach of contract of carriage, moral damages are
so that petitioner Cabil, who was unfamiliar with the area (it
4
 TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²
being his first trip to La Union), was forced to take a detour
through the town of Ba-ay in Lingayen, Pangasinan. At 11:30
that night, petitioner Cabil came upon a sharp curve on the
highway. The road was slippery because it was raining, causing
the bus, which was running at the speed of 50 kilometers per
hour, to skid to the left road shoulder. The bus hit the left traffic
steel brace and sign along the road and rammed the fence of
one Jesus Escano, then turned over and landed on its left side,
coming to a full stop only after a series of impacts. The bus
came to rest off the road. A coconut tree which it had hit fell on it
and smashed its front portion. Because of the mishap, several
passengers were injured particularly Amyline Antonio. 
Criminal complaint was filed against the driver and the spouses
were also made jointly liable. Spouses Fabre on the other hand
contended that they are not liable since they are not a common
carrier. The RTC of Makati ruled in favor of the plaintiff and the
defendants were ordered to pay jointly and severally to the
plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court. 
Issue: Whether the spouses Fabre are common carriers?  British Airways v. CA
Held: Petition was denied. Spouses Fabre are common
carriers. 
The Supreme Court held that this case actually involves a
contract of carriage. Petitioners, the Fabres, did not have to be
engaged in the business of public transportation for the
provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers to apply to
them. As this Court has held: 10 Art. 1732, Common carriers are
persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the
business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or
both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their
services to the public. 
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.
G.R. No. 92288   February 9, 1993
Lessons Applicable: Actionable Document (Transportation)
FACTS:
 February 15, 1981: First International Trading and
General Services Co. (First Int'l), a duly licensed domestic
recruitment and placement agency, received a telex
message from its principal ROLACO Engineering and
5
 TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²
Contracting Services (ROLACO) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to
recruit Filipino contract workers in its behalf
 Early March 1981: ROLACO paid British Airways, Inc.
(BA) Jeddah branch the airfare tickets for 93 contract
workers with specific instruction to transport the workers to
Jeddah on or before March 30, 1981
 As soon as BA received a prepaid ticket advice
from its Jeddah branch informed First Int'l.   
 Thereafter, First Int'l instructed ADB Travel
and Tours. Inc. (its travel agent) to book the 93 workers
with BA but it failed
 So First Int'l had to borrow
P304,416.00 for the purchase of airline tickets from the other
airlines for the 93 workers who must leave immediately since
the visas are valid only for 45 days and the Bureau of
Employment Services mandates that contract workers must
be sent to the job site within a period of 30 days
 First week of June, 1981: First Int'l was again informed
by BA that it had received a prepaid ticket advice from its
Jeddah branch for the transportation of 27 contract workers.  carriage as no ticket was ever issued
 Immediately, First Int'l instructed its ADB to book
the 27 contract workers with the BA but only 16 seats were
confirmed and booked on its June 9, 1981 flight. 
 June 9, 1981: only 9 workers were able to board said
flight while the remaining 7 workers were rebooked to:
 June 30, 1981 - again cancelled by British without any
prior notice to either First Int'l or the workers
 July 4,1981 - (6 + 7 workers) 13 workers were again
cancelled and rebooked to July 7, 1981.
 July 6, 1981:  First Int'l paid the travel tax of the workers
as required by BA but when the receipt of the tax payments
was submitted, only 12 seats were confirmed for July 7,
1981 flight
 July 7, 1981: Flight was again cancelled without any prior
notice  for not until the carrier is actually used can the carrier be
 12 workers were finally able to leave for Jeddah
after First Int'l had bought tickets from the other airlines
 As a result of these incidents, First Int'l sent a letter
to BA demanding compensation for the damages it had
incurred by the repeated failure to transport its contract
workers despite confirmed bookings and payment of the
corresponding travel taxes.
July 23, 1981: the counsel of First Int'l sent another letter
to BA demanding P350,000.00 damages and unrealized
profit or income - denied
 August 8, 1981: First Int'l received a telex message
from ROLACO cancelling the hiring of the remaining
recruited workers due to the delay in transporting the
workers to Jeddah. 
