Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pedro de Guzman vs. Ca and Ernesto Cendana: I. What Is A Common Carrier? (Article 1732)
Pedro de Guzman vs. Ca and Ernesto Cendana: I. What Is A Common Carrier? (Article 1732)
3. No.
The Supreme Court held that Cendana should not be held liable under the circumstances. The
hijacking of the carriers truck does not fall within any of the five (5) categories enumerated in Article 1734
and that list is exclusive. Therefore, there is a presumption as provided under Article 1735, in other
words, the private respondent as common carrier is presumed to have been at fault or have acted
negligently. This presumption, however, may be overthrown by proof of extraordinary diligence on the part
of Cendana.
Article 1745 (6) provides that 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, except where
such thieves or robbers in fact acted with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force. The Court
believes and so hold that should there be grave and irresistible threat, violence or force the limits of
extraordinary diligence would be reached. In this case ARMED robbers held up the truck of Cendana and in
fact these men were apprehended and were tried before the CFI and were convicted for robbery.
In these circumstances, the SC 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.
Therefore, Cendana is not liable for the value of the undelivered merchandise which was lost
because of an event entirely beyond his control.