Pedro de Guzman v. Court of AppealsG.R. No.

L-47822, December 22,

1988PARTIES:
Pedro de Guzman, petitionerCourt of Appeals and Ernesto Cendana, respondents
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
Breach of the contract to carryExtraordinary diligence needed over common carriers
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS:
Ernesto Cendana was engaged in buying up used bottles
a n d s c r a p m e t a l i n Pangasinan. Upon gathering sufficient quantities
of such scrap material, respondentwould bring such material to Manila for
resale. He utilized (2) two six-wheeler trucksw h i c h h e o w n e d f o r t h e
purpose. Upon returning to Pangasinan, he would load
hisvehicle with cargo belonging to different merchants to different es
t a b l i s h m e n t s i n Pangasisnan which respondents charged a freight fee for. Sometime
in November 1970,herein petitioner Pedro de Guzman, a merchant and dealer
of General Milk
CompanyI n c . i n P a n g a s i n a n c o n t r a c t e d w i t h r e s p o n d e n t f o r h a u l
i n g 7 5 0 c a r t o n s o f m i l k . Unfortunately, only 150 cartons made it, as the
other 600 cartons were intercepted
byh i j a c k e r s a l o n g M a r c o s H i g h w a y . H e n c e , p e t i t i o n e r s c o m m e n c e d a
n a c t i o n a g a i n s t private respondent. In his defense, respondent argued that he
cannot be held liable duet o f o r c e m a j u e r e , a n d t h a t h e i s n o t a c o m m o n
c a r r i e r a n d h e n c e i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o exercise extraordinary diligence. On
appeal before the Court of Appeals, Cendana urgedthat the trial court had erred in
considering him a common carrier; in finding that hehad habitually offered
trucking services to the public; in not exempting him from liabilityon the ground of
force majeure; and in ordering him to pay damages and attorneysf e e s . T h e
Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and held
thatC e n d a n a h a d b e e n e n g a g e d i n t r a n s p o r t i n g r e t u r n l o a d s o f
f r e i g h t a s a c a s u a l occupation a sideline to his scrap iron business
and not as a common carrier. DeGuzman came to the Supreme Court by way of a
Petition for Review.
ISSUES:
1. Is respondent a common carrier?2. Is the respondent liable for the loss of the cartons
of milk due to force majeure?
ARGUMENTS:
1. Herein respondent is considered as a common carrier.Article 1732 of the
New Civil Code avoids any distinction between one whose principalbusiness
activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both and one who does
suchcarrying only as an ancillary activity. It also avoids a distinction between
a person
ore n t e r p r i s e o f f e r i n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s o n a r e g u l a r o r s c h e d u l e
d b a s i s a n d o n e offering such services on an occasional, episodic, and unscheduled
basis.2 . R e s p o n d e n t i s n o t l i a b l e f o r t h e v a l u e o f t h e u n d e l i v e r e d
merchandise.A r t i c l e 1 7 3 4 o f t h e C i v i l C o d e - T h e g e n e r a l r u l e i s
e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e a r t i c l e t h a t common carriers are responsible
for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goodswhich they carry, unless the
same is due to any of the following causes only:a. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or
other natural disasters;b. Act of the public enemy, whether international or civil;c. Act or
omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;d. Character of the goods or defects in
the packing;e. Order or act of competent public authority.Applying the above article, we
note firstly that the specific cause alleged in the instantc a s e t h e h i j a c k i n g o f
t h e c a r r i e r ' s t r u c k d o e s n o t f a l l w i t h i n a n y o f t h e f i v e ( 5 ) categories of
exempting causes listed in Article 1734. It would follow; therefore, that thehijacking of
the carrier's vehicle must be dealt with under the provisions of Article 1735,in other
words, the private respondent as common carrier is presumed to have been atfault or
to have acted negligently. This presumption, however, may be overthrown
byproof of extraordinary diligence on the part of private
respondent.A r t i c l e 1 7 4 5 : A n y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g o r s i m i l a r s t i p
u l a t i o n s s h a l l b e c o n s i d e r e d unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public
policy:

xxx xxx xxx(5) that the common carrier shall not be responsible for theacts or
omissions of his or its employees;(6) that the common carrier's liability for acts
committed byt h i e v e s , o r o f r
obbers
w h o d o
not
act with
g r a v e o r irresistible
t
hreat, violence or force
, i s d i s p e n s e d w i t h o r diminished; and( 7 ) t h a t t h e c o m m o n c a r r i e r s h a l l
n o t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e loss, destruction or deterioration of goods
on account of thedefective condition of the car vehicle, ship, airplane or
othere q u i p m e n t u s e d i n t h e c o n t r a c t o f c a r r i a g e . ( E m p h a s i s suppli
ed)Under Article 1745 (6) above, a common carrier is held responsible and
will not beallowed to divest or to diminish such responsibility even for acts
of strangers likethieves or robbers,
except
where such thieves or robbers in fact acted "with grave orirresistible threat,
violence or force." We believe and so hold that the limits of the dutyof extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried are reached where thegoods are lost as
a result of a robbery which is attended by "grave or irresistible threat,violence or
force." The decision of the trial court shows that the armed men who held up the second
truckowned by private respondent acted with grave, if not irresistible, threat,
violence orforce, which is an exception of the general rule of Article 1745 (6).

RULING:
The Petition for Review on certiorari is hereby DENIED and the Decision of
the Court of Appeals dated 3 August 1977 is AFFIRMED. 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 recallthat even common
carriers are not made absolute insurers against all risks of travel
ando f t r a n s p o r t o f g o o d s , a n d a r e n o t h e l d l i a b l e f o r
a c t s o r e v e n t s w h i c h c a n n o t b e foreseen or are inevitable, provided
that they shall have complied with the rigorousstandard of extraordinary
diligence.W e , t h e r e f o r e , a g r e e w i t h t h e r e s u l t r e a c h e d b y t h e
C o u r t o f A p p e a l s t h a t p r i v a t e respondent Cendana is not liable for the
value of the undelivered merchandise whichwas lost because of an event entirely
beyond private respondent's control.