PEDRODEGUZMAN,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALSandERNESTOCENDAA,respondents.

CommonCarriers;Definitionof;Art.1732oftheCivilCodemakesnodistinctionsbetweenapersonorenterpriseofferingtransportation
serviceonaregularorscheduledbasisandsuchserviceonanoccasional,episodicorunscheduledbasis.TheCivilCodedefines
commoncarriersinthefollowingterms:Article1732.Commoncarriersarepersons,corporations,firms,orassociationsengagedinthe
businessofcarryingortransportingpassengersorgoodsorboth,byland,water,orairforcompensation,offeringtheirservicestothe
public.Theabovearticlemakesnodistinctionbetweenonewhoseprincipalbusinessactivityisthecarryingofpersonsorgoodsorboth,
andonewhodoessuchcarryingonlyasanancillaryactivity(inlocalidiom,asasideline).Article1732alsocarefullyavoidsmakingany
distinctionbetweenapersonorenterpriseofferingtransportationserviceonaregularorscheduledbasisandoneofferingsuchserviceonan
occasional,episodicorunscheduledbasis.NeitherdoesArticle1732distinguishbetweenacarrierofferingitsservicestothegeneral
public,i.e.,thegeneralcommunityorpopulation,andonewhooffersservicesorsolicitsbusinessonlyfromanarrowsegmentofthe
generalpopulation.WethinkthatArticle1733deliberatelyrefrainedfrommakingsuchdistinctions.

Same;Same;Same;TheconceptofcommoncarrierunderArt.1732coincideswiththenotionofPublicServiceunderthePublic
ServiceAct(CANo.1416).Sounderstood,theconceptofcommoncarrierunderArticle1732maybeseentocoincideneatlywiththe
notionofpublicservice,underthePublicServiceAct(CommonwealthActNo.1416,asamended)whichatleastpartiallysupplementsthe
lawoncommoncarrierssetforthintheCivilCode.UnderSection13,paragraph(b)ofthePublicServiceAct,publicserviceincludes:x
xxeverypersonthatnoworhereaftermayown,operate,manage,orcontrolinthePhilippines,forhireorcompensation,withgeneralor
limitedclientele,whetherpermanent,occasionaloraccidental,anddoneforgeneralbusinesspurposes,anycommoncarrier,railroad,street
railway,tractionrailway,subwaymotorvehicle,eitherforfreightorpassenger,orboth,withorwithoutfixedrouteandwhatevermaybeits
classification,freightorcarrierserviceofanyclass,expressservice,steamboat,orsteamshipline,pontines,ferriesandwatercraft,engaged
inthetransportationofpassengersorfreightorboth,shipyard,marinerepairshop,wharfordock,iceplant,icerefrigerationplant,canal,
irrigationsystem,gas,electriclight,heatandpower,watersupplyandpowerpetroleum,seweragesystem,wireorwirelesscommunications
systems,wireorwirelessbroadcastingstationsandothersimilarpublicservices.xxx.

Same;Same;Same;Same;AcertificateofpublicconvenienceisnotarequisitefortheincurringofliabilityundertheCivilCodeprovisions
governingcommoncarriers.TheCourtofAppealsreferredtothefactthatprivaterespondentheldnocertificateofpublicconvenience,and
concludedhewasnotacommoncarrier.Thisispalpableerror.Acertificateofpublicconvenienceisnotarequisitefortheincurringof
liabilityundertheCivilCodeprovisionsgoverningcommoncarriers.Thatliabilityarisesthemomentapersonorfirmactsasacommon
carrier,withoutregardtowhetherornotsuchcarrierhasalsocompliedwiththerequirementsoftheapplicableregulatorystatuteand
implementingregulationsandhasbeengrantedacertificateofpublicconvenienceorotherfranchise.Toexemptprivaterespondentfromthe
liabilitiesofacommoncarrierbecausehehasnotsecuredthenecessarycertificateofpublicconvenience,wouldbeoffensivetosoundpublic
policy;thatwouldbetorewardprivaterespondentpreciselyforfailingtocomplywithapplicablestatutoryrequirements.Thebusinessofa
commoncarrierimpingesdirectlyandintimatelyuponthesafetyandwellbeingandpropertyofthosemembersofthegeneralcommunity
whohappentodealwithsuchcarrier.Thelawimposesdutiesandliabilitiesuponcommoncarriersforthesafetyandprotectionofthosewho
utilizetheirservicesandthelawcannotallowacommoncarriertorendersuchdutiesandliabilitiesmerelyfacultativebysimplyfailingto
obtainthenecessarypermitsandauthorizations.

