[80] ASIA LIGHTERAGE AND SHIPPING, INC. vs.

COURT OF APPEALS ● August 15, 1990 – 900 metric tons of the shipment was loaded on barge,
AND PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE AND ASSURANCE, INC. evidenced by Lighterage Receipt for delivery to consignee.
G.R. No. 147246 | August 19, 2003 | Puno, J o Sadly, the cargo did not reach its destination.
● August 17, 1990 – the transport of said cargo was suspended due to a
SUMMARY: A cargo of white wheat was to be delivered by petitioner Asia warning of an incoming typhoon.
Lighterage to the warehouse of consignee General Milling Corporation. ● August 22, 1990 – Petitioner proceeded to pull the barge to Engineering
Private respondent Prudential Guarantee insured the cargo against loss or Island off Baseco to seek shelter from the approaching typhoon.
damage. While the cargo was with the petitioner, it suffered damage at sea o Barge was tied down to other barges which arrived ahead of it
and was not delivered to the consignee. Private respondent indemnified the while weathering out the storm that night.
consignee then sought to recover that amount from petitioner, to no avail. o A few days after, the barge developed a list because of a hole it
Petitioner claimed that it was not a common carrier and thus did not hold out sustained after hitting an unseen protuberance underneath the
services to the general public. The Court held that petitioner is a common water. It likewise secured the services of Gaspar Salvaging
carrier whether its carrying of goods is done in an irregular rather than Corporation which refloated the barge. The hole was then
scheduled manner, and with an only limited clientele. A common carrier need patched with clay and cement.
not have fixed and publicly known routes. Neither does it have to maintain o Barge was then towed to ISLOFF terminal before it finally
terminals or issue tickets. The Court also held that petitioner failed to headed towards the consignee's wharf on September 5, 1990.
exercise extraordinary diligence in the care of the cargo. Upon reaching the Sta. Mesa spillways, the barge again ran
aground due to strong current.
PROVISION o To avoid the complete sinking of the barge, a portion of the
Art. 1732 defines common carriers as persons, corporations, firms or goods was transferred to three other barges.
associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers o The next day, September 6, 1990, the towing bits of the barge
or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their
broke. It sank completely, resulting in the total loss of the
services to the public.
remaining cargo.
o On September 14, 1990, a bidding was conducted to dispose of
DOCTRINE
De Guzman v. CA - Art. 1732 makes no distinction between one whose the damaged wheat retrieved and loaded on the three other
principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and barges. The total proceeds from the sale of the salvaged cargo
one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity. Also, the Court was P201,379.75.
ruled in that case that Art. 1732 does not distinguish between a carrier ● January 30, 1991 – the private respondent indemnified the consignee in
offering its services to the general public, and one who offers services or the amount of P4,104,654.22. Thereafter, as subrogee, it sought
solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population. recovery of said amount from the petitioner, but to no avail.
● July 3, 1991 – Private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner
FACTS for recovery of the amount of indemnity, attorney's fees and cost of suit.
● June 13, 1990 - 3,150 metric tons of Better Western White Wheat in bulk, ● RTC ruled in favor of the private respondent. CA affirmed with
worth US$ 423,192.35 was shipped by Marubeni American Corporation modification and found Asia Lighterage liable to pay Prudential
of Portland, Oregon for delivery to the consignee, General Milling Guarantee the amount of indemnity and attorney's fees.
Corporation in Manila, evidenced by a Bill of Lading.
o The shipment was insured by the private respondent Prudential
ISSUE: W/N Asia Lighterage is a common carrier - YES
Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. against loss or damage for
P14,621,771.75 under Marine Cargo Risk Note.
● July 25, 1990 – the carrying vessel arrived in Manila and the cargo was ● De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals - the definition of common carriers in
transferred to the custody of the petitioner Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Article 1732 of the Civil Code makes no distinction between one whose
Inc. principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both,
o It was contracted by the consignee as carrier to deliver the cargo and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity.
o In that case, the Court also did not distinguish between a person
to consignee's warehouse at Bo. Ugong, Pasig City.
or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or
 scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction,
episodic or unscheduled basis. or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the
o Further, the Court ruled in that case that Article 1732 does not following causes only:
distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the general (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or
public, and one who offers services or solicits business only from calamity;
a narrow segment of the general population. (2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
● In the case at bar, the principal business of the petitioner is that of (3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
lighterage and drayage, and it offers its barges to the public for carrying (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the
or transporting goods by water for compensation. Petitioner is clearly a containers;
common carrier. (5) Order or act of competent public authority.
● In De Guzman, the Court considered private respondent Ernesto
Cendaña to be a common carrier even if his principal occupation was not ● In the case at bar, the barge completely sank after its towing bits broke,
the carriage of goods for others, but that of buying used bottles and resulting in the total loss of its cargo.
scrap metal in Pangasinan and selling these items in Manila. ● The evidence showed that, even before the towing bits of the barge
o The Court therefore held that petitioner is a common carrier broke, it had already previously sustained damage when it hit a sunken
whether its carrying of goods is done on an irregular rather object while docked at the Engineering Island. It even suffered a hole.
than scheduled manner, and with an only limited clientele. A o Clearly, this could not be solely attributed to the typhoon. The
common carrier need not have fixed and publicly known partly-submerged vessel was refloated but its hole was patched
routes. Neither does it have to maintain terminals or issue with only clay and cement. The patch work was merely a
tickets. provisional remedy, not enough for the barge to sail safely.
● To be sure, petitioner fits the test of a common carrier as laid down in o Thus, when petitioner persisted to proceed with the voyage, it
Bascos vs. Court of Appeals. recklessly exposed the cargo to further damage.
o The test to determine a common carrier is "whether the given ● Also, petitioner still headed to the consignee's wharf despite knowledge
undertaking is a part of the business engaged in by the carrier of an incoming typhoon.
which he has held out to the general public as his occupation o During the time that the barge was heading towards the
rather than the quantity or extent of the business transacted." consignee's wharf on September 5, 1990, typhoon "Loleng" has
● In the case at bar, the petitioner admitted that it is engaged in the already entered the Philippine area of responsibility.
business of shipping and lighterage, offering its barges to the public, ● Accordingly, the petitioner cannot invoke the occurrence of the typhoon
despite its limited clientele for carrying or transporting goods by water for as force majeure to escape liability for the loss sustained by the private
compensation. respondent.
o Surely, meeting a typhoon head-on falls short of due diligence
Petitioner failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in care and custody required from a common carrier.
of the consignee’s cargo o More importantly, the officers/employees themselves of
petitioner admitted that when the towing bits of the vessel broke
● Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the that caused its sinking and the total loss of the cargo upon
vigilance over the goods transported by them. They are presumed to reaching the Pasig River, it was no longer affected by the
have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are lost, typhoon.
destroyed or deteriorated. To overcome the presumption of
negligence in the case of loss, destruction or deterioration of the
goods, the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary
diligence. RULING: IN VIEW THEREOF, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the
● There are, however, exceptions to this rule. Article 1734 of the Civil Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 49195 dated May 11, 2000 and its
Code enumerates the instances when the presumption of negligence Resolution dated February 21, 2001 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against
does not attach: petitioner.