De Guzman v. Court of Appeals
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Ernesto Cendana, a junk dealer, owned and operated two six-wheeler trucks for hauling scrap metal and used bottles to Manila. On return trips, he transported cargo for merchants to Pangasinan for lower-than-commercial freight rates. Petitioner Pedro de Guzman, a merchant, contracted with Cendana for the hauling of 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from Makati to Urdaneta, Pangasinan, by December 4, 1970. On December 1, 1970, Cendana loaded the milk onto his trucks: 150 cartons on his truck and 600 cartons on a truck driven by his employee, Manuel Estrada. Only 150 cartons were delivered; the truck carrying the remaining 600 cartons was hijacked by armed men in Paniqui, Tarlac, who took the truck, its driver, helper, and cargo. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint against Cendana for the value of the lost merchandise (P22,150.00) plus damages and attorney's fees, arguing Cendana was a common carrier who failed to exercise extraordinary diligence. Cendana denied being a common carrier and claimed the loss was due to force majeure. The trial court ruled Cendana was a common carrier and liable for the lost goods, damages, and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Cendana was not a common carrier but engaged in transporting return loads as a casual occupation, and thus not liable. The Petition: Petitioner sought review, assigning as errors the Court of Appeals' conclusions that Cendana was not a common carrier, that the hijacking was force majeure, and that Cendana was not liable for the undelivered cargo.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Ernesto Cendana, who transported goods for compensation on return trips as a sideline to his junk business, is a common carrier under Article 1732 of the Civil Code. Whether the hijacking of respondent's truck, attended by armed men, constitutes a fortuitous event that exempts him from liability. Whether respondent Cendana is liable for the value of the undelivered merchandise.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Respondent Ernesto Cendana is not liable for the value of the undelivered merchandise.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Ernesto Cendana is a common carrier: The Court held that Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines common carriers as persons engaged in the business of transporting passengers or goods for compensation, offering their services to the public. This definition does not distinguish between a principal business activity and an ancillary one, nor between regular and occasional services, nor between offering services to the general public or a narrow segment thereof. Cendana, by charging fees for hauling goods for merchants, even if it was a sideline and on an occasional basis, falls under this definition. The lack of a certificate of public convenience does not exempt him from the liabilities of a common carrier; rather, it would be contrary to public policy to allow non-compliance with regulatory statutes to negate liability. Therefore, Cendana is considered a common carrier. On whether the hijacking constitutes a fortuitous event: The Court reiterated that common carriers are held to extraordinary diligence. Article 1734 of the Civil Code lists specific causes that exempt a common carrier from liability, which does not include hijacking. However, Article 1735 states that in all other cases, common carriers are presumed negligent unless they prove extraordinary diligence. Article 1745(6) clarifies that a common carrier is responsible for acts of robbers unless they act with grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force. In this case, the hijacking involved armed men, the kidnapping of the driver and helper, and the subsequent recovery of the truck in another city. The Court found that the robbers acted with grave, if not irresistible, threat, violence, or force. Such an event is beyond the control of the common carrier and is considered a fortuitous event, provided the carrier exercised extraordinary diligence. On whether respondent Cendana is liable for the undelivered merchandise: Given that the hijacking was attended by grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force, it qualifies as a fortuitous event under Article 1745(6). Common carriers are not absolute insurers and are not liable for events that are unforeseen or inevitable, provided they have exercised extraordinary diligence. The Court found that the circumstances of the hijacking were beyond Cendana's control. Therefore, Cendana is not liable for the loss of the merchandise.
Main Doctrine
A person engaged in transporting goods for compensation, even if only as an ancillary activity or on an occasional basis, is considered a common carrier. Hijacking attended by grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force constitutes a fortuitous event, exempting the common carrier from liability for the loss of goods, provided they exercised extraordinary diligence.