 January 27, 1982: First Int'l filed a complaint for damages
against First Int'l 
 CA Affirmed RTC: BA to pay First Int'l damages,
attorneys fees and costs 
ISSUE: W/N BA is not liable because there was no contract of
HELD: Affirmed. MODIFICATION that the award of actual
damages be deleted (reimbursed by ROLACO)
 In dealing with the contract of common carriage of
passengers for purpose of accuracy, there are two (2)
aspects of the same, namely: 
 (a) the contract "to carry (at some future time),"
which contract is consensual and is necessarily perfected by
mere consent - applicable in this case
 (b) the contract "of carriage" or "of common
carriage" itself which should be considered as a real contract
said to have already assumed the obligation of a carrier
6
 TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²
 Even if a prepaid ticket advice (PTA) is merely an
advice from the sponsors that an airline is authorized to
issue a ticket and thus no ticket was yet issued, the fact
remains that the passage had already been paid for by the
principal of the appellee, and the appellant had accepted
such payment
 Besides, appellant knew very well that time was of
the essence as the prepaid ticket advice had specified the
period of compliance therewith, and with emphasis that it
could only be used if the passengers fly on BA
 involvement of the BA in the contract "to carry"
was well demonstrated when the it immediately advised First
Int'l
 Acts of BA indeed constitute malice and evident
bad faith which had caused damage and besmirched the
reputation and business image fo First Int'l
Compania Maritima vs. Insurance Co. of North America
12 SCRA 213
Facts: Macleod and Company of the Philippines had an oral
contract with Compañia Maritima, a shipping corporation, for the
shipment of 2,645 bales of hemp from the Macleod’s private pier
at Davao City to Manila and for their subsequent transshipment
to Boston, Massachusetts on board the S.S. Steel Navigator.
This oral contract was later on confirmed by a formal and written
booking.
Pursuant to the contract, Compania Maritima sent to Macleod's
private wharf 2 lighters, LCT Nos. 1023 and 1025 on which the
hemp shall be loaded. These two lighters were manned each by
a patron and an assistant patron. The patrons of both barges
issued the corresponding carrier's receipt. The receipt issued by
the patron of LCT No. 1025 reads in part:
Received in behalf of S.S. Bowline Knot in good order
and condition from MACLEOD AND COMPANY OF
PHILIPPINES, Sasa Davao, for transshipment at Manila
onto S.S. Steel Navigator.
FINAL DESTINATION: Boston.
After leaving Macleod's private wharf, the 2 loaded barges
proceeded to await the arrival of the S.S. Bowline Knot (belongs
to Compañia Maritima) on which the hemp was to be loaded for
transshipment to Manila. Unfortunately LCT No. 1025 sank
which resulted to the damage or loss of 1,162 bales of hemp
loaded therein. In that same day, Macleod promptly notified
Compania Maritima’s main office in Manila and its branch in
Davao advising it of its liability. Macleod incurred a total loss
amounting to P60,421.02.
The 1,162 bales of hemp loaded on LCT No. 1025 were insured
with the Insurance Company of North America. In due time,
Macleod filed with the said insurance company a claim for the
loss it suffered. A sum of P64,018.55 was paid by the insurance
company. It was noted down in a document that served as the
receipt and subrogation agreement between Macleod and the
insurance company wherein the former assigned to the latter its
rights over the insured and damaged cargo.
For failure to recover from Compania Maritima the sum of
P60,421.02, the insurance company instituted an action. After
trial, the court a quo rendered judgment ordering the Compania
Maritima to pay the insurance company the sum of P60,421.02,
with legal interest. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. Hence, this petition for review.
Issue: Was there a contract of carriage between the carrier and
the shipper considering that the loss occurred while the hemp
was still loaded (free of charge) on a barge owned by the carrier
7
 TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²
and was not actually loaded on the S.S. Bowline Knot which
would carry the hemp to Manila and considering that no bill of
lading was issued therefore?