Same; Same; Same; Liability of common carriers in case of loss, destruction or deterioration or destruction of goods they carry;
Extraordinarydiligence,required;Exceptions.Commoncarriers,bythenatureoftheirbusinessandforreasonsofpublicpolicy,are
heldtoaveryhighdegreeofcareanddiligence(extraordinarydiligence)inthecarriageofgoodsaswellasofpassengers.Thespecific
importofextraordinarydiligenceinthecareofgoodstransportedbyacommoncarrieris,accordingtoArticle1733,furtherexpressedin
Articles1734,1735and1745,numbers5,6and7oftheCivilCode.Article1734establishesthegeneralrulethatcommoncarriersare
responsiblefortheloss,destructionordeteriorationofthegoodswhichtheycarry,unlessthesameisduetoanyofthefollowingcauses
only:(1)Flood,storm,earthquake,lightning,orothernaturaldisasterorcalamity;(2)Actofthepublicenemyinwar,whetherinternational
orcivil;(3)Actoromissionoftheshipperorownerofthegoods;(4)Thecharacterofthegoodsordefectsinthepackingorinthe
containers;and(5)Orderoractofcompetentpublicauthority.Itisimportanttopointoutthattheabovelistofcausesofloss,destructionor
deteriorationwhichexemptthecommoncarrierforresponsibilitytherefor,isaclosedlist.Causesfallingoutsidetheforegoinglist,evenif
theyappeartoconstituteaspeciesofforcemajeure,fallwithinthescopeofArticle1735.

Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Thehijackingofthecarrierstruckdoesnotfallwithinanyofthefive(5)categoriesofexemptingcausesin
Art.1734.ApplyingtheabovequotedArticles1734and1735,wenotefirstlythatthespecificcauseallegedintheinstantcasethe
hijackingofthecarrierstruckdoesnotfallwithinanyofthefive(5)categoriesofexemptingcauseslistedinArticle1734.Itwould
follow,therefore,thatthehijackingofthecarriersvehiclemustbedealtwithundertheprovisionsofArticle1735,inotherwords,thatthe
privaterespondentascommoncarrierispresumedtohavebeenatfaultortohaveactednegligently.Thispresumption,however,maybe
overthrownbyproofofextraordinarydiligenceonthepartofprivaterespondent.

Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;UnderArt.1745(6),acommoncarrierisheldresponsibleevenforactsofstrangerslikethievesor
robbersexceptwheresuchthievesorrobbersactedwithgraveorirresistiblethreat,violenceorforce.Asnotedearlier,thedutyofex
traordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceovergoodsis,underArticle1733,givenadditionalspecificationnotonlybyArticles1734and1735but
alsobyArticle1745,numbers4,5and6.Article1745providesinrelevantpart:Anyofthefollowingorsimilarstipulationsshallbe
consideredunreasonable,unjustandcontrarytopublicpolicy:xxxxxxxxx(5)thatthecommoncarriershallnotberesponsiblefortheacts
oromissionsofhisoritsemployees;(6)thatthecommoncarriersliabilityforactscommittedbythieves,orofrobberswhodonotactwith
graveorirresistiblethreat,violenceorforce,isdispensedwithordiminished;and(7)thatthecommoncarriershallnotresponsibleforthe
loss,destructionordeteriorationofgoodsonaccountofthedefectiveconditionofthecar,vehicle,ship,airplaneorotherequipmentusedin
thecontractofcarriage.UnderArticle1745(6)above,acommoncarrierisheldresponsibleandwillnotbeallowedtodivestortodiminish
suchresponsibilityevenforactsofstrangerslikethievesorrobbers,exceptwheresuchthievesorrobbersinfactactedwithgraveor
irresistiblethreat,violenceorforce.Webelieveandsoholdthatthelimitsofthedutyofextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceoverthe
goodscarriedarereachedwherethegoodsarelostasaresultofarobberywhichisattendedbygraveorirresistiblethreat,violenceor
force.

Same;Same;Same;Same;Same;Commoncarriersarenotmadeabsoluteinsurersagainstallrisksoftravelandoftransportofgoodsand
arenotliableforfortuitousevents;Caseatbar.Inthesecircumstances,weholdthattheoccurrenceofthelossmustreasonablybe
regardedasquitebeyondthecontrolofthecommoncarrierandproperlyregardedasafortuitousevent.Itisnecessarytorecallthateven
commoncarriersarenotmadeabsoluteinsurersagainstallrisksoftravelandoftransportofgoods,andarenotheldliableforactsorevents
whichcannotbeforeseenorareinevitable,providedthattheyshallhavecompliedwiththerigorousstandardofextraordinarydiligence.We,
therefore,agreewiththeresultreachedbytheCourtofAppealsthatprivaterespondentCendaaisnotliableforthevalueoftheundelivered
merchandisewhichwaslostbecauseofanevententirelybeyondprivaterespondentscontrol.
 VIRGINESCALVOdoingbusinessunderthenameandstyleTRANSORIENTCONTAINERTERMINALSERVICES,INC.,
petitioner,vs.UCPBGENERALINSURANCECO.,INC.(formerlyAlliedGuaranteeIns.Co,Inc.),respondent.

