8/18/2019 Transpo Set 1

1/6

DE GUZMAN VS. COURT OF APPEALS (168 SCRA 612)

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 !ehicles with

cargo which !arious merchants wanted deli!ered to Pangasinan. "or that ser!ice he

charged freight lower than regular rates. #eneral Milk Co. contacted with him for the

hauling of $%& 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 dri!er and his helper. Only '%& cartons of milk were deli!ered. (he Milk Co. sued

to claim the !alue 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. (he trial court ruled that he was a

common carrier. (he C) re!ersed.

Iss!: *hether or not Cendena is a common carrier+

"!#$: ,es Cendena is properly characteried as a common carrier e!en though he

merely backhauled goods for other merchants and e!en if it was done on a periodic

basis rather than on a regular basis and e!en if his principal occupation was not the

carriage of goods.

 

)rticle '$/ 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. 0t also a!oids making a distinction between a person or

enterprise o1ering transportation ser!ices on a regular or scheduled basis and one

o1ering ser!ice on an occasional episodic or unscheduled basis. 2either does it

make a distinction between a carrier o1ering its ser!ices to the general public and

one who o1ers ser!ices or solicits business only from a narrow segment of 

population.

2. F%&st P'%#%%! I$st&%a# C*&*&at%* +s. C*&t *, A!a#s

G.R. N*. 12-/8 D!c!0!& 2 18

Facts:

Petitioner "irst Phil. 0ndustrial Corporation 3"irstPhil for bre!ity4 is a grantee of a

pipeline concession under 5epublic )ct 2o. $ as amended to contract install and

operate oil pipelines. "irstPhil applied for a mayor7s permit but before the mayor7s

permit could be issued the respondent City (reasurer re8uired petitioner to pay a

8/18/2019 Transpo Set 1

2/6

local ta9 pursuant to the :ocal #o!ernment Code. Petitioner ;led a letter-protest

addressed to the respondent City (reasurer but the latter denied the same

contending that petitioner cannot be considered engaged in transportation

business thus it cannot claim e9emption under common carrier>

which refers solely to ordinary carriers such as trucks trains ships and the like.

5espondents further posit that the term >common carrier> under the said code

pertains to the mode or manner by which a product is deli!ered to its destination.

5(C dismissed the complaint ruling that e9emption granted under common carrier> as >any person corporation ;rm or

association engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goodsor both by land water or air for compensation o1ering their ser!ices to the

public.> (he test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods is

'. He must be engaged in the business of carrying goods for others as a public

employment and must hold himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of 

goods for person generally as a business and not as a casual occupationD

/. He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his business is con;nedD

8/18/2019 Transpo Set 1

3/6

. He must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is conducted

and o!er his established roadsD and

E. (he transportation must be for hire.

=ased on the abo!e de;nitions and re8uirements there is no doubt that petitioner

is a common carrier. 0t is engaged in the business of transporting or carrying goodsi.e. petroleum products for hire as a public employment. 0t undertakes to carry for

all persons indi1erently that is to all persons who choose to employ its ser!ices

and transports the goods by land and for compensation. (he fact that petitioner has

a limited clientele does not e9clude it from the de;nition of a common carrier.

 (he de;nition of >common carriers> in the Ci!il Code makes no distinction as to the

means of transporting as long as it is by land water or air. 0t does not pro!ide that

the transportation of the passengers or goods should be by motor !ehicle. 0n fact in

the Fnited common carrier.> and at the same time said act also regards

petroleum operation as a public utility. =05 likewise considers the petitioner a

>common carrier.> 0n so ruling it held that since petitioner is a pipeline

concessionaire that is engaged only in transporting petroleum products it is

considered a common carrier under 5epublic )ct 2o. $.

8/18/2019 Transpo Set 1

4/6

8/18/2019 Transpo Set 1

5/6

carrying only as an ancillary acti!ity 3in local idiom as >a sideline>4. )rticle '$/

also carefully a!oids making any distinction between a person or enterprise o1ering

transportation ser!ice on a regular or scheduled basis and one o1ering such ser!ice

on an occasional episodic or unscheduled basis. 2either does )rticle '$/

distinguish between a carrier o1ering its ser!ices to the >general public> i.e. the

general community or population and one who o1ers ser!ices or solicits businessonly from a narrow segment of the general population. *e think that )rticle '$

deliberately refrained from making such distinctions.

0ndeed respondent is a common carrier. 0ts ferry ser!ices are so intertwined

with its main business as to be properly considered ancillary thereto. (he constancy

of respondentJs ferry ser!ices in its resort operations is underscored by its ha!ing its

own Coco =each boats. )nd the tour packages it o1ers which include the ferry

ser!ices may be a!ailed of by anyone who can a1ord to pay the same. (hese

ser!ices are thus a!ailable to the public.

 (hat respondent does not charge a separate fee or fare for its ferry ser!ices

is of no moment. 0t would be imprudent to suppose that it pro!ides said ser!ices at

a loss. (he Court is aware of the practice of beach resort operators o1ering tour

packages to factor the transportation fee in arri!ing at the tour package price. (hat

guests who opt not to a!ail of respondentJs ferry ser!ices pay the same amount is

likewise inconse8uential. (hese guests may only be deemed to ha!e o!erpaid.

Sc'0%t7 T&as*&t 9&*!&a;! C*&*&at%* +s T&as*&t V!t&! Ic

FACTS:

Petitioner who was in charge of securing re8uisite clearances recei!e the cargoes

from the shipside and deli!er it to the consignee :ittle #iant

8/18/2019 Transpo Set 1

6/6