G.R. No. 101089

April 7, 1993

FACTS: Rodolfo A. Cipriano representing Cipriano Trading Enterprise (CIPTRADE for short) entered into a hauling contract with Jibfair Shipping Agency Corp whereby the former bound itself to haul the latter’s 2,000 m/tons of soya bean meal to the warehouse in Calamba, Laguna. To carry out its obligation, CIPTRADE, through Cipriano, subcontracted with Bascos to transport and to deliver 400 sacks of soya bean meal from the Manila Port Area to Calamba, Laguna. Petitioner failed to deliver the said cargo. As a consequence of that failure, Cipriano paid Jibfair Shipping Agency the amount of the lost goods in accordance with their contract.

Cipriano demanded reimbursement from petitioner but the latter refused to pay. Eventually, Cipriano filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages with writ of preliminary attachment for breach of a contract of carriage. The trial court granted the writ of preliminary attachment.

In her answer, petitioner interposed the defense that there was no contract of carriage since CIPTRADE leased her cargo truck to load the cargo from Manila Port Area to Laguna and that the truck carrying the cargo was hijacked and being a force majeure, exculpated petitioner from any liability

After trial, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of Cipriano and against Bascos ordering the latter to pay the former for actual damages for attorney’s fees and cost of suit.

The “Urgent Motion To Dissolve/Lift preliminary Attachment” Bascos is DENIED for being moot and academic.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals but respondent Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Hence this petition for review on certiorari


(1) WON petitioner a common carrier

(2) WON the hijacking referred to a force majeure

HELD: The petition is DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.

1. YES

In disputing the conclusion of the trial and appellate courts that petitioner was a common carrier, she alleged in this petition that the contract between her and Cipriano was lease of the truck. She also stated that: she was not catering to the general public. Thus, in her answer to the amended complaint, she said that she does business under the same style of A.M. Bascos Trucking, offering her trucks for lease to those who have cargo to move, not to the general public but to a few customers only in view of the fact that it is only a small business.

We agree with the respondent Court in its finding that petitioner is a common carrier.

Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a common carrier as “(a) person, corporation or firm, or association 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.” The test to determine a common carrier is “whether the given undertaking is a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to the general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the business transacted.” 12 In this case, petitioner herself has made the admission that she was in the trucking business, offering her trucks to those with cargo to move. Judicial admissions are conclusive and no evidence is required to prove the same. 13

But petitioner argues that there was only a contract of lease because they offer their services only to a select group of people. Regarding the first contention, the holding of the Court in De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals 14 is instructive. In referring to Article 1732 of the Civil Code, it held thus:

“The above article makes no 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 (in local idiom, as a “sideline”). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any 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 Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the “general public,” i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. We think that Article 1732 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions.”

2. NO

Likewise, We affirm the holding of the respondent court that the loss of the goods was not due to force majeure.

Common carriers are obliged to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them. Accordingly, they are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated. There are very few instances when the presumption of negligence does not attach and these instances are enumerated in Article 1734. 19 In those cases where the presumption is applied, the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence in order to overcome the presumption.

In this case, petitioner alleged that hijacking constituted force majeure which exculpated her from liability for the loss of the cargo. In De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that hijacking, not being included in the provisions of Article 1734, must be dealt with under the provisions of Article 1735 and thus, the common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or negligent. To exculpate the carrier from liability arising from hijacking, he must prove that the robbers or the hijackers acted with grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force. This is in accordance with Article 1745 of the Civil Code which provides:

“Art. 1745. Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy; xx

(6) That the common carrier’s liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robbers who do not act with grave or irresistible threat, violences or force, is dispensed with or diminished;” xx


1.  She cited as evidence certain affidavits which referred to the contract as “lease”. These affidavits were made by Jesus Bascos and by petitioner herself and Cipriano and CIPTRADE did not object to the presentation of affidavits by petitioner where the transaction was referred to as a lease contract. Both the trial and appellate courts have dismissed them as self-serving and petitioner contests the conclusion. We are bound by the appellate court’s factual conclusions. Yet, granting that the said evidence were not self-serving, the same were not sufficient to prove that the contract was one of lease. It must be understood that a contract is what the law defines it to be and not what it is called by the contracting parties. Furthermore, petitioner presented no other proof of the existence of the contract of lease. He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.