CommonCarriers;CustomsBrokers;AcustomsbrokerisacommoncarriertheconceptofcommoncarrierunderArticle1732ofthe
CivilCodemaybeseentocoincidenearlywiththenotionofpublicservice,underthePublicServiceAct(CommonwealthActNo.1416)
whichatleastpartiallysupplementsthelawoncommoncarrierssetforthintheCivilCode.Petitionercontendsthatcontrarytothe
findingsofthetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppeals,sheisnotacommoncarrierbutaprivatecarrierbecause,asacustomsbrokerand
warehouseman,shedoesnotindiscriminatelyholdherservicesouttothepublicbutonlyoffersthesametoselectpartieswithwhomshe
maycontractintheconductofherbusiness.Thecontentionhasnomerit.InDeGuzmanv.CourtofAppeals,theCourtdismissedasimilar
contentionandheldthepartytobeacommoncarrier,thusTheCivilCodedefinescommoncarriersinthefollowingterms:Article
1732.Commoncarriersarepersons,corporations,firmsorassociationsengagedinthebusinessofcarryingortransportingpassengersor
goodsorboth,byland,water,orairforcompensation,offeringtheirservicestothepublic.Theabovearticlemakesnodistinctionbetween
onewhose principal businessactivityisthecarryingofpersonsorgoodsorboth,andonewhodoessuchcarryingonlyasan ancillary
activity...Article1732alsocarefullyavoidsmakinganydistinctionbetweenapersonorenterpriseofferingtransportationserviceona
regularorscheduledbasis andoneofferingsuchserviceonan occasional,episodicorunscheduledbasis. NeitherdoesArticle1732
distinguishbetweenacarrierofferingitsservicestothegeneralpublic,i.e.,thegeneralcommunityorpopulation,andonewhooffers
servicesorsolicitsbusinessonlyfromanarrowsegmentofthegeneralpopulation.WethinkthatArticle1732deliberatelyrefrainedfrom
makingsuchdistinctions.Sounderstood,theconceptofcommoncarrierunderArticle1732maybeseentocoincideneatlywiththenotion
ofpublicservice,underthePublicServiceAct(CommonwealthActNo.1416,asamended)whichatleastpartiallysupplementsthelaw
oncommoncarrierssetforthintheCivilCode.

Same;Same;Thereisgreaterreasonforholdingapersonwhoisacustomsbrokertobeacommoncarrierbecausethetransportationof
goodsisanintegralpartofherbusiness.Thereisgreaterreasonforholdingpetitionertobeacommoncarrierbecausethetransportationof
goodsisanintegralpartofherbusiness.Toupholdpetitionerscontentionwouldbetodeprivethosewithwhomshecontractstheprotection
whichthelawaffordsthemnotwithstandingthefactthattheobligationtocarrygoodsforhercustomers,asalreadynoted,ispartandparcel
ofpetitionersbusiness.

Same;Same;WordsandPhrases;ExtraordinaryDiligence,Explained;Commoncarriers,fromthenatureoftheirbusinessandfor
reasonsofpublicpolicy,areboundtoobserveextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceoverthegoodsandforthesafetyofthepassengers
transportedbythem,accordingtoallthecircumstancesofsuchcase.Astopetitionersliability,Art.1733oftheCivilCodeprovides:
Commoncarriers,fromthenatureoftheirbusinessandforreasonsofpublicpolicy,areboundtoobserveextraordinarydiligenceinthe
vigilanceoverthegoodsandforthesafetyofthepassengerstransportedbythem,accordingtoallthecircumstancesofeachcase....In
CompaniaMaritimav.CourtofAppeals,themeaningofextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceovergoodswasexplainedthus:The
extraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceoverthegoodstenderedforshipmentrequiresthecommoncarriertoknowandtofollowtherequired
precautionforavoidingdamageto,ordestructionofthegoodsentrustedtoitforsale,carriageanddelivery.Itrequirescommoncarriersto
renderservicewiththegreatestskillandforesightandtouseallreasonablemeanstoascertainthenatureandcharacteristicofgoods
tenderedforshipment,andtoexerciseduecareinthehandlingandstowage,includingsuchmethodsastheirnaturerequires.

Same;Same;Toprovetheexerciseofextraordinarydiligence,acustomsbrokermustdomorethanmerelyshowthepossibilitythatsome
otherpartycouldberesponsibleforthedamage.Anentpetitionersinsistencethatthecargocouldnothavebeendamagedwhileinher
custodyassheimmediatelydeliveredthecontainerstoSMCscompound,sufficeittosaythattoprovetheexerciseofextraordinary
diligence,petitionermustdomorethanmerelyshowthepossibilitythatsomeotherpartycouldberesponsibleforthedamage.Itmustprove
thatitusedallreasonablemeanstoascertainthenatureandcharacteristicofgoodstenderedfor[transport]andthat[it]exercise[d]duecare
inthehandling[thereof].Petitionerfailedtodothis.

