BASCOS vs.COURT OF APPEALS and RODOLFO A.

CIPRIANO
G.R. No. 101089
Apri !" 199#
FACTS$ Rodolfo A. Cipriano representing Cipriano Trading Enterprise (CIPTRADE for short)
entered into a hauling contract with Jibfair hipping Agenc! Corp whereb! the for"er bound
itself to haul the latter#s $%&&& "'tons of so!a bean "eal to the warehouse in Cala"ba% (aguna.
To carr! out its obligation% CIPTRADE% through Cipriano% subcontracted with )ascos to
transport and to deli*er +&& sac,s of so!a bean "eal fro" the -anila Port Area to Cala"ba%
(aguna. Petitioner failed to deli*er the said cargo. As a conse.uence of that failure% Cipriano
paid Jibfair hipping Agenc! the a"ount of the lost goods in accordance with their contract.
Cipriano de"anded rei"burse"ent fro" petitioner but the latter refused to pa!. E*entuall!%
Cipriano filed a co"plaint for a su" of "one! and da"ages with writ of preli"inar! attach"ent
for breach of a contract of carriage. The trial court granted the writ of preli"inar! attach"ent.
In her answer% petitioner interposed the defense that there was no contract of carriage since
CIPTRADE leased her cargo truc, to load the cargo fro" -anila Port Area to (aguna and that
the truc, carr!ing the cargo was hi/ac,ed and being a force "a/eure% e0culpated petitioner fro"
an! liabilit!
After trial% the trial court rendered a decision in fa*or of Cipriano and against )ascos ordering
the latter to pa! the for"er for actual da"ages for attorne!#s fees and cost of suit.
The 12rgent -otion To Dissol*e'(ift preli"inar! Attach"ent3 )ascos is DE4IED for being
"oot and acade"ic.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals but respondent Court affir"ed the trial court#s
/udg"ent.
5ence this petition for re*iew on certiorari

ISSUE$
%6) 784 petitioner a co""on carrier
($) 784 the hi/ac,ing referred to a force "a/eure

&ELD$ The petition is DI-IED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereb!
A99IR-ED.
6. :E
In disputing the conclusion of the trial and appellate courts that petitioner was a co""on carrier%
she alleged in this petition that the contract between her and Cipriano was lease of the truc,. he
also stated that; she was not catering to the general public. Thus% in her answer to the a"ended
co"plaint% she said that she does business under the sa"e st!le of A.-. )ascos Truc,ing%
offering her truc,s for lease to those who ha*e cargo to "o*e% not to the general public but to a
few custo"ers onl! in *iew of the fact that it is onl! a s"all business.
7e agree with the respondent Court in its finding that petitioner is a co""on carrier.
Article 6<=$ of the Ci*il Code defines a co""on carrier as 1(a) person% corporation or fir"% or
association engaged in the business of carr!ing or transporting passengers or goods or both% b!
land% water or air% for co"pensation% offering their ser*ices to the public.3 The test to deter"ine a
co""on carrier is 1whether the gi*en underta,ing is a part of the business engaged in b! the
carrier which he has held out to the general public as his occupation rather than the .uantit! or
e0tent of the business transacted.3 6$ In this case% petitioner herself has "ade the ad"ission that
she was in the truc,ing business% offering her truc,s to those with cargo to "o*e. Judicial
ad"issions are conclusi*e and no e*idence is re.uired to pro*e the sa"e. 6=
)ut petitioner argues that there was onl! a contract of lease because the! offer their ser*ices onl!
to a select group of people. Regarding the first contention% the holding of the Court in De
>u?"an *s. Court of Appeals 6+ is instructi*e. In referring to Article 6<=$ of the Ci*il Code% it
held thus;
1The abo*e article "a,es no distinction between one whose principal business acti*it! is the
carr!ing of persons or goods or both% and one who does such carr!ing onl! as an ancillar!
acti*it! (in local idio"% as a 1sideline3). Article 6<=$ also carefull! a*oids "a,ing an!
distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation ser*ice on a regular or
scheduled basis and one offering such ser*ice on an occasional% episodic or unscheduled basis.
4either does Article 6<=$ distinguish between a carrier offering its ser*ices to the 1general
public%3 i.e.% the general co""unit! or population% and one who offers ser*ices or solicits
business onl! fro" a narrow seg"ent of the general population. 7e thin, that Article 6<=$
deliberatel! refrained fro" "a,ing such distinctions.3
$. 48
(i,ewise% 7e affir" the holding of the respondent court that the loss of the goods was not due to
force "a/eure.
Co""on carriers are obliged to obser*e e0traordinar! diligence in the *igilance o*er the goods
transported b! the". Accordingl!% the! are presu"ed to ha*e been at fault or to ha*e acted
negligentl! if the goods are lost% destro!ed or deteriorated. There are *er! few instances when
the presu"ption of negligence does not attach and these instances are enu"erated in Article
6<=+. 6@ In those cases where the presu"ption is applied% the co""on carrier "ust pro*e that it
e0ercised e0traordinar! diligence in order to o*erco"e the presu"ption.
In this case% petitioner alleged that hi/ac,ing constituted force "a/eure which e0culpated her
fro" liabilit! for the loss of the cargo. In De >u?"an *s. Court of Appeals% the Court held that
hi/ac,ing% not being included in the pro*isions of Article 6<=+% "ust be dealt with under the
pro*isions of Article 6<=A and thus% the co""on carrier is presu"ed to ha*e been at fault or
negligent. To e0culpate the carrier fro" liabilit! arising fro" hi/ac,ing% he "ust pro*e that the
robbers or the hi/ac,ers acted with gra*e or irresistible threat% *iolence% or force. This is in
accordance with Article 6<+A of the Ci*il Code which pro*ides;
1Art. 6<+A. An! of the following or si"ilar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable% un/ust
and contrar! to public polic!B 00
(C) That the co""on carrier#s liabilit! for acts co""itted b! thie*es% or of robbers who do not
act with gra*e or irresistible threat% *iolences or force% is dispensed with or di"inishedB3 00