ASIA LIGHTERAGE AND SHIPPING, INC. VS.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 147246
August 19, 2003
Puno, J.

Facts:
Better Western White Wheat was shipped by Marubeni American
Corporation of Oregon for delivery to General Milling Corporation (GMC).
The shipment was insured by Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc.
(private respondent)
When the cargo arrived at Manila it was transferred to the custody of Asia
Lighterage and Shipping Inc. (ALSI)
ALSI was contracted by GMC to deliver the cargo to GMCs warehouse at
Pasig City.
The shipment was loaded on a barge for delivery to GMC.
The transport of cargo was suspended due to incoming typhoon.
While weathering out the storm the cargo was tied into other barges.
After few days, the barges developed a list because of a hole it sustained.
ALSI secured the servises of Gaspar Salvaging Corporation to refloat the
barge.
While transporting and before it arrived at GMC wharf, the goods was
transferred to 3 other barges because of strong current and to avoid
complete sinking.
On the next day, the towing bits of the barge broke and it completely sank.
The cargo had never reached GMC.
GMC seek from ALSI and private respondent the payment for the lost
cargo.
Private respondent indemnified GMC.
Private respondent sought recovery from ALSI but to no avail.
Priate respondent filed a case with RTC and the trial court ruled in favor of
private respondent.
Upon appeal by ALSI, CA affirmed the decision of RTC.
Motion for Reconsideration was filed but denied.
Hence, this case.
ALSI contends that:
o It is not a common carrier
o It is not liable for the lost of the cargo.

Issue:
WON ALSI is a common carrier and can be held liable. YES/YES

Held:
The definition of common carriers in Article 1732 of the Civil Code 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.
We also did not distinguish 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.
we ruled that Article 1732 does not distinguish between a carrier offering
its services to the general public, and one who offers services or solicits
business only from a narrow segment of the general population.
The test to determine a common carrier is
o 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.
Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the
vigilance over the goods transported by them.
They are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the
goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated.
To overcome the presumption of negligence in the case of loss,
destruction or deterioration of the goods, the common carrier must prove
that it exercised extraordinary diligence.

Art. 1734. Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or
deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes
only:
1. Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or
calamity;
xxx
In the case at bar, the barge completely sank after its towing bits broke,
resulting in the total loss of its cargo. Petitioner claims that this was
caused by a typhoon; hence, it should not be held liable for the loss of the
cargo. However, petitioner failed to prove that the typhoon is the
proximate and only cause of the loss of the goods, and that it has
exercised due diligence before, during and after the occurrence of the
typhoon to prevent or minimize the loss.
this could not be solely attributed to the typhoon. The partly-submerged
vessel was refloated but its hole was patched with only clay and cement.