You are on page 1of 1

De Guzman v.

CA
G.R. No. L-47822, December 22, 1988

Facts:
Ernest Cendana owned two six-wheeler trucks for his scrap metal business.
Petitioner De Guzman who, as an authorized dealer of General Milk Company
contracted respondent Cendana for the hauling of the 750 cartons of milk from
Makati to Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. 150 cartons were loaded in the truck driven
by respondent while the remaining 600 were loaded in the truck driven by his
employee.
When the truck with 600 cartons of milk never reached the destination due
to alleged hijacking, petitioner filed a complaint before the CFI of Pangasinan
demanding the payment of P22,150.00 He alleged that respondent, as a common
carrier, having failed to exercise extraordinary diligence, should be liable for the
value of the loss goods. The CFI ordered respondent to pay, however, the CA
reversed said order and ruled that respondent was not a common carrier since he
had been engaged in transporting return loads of freight as a “casual occupation”.

Issue:
Whether respondent was a common carrier

Ruling:
Yes. “Common carrier” as defined in Art. 1732 of the Civil Code makes no
distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of
persons or goods and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity
(mere sideline). It also 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
Art. 1732 distinguish 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.
Thus, the Court held that respondent is a common carrier even though he
merely back-hauled goods for other merchants from Manila to Pangasinan.
However, since the loss is beyond the control of the respondent since the truck
was a victim of robbery in band which is lodged in the CFI of Urdaneta,
respondent cannot be held liable for the undelivered goods.

You might also like