Transportation LawsA. Common Carriers

A. In General;

a. Definition, essential elements (1732)U.S. V. TAN PIACO, 40 PHIL 853

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 15122. March 10, 1920. ]

THE UNITED STATES,Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TAN PIACO, VENTURA ESTUYA, PEDRO HOMERES, MAXIMINO GALSA and EMILIO LEOPANDO,Defendants. TAN PIACO,Appellant.

Recaredo Ma. Calvo forAppellant.

Attorney-General Paredes forAppellee.

SYLLABUS1. PUBLIC UTILITY, CONTROL BY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION; CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF OWNER OF AUTOMOBILE. TRUCK OPERATED UNDER SPECIAL CONTRACT AND NOT FOR GENERAL PUBLIC BUSINESS. The owner of an automobile truck who operates the same under a special contract for carrying passengers and freight, in each case, and has not held himself out to carry all passengers and freight for all persons who might offer, is not a public utility and is not criminally liable for his failure to obtain a license from the Public Utility Commissioner. If the use is merely optional with the owner, or the public benefit is merely accidental, it is not a public use, authorizing the exercise of the jurisdiction of the public utility commission. The true criterion by which to judge of the character of the use is whether the public may enjoy it by right or only by permission.

D E C I S I O NSaid defendants were charged with a violation of the Public Utility Law (Act No. 2307 as amended by Acts Nos. 2362 and 2694), in that they were operating a public utility without permission from the Public Utility Commissioner.

Upon the complaint presented each of said defendants were arrested and brought to trial. After hearing the evidence the Honorable Cayetano Lukban, judge, found that the evidence was insufficient to support the charges against Ventura Estuya, Pedro Homeres, Maximino Galsa and Emilio Leopando, and absolved them from all liability under the complaint and discharged them from the custody of the law. The lower court found the defendant Tan Piaco guilty of the crime charged in the complaint and sentence him to pay a fine of P100, and, in case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay one- fifth part of the costs. :E; rom that sentence Tan Piaco appealed to this court.

The facts proved during the trial of the cause may be stated as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The appellant rented two automobile trucks and was using them upon the highways of the Province of Leyte for the purpose of carrying some passengers and freight; that he cal ried passengers and freight under a special contract in each case; that he had not held himself out to carry all passengers and all freight for all persons who might offer passengers and freight.

The Attorney-General, in a carefully prepared brief, says: "The question is whether the appellant, under the above facts, was a public utility under the foregoing definitions," and was therefore subject to the control and regulation of the Public Utility Commission. "We have not found anything in the evidence showing that the appellant operated the trucks in question for public use. These trucks, so far as indicated by the evidence and as far as the appellant is concerned, furnished service under special agreements to carry particular persons and property. . . For all that we can deduce from the evidence, these passengers, or the owners of the freight, may have controlled the whole vehicles both as to contents, direction, and time of use, which facts, under all the circumstances of the case, would, in our opinion, take away the defendants business from the provisions of the Public Utility Act."cralaw virtua1aw library

In support of the conclusion of the Attorney-General, he cites the case of Terminal Taxicab Co. v. Kutz (241 U. S., 252). In that case the Terminal Taxicab Co. furnished automobiles from its central garage on special orders and did not hold itself out to accommodate any and all persons. The plaintiff reserved to itself the right to refuse service. The Supreme Court of the United States, speaking through Mr. Justice Holmes, said: "The bargains made by the plaintiff are individual, and however much they may tend towards uniformity in price, probably have not the mechanical fixity of charges that attend the use of taxicabs from the stations to the hotels. The court is of the opinion that that part of the business is not to be regarded as a public utility. It is true that all business, and, for the matter of that, every life in all its details, has a public aspect, some bearing upon the welfare of the country in which it is passed." The court held that by virtue of the fact that said company did not hold itself out to serve any and all persons, it was not a public utility and was not subject to the jurisdiction of the public utility commission.

Upon the facts adduced during the trial of the cause, and for the foregoing reasons, the Attorney-General recommends that the sentence of the lower court be revoked and that the appellant be absolved from all liability under the complaint.

Section 14 of Act No. 2307, as amended by section 9 of Act No. 2694, provides that: "The Public Utility Commission or Commissioners shall have general supervision and regulation of, jurisdiction and control over, all public utilities. . . The term public utility is hereby defined to include every individual, copartnership, association, corporation or joint stock company, etc., etc., that now or hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control any common carrier, railroad, street railway, etc., etc., engaged in the transportation of passengers, cargo, etc., etc., for public use."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under the provisions of said section, two things are necessary: (a) The individual, copartnership, etc., etc., must be a public utility; and (b) the business in which such individual, copartnership, etc., etc., is engaged must be for public use. So long as the individual or copartnership, etc., etc., is engaged in a purely private enterprise, without attempting to render service to all who may apply, he can in no sense be considered a public utility, for public use.

"Public use" means the same as "use by the public." The essential feature of the public use is that it is not confined to privileged individuals, but is open to the indefinite public. It is this indefinite or unrestricted quality that gives it its public character. In determining whether a use is public, we must look not only to the character of the business to be done, but also to the proposed mode of doing it. If the use is merely optional with the owners, or the public benefit is merely incidental, it is not a public use, authorizing the exercise of the jurisdiction of the public utility commission. There must be, in general, a right which the law compels the owner to give to the general public. It is not enough that the general prosperity of the public is promoted. Public use is not synonymous with public interest. The true criterion by which to judge of the character of the use is whether the public may enjoy it by right or only by permission.

For all of the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Attorney-General that the appellant was not operating a public utility, for public use, and was not, therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission.

Therefore, the sentence of the lower court is hereby revoked, and it is hereby ordered and decreed that the complaint be dismissed and that the defendant be absolved from all liability under the same, and that he be discharged from the custody of the law, without any finding as to cost. So ordered.

Arellano,C.J., Torres, Araullo, Street, Malcolm and Avancea,JJ., concur.

Transportation LawsA. Common Carriers

A. In General;

a. Definition, essential elements (1732)HOME INSURANCE CO. VS. AMERICAN STEAMSHIP, 23 SCRA 24

April 4, 1968

"Consorcio Pesquero del Peru of South America" shipped freight pre-paid at Chimbate, Peru, 21,740 jute bags of Peruvian fish meal through SS Crowborough, covered by clean bills of lading Numbers 1 and 2, both dated January 17, 1963. The cargo, consigned to San Miguel Brewery, Inc., now San Miguel Corporation, and insured by Home Insurance Company for $202,505, arrived in Manila on March 7, 1963 and was discharged into the lighters of Luzon Stevedoring Company. When the cargo was delivered to consignee San Miguel Brewery Inc., there were shortages amounting to P12,033.85, causing the latter to lay claims against Luzon Stevedoring Corporation, Home Insurance Company and the American Steamship Agencies, owner and operator of SS Crowborough.

Because the others denied liability, Home Insurance Company paid the consignee P14,870.71 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 on March 6, 1964 before the Court of First Instance of Manila a complaint for recovery of P14,870.71 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. It also claimed that plaintiff's claim had prescribed under Article 366 of the Code of Commerce stating that the claim must be made within 24 hours from receipt of the cargo.

American Steamship Agencies denied liability by alleging that under the provisions of the Charter party referred to in the bills of lading, the charterer, not the shipowner, was responsible for any loss or damage of the cargo. Furthermore, it claimed to have exercised due diligence in stowing the goods and that as a mere forwarding agent, it was not responsible for losses or damages to the cargo.

