Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Case Digest: Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc., v. CA, G.R. No. 147246


Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc., v. CA, G.R. No. 147246. Aug. 19, 2003

Subject: Transportation Law


FACTS

Wheat in bulk was shipped by Marubeni American Corporation to General Milling Corporation in Manila, insured by Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. The cargo was transferred to Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc., contracted by the consignee as carrier. However, the cargo did not reach its destination due to a typhoon warning. The barge was pulled to Engineering Island, developed a list, and ran aground at Sta. Mesa spillways. A portion of the goods was transferred to three other barges to avoid sinking. The barge broke, sank completely, and the private respondent indemnified the consignee. The private respondent filed a complaint for recovery of indemnity, attorney's fees, and cost of suit. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the private respondent, but the petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, claiming it is not a common carrier.

ISSUE

Whether or not the petitioner is a common carrier, thus, liable for the goods lost.

RULING

Yes, the petitioner is a common carrier.

Under the law, common carriers 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. The test to determine a common carrier is "whether the given undertaking is a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to the general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the business transacted."

In this case, the principal business of the petitioner is that of lighterage and drayage and it offers its barges to the public for carrying or transporting goods by water for compensation. Petitioner is clearly a common carrier. Furthermore, SC held that the petitioner is a common carrier whether its carrying of goods is done on an irregular rather than scheduled manner, and with an only limited clientele. A common carrier need not have fixed and publicly known routes. Neither does it have to maintain terminals or issue tickets.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Case Digest: General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC, G.R. No. 178647

  General Santos Coca-Cola Plant Free Workers Union – TUPAS vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines., Inc., CA and NLRC,  G.R. No. 178647,  Februa...