Same;Same;Iftheimproperpackingorthedefectsinthecontainerareknowntothecarrierorhisemployeesorapparentuponordinary
observation,butheneverthelessacceptsthesamewithoutprotestorexceptionnotwithstandingsuchcondition,heisnotrelievedofliability
fordamageresultingtherefrom.Theruleisthatiftheimproperpackingor,inthiscase,thedefect/sinthecontainer,is/areknowntothe
carrierorhisemployeesorapparentuponordinaryobservation,butheneverthelessacceptsthesamewithoutprotestorexception
notwithstandingsuchcondition,heisnotrelievedofliabilityfordamageresultingtherefrom.Inthiscase,petitioneracceptedthecargo
withoutexceptiondespitetheapparentdefectsinsomeofthecontainervans.Hence,forfailureofpetitionertoprovethatsheexercised
extraordinarydiligenceinthecarriageofgoodsinthiscaseorthatsheisexemptfromliability,thepresumptionofnegligenceasprovided
underArt.1735holds.
 ASIALIGHTERAGEANDSHIPPING,INC.,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALSandPRUDENTIALGUARANTEEAND
ASSURANCE,INC.,respondents.

CivilLaw;Contracts;CommonCarriers;Definition.Thedefinitionof commoncarriers inArticle1732oftheCivilCodemakesno

distinctionbetweenonewhoseprincipalbusinessactivityisthecarryingofpersonsorgoodsorboth,andonewhodoessuchcarryingonlyas
anancillaryactivity.Wealsodidnotdistinguishbetweenapersonorenterpriseofferingtransportationserviceonaregularorscheduled
basisandoneofferingsuchserviceonanoccasional,episodicorunscheduledbasis.Further,weruledthatArticle1732doesnotdistinguish
betweenacarrierofferingitsservicestothegeneralpublic,andonewhooffersservicesorsolicitsbusinessonlyfromanarrowsegmentof
thegeneralpopulation.

Same;Same;Same;Determinationofacommoncarrier.Thetesttodetermineacommoncarrieriswhetherthegivenundertakingisa
partofthebusinessengagedinbythecarrierwhichhehasheldouttothegeneralpublicashisoccupationratherthanthequantityorextent
ofthebusinesstransacted.

Same;Same;Same;PresumptionofNegligence;Commoncarriersarepresumedtohavebeenatfaultortohaveactednegligentlyifthe
goodsarelost,destroyedordeteriorated.Commoncarriersareboundtoobserveextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceoverthegoods
transportedbythem.Theyarepresumedtohavebeenatfaultortohaveactednegligentlyifthegoodsarelost,destroyedordeteriorated.To
overcomethepresumptionofnegligenceinthecaseofloss,destructionordeteriorationofthegoods,thecommoncarriermustprovethatit
exercisedextraordinarydiligence.Thereare,however,exceptionstothisrule.Article1734oftheCivilCodeenumeratestheinstanceswhen
thepresumptionofnegligencedoesnotattach.
FIRSTPHILIPPINEINDUSTRIALCORPORATION,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALS,HONORABLEPATERNOV.TAC
AN,BATANGASCITYandADORACIONC.ARELLANO,inherofficialcapacityasCityTreasurerofBatangas,respondents.

Contracts;CommonCarriers;Acommoncarrierisonewhoholdshimselfouttothepublicasengagedinthebusinessoftransporting
personsorpropertyfromplacetoplace,forcompensation,offeringhisservicestothepublicgenerally.Thereismeritinthepetition.A
commoncarriermaybedefined,broadly,asonewhoholdshimselfouttothepublicasengagedinthebusinessoftransportingpersonsor
propertyfromplacetoplace,forcompensation,offeringhisservicestothepublicgenerally.Article1732oftheCivilCodedefinesa
commoncarrierasanyperson,corporation,firmorassociationengagedinthebusinessofcarryingortransportingpassengersorgoodsor
both,byland,water,orair,forcompensation,offeringtheirservicestothepublic.

Same;Same;Testfordeterminingwhetherapartyisacommoncarrierofgoods.Thetestfordeterminingwhetherapartyisacommon
carrierofgoodsis:1.Hemustbeengagedinthebusinessofcarryinggoodsforothersasapublicemployment,andmustholdhimselfoutas
readytoengageinthetransportationofgoodsforpersongenerallyasabusinessandnotasacasualoccupation;2.Hemustundertaketo
carrygoodsofthekindtowhichhisbusinessisconfined;3.Hemustundertaketocarrybythemethodbywhichhisbusinessisconducted
andoverhisestablishedroads;and4.Thetransportationmustbeforhire.

Same;Same;Thefactthatpetitionerhasalimitedclienteledoesnotexcludeitfromthedefinitionofacommoncarrier .Basedonthe
abovedefinitionsandrequirements,thereisnodoubtthatpetitionerisacommoncarrier.Itisengagedinthebusinessoftransportingor
carryinggoods,i.e.petroleumproducts,forhireasapublicemployment.Itundertakestocarryforallpersonsindifferently,thatis,toall
personswhochoosetoemployitsservices,andtransportsthegoodsbylandandforcompensation.Thefactthatpetitionerhasalimited
clienteledoesnotexcludeitfromthedefinitionofacommoncarrier.