On November 17, 1965, the Court of First Instance, 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 plaintiff P14,870.71 with legal interest plus P1,000 attorney's fees. Said court cited the following grounds:

(a) The non-liability claim of American Steamship Agencies under the charter party contract is not tenable because Article 587 of the Code of Commerce makes the ship agent also civilly liable for damages in favor of third persons due to the conduct of the captain of the carrier;

(b) The stipulation in the charter party contract exempting the owner from liability is against public policy under Article 1744 of the Civil Code;

(c) In case of loss, destruction or deterioration of goods, common carriers are presumed at fault or negligent under Article 1735 of the Civil Code unless they prove extraordinary diligence, and they cannot by contract exempt themselves from liability resulting from their negligence or that of their servants; and

(d) When goods are delivered to the carrier in good order and the same are in bad order at the place of destination, the carrier isprima facieliable.

Disagreeing with such judgment, American Steamship Agencies appealed directly to Us. The appeal brings forth for determination this legal 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?

The bills of lading,[[1]]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.[[2]]On the of 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."

A perusal of the charter party[[3]]referred to shows that while the possession and control of the ship were not entirely transferred to the charterer,[[4]]the vessel was chartered to its full and complete capacity (Exh. 3). Furthermore, the, charter had the option to go north or south orvice-versa,[[5]]loading, stowing and discharging at its risk and expense.[[6]]Accordingly, the charter party contract is one of affreightment over the whole vessel rather than a demise. As such, the liability of the shipowner for acts or negligence of its captain and crew, would remain in the absence of stipulation.

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.

Regarding the stipulation, the Court of First Instance declared the contract as contrary to Article 587 of the Code of Commerce making the ship agent civilly liable for indemnities suffered by third persons arising from acts or omissions of the captain in the care of the goods and Article 1744 of the Civil Code under which a stipulation between the common carrier and the shipper or owner limiting the liability of the former for loss or destruction of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary diligence is valid provided it be reasonable, just and not contrary to public policy. The release from liability in this case was held unreasonable and contrary to the public policy on common carriers.

The provisions of our Civil Code on common carriers were taken from Anglo-American law.[[7]]Under American jurisprudence, a common carrier undertaking to carry a special cargo or chartered to a special person only, becomes a private carrier.[[8]]As a private carrier, a stipulation exempting the owner from liability for the negligence of its agent is not against public policy,[[9]]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.[[10]]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.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and appellant is absolved from liability to plaintiff. No costs. So ordered.

epublic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. L-47822 December 22, 1988

PEDRO DE GUZMAN,petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO CENDANA,respondents.

FELICIANO,J.:Respondent Ernesto Cendana, a junk dealer, was engaged in buying up used bottles and scrap metal in Pangasinan. Upon gathering sufficient quantities of such scrap material, respondent would bring such material to Manila for resale. He utilized two (2) six-wheeler trucks which he owned for hauling the material to Manila. On the return trip to Pangasinan, respondent would load his vehicles with cargo which various merchants wanted delivered to differing establishments in Pangasinan. For that service, respondent charged freight rates which were commonly lower than regular commercial rates.

Sometime in November 1970, petitioner Pedro de Guzman a merchant and authorized dealer of General Milk Company (Philippines), Inc. in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, contracted with respondent for the hauling of 750 cartons of Liberty filled milk from a warehouse of General Milk in Makati, Rizal, to petitioner's establishment in Urdaneta on or before 4 December 1970. Accordingly, on 1 December 1970, respondent loaded in Makati the merchandise on to his trucks: 150 cartons were loaded on a truck driven by respondent himself, while 600 cartons were placed on board the other truck which was driven by Manuel Estrada, respondent's driver and employee.

Only 150 boxes of Liberty filled milk were delivered to petitioner. The other 600 boxes never reached petitioner, since the truck which carried these boxes was hijacked somewhere along the MacArthur Highway in Paniqui, Tarlac, by armed men who took with them the truck, its driver, his helper and the cargo.

On 6 January 1971, petitioner commenced action against private respondent in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, demanding payment of P 22,150.00, the claimed value of the lost merchandise, plus damages and attorney's fees. Petitioner argued that private respondent, being a common carrier, and having failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required of him by the law, should be held liable for the value of the undelivered goods.

In his Answer, private respondent denied that he was a common carrier and argued that he could not be held responsible for the value of the lost goods, such loss having been due toforce majeure.

On 10 December 1975, the trial court rendered a Decision1finding private respondent to be a common carrier and holding him liable for the value of the undelivered goods (P 22,150.00) as well as for P 4,000.00 as damages and P 2,000.00 as attorney's fees.

On appeal before the Court of Appeals, respondent urged that the trial court had erred in considering him a common carrier; in finding that he had habitually offered trucking services to the public; in not exempting him from liability on the ground offorce majeure;and in ordering him to pay damages and attorney's fees.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that respondent had been engaged in transporting return loads of freight "as a casualoccupation a sideline to his scrap iron business" and not as a common carrier. Petitioner came to this Court by way of a Petition for Review assigning as errors the following conclusions of the Court of Appeals:

1. that private respondent was not a common carrier;

2. that the hijacking of respondent's truck wasforce majeure; and

3. that respondent was not liable for the value of the undelivered cargo. (Rollo, p. 111)

We consider first the issue of whether or not private respondent Ernesto Cendana may, under the facts earlier set forth, be properly characterized as a common carrier.

The Civil Code defines "common carriers" in the following terms:

Article 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations 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 above article makes no distinction between one whoseprincipalbusiness activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as anancillaryactivity (in local Idiom as "a sideline"). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on aregular or scheduled basisand one offering such service on anoccasional, 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 1733 deliberaom making such distinctions.

So understood, the concept of "common carrier" under Article 1732 may be seen to coincide neatly with the notion of "public service," under the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1416, as amended) which at least partially supplements the law on common carriers set forth in the Civil Code. Under Section 13, paragraph (b) of the Public Service Act, "public service" includes:

... every person that now or hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control in the Philippines, for hire or compensation,with general or limited clientele, whether permanent, occasional or accidental, and done for general business purposes, any common carrier,railroad, street railway, traction railway, subway motor vehicle, either for freight or passenger, or both, with or without fixed route and whatever may be its classification, freight or carrier service of any class, express service, steamboat, or steamship line, pontines, ferries and water craft, engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight or both, shipyard, marine repair shop, wharf or dock, ice plant,ice-refrigeration plant, canal, irrigation system, gas, electric light, heat and power, water supply and power petroleum, sewerage system, wire or wireless communications systems, wire or wireless broadcasting stations and other similar public services. ... (Emphasis supplied)

It appears to the Court that private respondent is properly characterized as a common carrier even though he merely "back-hauled" goods for other merchants from Manila to Pangasinan, although such back-hauling was done on a periodic or occasional rather than regular or scheduled manner, and even though private respondent'sprincipaloccupation was not the carriage of goods for others. There is no dispute that private respondent charged his customers a fee for hauling their goods; that fee frequently fell below commercial freight rates is not relevant here.

The Court of Appeals referred to the fact that private respondent held no certificate of public convenience, and concluded he was not a common carrier. This is palpable error. A certificate of public convenience is not a requisite for the incurring of liability under the Civil Code provisions governing common carriers. That liability arises the moment a person or firm acts as a common carrier, without regard to whether or not such carrier has also complied with the requirements of the applicable regulatory statute and implementing regulations and has been granted a certificate of public convenience or other franchise. To exempt private respondent from the liabilities of a common carrier because he has not secured the necessary certificate of public convenience, would be offensive to sound public policy; that would be to reward private respondent precisely for failing to comply with applicable statutory requirements. The business of a common carrier impinges directly and intimately upon the safety and well being and property of those members of the general community who happen to deal with such carrier. The law imposes duties and liabilities upon common carriers for the safety and protection of those who utilize their services and the law cannot allow a common carrier to render such duties and liabilities merely facultative by simply failing to obtain the necessary permits and authorizations.

We turn then to the liability of private respondent as a common carrier.

