Lawyereering

Facts:

Respondent Ernesto Cendaña, a junk dealer, was engaged in buying up used bottles and scrap metal in Pangasinan. Upon gathering sufficient quantities of such scrap material, respondent would bring such material to Manila for resale. He utilized two (2) six-wheeler trucks which he owned for hauling the material to Manila. On the return trip to Pangasinan, respondent would load his vehicles with cargo which various merchants wanted delivered to differing establishments in Pangasinan. For that service, respondent charged freight rates which were commonly lower than regular commercial rates.

Sometime in November 1970, petitioner Pedro de Guzman, a merchant and authorized dealer of General Milk Company (Philippines), Inc. in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, contracted with respondent for the hauling of 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from a warehouse of General Milk in Makati, Rizal, to petitioner’s establishment in Urdaneta on or before 4 December 1970. Accordingly, on 1 December 1970, respondent loaded in Makati the merchandise on to his trucks: 150 cartons were loaded on a truck driven by respondent himself; while 600 cartons were placed on board the other truck which was driven by Manuel Estrada, respondent’s driver and employee.

Only 150 boxes of Liberty filled milk were delivered to petitioner. The other 600 boxes never reached petitioner, since the truck which carried these boxes was hijacked somewhere along the MacArthur Highway in Paniqui, Tarlac, by armed men who took with them the truck, its driver, his helper and the cargo.

petitioner commenced action against private respondent in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, demanding payment of P22,150.00, the claimed value of the lost merchandise, plus damages and attorney’s fees. Petitioner argued that private respondent, being a common carrier, and having failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of him by the law, should be held liable for the value of the undelivered goods.

In his Answer, private respondent denied that he was a common carrier and argued that he could not be held responsible for the value of the lost goods, such loss having been due to force majeure.

Issue:

Whether or not Ernesto Candena is a common carrier, thus, liable for the goods lost.

Ruling:

Ernesto Candena is a common carrier.

The Civil Code defines “common carriers” in the following terms: “Article 1732. Common carriers are 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 above article 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 (in local idiom, as “a sideline”). 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. We think that Article 1733 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions.

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 that fee frequently fell below commercial freight rates is not relevant here.

But is not liable to the goods lost

The hijacking of the carriers truck does not fall within any of the five (5) categories of exempting causes in Art. 1734.—Applying the above-quoted Articles 1734 and 1735, we note firstly that the specific cause alleged in the instant case—the hijacking of the carrier’s truck—does not fall within any of the five (5) categories of exempting causes listed in Article 1734. It would follow, therefore, that the hijacking of the carrier’s vehicle must be dealt with under the provisions of Article 1735, in other words, that the 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.

(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity; (2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; (3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers; and (5) Order or act of competent public authority.”

Facts:

The Pereñas were engaged in the business of transporting students from their respective residences in Parañaque City to Don Bosco in Pasong Tamo, Makati City, and back. They employed Clemente Alfaro (Alfaro) as driver of the van.

In June 1996, the Zarates contracted the Pereñas to transport Aaron to and from Don Bosco. Considering that the students were due at Don Bosco by 7:15 a.m., and that they were already running late because of the heavy vehicular traffic on the South Superhighway, Alfaro took the van to an alternate route at about 6:45 a.m. by traversing the narrow path underneath the Magallanes Interchange that was then commonly used by Makati-bound vehicles as a short cut into Makati. At the time, the narrow path was marked by piles of construction materials and parked passenger jeepneys, and the railroad crossing in the narrow path had no railroad warning signs, or watchmen, or other responsible persons manning the crossing. In fact, the bamboo barandilla was up, leaving the railroad crossing open to traversing motorists.

