De Guzman v.
CA
Facts:
Respondent Ernesto Cendana was a junk dealer. He buys scrap materials and brings
those that he gathered to Manila for resale using 2 sixwheeler trucks. !n the return trip
to "angasinan# respondent would load his $ehicle with cargo which $arious merchants
wanted deli$ered# charging fee lower than the commercial rates. %ometime in &o$ember
'()*# petitioner "edro de +u,man contracted with respondent for the deli$ery of )-*
cartons of .iberty Milk. !n /ecember '# '()*# respondent loaded the cargo. !nly '-*
boxes were deli$ered to petitioner because the truck carrying the boxes was hijacked
along the way. "etitioner commenced an action claiming the $alue of the lost
merchandise. "etitioner argues that respondent# being a common carrier# is bound to
exercise extraordinary diligence# which it failed to do. "ri$ate respondent denied that he
was a common carrier# and so he could not be held liable for force majeure. 0he trial
court ruled against the respondent# but such was re$ersed by the Court of 1ppeals.
Issues:
2'3 4hether or not pri$ate respondent is a common carrier
223 4hether pri$ate respondent is liable for the loss of the goods
Held:
2'3 1rticle ')52 makes no distinction between one whose principal business acti$ity is
the carrying of persons or goods or both# and one who does such carrying only as an
ancillary acti$ity. 1rticle ')52 also carefully a$oids making 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. &either does
1rticle ')52 distinguish between a carrier offering its ser$ices to the 6general public#6
i.e.# the general community or population# and one who offers ser$ices or solicits
business only from a narrow segment of the general population. 7t appears to the Court
that pri$ate respondent is properly characteri,ed as a common carrier e$en though he
merely 6backhauled6 goods for other merchants from Manila to "angasinan# although
such backhauling was done on a periodic or occasional rather than regular or scheduled
manner# and e$en though pri$ate respondent8s principal occupation was not the carriage
of goods for others. 0here is no dispute that pri$ate respondent charged his customers a
fee for hauling their goods9 that fee fre:uently fell below commercial freight rates is not
rele$ant here. 1 certificate of public con$enience is not a re:uisite for the incurring of
liability under the Ci$il Code pro$isions go$erning common carriers.
223 1rticle ')5; establishes the general rule that common carriers are responsible for the
loss# destruction or deterioration of the goods which they carry# 6unless the same is due
to any of the following causes only<
a. =lood# storm# earth:uake# lightning# or other natural disaster or calamity9
b. 1ct of the public enemy in war# whether international or ci$il9
c. 1ct or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods9
d. 0he character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers9 and
e. !rder or act of competent public authority.6
0he hijacking of the carrier8s truck does not fall within any of the fi$e 2-3 categories of
exempting causes listed in 1rticle ')5;. "ri$ate respondent as common carrier is
presumed to ha$e been at fault or to ha$e acted negligently. 0his presumption# howe$er#
may be o$erthrown by proof of extraordinary diligence on the part of pri$ate
respondent. 4e belie$e and so hold that the limits of the duty of extraordinary 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 6gra$e or irresistible threat# $iolence or force.6 we hold
that the occurrence of the loss must reasonably be regarded as :uite beyond the control
of the common carrier and properly regarded as a fortuitous e$ent. 7t is necessary to
recall that e$en common carriers are not made absolute insurers against all risks of
tra$el and of transport of goods# and are not held liable for acts or e$ents which cannot
be foreseen or are ine$itable# pro$ided that they shall ha$e complied with the rigorous
standard of extraordinary diligence