Common carriers, "by the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy"2are held to a very high degree of care and diligence ("extraordinary diligence") in the carriage of goods as well as of passengers. The specific import of extraordinary diligence in the care of goods transported by a common carrier is, according to Article 1733, "further expressed in Articles 1734,1735 and 1745, numbers 5, 6 and 7" of the Civil Code.

Article 1734 establishes the general rule that common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods which they carry, "unlessthe same is due toany of the following causes only:

(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity;(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;(3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;(4) The character-of the goods or defects in the packing or-in the containers; and(5) Order or act of competent public authority.

It is important to point out that the above list of causes of loss, destruction or deterioration which exempt the common carrier for responsibility therefor, is a closed list. Causes falling outside the foregoing list, even if they appear to constitute a species of force majeure fall within the scope of Article 1735, which provides as follows:

In all cases other than those mentioned in numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligenceas required in Article 1733. (Emphasis supplied)

Applying the above-quoted Articles 1734 and 1735, we note firstly that the specific cause alleged in the instant case the hijacking of the carrier's truck does not fall within any of the five (5) categories of exempting causes listed in Article 1734. It would follow, therefore, that the hijacking of the carrier's vehicle must be dealt with under the provisions of Article 1735, in other words, that the private respondent as common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. This presumption, however, may be overthrown by proof of extraordinary diligence on the part of private respondent.

Petitioner insists that private respondent had not observed extraordinary diligence in the care of petitioner's goods. Petitioner argues that in the circumstances of this case, private respondent should have hired a security guard presumably to ride with the truck carrying the 600 cartons of Liberty filled milk. We do not believe, however, that in the instant case, the standard of extraordinary diligence required private respondent to retain a security guard to ride with the truck and to engage brigands in a firelight at the risk of his own life and the lives of the driver and his helper.

The precise issue that we address here relates to the specific requirements of the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried in the specific context of hijacking or armed robbery.

As noted earlier, the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods is, under Article 1733, given additional specification not only by Articles 1734 and 1735 but also by Article 1745, numbers 4, 5 and 6, Article 1745 provides in relevant part:

Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy:

xxx xxx xxx

(5) that the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of his or its employees;

(6) that the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves, or of robberswho donotact withgrave or irresistiblethreat, violence or force, is dispensed with or diminished; and

(7) that the common carrier shall not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition of the car vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage. (Emphasis supplied)

Under Article 1745 (6) above, a common carrier is held responsible and will not be allowed to divest or to diminish such responsibility even for acts of strangers like thieves or robbers,exceptwhere such thieves or robbers in fact acted "with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force." We believe and so hold that the limits of the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried are reached where the goods are lost as a result of a robbery which is attended by "grave or irresistible threat, violence or force."

In the instant case, armed men held up the second truck owned by private respondent which carried petitioner's cargo. The record shows that an information for robbery in band was filed in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 198 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Felipe Boncorno, Napoleon Presno, Armando Mesina, Oscar Oria and one John Doe." There, the accused were charged with willfully and unlawfully taking and carrying away with them the second truck, driven by Manuel Estrada and loaded with the 600 cartons of Liberty filled milk destined for delivery at petitioner's store in Urdaneta, Pangasinan. The decision of the trial court shows that the accused acted with grave, if not irresistible, threat, violence or force.3Three (3) of the five (5) hold-uppers were armed with firearms. The robbers not only took away the truck and its cargo but also kidnapped the driver and his helper, detaining them for several days and later releasing them in another province (in Zambales). The hijacked truck was subsequently found by the police in Quezon City. The Court of First Instance convicted all the accused of robbery, though not of robbery in band.4In these circumstances, we hold that the occurrence of the loss must reasonably be regarded as quite beyond the control of the common carrier and properly regarded as a fortuitous event. It is necessary to recall that even common carriers are not made absolute insurers against all risks of travel and of transport of goods, and are not held liable for acts or events which cannot be foreseen or are inevitable, provided that they shall have complied with the rigorous standard of extraordinary diligence.

We, therefore, agree with the result reached by the Court of Appeals that private respondent Cendana is not liable for the value of the undelivered merchandise which was lost because of an event entirely beyond private respondent's control.

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on certiorari is hereby DENIED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 3 August 1977 is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

LOADSTAR SHIPPING CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE MANILA INSURANCE CO., INC., respondents.

Petitioner Loadstar Shipping Co., Inc. (hereafter LOADSTAR), in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, seeks to reverse and set aside the following: (a) the 30 January 1997 decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 36401, which affirmed the decision of 4 October 1991[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 16, in Civil Case No. 85-29110, ordering LOADSTAR to pay private respondent Manila Insurance Co. (hereafter MIC) the amount of P6,067,178, with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid, P8,000 as attorneys fees, and the costs of the suit; and (b) its resolution of 19 November 1997,[3] denying LOADSTARs motion for reconsideration of said decision.

The facts Are undisputed.

On 19 November 1984, LOADSTAR received on board its M/V Cherokee (hereafter, the vessel) the following goods for shipment:

a) 705 bales of lawanit hardwood;b) 27 boxes and crates of tilewood assemblies and others; and

c) 49 bundles of mouldings R & W (3) Apitong Bolidenized.

The goods, amounting to P6,067,178, were insured for the same amount with MIC against various risks including TOTAL LOSS BY TOTAL LOSS OF THE VESSEL. The vessel, in turn, was insured by Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc. (hereafter PGAI) for P4 million. On 20 November 1984, on its way to Manila from the port of Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, the vessel, along with its cargo, sank off Limasawa Island. As a result of the total loss of its shipment, the consignee made a claim with LOADSTAR which, however, ignored the same. As the insurer, MIC paid P6,075,000 to the insured in full settlement of its claim, and the latter executed a subrogation receipt therefor.

On 4 February 1985, MIC filed a complaint against LOADSTAR and PGAI, alleging that the sinking of the vessel was due to the fault and negligence of LOADSTAR and its employees. It also prayed that PGAI be ordered to pay the insurance proceeds from the loss of the vessel directly to MIC, said amount to be deducted from MICs claim from LOADSTAR.

In its answer, LOADSTAR denied any liability for the loss of the shippers goods and claimed that the sinking of its vessel was due to force majeure. PGAI, on the other hand, averred that MIC had no cause of action against it, LOADSTAR being the party insured. In any event, PGAI was later dropped as a party defendant after it paid the insurance proceeds to LOADSTAR.

As stated at the outset, the court a quo rendered judgment in favor of MIC, prompting LOADSTAR to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals, which, however, agreed with the trial court and affirmed its decision in toto.

In dismissing LOADSTARs appeal, the appellate court made the following observations:

1) LOADSTAR cannot be considered a private carrier on the sole ground that there was a single shipper on that fateful voyage. The court noted that the charter of the vessel was limited to the ship, but LOADSTAR retained control over its crew.[4]

2) As a common carrier, it is the Code of Commerce, not the Civil Code, which should be applied in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties.

3) The vessel was not seaworthy because it was undermanned on the day of the voyage. If it had been seaworthy, it could have withstood the natural and inevitable action of the sea on 20 November 1984, when the condition of the sea was moderate. The vessel sank, not because of force majeure, but because it was not seaworthy. LOADSTARS allegation that the sinking was probably due to the convergence of the winds, as stated by a PAGASA expert, was not duly proven at the trial. The limited liability rule, therefore, is not applicable considering that, in this case, there was an actual finding of negligence on the part of the carrier.[5]

4) Between MIC and LOADSTAR, the provisions of the Bill of Lading do not apply because said provisions bind only the shipper/consignee and the carrier. When MIC paid the shipper for the goods insured, it was subrogated to the latters rights as against the carrier, LOADSTAR.[6]

5) There was a clear breach of the contract of carriage when the shippers goods never reached their destination. LOADSTARs defense of diligence of a good father of a family in the training and selection of its crew is unavailing because this is not a proper or complete defense in culpa contractual.