Same; Same; Words and Phrases; The definition of common carriers in the Civil Code makes no distinction as to the means of
transporting,aslongasitisbyland,waterorair.Ascorrectlypointedoutbypetitioner,thedefinitionofcommoncarriersintheCivil
Codemakesnodistinctionastothemeansoftransporting,aslongasitisbyland,waterorair.Itdoesnotprovidethatthetransportationof
thepassengersorgoodsshouldbebymotorvehicle.Infact,intheUnitedStates,oilpipelineoperatorsareconsideredcommoncarriers.

Same;Same;Taxation;Legislativeintentinexcludingfromthetaxingpowerofthelocalgovernmentunittheimpositionofbusinesstax
againstcommoncarriersistopreventaduplicationofthesocalledcommoncarrierstax.Itisclearthatthelegislativeintentin
excludingfromthetaxingpowerofthelocalgovernmentunittheimpositionofbusinesstaxagainstcommoncarriersistopreventa
duplicationofthesocalledcommoncarrierstax.Petitionerisalreadypayingthree(3%)percentcommoncarrierstaxonitsgross
sales/earningsundertheNationalInternalRevenueCode.Totaxpetitioneragainonitsgrossreceiptsinitstransportationofpetroleum
businesswoulddefeatthepurposeoftheLocalGovernmentCode.
 PHILIPPINEAMERICANGENERALINSURANCECOMPANY,petitioner,vs.PKSSHIPPINGCOMPANY,respondent.

CommonCarriers;Actions;Appeals;QuestionsofFact;QuestionsofLaw;WordsandPhrases;Conclusionsderivedfromfactualfindings
arenotnecessarilyjustmattersoffactaswhentheyaresolinkedto,orinextricablyintertwinedwith,arequisiteappreciationofthe
applicablelaw,inwhichinstance,theconclusionsmadecouldwellberaisedasbeingappropriateissuesinapetitionforreviewbeforethe
SupremeCourt;Anissuewhetheracarrierisprivateorcommononthebasisofthefactsfoundbyatrialcourtortheappellatecourtcanbe
avalidandreviewablequestionoflaw.ThefindingsoffactmadebytheCourtofAppeals,particularlywhensuchfindingsareconsistent
withthoseofthetrialcourt,maynotatlibertybereviewedbythisCourtinapetitionforreviewunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.The
conclusions derived from those factual findings, however, are not necessarily just matters of fact as when they are so linked to, or
inextricablyintertwinedwith,arequisiteappreciationoftheapplicablelaw.Insuchinstances,theconclusionsmadecouldwellberaisedas
beingappropriateissuesinapetitionforreviewbeforethisCourt.Thus,anissuewhetheracarrierisprivateorcommononthebasisofthe
factsfoundbyatrialcourtortheappellatecourtcanbeavalidandreviewablequestionoflaw.

Same;Article1732oftheCivilCodecarefullyavoidsmakinganydistinctionbetweenapersonorenterpriseofferingtransportationservice
ona regularor scheduledbasis andone offeringsuch serviceon anoccasional, episodic orunscheduled basis, andneither doesit
distinguishbetweenacarrierofferingitsservicestothegeneralpublic,i.e.,thegeneralcommunityorpopulation,andonewhooffers
services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population.The prevailing doctrine on the question is that
enunciatedintheleadingcaseofDeGuzmanvs.CourtofAppealsApplyingArticle1732oftheCode,inconjunctionwithSection13(b)of
thePublicServiceAct,thisCourthasheld:Theabovearticlemakesnodistinctionbetweenonewhoseprincipalbusinessactivityisthe
carryingofpersonsorgoodsorboth,andonewhodoessuchcarryingonlyasanancillaryactivity(inlocalidiom,asasideline).Article
1732alsocarefullyavoidsmakinganydistinctionbetweenapersonorenterpriseofferingtransportationserviceona regularorscheduled
basisandoneofferingsuchserviceonanoccasional,episodicorunscheduledbasis.NeitherdoesArticle1732distinguishbetweenacarrier
offeringitsservicestothegeneralpublic,i.e.,thegeneralcommunityorpopulation,andonewhooffersservicesorsolicitsbusinessonly
froma narrowsegment ofthegeneralpopulation.WethinkthatArticle1732deliberatelyrefrainedfrommakingsuchdistinctions.So
understood,theconceptofcommoncarrierunderArticle1732maybeseentocoincideneatlywiththenotionofpublicservice,underthe
PublicServiceAct(CommonwealthActNo.1416,asamended)whichatleastpartiallysupplementsthelawoncommoncarrierssetforthin
theCivilCode.

