G.R. No. L-47822. December 22, 1988.
PEDRO DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO CENDANA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Ernesto Cendana, a junk dealer, transported scrap material to Manila using his trucks. On return trips to Pangasinan, he would haul cargo for various merchants at lower-than-commercial rates. Petitioner Pedro de Guzman contracted with Cendana to transport 750 cartons of milk from Makati to Urdaneta. On December 1, 1970, the cargo was loaded onto two trucks. Only 150 cartons were delivered; the other 600 cartons, on a separate truck driven by Cendana’s employee, were hijacked by armed men along the MacArthur Highway in Paniqui, Tarlac. The truck, its driver, helper, and cargo were taken.
De Guzman filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan to recover the value of the lost goods, arguing Cendana was a common carrier liable for failing to exercise extraordinary diligence. Cendana denied being a common carrier and claimed the loss was due to force majeure. The trial court ruled in favor of de Guzman, holding Cendana liable as a common carrier. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Cendana was not a common carrier but merely engaged in hauling as a casual sideline to his junk business.

ISSUE

Whether private respondent Ernesto Cendana is a common carrier and, if so, whether he is liable for the loss of the cargo due to hijacking.

RULING

The Supreme Court held that Cendana is a common carrier. Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines common carriers as entities engaged in the business of transporting goods or passengers for compensation, offering their services to the public. The law makes no distinction based on whether transportation is a principal or ancillary activity, offered regularly or occasionally, or to the general public or a limited segment. Cendana’s periodic back-hauling of goods for merchants for a fee qualifies him as a common carrier, regardless of his principal junk business or lack of a certificate of public convenience.
However, the Court ruled Cendana is not liable for the loss. Common carriers are required to observe extraordinary diligence in safeguarding goods, but they are not absolute insurers against all risks. Liability does not extend to losses due to fortuitous events. The hijacking constituted a fortuitous event. The evidence showed the robbery was committed by armed men who used grave and irresistible force, kidnapping the driver and helper. This event was beyond Cendana’s control. Thus, even as a common carrier, he is exempt from liability under Article 1734 of the Civil Code, which excuses liability for losses due to force majeure. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.