6) Art. 361 (of the Code of Commerce) has been judicially construed to mean that when goods are delivered on board a ship in good order and condition, and the shipowner delivers them to the shipper in bad order and condition, it then devolves upon the shipowner to both allege and prove that the goods were damaged by reason of some fact which legally exempts him from liability. Transportation of the merchandise at the risk and venture of the shipper means that the latter bears the risk of loss or deterioration of his goods arising from fortuitous events, force majeure, or the inherent nature and defects of the goods, but not those caused by the presumed negligence or fault of the carrier, unless otherwise proved.[7]

The errors assigned by LOADSTAR boil down to a determination of the following issues:

(1) Is the M/V Cherokee a private or a common carrier?

(2) Did LOADSTAR observe due and/or ordinary diligence in these premises?

Regarding the first issue, LOADSTAR submits that the vessel was a private carrier because it was not issued a certificate of public convenience, it did not have a regular trip or schedule nor a fixed route, and there was only one shipper, one consignee for a special cargo.

In refutation, MIC argues that the issue as to the classification of the M/V Cherokee was not timely raised below; hence, it is barred by estoppel. While it is true that the vessel had on board only the cargo of wood products for delivery to one consignee, it was also carrying passengers as part of its regular business. Moreover, the bills of lading in this case made no mention of any charter party but only a statement that the vessel was a general cargo carrier. Neither was there any special arrangement between LOADSTAR and the shipper regarding the shipment of the cargo. The singular fact that the vessel was carrying a particular type of cargo for one shipper is not sufficient to convert the vessel into a private carrier.

As regards the second error, LOADSTAR argues that as a private carrier, it cannot be presumed to have been negligent, and the burden of proving otherwise devolved upon MIC.[8]

LOADSTAR also maintains that the vessel was seaworthy. Before the fateful voyage on 19 November 1984, the vessel was allegedly dry docked at Keppel Philippines Shipyard and was duly inspected by the maritime safety engineers of the Philippine Coast Guard, who certified that the ship was fit to undertake a voyage. Its crew at the time was experienced, licensed and unquestionably competent. With all these precautions, there could be no other conclusion except that LOADSTAR exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in ensuring the vessels seaworthiness.

LOADSTAR further claims that it was not responsible for the loss of the cargo, such loss being due to force majeure. It points out that when the vessel left Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, on 19 November 1984, the weather was fine until the next day when the vessel sank due to strong waves. MICs witness, Gracelia Tapel, fully established the existence of two typhoons, WELFRING and YOLING, inside the Philippine area of responsibility. In fact, on 20 November 1984, signal no. 1 was declared over Eastern Visayas, which includes Limasawa Island. Tapel also testified that the convergence of winds brought about by these two typhoons strengthened wind velocity in the area, naturally producing strong waves and winds, in turn, causing the vessel to list and eventually sink.

LOADSTAR goes on to argue that, being a private carrier, any agreement limiting its liability, such as what transpired in this case, is valid. Since the cargo was being shipped at owners risk, LOADSTAR was not liable for any loss or damage to the same. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the provisions of the bills of lading apply only to the shipper and the carrier, and not to the insurer of the goods, which conclusion runs counter to the Supreme Courts ruling in the case of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Macondray & Co., Inc.,[9] and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg v. Stolt-Nielsen Phils., Inc.[10]

Finally, LOADSTAR avers that MICs claim had already prescribed, the case having been instituted beyond the period stated in the bills of lading for instituting the same suits based upon claims arising from shortage, damage, or non-delivery of shipment shall be instituted within sixty days from the accrual of the right of action. The vessel sank on 20 November 1984; yet, the case for recovery was filed only on 4 February 1985.

MIC, on the other hand, claims that LOADSTAR was liable, notwithstanding that the loss of the cargo was due to force majeure, because the same concurred with LOADSTARs fault or negligence.

Secondly, LOADSTAR did not raise the issue of prescription in the court below; hence, the same must be deemed waived.

Thirdly, the limited liability theory is not applicable in the case at bar because LOADSTAR was at fault or negligent, and because it failed to maintain a seaworthy vessel. Authorizing the voyage notwithstanding its knowledge of a typhoon is tantamount to negligence.

We find no merit in this petition.

Anent the first assigned error, we hold that LOADSTAR is a common carrier. It is not necessary that the carrier be issued a certificate of public convenience, and this public character is not altered by the fact that the carriage of the goods in question was periodic, occasional, episodic or unscheduled.

In support of its position, LOADSTAR relied on the 1968 case of Home Insurance Co. v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc.,[11] where this Court held that a common carrier transporting special cargo or chartering the vessel to a special person becomes a private carrier that is not subject to the provisions of the Civil Code. Any stipulation in the charter party absolving the owner from liability for loss due to the negligence of its agent is void only if the strict policy governing common carriers is upheld. 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. LOADSTAR also cited Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[12] and National Steel Corp. v. Court of Appeals,[13] both of which upheld the Home Insurance doctrine.

These cases invoked by LOADSTAR are not applicable in the case at bar for simple reason that the factual settings are different. The records do not disclose that the M/V Cherokee, on the date in question, undertook to carry a special cargo or was chartered to a special person only. There was no charter party. The bills of lading failed to show any special arrangement, but only a general provision to the effect that the M/V Cherokee was a general cargo carrier.[14] Further, the bare fact that the vessel was carrying a particular type of cargo for one shipper, which appears to be purely coincidental, is not reason enough to convert the vessel from a common to a private carrier, especially where, as in this case, it was shown that the vessel was also carrying passengers.

Under the facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, LOADSTAR fits the definition of a common carrier under Article 1732 of the Civil Code. In the case of De Guzman v. Court of Appeals,[15] the Court juxtaposed the statutory definition of common carriers with the peculiar circumstances of that case, viz.:

The Civil Code defines common carriers in the following terms:

Article 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations 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 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 1733 deliberately refrained from making such distinctions.

It appears to the Court that private respondent is properly characterized as a common carrier even though he merely back-hauled goods for other merchants from Manila to Pangasinan, although such backhauling was done on a periodic or occasional rather than regular or scheduled manner, and even though private respondents principal occupation was not the carriage of goods for others. There is no dispute that private respondent charged his customers a fee for hauling their goods; that that fee frequently fell below commercial freight rates is not relevant here.

The Court of Appeals referred to the fact that private respondent held no certificate of public convenience, and concluded he was not a common carrier. This is palpable error. A certificate of public convenience is not a requisite for the incurring of liability under the Civil Code provisions governing common carriers. That liability arises the moment a person or firm acts as a common carrier, without regard to whether or not such carrier has also complied with the requirements of the applicable regulatory statute and implementing regulations and has been granted a certificate of public convenience or other franchise. To exempt private respondent from the liabilities of a common carrier because he has not secured the necessary certificate of public convenience, would be offensive to sound public policy; that would be to reward private respondent precisely for failing to comply with applicable statutory requirements. The business of a common carrier impinges directly and intimately upon the safety and well being and property of those members of the general community who happen to deal with such carrier. The law imposes duties and liabilities upon common carriers for the safety and protection of those who utilize their services and the law cannot allow a common carrier to render such duties and liabilities merely facultative by simply failing to obtain the necessary permits and authorizations.

Moving on to the second assigned error, we find that the M/V Cherokee was not seaworthy when it embarked on its voyage on 19 November 1984. The vessel was not even sufficiently manned at the time. For a vessel to be seaworthy, it must be adequately equipped for the voyage and manned with a sufficient number of competent officers and crew. The failure of a common carrier to maintain in seaworthy condition its vessel involved in a contract of carriage is a clear breach of its duty prescribed in Article 1755 of the Civil Code.[16]

Neither do we agree with LOADSTARs argument that the limited liability theory should be applied in this case. The doctrine of limited liability does not apply where there was negligence on the part of the vessel owner or agent.[17] LOADSTAR was at fault or negligent in not maintaining a seaworthy vessel and in having allowed its vessel to sail despite knowledge of an approaching typhoon. In any event, it did not sink because of any storm that may be deemed as force majeure, inasmuch as the wind condition in the area where it sank was determined to be moderate. Since it was remiss in the performance of its duties, LOADSTAR cannot hide behind the limited liability doctrine to escape responsibility for the loss of the vessel and its cargo.