Same;WordsandPhrases;Muchofthedistinctionbetweenacommonorpubliccarrierandaprivateorspecialcarrierliesinthe
characterofthebusiness,suchthatiftheundertakingisanisolatedtransaction,notapartofthebusinessoroccupation,andthecarrier
doesnotholditselfouttocarrythegoodsforthegeneralpublicortoalimitedclientele,althoughinvolvingthecarriageofgoodsforafee,
thepersonorcorporationprovidingsuchservicecouldverywellbejustaprivatecarrier;Theconceptofacommoncarrierdoesnotchange
merelybecauseindividualcontractsareexecutedorenteredintowithpatronsofthecarriersuchrestrictiveinterpretationwouldmakeit
easyforacommoncarriertoescapeliabilitybythesimpleexpedientofenteringintothosedistinctagreementswithclients. Muchofthe
distinctionbetweenacommonorpubliccarrierandaprivateorspecialcarrierliesinthecharacterofthebusiness,suchthatifthe
undertakingisanisolatedtransaction,notapartofthebusinessoroccupation,andthecarrierdoesnotholditselfouttocarrythegoodsfor
thegeneralpublicortoalimitedclientele,althoughinvolvingthecarriageofgoodsforafee,thepersonorcorporationprovidingsuch
servicecouldverywellbejustaprivatecarrier.Atypicalcaseisthatofacharterpartywhichincludesboththevesselanditscrew,suchas
inabareboatordemise,wherethechartererobtainstheuseandserviceofallorsomepartofashipforaperiodoftimeoravoyageor
voyagesandgetsthecontrolofthevesselanditscrew.Contrarytotheconclusionmadebytheappellatecourt,itsfactualfindingsindicate
thatPKSShippinghasengageditselfinthebusinessofcarryinggoodsforothers,althoughforalimitedclientele,undertakingtocarrysuch
goodsforafee.Theregularityofitsactivitiesinthisareaindicatesmorethanjustacasualactivityonitspart.Neithercantheconceptofa
common carrier change merely because individual contracts are executed or entered into with patrons of the carrier. Such restrictive
interpretationwouldmakeiteasyforacommoncarriertoescapeliabilitybythesimpleexpedientofenteringintothosedistinctagreements
withclients.

Same;ExtraordinaryDiligence;Article1733oftheCivilCoderequirescommoncarrierstoobserveextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilance
overthegoodstheycarry.AddressingnowtheissueofwhetherornotPKSShippinghasexercisedtheproperdiligencedemandedof
commoncarriers,Article1733oftheCivilCoderequirescommoncarrierstoobserveextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceoverthegoods
theycarry.Incaseofloss,destructionordeteriorationofgoods,commoncarriersarepresumedtohavebeenatfaultortohaveacted
negligently,andtheburdenofprovingotherwiserestsonthem.TheprovisionsofArticle1733,notwithstanding,commoncarriersare
exemptfromliabilityforloss,destruction,ordeteriorationofthegoodsduetoanyofthefollowingcauses:(1)Flood,storm,earthquake,
lightning,orothernaturaldisasterorcalamity;(2)Actofthepublicenemyinwar,whetherinternationalorcivil;(3)Actoromissionofthe
shipperorownerofthegoods;(4)Thecharacterofthegoodsordefectsinthepackingorinthecontainers;and(5)Orderoractofcompetent
publicauthority.
Evidence;Appeals;FindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppealsgenerallyconcludetheSupremeCourt;Exceptions.Findingsoffactofthe
CourtofAppealsgenerallyconcludethisCourt;noneoftherecognizedexceptionsfromtherule(1)whenthefactualfindingsoftheCourt
of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory; (2) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or
conjectures;(3)whentheinferencemadebytheCourtofAppealsfromitsfindingsoffactismanifestlymistaken,absurd,orimpossible;(4)
whenthereisagraveabuseofdiscretionintheappreciationoffacts;(5)whentheappellatecourt,inmakingitsfindings,wentbeyondthe
issuesofthecaseandsuchfindingsarecontrarytotheadmissionsofbothappellantandappellee;(6)whenthejudgmentoftheCourtof
Appealsispremisedonamisapprehensionoffacts;(7)whentheCourtofAppealsfailedtonoticecertainrelevantfactswhich,ifproperly
considered,wouldjustifyadifferentconclusion;(8)whenthefindingsoffactarethemselvesconflicting;(9)whenthefindingsoffactare
conclusionswithoutcitationofthespecificevidenceonwhichtheyarebased;and(10)whenthefindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppealsare
premisedontheabsenceofevidencebutsuchfindingsarecontradictedbytheevidenceonrecordwouldappeartobeclearlyextantinthis
instance.

SANMIGUELCORPORATION,petitioner,vs.HEIRSOFSABINIANOINGUITO,andJULIUSOUANO,respondents.
G.R.No.142025.July4,2002.
JULIUSC.OUANO,petitioner,vs.THECOURTOFAPPEALS,SANMIGUELCORPORATIONandTHEHEIRSOF
SABINIANOINGIUTO,FELIPEPUSA,ABUNDIOGALON,ISIDROCELETARIA,GILBERTGONZAGA,HENRYCABIGAS,
RAFAELMACAIRAN,ROGELIOMORENO,PETERABAYON,SIMEONASENTISTA,NORMANLOON,EUGENIO
GESTOPA,CHRISTOPHERSAVELLON,GEORGEBASILGO,RAMILPABAYO,FLAVIANOWABENA,NESTOR
GESTOPA,respondents.