Ruling: Yes. Where the shipper delivered the cargo to the
carrier and the latter took possession thereof by placing it on a
lighter or barge manned by its authorized employees, it is held
that there existed a complete contract of carriage the
consummation of which had already begun.
The liability and responsibility of the carrier under a contract for
the carriage of goods commence on their actual delivery to, or
receipt by, the carrier or an authorized agent. x x x and delivery
to a lighter in charge of a vessel for shipment on the vessel,
where it is, the custom to deliver in that way, is a good delivery
and binds the vessel receiving the freight, the liability
commencing at the time of delivery to the lighter. x x x and,
similarly, where there is a contract to carry goods from one port
to another, and they cannot be loaded directly on the vessel,
and lighters are sent by the vessel to bring the goods to it, the
lighters are for the time its substitutes, so that the bill of lading is
applicable to the goods as soon as they are placed on the
lighters.”
carriage.
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN vs.
MARJORIE NAVIDAD
G.R. No. 145804, February 6, 2003
Vitug, J.
FACTS:
On 14 October 1993, Nicanor Navidad, then drunk, entered the
EDSA LRT station after purchasing a “token” (representing
payment of the fare). While Navidad was standing on the
platform near the LRT tracks, Junelito Escartin, the security
guard assigned to the area approached Navidad and a
misunderstanding or an altercation between the two apparently
ensued that led to a fist fight. Navidad later fell on the LRT
tracks. At the exact moment that Navidad fell, an LRT train,
operated by petitioner Rodolfo Roman, was coming in. Navidad
was struck by the moving train, and he was killed
instantaneously.
A complaint for damages was then filed against Escartin,
Roman, the LRTA, the Metro Transit Organization Inc. and
Prudent for the death of Navidad. The RTC then held that
Prudent and Escartin were liable and it ordered them to pay
jointly and severally the damages for the death of Navidad.
On appeal, the CA exonerated Prudent and Escartin from any
liability for the death of Navidad and held that LRTA and Roman
jointly and severally liable. It ruled that the contract of carriage
had already existed when Navidad entered the place where
passengers were supposed to be after paying the fare and
getting the corresponding token therefor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the LRTA and Roman are liable for the death of
Navidad.
RULING:
The law requires common carriers to carry passengers safely
using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons with due
regard for all circumstances. Such duty of a common carrier to
provide safety to its passengers so obligates it not only during
the course of the trip but for so long as the passengers are
within its premises and where they ought to be in pursuance to
the contract of carriage. Thus, in this case, the foundation of
LRTA’s liability is the contract of carriage and its obligation to
indemnify the victim arises from the breach of that contract by
reason of its failure to exercise the high diligence required of the
common carrier. In the discharge of its commitment to ensure
8
 TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²
the safety of passengers, a carrier may choose to hire its own
employees or avail itself of the services of an outsider or an
independent firm to undertake the task. In either case, the
common carrier is not relieved of its responsibilities under the
contract of carriage.
On the other hand, there is no showing that petitioner Roman
himself is guilty of any culpable act or omission, he must also be
absolved from liability. Needless to say, the contractual tie
between the LRT and Navidad is not itself a juridical relation
between the latter and Roman; thus, Roman can be made liable
only for his own fault or negligence.
Pedro de Guzman v. CA and Ernesto Cendana
G.R. No. L-47822 December 22, 1988
Feliciano, J.
FACTS:
 Cendana - junk dealer engaged in buying up used bottles and
scrap metal in Pangasinan; upon gathering sufficient
quantities of such scrap material, he would bring such material
to Manila for resale; he utilized 2 6-wheeler trucks which he
owned for hauling the material to Manila. On the return trip to
Pangasinan, he would load his vehicles with cargo which
various merchants wanted delivered to differing
establishments in Pangasinan.
 de Guzman - merchant and authorized dealer of General Milk
Company, Inc. contracted with Cendana for the hauling of 750
cartons of Liberty filled milk from a warehouse of General Milk
in Makati, Rizal, to de Guzman’s establishment in Urdaneta,
Pangasinan
 Only 150 boxes of Liberty filled milk were delivered to
petitioner. The other 600 boxes never reached petitioner,
since the truck which carried these boxes was hijacked.