LOADSTAR also claims that the Court of Appeals erred in holding it liable for the loss of the goods, in utter disregard of this Courts pronouncements in St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Macondray & Co., Inc.,[18] and National Union Fire Insurance v. Stolt-Nielsen Phils., Inc.[19] It was ruled in these two cases that after paying the claim of the insured for damages under the insurance policy, the insurer is subrogated merely to the rights of the assured, that is, it can recover only the amount that may, in turn, be recovered by the latter. Since the right of the assured in case of loss or damage to the goods is limited or restricted by the provisions in the bills of lading, a suit by the insurer as subrogee is necessarily subject to the same limitations and restrictions. We do not agree. In the first place, the cases relied on by LOADSTAR involved a limitation on the carriers liability to an amount fixed in the bill of lading which the parties may enter into, provided that the same was freely and fairly agreed upon (Articles 1749-1750). On the other hand, the stipulation in the case at bar effectively reduces the common carriers liability for the loss or destruction of the goods to a degree less than extraordinary (Articles 1744 and 1745), that is, the carrier is not liable for any loss or damage to shipments made at owners risk. Such stipulation is obviously null and void for being contrary to public policy.[20] It has been said:

Three kinds of stipulations have often been made in a bill of lading. The first is one exempting the carrier from any and all liability for loss or damage occasioned by its own negligence. The second is one providing for an unqualified limitation of such liability to an agreed valuation. And the third is one limiting the liability of the carrier to an agreed valuation unless the shipper declares a higher value and pays a higher rate of freight. According to an almost uniform weight of authority, the first and second kinds of stipulations are invalid as being contrary to public policy, but the third is valid and enforceable.[21]

Since the stipulation in question is null and void, it follows that when MIC paid the shipper, it was subrogated to all the rights which the latter has against the common carrier, LOADSTAR.

Neither is there merit to the contention that the claim in this case was barred by prescription. MICs cause of action had not yet prescribed at the time it was concerned. Inasmuch as neither the Civil Code nor the Code of Commerce states a specific prescriptive period on the matter, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) which provides for a one-year period of limitation on claims for loss of, or damage to, cargoes sustained during transit may be applied suppletorily to the case at bar. This one-year prescriptive period also applies to the insurer of the good.[22] In this case, the period for filing the action for recovery has not yet elapsed. Moreover, a stipulation reducing the one-year period is null and void;[23] it must, accordingly, be struck down.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the challenged decision of 30 January 1997 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 36401 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

ESTELA L. CRISOSTOMO,petitioner,vs.THE COURT OF APPEALSandCARAVAN TRAVEL & TOURSINTERNATIONAL, INC.,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

YNARES-SANTIAGO,J.:

In May 1991, petitioner Estela L. Crisostomo contracted the services of respondent Caravan Travel and Tours International, Inc. to arrange and facilitate her booking, ticketing and accommodation in a tour dubbed Jewels of Europe. The package tour included the countries of England, Holland, Germany, Austria, Liechstenstein, Switzerland and France at a total cost of P74,322.70.Petitioner was given a 5% discount on the amount, which included airfare, and the booking fee was also waived because petitioners niece, Meriam Menor, was respondent companys ticketing manager.

Pursuant to said contract, Menor went to her aunts residence on June 12, 1991 a Wednesday to deliver petitioners travel documents and plane tickets.Petitioner, in turn, gave Menor the full payment for the package tour.Menor then told her to be at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) onSaturday,two hours before her flight on board British Airways.

Without checking her travel documents, petitioner went to NAIA on Saturday, June 15, 1991, to take the flight for the first leg of her journey from Manila to Hongkong. To petitioners dismay, she discovered that the flight she was supposed to take had already departed the previous day.She learned that her plane ticket was for the flight scheduled on June 14, 1991. She thus called up Menor to complain.

Subsequently, Menor prevailed upon petitioner to take another tour the British Pageant which included England, Scotland and Wales in its itinerary. For this tour package, petitioner was asked anew to pay US$785.00 or P20,881.00 (at the then prevailing exchange rate of P26.60). She gave respondent US$300 or P7,980.00 as partial payment and commenced the trip in July 1991.

Upon petitioners return from Europe, she demanded from respondent the reimbursement of P61,421.70, representing the difference between the sum she paid for Jewels of Europe and the amount she owed respondent for the British Pageant tour. Despite several demands, respondent company refused to reimburse the amount, contending that the same was non-refundable.[1]Petitioner was thus constrained to file a complaint against respondent for breach of contract of carriage and damages, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 92-133 and raffled to Branch 59 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.

In her complaint,[2]petitioner alleged that her failure to join Jewels of Europe was due to respondents fault since it did not clearly indicate the departure date on the plane ticket.Respondent was also negligent in informing her of the wrong flight schedule through its employee Menor.She insisted that the British Pageant was merely a substitute for the Jewels of Europe tour, such that the cost of the former should be properly set-off against the sum paid for the latter.

For its part, respondent company, through its Operations Manager, Concepcion Chipeco, denied responsibility for petitioners failure to join the first tour. Chipeco insisted that petitioner was informed of the correct departure date, which was clearly and legibly printed on the plane ticket. The travel documents were given to petitioner two days ahead of the scheduled trip.Petitioner had only herself to blame for missing the flight, as she did not bother to read or confirm her flight schedule as printed on the ticket.

Respondent explained that it can no longer reimburse the amount paid for Jewels of Europe, considering that the same had already been remitted to its principal in Singapore, Lotus Travel Ltd., which had already billed the same even if petitioner did not join the tour.Lotus European tour organizer, Insight International Tours Ltd., determines the cost of a package tour based on a minimum number of projected participants. For this reason, it is accepted industry practice to disallow refund for individuals who failed to take a booked tour.[3]Lastly, respondent maintained that the British Pageant was not a substitute for the package tour that petitioner missed.This tour was independently procured by petitioner after realizing that she made a mistake in missing her flight for Jewels of Europe. Petitioner was allowed to make a partial payment of only US$300.00 for the second tour because her niece was then an employee of the travel agency.Consequently, respondent prayed that petitioner be ordered to pay the balance of P12,901.00 for the British Pageant package tour.

After due proceedings, the trial court rendered a decision,[4]the dispositive part of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1.Ordering the defendant to return and/or refund to the plaintiff the amount of Fifty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Nine Pesos and Forty Three Centavos (P53,989.43) with legal interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum starting January 16, 1992, the date when the complaint was filed;

2.Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos as and for reasonable attorneys fees;

3.Dismissing the defendants counterclaim, for lack of merit; and

4.With costs against the defendant.

SO ORDERED.[5]The trial court held that respondent was negligent in erroneously advising petitioner of her departure date through its employee, Menor, who was not presented as witness to rebut petitioners testimony. However, petitioner should have verified the exact date and time of departure by looking at her ticket and should have simply not relied on Menors verbal representation. The trial court thus declared that petitioner was guilty of contributory negligence and accordingly, deducted 10% from the amount being claimed as refund.

Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which likewise found both parties to be at fault.However, the appellate court held that petitioner is more negligent than respondent because as a lawyer and well-traveled person, she should have known better than to simply rely on what was told to her.This being so, she is not entitled to any form of damages. Petitioner also forfeited her right to the Jewels of Europe tour and must therefore pay respondent the balance of the price for the British Pageant tour.The dispositive portion of the judgment appealed from reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated October 26, 1995 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is hereby ENTERED requiring the plaintiff-appellee to pay to the defendant-appellant the amount of P12,901.00, representing the balance of the price of the British Pageant Package Tour, the same to earn legal interest at the rate of SIX PERCENT (6%) per annum, to be computed from the time the counterclaim was filed until the finality of this decision. After this decision becomes final and executory, the rate of TWELVE PERCENT (12%) interest per annum shall be additionally imposed on the total obligation until payment thereof is satisfied. The award of attorneys fees is DELETED. Costs against the plaintiff-appellee.