CommercialLaw;CarriageofGoodsbySeaAct;CharterParty;ContractofAffreightment;Acharterpartyisacontractbyvirtueofwhich
theownerortheagentofavesselbindshimselftotransportmerchandiseorpersonsforafixedprice;Inacontractofaffreightment,the
ownerofthevesselleasespartorallofitsspacetohaulgoodsforothers.Preliminarily,acharterpartyisacontractbyvirtueofwhichthe
ownerortheagentofavesselbindshimselftotransportmerchandiseorpersonsforafixedprice.Ithasalsobeendefinedasacontractby
virtueofwhichtheownerortheagentofthevesselleasesforacertainpricethewholeoraportionofthevesselforthetransportationof
goodsorpersonsfromoneporttoanother.Acharterpartymayeitherbea(1)bareboatordemisecharteror(2)contractofaffreightment.
Underademiseorbareboatcharter,thecharterermansthevesselwithhisownpeopleandbecomes,ineffect,theowneroftheshipforthe
voyageorservicestipulated,subjecttoliabilityfordamagescausedbynegligence.Inacontractofaffreightment,ontheotherhand,the
ownerofthevesselleasespartorallofitsspacetohaulgoodsforothers.Itisacontractforspecialservicetoberenderedbytheownerof
thevessel.Undersuchcontracttheshipownerretainsthepossession,commandandnavigationoftheship,thechartererorfreightermerely
havinguseofthespaceinthevesselinreturnforhispaymentofthecharterhire.Otherwiseput,acontractofaffreightmentisonebywhich
theownerofashiporothervesselletsthewholeorpartofhertoamerchantorotherpersonfortheconveyanceofgoods,onaparticular
voyage,inconsiderationofthepaymentoffreight.

Same;Same;Same;Same;Foravesseltobeseaworthy,itmustbeadequatelyequippedforthevoyageandmannedwithasufficientnumber
ofcompetentofficersandcrew.Foravesseltobeseaworthy,itmustbeadequatelyequippedforthevoyageandmannedwithasufficient
numberofcompetentofficersandcrew.Seaworthinessisdefinedasthesufficiencyofthevesselinmaterials,construction,equipment,
officers,men,andoutfit,forthetradeorserviceinwhichitisemployed.Itincludesthefitnessofashipforaparticularvoyagewith
referencetoitsphysicalandmechanicalcondition,theextentofitsfuelandprovisionssupply,thequalityofitsofficersandcrew,andits
adaptabilityforthetimeofvoyageproposed.

CivilLaw;Negligence;Damages;Presumptionofvicariousliabilitymaybeovercomeonlybysatisfactorilyshowingthattheemployer
exercisedthecareandthediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilyintheselectionandthesupervisionofitsemployee.Welikewiseagree
withtheCourtofAppealsthatOuanoisvicariouslyliableforthenegligentactsofhisemployee,CaptainInguito.UnderArticles2176and
2180oftheCivilCode,ownersandmanagersareresponsiblefordamagescausedbythenegligenceofaservantoranemployee,themaster
oremployerispresumedtobenegligenteitherintheselectionorinthesupervisionofthatemployee.Thispresumptionmaybeovercome
onlybysatisfactorilyshowingthattheemployerexercisedthecareandthediligenceofagoodfatherofafamilyintheselectionandthe
supervisionofitsemployee.

RemedialLaw;Appeals;FindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppealsareconclusiveandnotreviewablebythecourt,exceptions.Settledisthe
rulethatfindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppealsareconclusiveandarenotreviewablebythisCourt,unlessthecasefallsunderanyofthe
recognizedexceptions,suchas:(1)whentheconclusionisafindinggroundedentirelyonspeculation,surmisesandconjectures;(2)when
theinferencemadeismanifestlymistaken,absurdorimpossible;(3)wherethereisagraveabuseofdiscretion;(4)whenthejudgmentis
basedonamisapprehensionoffacts;(5)whenthefindingsoffactareconflicting;(6)whentheCourtofAppeals,inmakingitsfindings,
wentbeyondtheissuesofthecaseandthesameiscontrarytotheadmissionsofbothappellantandappellee;(7)whenthefindingsare
contrarytothoseofthetrialcourt;(8)whenthefindingsoffactareconclusionswithoutcitationofspecificevidenceonwhichtheyare
based;(9)whenthefactssetforthinthepetitionaswellasinthepetitionersmainandreplybriefsarenotdisputedbytherespondents;and
(10)whenthefindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppealsarepremisedonthesupposedabsenceofevidenceandcontradictedbytheevidenceon
record.Noneoftheseexceptionsobtaininthecaseatbar.
 PLANTERSPRODUCTS,INC.,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALS,SORIAMONTSTEAMSHIPAGENCIESANDKYOSEI
KISENKABUSHIKIKAISHA,respondents.