ISSUE: WON whether or not Cendana is a common carrier
HELD: Yes.
 Article 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations,
firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or
air for compensation, offering their services to the public.
 no distinction between one whose principal business activity is
the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does
such carrying only as an ancillary activity
 no 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
 no distinction between a carrier offering its services to the
general public and one who offers services or solicits business
only from a narrow segment of the general population
 Cendana - common carrier even though he merely “back-
hauled” goods for other merchants from Manila to Pangasinan,
although such back-hauling was done on a periodic or
occasional rather than regular or scheduled manner, and even
though private respondent’s principal occupation was not the
carriage of goods for others
 Certificate of public convenience – compliance therewith as
well as with the requirements of the applicable regulatory
statute and implementing regulations is not needed to make
one a common carrier for as long as a person or firm acts as a
common carrier
 Art. 1734 - common carriers are responsible for the loss,
destruction or deterioration of the goods which they carry,
9
 TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²
“unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: 1)
flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or
calamity; 2) act of the public enemy in war, whether
international or civil; 3) act or omission of the shipper or owner
of the goods; 4) the character-of the goods or defects in the
packing or-in the containers; and 5) order or act of competent
public authority
 for causes of loss, destruction or deterioration which fall
outside Art. 1734 common carriers are presumed to have
been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove
that they observed extraordinary diligence (see Art. 1734 and
Art 1733)
 hijacking of Cendana’s carrier’s truck is outside Art. 1734;
hence he is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
negligently, which presumption may be overthrown by proof of
extraordinary diligence
ISSUE: WON Cendana exercised extraordinary diligence in the
care of de Guzman’s goods; what are the specific requirements
of the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
goods carried in the specific context of hijacking or armed
robbery
HELD: Yes.
 Legal basis: Art. 1745 (6); to paraphrase, a common carrier is
not liable for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who act
with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force, is dispensed
with or diminished
First Philippine Industrial Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
300 SCRA 661, 1998
Facts: Petitioner is a grantee of a pipeline concession under
R.A. No. 387, as amended, a contract, install and operate oil
pipelines. The original pipeline concession was granted in 1967
and renewed by the Energy Regulatory Board in 1992. 
Sometime in January 1995, petitioner applied for a mayor’s
permit with the Office of the Mayor of Batangas City. However,
before the mayor’s permit could be issued, the respondent City
Treasurer required petitioner to pay a local tax based on its
gross receipts for the fiscal year 1993 pursuant to the Local
Government Code. The respondent City Treasure assessed a
business tax on the petitioner amounting to P956,076.04
payable in four installments based on the gross receipts for
products pumped at GPS-1 for the fiscal year 1993 which
amounted to P181,681,151.00. in order not to hamper its
operations, petitioner paid the tax under protest in the amount of
P239, 019.01 for the first quarter of 1993.
On June 15, 1994, petitioner filed with the RTC of Batangas City
a complaint for tax refund with prayer for writ of preliminary
injunction against respondents City of Batangas and Adoracion
Arellano in her capacity as City Treasurer. In its complaint,
petitioner alleged, inter alia, that: (1) the imposition and
collection of the business tax on its gross receipts violates Sec.
133 of the Local Government Code; (2) the authority of cities to
impose and collect a tax on the gross receipts of “contractors
and independent contractors” under Sec. 141(e) and 151 does
not include the authority to collect such taxes on transportation
contractors for, as defined under Sec. 131(h), the term
“contractors” excludes transportation contactors; and (3) the City
Treasurer illegally and erroneously imposed and collected the
said tax, thus meriting the immediate refund of the tax paid. 
