[72] BASCOS v. CA ● Petitioner failed to deliver the said cargo.

As a consequence of that failure,

G.R. No. 101089 | April 7, 1993 | Campos, Jr., J. Cipriano paid Jibfair Shipping Agency the amount of the lost goods in
accordance with the contract:
TOPIC: Common Carriers -> In General -> Definitions, essential elements, Art. 1732 -> ○ “1. CIPTRADE shall be held liable and answerable for any loss in
Liberal Approach bags due to theft, hijacking and nondelivery or damages to the
cargo during transport at market value. x x x”
PROVISIONS: ● CIPRIANO demanded reimbursement from petitioner but the latter refused
● Art. 1732, NCC. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or to pay. Cipriano then filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages
associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers with writ of preliminary attachment and for breach of a contract of carriage
or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their ● PETITIONER’S ANSWER:
services to the public. ○ There was no contract of carriage since CIPTRADE leased her
cargo truck to load the cargo from Manila Port Area to Laguna;
SUMMARY: CIPTRADE entered into a hauling contract with Jibfair Shipping Agency ○ CIPTRADE was liable to petitioner in the amount of P11,000.00 for
Corporation. To carry its obligation under said contract, CIPTRADE, through Rodolfo loading the cargo;
Cipriano, subcontracted with Estrellita Bascos (petitioner) to transport and to deliver ○ the truck carrying the cargo was hijacked along Canonigo St., Paco,
400 sacks of soya bean meal worth P156,404.00 from the Manila Port Area to Manila on the night of October 21, 1988;
Calamba, Laguna at the rate of P50.00 per metric ton. BASCOS failed to deliver, thus ○ the hijacking was immediately reported to CIPTRADE and that
CIPRIANO paid Jibfair Shipping Agency and now demands reimbursement from petitioner and the police exerted all efforts to locate the hijacked
petitioner. BASCOS refused on the grounds (1) that there is no contract of carriage properties;
(only lease of cargo truck) and (2) that the hijacking was a force majeure. COURT ○ after preliminary investigation, an information for robbery and
held that petitioner is a common carrier and the hijacking is not a force majeure; thus, carnapping were filed against Jose Opriano, et al;
she is liable. ○ and hijacking, being a force majeure, exculpated petitioner from
any liability to CIPTRADE.
DOCTRINE: The test to determine a common carrier is “whether the given ● RTC decided in favor of Cipriano, CA affirmed.
undertaking is a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out ○ Found that she admitted in her answer that she did business under
to the general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the the name A.M. Bascos Trucking and that said admission dispensed
business transacted.” with the presentation by private respondent, Rodolfo Cipriano, of
proofs that petitioner was a common carrier; also adopted in toto
Art. 1732 makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the the trial court’s decision that petitioner was a common carrier.
carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ○ Evidence proving that petitioner is a common carrier, according to
ancillary activity (in local idiom, as a “sideline”). both the lower courts:
■ the fact that the truck driver of petitioner, Maximo Sanglay,
FACTS: received the cargo consisting of 400 bags of soya bean
● Rodolfo A. Cipriano representing Cipriano Trading Enterprise (CIPTRADE) meal as evidenced by a cargo receipt signed by Maximo
entered into a hauling contract with Jibfair Shipping Agency Corporation. Sanglay;
○ CIPTRADE bound itself to haul the latter’s 2,000 m/tons of soya ■ the fact that the truck helper, Juanito Morden, was also an
bean meal from Magallanes Drive, Del Pan, Manila to the employee of petitioner;
warehouse of Purefoods Corporation in Calamba, Laguna. ■ and the fact that control of the cargo was placed in
○ To carry out its obligation, CIPTRADE, through Rodolfo Cipriano, petitioner’s care.
subcontracted with Estrellita Bascos (petitioner) to transport and ● PETITIONER ARGUES:
to deliver 400 sacks of soya bean meal worth P156,404.00 from the ○ The contract was for lease of the truck, as shown by certain
Manila Port Area to Calamba, Laguna at the rate of P50.00 per affidavits which referred to the contract as “lease”.
metric ton. ■ These affidavits were made by Jesus Bascos and by
petitioner herself. Jesus Bascos confirmed in his
 testimony his statement that the contract was a lease [2] W/N the hijacking referred to was a force majeure. — NO.
contract. ● Common carriers are obliged to observe extraordinary diligence in the
○ She was not catering to the general public. She does business vigilance over the goods transported by them. Accordingly, they are
