De Guzman v. Court of Appeals
186 SCRA 612 Dec. 22, 1988
Facts:
Ernesto Cendaña is a junk dealer engaged in buying up used bottles and scrap metal in
Pangasinan. When sufficient quantities of such scrap material is gathered, Cendaña would bring
such material to Manila for resale. He owned two six-wheeler trucks for hauling used bottles and
scrap metals. On the return trips, he would load his vehicles with cargo for various merchants
and deliver it to them. For such service, freights are charged with rates lower than regular
commercial rates.
Pedro de Guzman, contracted with Cendaña for the hauling of 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk
from a warehouse to de Guzman’s establishment. Cendaña loaded the merchandise on to his
trucks. 150 cartons were loaded on a truck driven by Cendaña himself. 600 cartons were placed
on board the other truck which was driven by Cendaña’s driver and employee.
Only the 150 boxes reached de Guzman. The other 600 boxes never reached de Guzman because
the truck which carried the boxes was hijacked.
Cendaña was sued by de Guzman demanding payment of the claimed value of the lost
merchandise plus damages and attorney’s fees.
Cendaña denied that he was a common carrier and argued that he could not be held responsible
for the value of the lost goods because the same loss is due to force majeure.
Pedro de Guzman insists that Cendaña had not observed extraordinary diligence in the care of
the goods because he did not retain a security guard to ride with the truck.
Issues:
1. Whether or not Cendena is a common carrier.
2. 2Whether or not Cendena is liable for the goods lost.
Ruling:
1. Ernesto Candena is a common carrier.
The law defines Common carriers as persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the
business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for
compensation, offering their services to the public.
The law 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.
The law 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 the law distinguish between a carrier
offering its services to the “general public,” and one who offers services or solicits business only
from a narrow segment of the general population.
Therefore, Candena can properly be characterized as a common carrier even though he merely
“back-hauled” goods for other merchants and although such backhauling was done on a periodic
or occasional rather than regular or scheduled manner, and even though his 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 that fee frequently fell below commercial freight
rates is not relevant here.
2.
Cendena is not liable for the goods lost.
Under Article 1745 (6), a common carrier is held responsible — and will not be allowed to divest
or to diminish such responsibility — even for acts of strangers like thieves or
robbers, except where such thieves or robbers in fact acted "with grave or irresistible threat,
violence or force." The Supreme Court 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."
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.
In the instant case, armed men held up the second truck owned by private respondent which
carried petitioner's cargo. Three (3) of the five (5) hold-uppers were armed with firearms. The
robbers not only took away the truck and its cargo but also kidnapped the driver and his helper,
detaining them for several days and later releasing them in another province. The hijacked truck
was subsequently found by the police. The Court of First Instance convicted all the accused of
robbery.
*Case digest by Stephen Viva Besario JD Refresher, Andres Bonifacio College- School of Law, SY
2022-2023