Traversing the complaint, the respondents argued that petitioner
cannot be exempt from taxes under Sec. 133 (J) of the Local
Government Code as said exemption applied only to
“transportation contractors and persons engaged in the
transportation by hire and common carriers by air land and
10
 TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²

water.” Respondents assert that pipelines are not included in the

term “common carrier” which refers solely to ordinary carriers as G.R. No. 157917 : August 29, 2012
trucks, trains, ships and the like. Respondents further posit that
the term “common carrier” under the said Code pertains to the SPOUSES TEODORO and NANETTE PERENA, Petitioners,
mode or manner by which a product is delivered to its v. SPOUSES NICOLAS and TERESITA L. ZARATE,
destination.  PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, and the COURT OF
APPEALS, Respondents.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is a common carrier so that
in the affirmative, he is not liable to pay the carriers tax under BERSAMIN, J.:
the Local Government Code of 1991? 
FACTS:
Held: Petitioner is a common carrier. 
Spouses Teodoro and Nanette Peres (Peres) were engaged in
A “common carrier” may be defined, broadly, as one who holds the business of transporting students from their respective
himself out to the public as engaged in the business of residences in Paraque City to Don Bosco in Pasong Tamo,
transporting persons or property from place to place, for Makati City, and back. They employed Clemente Alfaro (Alfaro)
compensation, offering his services to the public generally.  as driver of the van. Spouses Nicolas and Teresita Zarate
(Zarates) contracted the Peres to transport their son Aaron to
Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a “common carrier” as and from Don Bosco.
“any person, corporation, firm or association engaged in the
business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or Considering that the students were due at Don Bosco by 7:15
both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their a.m., and that they were already running late because of the
services to the public.  heavy vehicular traffic on the South Superhighway, Alfaro took
the van to an alternate route at about 6:45 a.m. by traversing the
The test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of narrow path underneath the Magallanes Interchange. The
goods is:  railroad crossing in the narrow path had no railroad warning
signs, or watchmen, or other responsible persons manning the
1. He must be engaged in the carrying of goods for others as a crossing. In fact, the bamboo barandilla was up, leaving the
public employment, and must hold himself out as ready to railroad crossing open to traversing motorists.
engage in the transportation of goods or persons generally as a
business and not as a casual occupation.  At about the time the van was to traverse the railroad crossing,
2. He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his PNR Commuter No. 302 (train), was in the vicinity of the
business is confined;  Magallanes Interchange travelling northbound. As the train
3. He must undertake to carry by the method by which his neared the railroad crossing, Alfaro drove the van eastward
business is conducted and over his established roads; and  across the railroad tracks, closely tailing a large passenger bus.
4. The transportation must be for hire. His view of the oncoming train was blocked because he

11
 TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²
overtook the passenger bus on its left side. The train blew its
horn to warn motorists of its approach. The passenger bus
successfully crossed the railroad tracks, but the van driven by
Alfaro did not. The impact threw nine of the 12 students in the
rear, including Aaron, out of the van. Aaron landed in the path of
the train, which dragged his body and severed his head,
instantaneously killing him.
Thus, the Zarates sued the Peres for breach of contract of
carriage and the PNR for quasi-delict. The RTC ruled in favor of
the Zarates. On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Peres are liable for breach of
contract of carriage?
HELD: The petition has no
CIVIL LAW: common carrier; extraordinary
A common carrier is a person, corporation, firm or association
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers
or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation,
offering such services to the public. Contracts of common
carriage are governed by the provisions on common carriers of
the Civil Code, the Public Service Act, and other special laws
relating to transportation. A common carrier is required to
observe extraordinary diligence, and is presumed to be at fault
or to have acted negligently in case of the loss of the effects of
passengers, or the death or injuries to passengers. The true test
for a common carrier is not the quantity or extent of the business
actually transacted, or the number and character of the
conveyances used in the activity, but whether the undertaking is
a part of the activity engaged in by the carrier that he has held
out to the general public as his business or occupation.
Applying these considerations to the case before us, there is no
question that the Peres as the operators of a school bus service
carry passengers over established roads by the method by
which the business was conducted; and (c) transporting
students for a fee. Despite catering to a limited clientele, the
Peres operated as a common carrier because they held
themselves out as a ready transportation indiscriminately to the
students of a particular school living within or near where they
operated the service and for a fee.
Article 1755 of the Civil Code specifies that the common carrier
should "carry the passengers safely as far as human care and
foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very
cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances."
