G.R. No. L-8095; March 31, 1915
F.C. FISHER, plaintiff, vs. YANGCO STEAMSHIP COMPANY, J.S. STANLEY, as Acting Collector of Customs of the Philippine Islands, IGNACIO VILLAMOR, as Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands, and W.H. BISHOP, as prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, respondents.

FACTS:
The plaintiff, a stockholder of the Yangco Steamship Company, filed an action for prohibition. The company, a common carrier licensed for the Philippine coastwise trade, adopted a resolution (ratified by shareholders) prohibiting its vessels from carrying “dynamite, powder or other explosives.” The Acting Collector of Customs demanded that the company accept such explosives for carriage and withheld clearance documents for its vessels to enforce this demand. The plaintiff alleged that the prosecuting attorneys intended to initiate criminal proceedings under Act No. 98 against the company for refusing to carry explosives. The plaintiff sought to: (1) prohibit the company from carrying explosives; (2) prohibit the Collector of Customs from compelling the company to carry them; and (3) prohibit the Attorney-General and the prosecuting attorney from filing charges under Act No. 98 . The plaintiff contended that Act No. 98 , if interpreted to require the carriage of explosives, was unconstitutional. The respondents demurred to the complaint.

ISSUE:
Whether the complaint states a sufficient cause of action for the issuance of a writ of prohibition.

RULING:
No. The demurrer is sustained. The complaint fails to state a cause of action.

The Court held that the duties and liabilities of common carriers in the Philippines are expressly defined by Act No. 98 . Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Act prohibit common carriers from unduly discriminating against any person, locality, or type of traffic and require them to receive and transport all merchandise offered for carriage, provided it is in proper condition and the carrier’s facilities are suitable. The plaintiff’s complaint sought an absolute and unconditional right for the carrier to refuse all shipments of explosives, irrespective of the conditions of shipment, the suitability of the vessel, or whether such refusal constituted an undue discrimination. The Court found that Act No. 98 does not grant such an unqualified right of refusal. A common carrier cannot, by a blanket resolution, exempt itself from its statutory duty to carry all merchandise, including explosives, when offered under proper and safe conditions and when its vessels are fit for such transport. The complaint contained no allegations that the company’s vessels were universally unsuitable for carrying explosives or that shippers were unwilling to comply with reasonable safety regulations. Therefore, the complaint did not allege facts that, if true, would entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought. The Court did not reach the constitutional question, as the interpretation of the statute resolved the case. The demurrer was sustained.