3. G.R. No.

L-47822 December 22, 1988

PEDRO DE GUZMAN, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO CENDANA, respondents.

Facts:

Respondent Ernesto Cendana was a junk dealer. He buys scrap materials and brings those that he gathered to Manila for
resale using 2 six-wheeler trucks. On the return trip to Pangasinan, respondent would load his vehicle with cargo which
various merchants wanted delivered, charging fee lower than the commercial rates. Sometime in November 1970,
petitioner Pedro de Guzman contracted with respondent for the delivery of 750 cartons of Liberty Milk. On December 1,
1970, respondent loaded the cargo. Only 150 boxes were delivered to petitioner because the truck carrying the boxes was
hijacked along the way. Petitioner commenced an action claiming the value of the lost merchandise. Petitioner argues that
respondent, being a common carrier, is bound to exercise extraordinary diligence, which it failed to do. Private respondent
denied that he was a common carrier, and so he could not be held liable for force majeure. The trial court ruled against the
respondent, but such was reversed by the Court of Appeals.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not private respondent is a common carrier

(2) Whether private respondent is liable for the loss of the goods

Held:

(1) Article 1732 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. 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. It appears to the Court that private respondent is properly
characterized as a common carrier even though he merely "back-hauled" goods for other merchants from Manila to
Pangasinan, although such backhauling 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. There is no dispute that
private respondent charged his customers a fee for hauling their goods; that fee frequently fell below commercial freight
rates is not relevant here. A certificate of public convenience is not a requisite for the incurring of liability under the Civil
Code provisions governing common carriers.

(2) Article 1734 establishes the general rule that common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration
of the goods which they carry, "unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:

a. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;

b. Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;

c. Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;

d. The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers; and

e. Order or act of competent public authority."

The hijacking of the carrier's truck - does not fall within any of the five (5) categories of exempting causes listed in Article
1734. Private respondent as common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. This
presumption, however, may be overthrown by proof of extraordinary diligence on the part of private respondent. We
1
believe and so hold that the limits of the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried are reached
where the goods are lost as a result of a robbery which is attended by "grave or irresistible threat, violence or force." we
hold that the occurrence of the loss must reasonably be regarded as quite beyond the control of the common carrier and
properly regarded as a fortuitous event. It is necessary to recall that even common carriers are not made absolute insurers
against all risks of travel and of transport of goods, and are not held liable for acts or events which cannot be foreseen or
are inevitable, provided that they shall have complied with the rigorous standard of extraordinary diligence.

Facts: Cendena was a junk dealer and was engaged in buying used bottles and scrap materials in Pangasinan and brought
these to Manila for resale. He used two 6-wheeler trucks. On the return trip to Pangasinan, he would load his vehicles with
cargo which various merchants wanted delivered to Pangasinan. For that service, he charged freight lower than regular
rates. General Milk Co. contacted with him for the hauling of 750 cartons of milk. On the way to Pangasinan, one of the
trucks was hijacked by armed men who took with them the truck and its cargo and kidnapped the driver and his helper.
Only 150 cartons of milk were delivered. The Milk Co. sued to claim the value of the lost merchandise based on an alleged
contract of carriage. Cendena denied that he was a common carrier and contended that he could not be liable for the loss it
was due to force majeure. The trial court ruled that he was a common carrier. The CA reversed.

Issue: Whether or not Cendena is a common carrier?

Held: Yes, Cendena is properly characterized as a common carrier even though he merely backhauled goods for other
merchants, and even if it was done on a periodic basis rather than on a regular basis, and even if his principal occupation
was not the carriage of goods.

Article 1732 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. It also avoids making a distinction between a person or
enterprise offering transportation services on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering service on an occasional,
episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does it make a 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 population.