CASE TITLE: DE GUZMAN vs. CA KEYWORD: Definition of Common Carriers PONENTE: Feliciano, J. DOCTRINE: Art.

1732 of the Civil Code makes no distinctions between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. FACTS: 1) Respondent Ernesto Cendaa, a junk dealer, was engaged in buying up used bottles and scrap metal in Pangasinan which it brought to Manila for resale using his 2 sixwheeler trucks. 2) On his return trip, he would load his vehicles with cargo which various merchants wanted delivered to Pangasinan, charging freight rates lower than the regular commercial rates. 3) Petitioner Pedro De Guzman contracted with respondent for the hauling of 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from General Milk Companys warehouse in Makati and Rizal, to Urdaneta. 4) 150 cartons were loaded on a truck driven by respondent himself, while 100 cartons were loaded on the other truck driven by Manuel Estrada, respondents driver and employee. 5) Only 150 boxes were delivered to petitioner as the truck carrying the other 600 boxes was hijacked along McArthur highway by armed men, who took the truck, its driver, his helper, and the cargo. PETITIONERS CONTENTION: 1) Petitioner alleged that respondent failed to exercise the ordinary diligence required of him by law as a common carrier which resulted to the loss, hence he should be liable for the payment of P22,150, the claimed value of the lost merchandise RESPONDENTS CONTENTION: 1) Private respondent denied that he was a common carrier and argued that he could not be held responsible since the loss was due to force majeure RULING: 1) TRIAL COURT GRANTED the petition

-It found private respondent to be a common carrier and held him liable for the value of the undelivered goods 2) APPELLATE COURT DENIED the petition -The CA reversed the judgment and held that respondent had been engaged in transporting return loads of freight as a casual occupationa sideline to his scrap iron business and not as a common carrier, hence cannot be held liable 3) SUPREME COURT DENIED petition for review on certiorari and affirmed CAs decision as to respondents liability for payment of the lost merchandise 1) Private respondent may be properly characterized as a common carrier in accordance with Art. 1732s definition of a common carrierCommon 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. 2) The above Article makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons/ goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity (sideline). 3) Respondent cannot be held liable for the value of the lost goods because under Art. 1745(6), a common carrier is held responsible-- and will not be allowed to divest or to diminish such responsibilityeven for acts of strangers like thieves or robbers, EXCEPT where such thieves or robbers in fact acted with grave or irresistible threat, violence/ force. 4) In these circumstances, we hold that 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 to which respondent should not be held liable.