SO ORDERED.[6]Upon denial of her motion for reconsideration,[7]petitioner filed the instant petition under Rule 45 on the following grounds:

I

It is respectfully submitted that the Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in reversing and setting aside the decision of the trial court by ruling that the petitioner is not entitled to a refund of the cost of unavailed Jewels of Europe tour she being equally, if not more, negligent than the private respondent, for in the contract of carriage the common carrier is obliged to observe utmost care and extra-ordinary diligence which is higher in degree than the ordinary diligence required of the passenger. Thus, even if the petitioner and private respondent were both negligent, the petitioner cannot be considered to be equally, or worse, more guilty than the private respondent. At best, petitioners negligence is only contributory while the private respondent [is guilty] of gross negligence making the principle of pari delicto inapplicable in the case;

II

The Honorable Court of Appeals also erred in not ruling that the Jewels of Europe tour was not indivisible and the amount paid therefor refundable;

III

The Honorable Court erred in not granting to the petitioner the consequential damages due her as a result of breach of contract of carriage.[8]Petitioner contends that respondent did not observe the standard of care required of a common carrier when it informed her wrongly of the flight schedule. She could not be deemed more negligent than respondent since the latter is required by law to exercise extraordinary diligence in the fulfillment of its obligation. If she were negligent at all, the same is merely contributory and not the proximate cause of the damage she suffered. Her loss could only be attributed to respondent as it was the direct consequence of its employees gross negligence.

Petitioners contention has no merit.

By definition, a contract of carriage or transportation is one whereby a certain person or association of persons obligate themselves to transport persons, things, or news from one place to another for a fixed price.[9]Such person or association of persons are regarded as carriers and are classified as private or special carriers and common or public carriers.[10]A common carrier is defined under Article 1732 of the Civil Code as persons, corporations, firms or associations 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.

It is obvious from the above definition that respondent is not an entity engaged in the business of transporting either passengers or goods and is therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier. Respondent did not undertake to transport petitioner from one place to another since its covenant with its customers is simply to make travel arrangements in their behalf. Respondents services as a travel agency include procuring tickets and facilitating travel permits or visas as well as booking customers for tours.

While petitioner concededly bought her plane ticket through the efforts of respondent company, this does not mean that the latteripso factois a common carrier. At most, respondent acted merely as an agent of the airline, with whom petitioner ultimately contracted for her carriage to Europe. Respondents obligation to petitioner in this regard was simply to see to it that petitioner was properly booked with the airline for the appointed date and time. Her transport to the place of destination, meanwhile, pertained directly to the airline.

The object of petitioners contractual relation with respondent is the latters service ofarranging and facilitatingpetitioners booking, ticketing and accommodation in the package tour. In contrast, the object of a contract of carriage is thetransportationof passengers or goods. It is in this sense that the contract between the parties in this case was an ordinary one for services and not one of carriage. Petitioners submission is premised on a wrong assumption.

The nature of the contractual relation between petitioner and respondent is determinative of the degree of care required in the performance of the latters obligation under the contract. For reasons of public policy, a common carrier in a contract of carriage is bound by law to carry passengers as far as human care and foresight can provide using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons and with due regard for all the circumstances.[11]As earlier stated, however, respondent is not a common carrier but a travel agency. It is thus not bound under the law to observe extraordinary diligence in the performance of its obligation, as petitioner claims.

Since the contract between the parties is an ordinary one for services, the standard of care required of respondent is that of a good father of a family under Article 1173 of the Civil Code.[12]This connotes reasonable care consistent with that which an ordinarily prudent person would have observed when confronted with a similar situation. The test to determine whether negligence attended the performance of an obligation is: did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation?If not, then he is guilty of negligence.[13]In the case at bar, the lower court found Menor negligent when she allegedly informed petitioner of the wrong day of departure. Petitioners testimony was accepted as indubitable evidence of Menors alleged negligent act since respondent did not call Menor to the witness stand to refute the allegation. The lower court applied the presumption under Rule 131, Section 3 (e)[14]of the Rules of Court that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced and thus considered petitioners uncontradicted testimony to be sufficient proof of her claim.

On the other hand, respondent has consistently denied that Menor was negligent and maintains that petitioners assertion is belied by the evidence on record. The date and time of departure was legibly written on the plane ticket and the travel papers were delivered two days in advance precisely so that petitioner could prepare for the trip. It performed all its obligations to enable petitioner to join the tour and exercised due diligence in its dealings with the latter.

We agree with respondent.

Respondents failure to present Menor as witness to rebut petitioners testimony could not give rise to an inference unfavorable to the former. Menor was already working in France at the time of the filing of the complaint,[15]thereby making it physically impossible for respondent to present her as a witness. Then too, even if it were possible for respondent to secure Menors testimony, the presumption under Rule 131, Section 3(e) would still not apply.The opportunity and possibility for obtaining Menors testimony belonged to both parties, considering that Menor was not just respondents employee, but also petitioners niece.It was thus error for the lower court to invoke the presumption that respondent willfully suppressed evidence under Rule 131, Section 3(e).Said presumption would logically be inoperative if the evidence is not intentionally omitted but is simply unavailable, or when the same could have been obtained by both parties.[16]In sum, we do not agree with the finding of the lower court that Menors negligence concurred with the negligence of petitioner and resultantly caused damage to the latter.Menors negligence was not sufficiently proved, considering that the only evidence presented on this score was petitioners uncorroborated narration of the events. It is well-settled that the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation cannot take the place of evidence.[17]If the plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner facts upon which he bases his claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense.[18]Contrary to petitioners claim, the evidence on record shows that respondent exercised due diligence in performing its obligations under the contract and followed standard procedure in rendering its services to petitioner. As correctly observed by the lower court, the plane ticket[19]issued to petitioner clearly reflected the departure date and time, contrary to petitioners contention. The travel documents, consisting of the tour itinerary, vouchers and instructions, were likewise delivered to petitioner two days prior to the trip. Respondent also properly booked petitioner for the tour, prepared the necessary documents and procured the plane tickets. It arranged petitioners hotel accommodation as well as food, land transfers and sightseeing excursions, in accordance with its avowed undertaking.

Therefore, it is clear that respondent performed its prestation under the contract as well as everything else that was essential to book petitioner for the tour.Had petitioner exercised due diligence in the conduct of her affairs, there would have been no reason for her to miss the flight. Needless to say, after the travel papers were delivered to petitioner, it became incumbent upon her to take ordinary care of her concerns. This undoubtedly would require that she at least read the documents in order to assure herself of the important details regarding the trip.

The negligence of the obligor in the performance of the obligation renders him liable for damages for the resulting loss suffered by the obligee. Fault or negligence of the obligor consists in his failure to exercise due care and prudence in the performance of the obligation as the nature of the obligation so demands.[20]There is no fixed standard of diligence applicable to each and every contractual obligation and each case must be determined upon its particular facts. The degree of diligence required depends on the circumstances of the specific obligation and whether one has been negligent is a question of fact that is to be determined after taking into account the particulars of each case.[21]The lower court declared that respondents employee was negligent.This factual finding, however, is not supported by the evidence on record.While factual findings below are generally conclusive upon this court, the rule is subject to certain exceptions, as when the trial court overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which will affect the result of the case.[22]In the case at bar, the evidence on record shows that respondent company performed its duty diligently and did not commit any contractual breach. Hence, petitioner cannot recover and must bear her own damage.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition isDENIED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51932 is AFFIRMED.Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to pay respondent the amount of P12,901.00 representing the balance of the price of the British Pageant Package Tour, with legal interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum, to be computed from the time the counterclaim was filed until the finality of this Decision.After this Decision becomes final and executory, the rate of 12% per annum shall be imposed until the obligation is fully settled, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.[23]SO ORDERED.