At about the time the van was to traverse the railroad crossing, PNR Commuter No. 302 (train), operated by Jhonny Alano (Alano), was in the vicinity of the Magallanes Interchange travelling northbound. As the train neared the railroad crossing, Alfaro drove the van eastward across the railroad tracks, closely tailing a large passenger bus. His view of the oncoming train was blocked because he overtook the passenger bus on its left side. The train blew its horn to warn motorists of its approach. When the train was about 50 meters away from the passenger bus and the van, Alano applied the ordinary brakes of the train. He applied the emergency brakes only when he saw that a collision was imminent. The passenger bus successfully crossed the railroad tracks, but the van driven by Alfaro did not. The train hit the rear end of the van, and the impact threw nine of the 12 students in the rear, including Aaron, out of the van. Aaron landed in the path of the train, which dragged his body and severed his head, instantaneously killing him. Alano fled the scene on board the train, and did not wait for the police investigator to arrive.

Devastated by the early and unexpected death of Aaron, the Zarates commenced this action for damages against Alfaro, the Pereñas, PNR and Alano. The Pereñas and PNR filed their respective answers, with cross-claims against each other, but Alfaro could not be served with summons.

Issue:

Whether or not the Parenas acted as a common carrier.

Ruling:

As all the foregoing indicate, the true test for a common carrier is not the quantity or extent of the business actually transacted, or the number and character of the conveyances used in the activity, but whether the undertaking is a part of the activity engaged in by the carrier that he has held out to the general public as his business or occupation. If the undertaking is a single transaction, not a part of the general business or occupation engaged in, as advertised and held out to the general public, the individual or the entity rendering such service is a private, not a common, carrier. The question must be determined by the character of the business actually carried on by the carrier, not by any secret intention or mental reservation it may entertain or assert when charged with the duties and obligations that the law imposes

(a) engaged in transporting passengers generally as a business, not just as a casual occupation; (b) undertaking to carry passengers over established roads by the method by which the business was conducted; and (c) transporting students for a fee. Despite catering to a limited clientèle, the Pereñas operated as a common carrier because they held themselves out as a ready transportation indiscriminately to the students of a particular school living within or near where they operated the service and for a fee.

Facts:

Petitioner is a grantee of a pipeline concession under Republic Act No. 387, as amended, to contract, install and  operate oil pipelines. The original pipeline concession was

granted in 19671 and renewed by the Energy Regulatory Board in 1992.

Sometime in January 1995, petitioner applied for a mayor’s permit with the Office of the Mayor of Batangas City. However, before the mayor’s permit could be issued, the respondent City Treasurer required petitioner to pay a local tax based on its gross receipts for the fiscal year 1993 pursuant to the Local Government Code. The respondent City Treasurer assessed a business tax on the petitioner amounting to P956,076.04 payable in four installments based on the gross receipts for products pumped at GPS-1 for the fiscal year 1993 which amounted to P181,681,151.00. In order not to hamper its operations, petitioner paid the tax under protest in the amount of P239,019.01 for the first quarter of 1993.

 (e) and 151 does not include the authority to collect such taxes on transportation contractors for, as defined under Sec. 131 (h), the term “contractors” excludes transportation contractors; and, (3) the City Treasurer illegally and erroneously imposed and collected the said tax, thus meriting the immediate refund of the tax paid.

Traversing the complaint, the respondents argued that petitioner cannot be exempt from taxes under Section 133 (j) of the Local Government Code as said exemption applies only to “transportation contractors and persons engaged in the transportation by hire and common carriers by air, land and water.” Respondents assert that pipelines are not included in the term “common carrier” which refers solely to ordinary carriers such as trucks, trains, ships and the like. Respondents further posit that the term “common carrier” under the said code pertains to the mode

Issue

Whether First Philippine Industrial Corporation is a common carrier considering they are transporting oil thru pipeline.

Ruling

Based on the above definitions and requirements, there is no doubt that petitioner is a common carrier. It is engaged in the business of transporting or carrying goods, i.e. petroleum products, for hire as a public employment. It undertakes to carry for all persons indifferently, that is, to all persons who choose to employ its services, and  transports the goods by land and for compensation. The fact that petitioner has a limited clientele does not exclude it from the definition of a common carrier.

As correctly pointed out by petitioner, the definition of “common carriers” in the Civil Code makes no distinction as to the means of transporting, as long as it is by land, water or air. It does not provide that the transportation of the passengers or goods should be by motor vehicle. In fact, in the United States, oil pipe line operators are considered common carriers.