Case Digest: Fisher vs. Yangco Steamship Company, G.R. No. L8095

 

Fisher vs. Yangco Steamship Company, G.R. No. L8095, March 31, 1915

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

The plaintiff, a stockholder in the Yangco Steamship Company, is suing the company for refusing to accept dynamite, powder, or other explosives for carriage on its vessels. The company's directors have declared that the classes of merchandise to be carried do not include such explosives, and prohibiting officers, agents, and servants from carrying or accepting such explosives. The Acting Collector of Customs demanded the company's acceptance and carriage of such explosives, and the company has refused to issue clearance documents until the company consents.

The plaintiff believes that if the company declines to accept such explosives, the Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands and the prosecuting attorney of Manila intend to institute proceedings against the company, its managers, agents, and servants to enforce the requirements. As a result, the company's managers and agents refuse to cease the carriage of such explosives.

The plaintiff filed a case to enjoin the steamship company from accepting such explosives under any conditions, prohibit the Collector of Customs and prosecuting officers from compel the company to accept such explosives, and prohibit officials from invoked penal provisions of Act No. 98 in case of refusal. The petitioner argued that a common carrier in the Philippine Islands may decline to accept any shipment of merchandise of a class it expressly or impliedly declines to accept from all shippers, as the duty of a common carrier to carry for all who offer arises from their public profession.

ISSUE

Whether or not a steam vessel's owners and officers, licensed to engage in coastwise trade of the Philippine Islands, can refuse to accept "dynamite, powder, or other explosives" from any shippers offering such explosives for carriage, if they are a common carrier.

RULING

No, a steam vessel's owners and officers, licensed to engage in the coastwise trade of the Philippine Islands, cannot refuse to accept "dynamite, powder, or other explosives" from any shippers offering such explosives for carriage, if they are a common carrier.

Under the law, common carriers cannot decline to accept certain goods for carriage due to traffic prejudice unless it is reasonable and necessary. Discrimination must be substantial, justifying the courts' decision. The state has the power to impose just regulations in the public's interest, but these must not deprive property owners without due process, confiscate private property without just compensation, or limit vested rights or privileges acquired under a charter or franchise. Mere prejudice or whim will not suffice.

The provisions of the Philippine statute (Act No. 98) do not force a common carrier to engage in any business against their will or make use of their facilities in a manner or for a purpose for which they are not reasonably adapted. It only prescribes that a common carrier must treat all alike, may not pick and choose which customer he will serve, and shall not make any undue or unreasonable preferences or discriminations whatsoever to the prejudice not only of any person or locality but also of any particular kind of traffic.

In the case of a steamship company, the refusal of a vessel to accept explosives for carriage on any of its vessels subjects the traffic in such explosives to a manifest prejudice and discrimination. The mere fact that violent and destructive explosions can be obtained by the use of dynamite under certain conditions is not sufficient to justify the refusal of a vessel, duly licensed as a common carrier of merchandise, to accept it for carriage. If the carrier can exercise due diligence and take reasonable precautions, the carrier would not be justified in subjecting the traffic in this commodity to prejudice or discrimination by proof that there would be a possibility of danger from explosion when no such precautions are taken.