Transportation LawsA. Common Carriers

A. In General;

b. Nature of Business; power of the state ro regulate (1765)PANTRANCO VS. PSC, 70 Phil. 221

June 26, 1940

G.R. No. 47065PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., petitioner, vs.THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.

The petitioner has been engaged for the past twenty years in the business of transporting passengers in the Province of Pangasinan and Tarlac and, to a certain extent, in the Province of Nueva Ecija and Zambales, by means of motor vehicles commonly known as TPU buses, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the certificates of public convenience issued in its favor by the former Public Utility Commission in cases Nos. 24948, 30973, 36830, 32014 and 53090. On August 26, 1939, the petitioner filed with the Public Service Commission an application for authorization to operate ten additional new Brockway trucks (case No. 56641), on the ground that they were needed to comply with the terms and conditions of its existing certificates and as a result of the application of the Eight Hour Labor Law. In the decision of September 26, 1939, granting the petitioner's application for increase of equipment, the Public Service Commission ordered:

Y de acuerdo con que se provee por el articulo 15 de la ley No. 146 del Commonwealth, tal como ha sido enmendada por el articulo 1 de la Ley No. 454, por la presente se enmienda las condiciones de los certificados de convenciencia publica expedidos en los expedientes Nos. 24948, 30973, 36831, 32014 y la authorizacion el el expediente No. 53090, asi que se consideran incorporadas en los mismos las dos siguientes condiciones:

Que los certificados de conveniencia publica y authorizacion arriba mencionados seran validos y subsistentes solamente durante de veinticinco (25) anos, contados desde la fecha de la promulgacion de esta decision.

Que la empresa de la solicitante porda ser adquirida por el Commonwealth de Filipinas o por alguna dependencia del mismo en cualquier tiempo que lo deseare previo pago del precio d costo de su equipo util, menos una depreciacion razonable que se ha fijar por la Comision al tiempo de su adquisicion.

Not being agreeable to the two new conditions thus incorporated in its existing certificates, the petitioner filed on October 9, 1939 a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Public Service Commission on November 14, 1939. Whereupon, on November 20, 1939, the present petition for a writ of certiorari was instituted in this court praying that an order be issued directing the secretary of the Public Service Commission to certify forthwith to this court the records of all proceedings in case No. 56641; that this court, after hearing, render a decision declaring section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 454 unconstitutional and void; that, if this court should be of the opinion that section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 454 is constitutional, a decision be rendered declaring that the provisions thereof are not applicable to valid and subsisting certificates issued prior to June 8, 1939. Stated in the language of the petitioner, it is contended:

1. That the legislative powers granted to the Public Service Commission by section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 454, without limitation, guide or rule except the unfettered discretion and judgment of the Commission, constitute a complete and total abdication by the Legislature of its functions in the premises, and for that reason, the Act, in so far as those powers are concerned, is unconstitutional and void.

2. That even if it be assumed that section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 454, is valid delegation of legislative powers, the Public Service Commission has exceeded its authority because: (a) The Act applies only to future certificates and not to valid and subsisting certificates issued prior to June 8, 1939, when said Act took effect, and (b) the Act, as applied by the Commission, violates constitutional guarantees.

Section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended by section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 454, invoked by the respondent Public Service Commission in the decision complained of in the present proceedings, reads as follows:

With the exception to those enumerated in the preceding section, no public service shall operate in the Philippines without possessing a valid and subsisting certificate from the Public Service Commission, known as "certificate of public convenience," or "certificate of convenience and public necessity," as the case may be, to the effect that the operation of said service and the authorization to do business will promote the public interests in a proper and suitable manner.

The Commission may prescribed as a condition for the issuance of the certificate provided in the preceding paragraph that the service can be acquired by the Commonwealth of the Philippines or by any instrumentality thereof upon payment of the cost price of its useful equipment, less reasonable depreciation; and likewise, that the certificate shall valid only for a definite period of time; and that the violation of any of these conditions shall produce the immediate cancellation of the certificate without the necessity of any express action on the part of the Commission.

In estimating the depreciation, the effect of the use of the equipment, its actual condition, the age of the model, or other circumstances affecting its value in the market shall be taken into consideration.

The foregoing is likewise applicable to any extension or amendment of certificates actually force and to those which may hereafter be issued, to permits to modify itineraries and time schedules of public services and to authorization to renew and increase equipment and properties.

Under the first paragraph of the aforequoted section 15 of Act No. 146, as amended, no public service can operate without a certificate of public convenience or certificate of convenience and public necessity to the effect that the operation of said service and the authorization to do business will "public interests in a proper and suitable manner." Under the second paragraph, one of the conditions which the Public Service Commission may prescribed the issuance of the certificate provided for in the first paragraph is that "the service can be acquired by the Commonwealth of the Philippines or by any instrumental thereof upon payment of the cost price of its useful equipment, less reasonable depreciation," a condition which is virtually a restatement of the principle already embodied in the Constitution, section 6 of Article XII, which provides that "the State may, in the interest of national welfare and defense, establish and operate industries and means of transportation and communication, and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the Government. "Another condition which the Commission may prescribed, and which is assailed by the petitioner, is that the certificate "shall be valid only for a definite period of time." As there is a relation between the first and second paragraphs of said section 15, the two provisions must be read and interpreted together. That is to say, in issuing a certificate, the Commission must necessarily be satisfied that the operation of the service under said certificate during a definite period fixed therein "will promote the public interests in a proper and suitable manner." Under section 16 (a) of Commonwealth Act. No. 146 which is a complement of section 15, the Commission is empowered to issue certificates of public convenience whenever it "finds that the operation of the public service proposed and the authorization to do business will promote the public interests in a proper and suitable manner." Inasmuch as the period to be fixed by the Commission under section 15 is inseparable from the certificate itself, said period cannot be disregarded by the Commission in determining the question whether the issuance of the certificate will promote the public interests in a proper and suitable manner. Conversely, in determining "a definite period of time," the Commission will be guided by "public interests," the only limitation to its power being that said period shall not exceed fifty years (sec. 16 (a), Commonwealth Act No. 146; Constitution, Art. XIII, sec. 8.) We have already ruled that "public interest" furnishes a sufficient standard. (People vs. Fernandez and Trinidad, G. R. No. 45655, promulgated June 15, 1938; People vs. Rosenthal and Osmea, G. R. Nos. 46076 and 46077, promulgated June 12, 1939, citing New York Central Securities Corporation vs. U.S.A., 287 U.S. 12, 24, 25, 77 Law. ed. 138, 145, 146; Schenchter Poultry Corporation vs. I.S., 295, 540, 79 Law. ed. 1570, 1585; Ferrazzini vs. Gsell, 34 Phil., 697, 711-712.)

Section 8 of Article XIII of the Constitution provides, among other things, that no franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be "for a longer period than fifty years," and when it was ordained, in section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 454, that the Public Service Commission may prescribed as a condition for the issuance of a certificate that it "shall be valid only for a definite period of time" and, in section 16 (a) that "no such certificates shall be issued for a period of more than fifty years," the National Assembly meant to give effect to the aforesaid constitutional mandate. More than this, it has thereby also declared its will that the period to be fixed by the Public Service Commission shall not be longer than fifty years. All that has been delegated to the Commission, therefore, is the administrative function, involving the use discretion, to carry out the will of the National Assembly having in view, in addition, the promotion of "public interests in a proper and suitable manner." The fact that the National Assembly may itself exercise the function and authority thus conferred upon the Public Service Commission does not make the provision in question constitutionally objectionable.