To successfully fend off liability in an action upon the death or
injury to a passenger, the common carrier must prove his or its
observance of that extraordinary diligence; otherwise, the legal
merit. presumption that he or it was at fault or acted negligently would
stand.
diligence
According to Article 1759 of the Civil Code, their liability as a
common carrier did not cease upon proof that they exercised all
the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of their employee. The Peres were liable for the
death of Aaron despite the fact that their driver might have acted
beyond the scope of his authority or even in violation of the
orders of the common carrier. DENIED.
Planters Products, Inc. v. CA, Soriamont Steamship
Agencies and Kyosei Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha
G.R. No. 101503 September 15, 1993
Bellossillo, J.
FACTS:
 Planters Products - purchased from Mitsubishi Inter’l Corp.
9.3K metric tons of Urea (fertilizer), 46% of which the latter
12
 TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²
shipped in bulk aboard the cargo vessel M/V “Sun Plum”
owned by Kyosei Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha (KKKK)
 time charter-party on the vessel M/V “Sun Plum” pursuant to
the Uniform General Charter   was entered into between
Mitsubishi as shipper/charterer and KKKK as shipowner
 before loading the fertilizer aboard the vessel they were
inspected by the charterer’s representative and found fit
 After the Urea fertilizer was loaded in bulk by stevedores
(somebody whose job is to load and unload ships) hired by
and under the supervision of the shipper, the steel hatches
were closed with heavy iron lids, covered with 3 layers of
tarpaulin, then tied with steel bonds. The hatches remained
closed and tightly sealed throughout the entire voyage.
 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
 survey report 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 sand, rust and dirt
 Planters Products sent a claim letter to Soriamont Steamship
Agencies, the resident agent of the carrier, for damages
ISSUES: 1. WON a common carrier becomes a private carrier
by reason of a charter-party; 2. in the negative, WON the
shipowner was able to prove that he had exercised that degree
of diligence required of him under the law
HELD: 1. Yes.
 charter-party – 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;  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
 2 types of charter-party:
 a. contract of affreightment – involves the use of shipping
space on vessels leased by the owner in part or as a whole, to
carry goods for others; may either be: i) time charter - vessel
is leased to the charterer for a fixed period of time; or ii)
voyage charter - ship is leased for a single voyage
 b. charter by demise or bareboat charter – 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
 In both types, the charter-party provides for the hire of 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.
 common or public carrier – see Art. 1732; 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
 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
 common carrier - should observe extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over the goods they carry; in case of loss,
destruction or deterioration of the goods, it is presumed to be
at fault or to have acted negligently, and the burden of proving
otherwise rests on it
 private carrier - exercise of ordinary diligence in the carriage of
goods will suffice; no such presumption applies to private
carriers
 only when the charter includes both the vessel and its crew, as
in a bareboat or demise that a common carrier becomes
13
 TRANSPORTATION – TESORO – 3D (ATENEO LAW 2014) – Arboladura, Becina, Certeza, Confstantino, Ferrer, Galleon, Ilano, Leonardo, Magbanua, Pieraz, Pozon, Saile, Salva, Tiu²

private, at least insofar as the particular voyage covering the fact that the fertilizer was transported in “bulk,” thereby
charter-party is concerned exposing it to the inimical effects of the elements and the
 when Planters Products chartered the vessel M/V “Sun Plum”, grimy condition of the various pieces of equipment used in
the ship captain, its officers and compliment were under the transporting and hauling it  risk the shipper or the owner of
employ of the shipowner and therefore continued to be under the goods has to face
its direct supervision and control. As stranger to the crew and
to the ship, Planters Products did not have the duty of caring
for its cargo as it did not have control of the means in doing
so.

HELD: 2. Yes.
 Before the fertilizer was loaded, the 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 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.
 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
 stevedores unloaded the cargo under the watchful eyes of the
shipmates who were overseeing the whole operation on
rotation basis
 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 80 degrees
centigrade.
 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
 probability of the cargo being damaged or getting mixed or
contaminated with foreign particles was made greater by the

14