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 (Art. 1732, Civil Code). Art. 1732 of the New Civil Code avoids any 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 (sideline). It also avoids a 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 the law distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the general public that is the general community or population and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. A person or entity is a common carrier even if he did not secure a Certificate of Public Convenience (De Guzman vs. CA, 168 SCRA 612). It 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 should be by motor vehicle. (First Philippine Industrial Corporation vs. CA) One is a common carrier even if he has no fixed and publicly known route, maintains no terminals, and issues no tickets (Asia Lighterage Shipping, Inc. vs. CA). Characteristics: 1. Undertakes to carry for all people indifferently and thus is liable for refusal without sufficient reason (Lastimoso vs. Doliente, October 20, 1961); 2. Cannot lawfully decline to accept a particular class of goods for carriage to the prejudice of the traffic in these goods; 3. No monopoly is favored (Batangas Trans. vs. Orlanes, 52 PHIL 455); 4. Provides public convenience. 5. Is imbued with public interest. PRIVATE CARRIER One which, without being engaged in the business of carrying as a public employment, undertakes to deliver goods or passengers for compensation. (Home Insurance Co. vs. American Steamship Agency, 23 SCRA 24) TESTS WHETHER CARRIER IS COMMON OR PRIVATE: The SC in First Philippine Industrial Corporation vs. CA (1995) reiterated the following tests: 1. It must be engaged in the business of carrying goods for others as a public employment and must hold itself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods generally as a business and not as a casual occupation; 2. It must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which its business in confined; 3. It must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is conducted and over its established roads; and 4. The transportation must be for hire. In National Steel Corp. vs. CA (1997) the SC held that the true test of a common carrier is the carriage of goods or passengers provided it has space for all who opt to avail themselves of its transportation for a fee. PRIVATE COMMON CARRIER CARRIER 1. As to availability Contracts with particular Holds himself out for all individuals or groups people indiscriminately only 2. As to required diligence Extraordinary diligence is Ordinary diligence is required required 3. As to regulation Subject to State Not subject to State regulation regulation 4. Stipulation limiting liability Parties may limit the Parties may not agree on carrier’s liability, limiting the carrier’s provided it is not liability except when contrary to law, morals provided by law or good customs 5. Exempting circumstance Caso fortuito, Art. 1174 NCC Prove extraordinary (Any event which could diligence and Art. 1733, not be foreseen, or NCC which though foreseen is inevitable) 6.Presumption of negligence There is a presumption No presumption of fault of fault or negligence or negligence 7.Governing law Law on common c