United States vs.
Quinajon for 6 cents per package whether heavy or light, large or small
FACTS:
1. Quinajon et al were charged with a violation of the provisions of Act
No. 98.
2. 11/11/12: A complaint was presented in the court of the justice of the
peace. A preliminary examination was had and they were held for
trial in CFI Ilocos. The allegations are:
The accused are engaged in the transportation of
passengers and merchandise in the port of Currimao by
means of virayes for 4 years + (FOR 6 CENTAVOS).
June/July/1912: The accused unload in the port of Currimao
5,986 sacks of rice belonging to the provincial government of
Ilocos Norte. Upon arrival in Manila, the sacks were unloaded
and carried to the storage warehouses for deposit.
(DEMANDED PAYMENT FOR 10 CENTS FOR EACH SACK
FROM THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER)
The total sum of the payments amounted to P598.60 for the
aforesaid 5,986 sacks of rice. Hence, the provincial
government was damaged in the sum of 359.16, inasmuch
as it should have paid only 239.44, in accordance with the
said rate of 6 centavos for each package.
3. QUIJANO ET.AL ARE GUILTY: Pay a fine of $100 (P200) and costs
and to return to the provincial government of the Province of Ilocos
Norte the sum of P359.16.
ISSUE: Did Quijano et al violate the provisions of Act No. 98 of the Civil
Commission?
HELD:
AS TO THE CHARGE OF THE PACKAGE:
Chinese merchants were presented who testified that they paid to
the 6 cents for loading and unloading supplies from the steamers at
Currimao for each package of any kind of supplies, large or small,
heavy or light.
At first, they paid transportation charges for the loading and
discharge of their supplies from the steamers according to the weight
and size of each package. Thereafter one of the witnesses stated
that 10 centavos was paid for the transportation of each sack of rice
weighing 60 kilos or more. However, they came to an agreement
for convenience. (SPECIAL CONTRACT)
From other merchants with whom they had not made said special
contract, as well as the Province of Ilocos Norte, they collected a
different rate. (IN THIS CASE, 10 cents from the month of
June/July)
AS TO THE PREFENTIAL PRIVILEGES:
LOWER COURT:
o The defendants charged and collected from
some shippers and merchants, a certain price for each
package of merchandise according to a certain schedule.
(PRICES DEPENDED UPON THE WEIGHT OF THE
PACKAGE)
o The defendants entered into a special contract
with certain merchants, under and by virtue of the terms of
which they charged and collected, for loading merchandise in
said port, the sum of 6 centavos for each package, without
reference to its size or weight.
Act No. 98: An Act to regulate commerce in the Philippine
Islands (PLEASE SEE THE LAW, HABA EH). Its purpose is to
compel common carriers to render to all persons exactly the
same or analogous service for exactly the same price to the end
that there may be no unjust advantage or unreasonable
discrimination. It applies to persons or corporation engaged
as common carriers of passengers or property.
SUMMARY OF THE LAW:
The law prohibits any common carrier from making or giving any
unnecessary or unreasonable preference or advantage to any:
o particular person, company, firm, corporation or locality
o any particular kind of traffic
o to subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation,
or locality, or any particular kind of traffic to any undue or
unreasonable prejudice or discrimination.
The law does not require that the same charge shall be made for the
carrying of passengers or property, unless all the conditions are alike
and contemporaneous. (NOT PROHIBITED FROM CHARGING
DIFFERENT RATES WHEN THE ACTUAL COST OF HANDLING
AND TRANSPORTING IS DIFFERENT)
 The law did not intend to require common carriers to carry the same
kind of merchandise, even at the same price, under different and
unlike conditions and where the actual cost is different.
The law did not prohibit the charging of a different price for handling
and shipping merchandise when the shipper exercises greater care
in preparing the same for shipment. (IT MUST BE BASED UPON
THE ACTUAL COST OF HANDLING AND TRANSPORTING)
The law does not require common carriers to perform different
services for the same price, unless the actual cost is the same. It is
when the price charged is for the purpose of favoring persons or
localities or particular kinds of merchandise, that the law intervenes
and prohibits. (FAVORITISM AND DISCRIMINATION ANG
PROHIBITED!)
The actual cost may depend upon quantity. The actual cost of
each shipment must necessarily depend upon and be settled by
its own proof. A common carrier may discriminate between
shippers when the amount of goods shipped by one actually
costs less to handle and transport, but he cannot discriminate
upon the ground simply that he carries all of the goods of one
shipper, while he does not carry all of the goods of another.

IN THIS CASE, there was a clear discrimination against the province!

The law does not require absolute equality in all cases. It is only
unjust, undue, and unreasonable discrimination which the law
forbids. The law of equality is in force only where the services
performed in the different cases are substantially the same, and the
circumstances and conditions are similar.
Many considerations may properly enter into the agreement for the
carriage or shipment rate, such as the quantity carried, its nature,
its risks, the expense of carriage at different periods of time,
and the like.
DEFENDANTS should be required to return to the province the
excess which they collected, or the sum of P239.44.