The theory of the separation of powers is designed by its originators to secure action and at the same time to forestall overaction which necessarily results from undue concentration of powers, and thereby obtain efficiency and prevent deposition. Thereby, the "rule of law" was established which narrows the range of governmental action and makes it subject to control by certain devices. As a corollary, we find the rule prohibiting delegation of legislative authority, and from the earliest time American legal authorities have proceeded on the theory that legislative power must be exercised by the legislature alone. It is frankness, however, to confess that as one delves into the mass of judicial pronouncement, he finds a great deal of confusion. One thing, however, is apparent in the development of the principle of separation of powers and that is that the maxim of delegatus non potest delegari or delegata potestas non potest delegari, attributed to Bracton (De Legius et Consuetedinious Angliae, edited by G. E. Woodbine, Yale University Press, 1922, vol. 2, p. 167) but which is also recognized in principle in the Roman Law (D. 17.18.3), has been made to adapt itself to the complexities of modern governments, giving rise to the adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of "subordinate legislation," not only in the United States and England but in practically all modern governments. (People vs. Rosenthal and Osmea, G. R. Nos. 46076 and 46077, promulgated June 12, 1939.) Accordingly, with the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater powers by the legislature, and toward the approval of the practice by the court. (Dillon Catfish Drainage Dist, v. Bank of Dillon, 141 S. E. 274, 275, 143 S. Ct. 178; State vs. Knox County, 54 S. W. 2d. 973, 976, 165 Tenn. 319.) In harmony with such growing tendency, this Court, since the decision in the case of Compaia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Board of Public Utility Commissioner (34 Phil., 136), relied upon by the petitioner, has, in instances, extended its seal of approval to the "delegation of greater powers by the legislature." (Inchausti Steamship Co. vs. Public Utility Commissioner, 44 Phil., 363; Autobus Co. vs. De Jesus, 56 Phil., 446; People vs. Fernandez & Trinidad, G. R. No. 45655, promulgated June 15, 1938; People vs. Rosenthal & Osmea, G. R. Nos. 46076, 46077, promulgated June 12, 1939; and Robb and Hilscher vs. People, G. R. No. 45866, promulgated June 12, 1939.)

Under the fourth paragraph of section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 454, the power of the Public Service Commission to prescribed the conditions "that the service can be acquired by the Commonwealth of the Philippines or by any instrumentality thereof upon payment of the cost price of its useful equipment, less reasonable," and "that the certificate shall be valid only for a definite period of time" is expressly made applicable "to any extension or amendment of certificates actually in force" and "to authorizations to renew and increase equipment and properties." We have examined the legislative proceedings on the subject and have found that these conditions were purposely made applicable to existing certificates of public convenience. The history of Commonwealth Act No. 454 reveals that there was an attempt to suppress, by way of amendment, the sentence "and likewise, that the certificate shall be valid only for a definite period of time," but the attempt failed:

x x x x x x x x x

Sr. CUENCO. Se?or Presidente, para otra enmienda. En la misma pagina, lineas 23 y 24, pido que se supriman las palabras 'and likewise, that the certificate shall be valid only for a definite period time.' Esta disposicion del proyecto autoriza a la Comision de Servicios Publicos a fijar un plazo de vigencia certificado de conveniencia publica. Todo el mundo sabe que bo se puede determinar cuando los intereses del servicio publico requiren la explotacion de un servicio publico y ha de saber la Comision de Servisios, si en un tiempo determinado, la explotacion de algunos buses en cierta ruta ya no tiene de ser, sobre todo, si tiene en cuenta; que la explotacion de los servicios publicos depende de condiciones flutuantes, asi como del volumen como trafico y de otras condiciones. Ademas, el servicio publico se concede por la Comision de Servicios Publicos el interes publico asi lo exige. El interes publico no tiene duracion fija, no es permanente; es un proceso mas o menos indefinido en cuanto al tiempo. Se ha acordado eso en el caucus de anoche.

EL PRESIDENTE PRO TEMPORE. ?Que dice el Comite?

Sr. ALANO. El Comite siente tener que rechazar esa enmienda, en vista de que esto certificados de conveniencia publica es igual que la franquicia: sepuede extender. Si los servicios presentados por la compa?ia durante el tiempo de su certificado lo require, puede pedir la extension y se le extendera; pero no creo conveniente el que nosotros demos un certificado de conveniencia publica de una manera que podria pasar de cincuenta anos, porque seria anticonstitucional.

x x x x x x x x x

By a majority vote the proposed amendment was defeated. (Sesion de 17 de mayo de 1939, Asamblea Nacional.)

The petitioner is mistaken in the suggestion that, simply because its existing certificates had been granted before June 8, 1939, the date when Commonwealth Act No. 454, amendatory of section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, was approved, it must be deemed to have the right of holding them in perpetuity. Section 74 of the Philippine Bill provided that "no franchise, privilege, or concession shall be granted to any corporation except under the conditions that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress of the United States." The Jones Law, incorporating a similar mandate, provided, in section 28, that "no franchise or right shall be granted to any individual, firm, or corporation except under the conditions that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress of the United States." Lastly, the Constitution of the Philippines provided, in section 8 of Article XIII, that "no franchise or right shall be granted to any individual, firm, or corporation, except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the National Assembly when the public interest so requires." The National Assembly, by virtue of the Constitution, logically succeeded to the Congress of the United States in the power to amend, alter or repeal any franchise or right granted prior to or after the approval of the Constitution; and when Commonwealth Acts Nos. 146 and 454 were enacted, the National Assembly, to the extent therein provided, has declared its will and purpose to amend or alter existing certificates of public convenience.

Upon the other hand, statutes enacted for the regulation of public utilities, being a proper exercise by the state of its police power, are applicable not only to those public utilities coming into existence after its passage, but likewise to those already established and in operation.

Nor is there any merit in petitioner's contention, that, because of the establishment of petitioner's operations prior to May 1, 1917, they are not subject to the regulations of the Commission. Statutes for the regulation of public utilities are a proper exercise by the state of its police power. As soon as the power is exercised, all phases of operation of established utilities, become at once subject to the police power thus called into operation. Procedures' Transportation Co. v. Railroad Commission, 251 U. S. 228, 40 Sup. Ct. 131, 64 Law. ed. 239, Law v. Railroad Commission, 184 Cal. 737, 195 Pac. 423, 14 A. L. R. 249. The statute is applicable not only to those public utilities coming into existence after its passage, but likewise to those already established and in operation. The 'Auto Stage and Truck Transportation Act' (Stats. 1917, c. 213) is a statute passed in pursuance of the police power. The only distinction recognized in the statute between those established before and those established after the passage of the act is in the method of the creation of their operative rights. A certificate of public convenience and necessity it required for any new operation, but no such certificate is required of any transportation company for the operation which was actually carried on in good faith on May 1, 1917, This distinction in the creation of their operative rights in no way affects the power of the Commission to supervise and regulate them. Obviously the power of the Commission to hear and dispose of complaints is as effective against companies securing their operative rights prior to May 1, 1917, as against those subsequently securing such right under a certificate of public convenience and necessity. (Motor Transit Co. et al. v. Railroad Commission of California et al., 209 Pac. 586.)

Moreover, Commonwealth Acts Nos. 146 and 454 are not only the organic acts of the Public Service Commission but are "a part of the charter of every utility company operating or seeking to operate a franchise" in the Philippines. (Streator Aqueduct Co. v. et al., 295 Fed. 385.) The business of a common carrier holds such a peculiar relation to the public interest that there is superinduced upon it the right of public regulation. When private property is "affected with a public interest it ceased to be juris privati only." When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discounting the use, but so long as he maintains the use he must submit to control. Indeed, this right of regulation is so far beyond question that it is well settled that the power of the state to exer