Bascos v.

CA Definition of Common Carriers-

Facts: CipTrade entered into a hauling contract with jibfair Shipping Agency Corporation whereby the former bound itself to haul the
latter's 2!!! m"tons of soya bean meal from #agallanes Dri$e Del %an #anila to the warehouse of %urefoods Corporation in
Calamba &aguna' To carry out its obligation C(%T)AD* through )odolfo Cipriano subcontracted with *strellita +ascos ,petitioner- to
transport and to deli$er .!! sac/s of soya bean meal worth %012.!.'!! from the #anila %ort Area to Calamba &aguna at the rate of
%1!'!! per metric ton' %etitioner failed to deli$er the said cargo' As a conse3uence of that failure Cipriano paid 4ibfair Shipping Agency
the amount of the lost goods in accordance with their contract'
CipTrade demanded reimbursement from +ascos but the latter refused to pay because according to her she is absol$ed from liability
since the lost of the goods were due to force majeure wwhich is hijac/ing' She li/ewise claimed that the contract she entered with
CipTrade was a contract of lease and not a contract of carriage'
The )TC rendered its decision in fa$or of CipTrade and ordered +ascos to reimburse the former' The CA affirmed the decision of the
)TC' 5ence this petition'
Issue:
0' 6hether or not A'#' +ascos Truc/ing is a common carrier'
2' 678 +ascos is liable for the lost of the goods'
Held:
0' 9es' A'#' +ascos Truc/ing is a common carrier' Article 0:;2 of the Ci$il 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 ser$ices to the public'< The test to determine a common carrier is <whether the gi$en underta/ing 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 3uantity or
e=tent of the business transacted'< (n this case petitioner herself has made the admission that she was in the truc/ing business
offering her truc/s to those with cargo to mo$e' 4udicial admissions are conclusi$e and no e$idence is re3uired to pro$e the same'
The abo$e article ma/es no distinction between one whose principal business acti$ity is the carrying of persons or goods or both and
one who does such carrying only as an ancillary acti$ity ,in local idiom as a <sideline<-' Article 0:;2 also carefully a$oids ma/ing any
distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation ser$ice on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such ser$ice
on an occasional episodic or unscheduled basis' 8either does Article 0:;2 distinguish between a carrier offering its ser$ices to the
<general public< i'e' the general community or population and one who offers ser$ices or solicits business only from a narrow segment
of the general population' 6e thin/ that Article 0:;2 deliberately refrained from ma/ing such distinctions'<
2' Common carriers are obliged to obser$e e=traordinary diligence in the $igilance o$er the goods transported by them' 0: Accordingly
they are presumed to ha$e been at fault or to ha$e acted negligently if the goods are lost destroyed or deteriorated' 0> There are $ery
few instances when the presumption of negligence does not attach and these instances are enumerated in Article 0:;.' 0? (n those
cases where the presumption is applied the common carrier must pro$e that it e=ercised e=traordinary diligence in order to o$ercome
the presumption'
(n this case petitioner alleged that hijac/ing constituted force majeure which e=culpated her from liability for the loss of the cargo' (n De
@uAman $s' Court of Appeals 2! the Court held that hijac/ing not being included in the pro$isions of Article 0:;. must be dealt with
under the pro$isions of Article 0:;1 and thus the common carrier is presumed to ha$e been at fault or negligent' To e=culpate the
carrier from liability arising from hijac/ing he must pro$e that the robbers or the hijac/ers acted with gra$e or irresistible threat
$iolence or force'
<Bnder Article 0:.1 ,2- abo$e a common carrier is held responsible C and will not be allowed to di$est or to diminish such
responsibility C e$en for acts of strangers li/e thie$es or robbers e=cept where such thie$es or robbers in fact acted with gra$e or
irresistible threat $iolence or force' 6e belie$e and so hold that the limits of the duty of e=traordinary diligence in the $igilance o$er the
goods carried are reached where the goods are lost as a result of a robbery which is attended by <gra$e or irresistible threat $iolence
or force'<