2. Having affirmed the findings of the respondent Court on the substantial issues involved, We find no reason to disturb the conclusion that the motion to lift/dissolve the writ of preliminary attachment has been rendered moot and academic by the decision on the merits.



G.R. No. L-25599

April 4, 1968

FACTS: “Consorcio Pesquero del Peru of South America” shipped freight pre-paid at Peru, jute bags of Peruvian fish meal through SS Crowborough, covered by clean bills of lading. The cargo, consigned to San Miguel Brewery, Inc., now San Miguel Corporation, and insured by Home Insurance Company arrived in Manila and was discharged into the lighters of Luzon Stevedoring Company. When the cargo was delivered to consignee San Miguel Brewery Inc., there were shortages causing the latter to lay claims against Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, Home Insurance Company and the American Steamship Agencies (shipowner), owner and operator of SS Crowborough.

Because the others denied liability, Home Insurance Company paid SMBI the insurance value of the loss, as full settlement of the claim. Having been refused reimbursement by both the Luzon Stevedoring Corporation and American Steamship Agencies, Home Insurance Company, as subrogee to the consignee, filed against them before the CFI of Manila a complaint for recovery of the payment paid with legal interest, plus attorney’s fees.

In answer, Luzon Stevedoring Corporation alleged that it delivered with due diligence the goods in the same quantity and quality that it had received the same from the carrier.

The CFI, after trial, absolved Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, having found the latter to have merely delivered what it received from the carrier in the same condition and quality, and ordered American Steamship Agencies to pay Home Insurance Company the amount demanded with legal interest plus attorney’s fees.

Disagreeing with such judgment, American Steamship Agencies appealed directly to Us.

ISSUE: Is the stipulation in the charter party of the owner’s non-liability valid so as to absolve the American Steamship Agencies from liability for loss?

HELD: The judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and appellant is absolved from liability to plaintiff.


The bills of lading, covering the shipment of Peruvian fish meal provide at the back thereof that the bills of lading shall be governed by and subject to the terms and conditions of the charter party, if any, otherwise, the bills of lading prevail over all the agreements. On the bills are stamped “Freight prepaid as per charter party. Subject to all terms, conditions and exceptions of charter party dated London, Dec. 13, 1962.”

Section 2, paragraph 2 of the charter party, provides that the owner is liable for loss or damage to the goods caused by personal want of due diligence on its part or its manager to make the vessel in all respects seaworthy and to secure that she be properly manned, equipped and supplied or by the personal act or default of the owner or its manager. Said paragraph, however, exempts the owner of the vessel from any loss or damage or delay arising from any other source, even from the neglect or fault of the captain or crew or some other person employed by the owner on board, for whose acts the owner would ordinarily be liable except for said paragraph..

The provisions of our Civil Code on common carriers were taken from Anglo-American law. Under American jurisprudence, a common carrier undertaking to carry a special cargo or chartered to a special person only, becomes a private carrier. As a private carrier, a stipulation exempting the owner from liability for the negligence of its agent is not against public policy, and is deemed valid.

Such doctrine We find reasonable. The Civil Code provisions on common carriers should not be applied where the carrier is not acting as such but as a private carrier. The stipulation in the charter party absolving the owner from liability for loss due to the negligence of its agent would be void only if the strict public policy governing common carriers is applied. Such policy has no force where the public at large is not involved, as in the case of a ship totally chartered for the use of a single party.

And furthermore, in a charter of the entire vessel, the bill of lading issued by the master to the charterer, as shipper, is in fact and legal contemplation merely a receipt and a document of title not a contract, for the contract is the charter party. The consignee may not claim ignorance of said charter party because the bills of lading expressly referred to the same. Accordingly, the consignees under the bills of lading must likewise abide by the terms of the charter party. And as stated, recovery cannot be had thereunder, for loss or damage to the cargo, against the shipowners, unless the same is due to personal acts or negligence of said owner or its manager, as distinguished from its other agents or employees. In this case, no such personal act or negligence has been proved.