WordsandPhrases;Shipping;CharterPartydefined.Acharterpartyisdefinedasacontractbywhichanentireship,orsome
principalpartthereof,isletbytheownertoanotherpersonforaspecifiedtimeoruse;acontractofaffreightmentbywhichtheownerofa
shiporothervesselletsthewholeorapartofhertoamerchantorotherpersonfortheconveyanceofgoods,onaparticularvoyage,in
considerationofthepaymentoffreight;Charterpartiesareoftwotypes:(a)contractofaffreightmentwhichinvolvestheuseofshipping
spaceonvesselsleasedbytheownerinpartorasawhole,tocarrygoodsforothers;and,(b)charterbydemiseorbareboatcharter,bythe
termsofwhichthewholevesselislettothechartererwithatransfertohimofitsentirecommandandpossessionandconsequentcontrol
overitsnavigation,includingthemasterandthecrew,whoarehisservants.Contractofaffreightmentmayeitherbetimecharter,wherein
thevesselisleasedtothechartererforafixedperiodoftime,orvoyagecharter,whereintheshipisleasedforasinglevoyage.Inbothcases,
thecharterpartyprovidesforthehireofthevesselonly,eitherforadeterminateperiodoftimeorforasingleorconsecutivevoyage,the
shipownertosupplytheshipsstores,payforthewagesofthemasterandthecrew,anddefraytheexpensesforthemaintenanceoftheship.

Same;Same;CommonCarrierdefined.Upontheotherhand,thetermcommonorpubliccarrierisdefinedinArt.1732oftheCivil
Code.Thedefinitionextendstocarrierseitherbyland,airorwaterwhichholdthemselvesoutasreadytoengageincarryinggoodsor
transporting passengers or both for compensation as a public employment and not as a casual occupation. The distinction between a
commonorpubliccarrierandaprivateorspecialcarrierliesinthecharacterofthebusiness,suchthatiftheundertakingisasingle
transaction,notapartofthegeneralbusinessoroccupation,althoughinvolvingthecarriageofgoodsforafee,thepersonorcorporation
offeringsuchserviceisaprivatecarrier.

Shipping; Transportation; Evidence; Common carriers required to observe extraordinary diligence and presumed at fault; no such
presumptionappliestoprivatecarriers.Article1733oftheNewCivilCodemandatesthatcommoncarriers,byreasonofthenatureof
theirbusiness,shouldobserveextraordinarydiligenceinthevigilanceoverthegoodstheycarry.Inthecaseofprivatecarriers,however,the
exerciseofordinarydiligenceinthecarriageofgoodswillsuffice.Moreover,incaseofloss,destructionordeteriorationofthegoods,
commoncarriersarepresumedtohavebeenatfaultortohaveactednegligently,andtheburdenofprovingotherwiserestsonthem.Onthe
contrary,nosuchpresumptionappliestoprivatecarriers,forwhosoeverallegesdamagetoordeteriorationofthegoodscarriedhastheonus
ofprovingthatthecausewasthenegligenceofthecarrier.

Same;Same;Same;Inatimeorvoyagecharter,incontrasttoabareboatcharter,theshipremainsacommonorpubliccarrier.Itis
thereforeimperativethatapubliccarriershallremainassuch,notwithstandingthecharterofthewholeorportionofavesselbyoneormore
persons,providedthecharterislimitedtotheshiponly,asinthecaseofatimecharterorvoyagecharter.Itisonlywhenthecharterincludes
boththevesselanditscrew,asinabareboatordemisethatacommoncarrierbecomesprivate,atleastinsofarastheparticularvoyage
coveringthecharterpartyisconcerned.Indubitably,ashipownerinatimeorvoyagecharterretainspossessionandcontroloftheship,
althoughherholdsmay,forthemoment,bethepropertyofthecharterer.

Same;Same;Same;Inthecommoncarriageofhighlysolublegoods,likefertilizer,itistheshipperorownerofthegoodsthatcommonly
faceriskoflossordamage.Indeed,weagreewithrespondentcarrierthatbulkshipmentofhighlysolublegoodslikefertilizercarrieswith
ittheriskoflossordamage.Moreso,withavariableweatherconditionprevalentduringitsunloading,aswasthecaseatbar.Thisisarisk
theshipperortheownerofthegoodshastoface.Clearly,respondentcarrierhassufficientlyprovedtheinherentcharacterofthegoods
whichmakesithighlyvulnerabletodeterioration;aswellastheinadequacyofitspackagingwhichfurthercontributedtotheloss.Onthe
otherhand,noproofwasadducedbythepetitionershowingthatthecarrierwasremissintheexerciseofduediligenceinordertominimize
thelossordamagetothegoodsitcarried.