under the same style of A.M. Bascos Trucking, offering her trucks presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are
for lease to those who have cargo to move, not to the general lost, destroyed or deteriorated.
public but to a few customers only in view of the fact that it is only ○ There are very few instances when the presumption of negligence
a small business. does not attach, and these instances are enumerated in Article
1734.
ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO: ○ In those cases where the presumption is applied, the common
[1] W/N petitioner is a common carrier. — YES. carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence in order
● Petitioner is a common carrier. Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a to overcome the presumption.
common carrier as: ● De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals: hijacking, not being included in the
○ “(a) person, corporation or firm, or association engaged in the provisions of Article 1734, must be dealt with under the provisions of Article
business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, 1735 and thus, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or
by land, water or air, for compensation, offering their services to the negligent.
public.” ○ To exculpate the carrier from liability arising from hijacking, he
● The test to determine a common carrier is “whether the given undertaking is must prove that the robbers or the hijackers acted with grave or
a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to the irresistible threat, violence, or force. This is in accordance with
general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the Article 1745 of the Civil Code which provides:
business transacted.” ■ Art. 1745. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall
○ ITC, petitioner herself has made the admission that she was in the be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public
trucking business, offering her trucks to those with cargo to move. policy: xxx xxx (6) That the common carrier’s liability for
Judicial admissions are conclusive and no evidence is required to acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act
prove the same. with grave or irresistible threat, violences or force, is
● Re: argument that petitioner only serves a few people: dispensed with or diminished;
○ De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals: (Art. 1732) makes no distinction ● ITC, to establish grave and irresistible force, petitioner presented her
between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of accusatory affidavit, Jesus Bascos’ affidavit, and Juanito Morden’s
persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as “Salaysay”. However, both lower courts concluded that these affidavits were
an ancillary activity (in local idiom, as a “sideline”). not enough to overcome the presumption.
○ Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between a ○ Petitioner’s affidavit about the hijacking was based on what had
person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or been told her by Juanito Morden. It was not a firsthand account.
scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, While it had been admitted in court for lack of objection on the part
episodic or unscheduled basis. of private respondent, the respondent Court had discretion in
○ Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its assigning weight to such evidence.
services to the “general public,” i.e., the general community or ○ Secondly, the affidavit of Jesus Bascos did not dwell on how the
population, and one who offers services or solicits business only hijacking took place.
from a narrow segment of the general population. We think that ○ Thirdly, while the affidavit of Juanito Morden, the truck helper in the
Article 1732 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions. hijacked truck, was presented as evidence in court, he himself was
● Regarding affidavits presented by petitioner to the court: a witness as could be gleaned from the contents of the petition.
○ Both the trial and appellate courts have dismissed them as self Affidavits are not considered the best evidence if the affiants are
serving. We are bound by the appellate court’s factual conclusions. available as witnesses.
Yet, granting that the said evidence were not selfserving, the same ○ The subsequent filing of the information for carnapping and robbery
were not sufficient to prove that the contract was one of lease. against the accused named in said affidavits did not necessarily
 mean that the contents of the affidavits were true because they
were yet to be determined in the trial of the criminal cases.
○ The presumption of negligence was raised against petitioner. It was
petitioner’s burden to overcome it. Thus, contrary to her assertion,
private respondent need not introduce any evidence to prove her
negligence.

RULING: Petition denied.