Planters
 PPI purchased from Mitsubishi of Urea 46% fertilizer which the latter shipped in bulk aboard the
cargo vessel M/V "Sun Plum" owned by private respondent KKKK.
 a time charter-party on the vessel M/V "Sun Plum" pursuant to the Uniform General Charter 2 was
entered into between Mitsubishi as shipper/charterer and KKKK as shipowner.
 Before loading the fertilizer aboard the vessel, 4 of her holds 4 were all presumably inspected by
the charterer’s representative and found fit to take a load of urea in bulk pursuant to par. 16 of the
charter-party.
 After the Urea fertilizer was loaded in bulk by stevedores hired by and under the supervision of the
shipper, the steel hatches were closed with heavy iron lids, covered with 3 layers of tarpaulin, then
tied with steel bonds. The hatches remained closed and tightly sealed throughout the entire
voyage.
 Upon arrival of the vessel at her port of call, the steel pontoon hatches were opened with the use of
the vessel’s boom. Petitioner unloaded the cargo from the holds into its steel-bodied dump trucks
which were parked alongside the berth, using metal scoops attached to the ship, pursuant to the
terms and conditions of the charter-party (which provided for an F.I.O.S. clause). The hatches
remained open throughout the duration of the discharge.
 Each time a dump truck was filled up, its load of Urea was covered with tarpaulin before it was
transported to the consignee’s warehouse located some 5Ometers from the wharf. Midway to the
warehouse, the trucks were made to pass through a weighing scale where they were individually
weighed for the purpose of ascertaining the net weight of the cargo.
 It took 11 days to unload the cargo. The survey report submitted by CSCI to the consignee (PPI)
revealed a shortage in the cargo and that a portion of the Urea fertilizer was contaminated with
dirt. The same results were contained in a Certificate of Shortage/Damaged Cargo prepared by PPI
which showed that the cargo delivered was indeed short and were rendered unfit for commerce,
having been polluted with sand, rust and dirt.
 Consequently, PPI sent a claim letter SSA, the resident agent of the carrier, KKKK, representing the
cost of the alleged shortage in the goods shipped and the diminution in value of that portion said to
have been contaminated with dirt.
 PPI filed an action for damages with the CFI of Manila. The defendant carrier argued that the strict
public policy governing common carriers does not apply to them because they have become private
carriers by reason of the provisions of the charter-party.
RTC: Sustained the claim of Plaintiff against the defendant carrier for the value of the goods lost or damaged.
CA: Reversed. private respondent KKKK was a private carrier and not a common carrier by reason of the time
charter-party. Accordingly, the Civil Code provisions on common carriers which set forth a presumption of
negligence do not find application in the case at bar.
ISSUE:
W/N a common carrier became a private carrier by reason of time charter party.
RULING:
A "charter-party" is defined as a contract by which an entire ship, or some principal part thereof, is let by the
owner to another person for a specified time or use;
a contract of affreightment by which the owner of a ship or other vessel lets the whole or a part of her to a
merchant or other person for the conveyance of goods, on a particular voyage, in consideration of the
payment of freight;
Charter parties are of two types:
(a) contract of affreightment which involves the use of shipping space on vessels leased by the
owner in part or as a whole, to carry goods for others; and,
(b) charter by demise or bareboat charter, by the terms of which the whole vessel is let to the
charterer with a transfer to him of its entire command and possession and consequent control over
its navigation, including the master and the crew, who are his servants.
Contract of affreightment may either be time charter, wherein the vessel is leased to the charterer for a fixed
period of time, or voyage charter, wherein the ship is leased for a single voyage.
The distinction between a "common or public carrier" and a "private or special carrier" lies in the character of
the business, such that if the undertaking is a single transaction, not a part of the general business or
occupation, although involving the carriage of goods for a fee, the person or corporation offering such service
is a private carrier.
Common Carrier Remain CC
It is therefore imperative that a public carrier shall remain as such, notwithstanding the charter of the whole
or portion of a vessel by one or more persons, provided the charter is limited to the ship only, as in the case
of a time-charter or voyage-charter.
Common Carrier to Private Carrier
It is only when the charter includes both the vessel and its crew, as in a bareboat or demise that a common
carrier becomes private, at least insofar as the particular voyage covering the charter-party is concerned.
Indubitably, a shipowner in a time or voyage charter retains possession and control of the ship, although her
holds may, for the moment, be the property of the charterer.
1
Respondent carrier has sufficiently overcome, by clear and convincing proof, the prima facie presumption of
negligence. The presumption of negligence on the part of respondent carrier has been efficaciously overcome
by the showing of extraordinary zeal and assiduity exercised by the carrier in the care of the cargo.
Respondent carrier presented a witness who testified on the characteristics of the fertilizer shipped and the
expected risks of bulk shipping. The primary cause of these spillages is the clamped shell which does not seal
very tightly. Also, the wind tends to blow away some of the materials during the unloading process.
 Devastated Zarates commenced this action for damages against Alfaro, the Pereñas, PNR and
Alano.
 In their defense, the Pereñas adduced evidence to show that they had exercised the diligence of a
good father of the family in the selection and supervision of Alfaro, by making sure that Alfaro had
been issued a driver’s license and had not been involved in any vehicular accident prior to the
collision; that their own son had taken the van daily; and that Teodoro Pereña had sometimes
accompanied Alfaro in the van’s trips transporting the students to school.

Clearly, respondent carrier has sufficiently proved the inherent character of the goods which makes it highly RTC
vulnerable to deterioration; as well as the inadequacy of its packaging which further contributed to the loss.
On the other hand, no proof was adduced by the petitioner showing that the carrier was remiss in the Perenas & PNR are severally and jointly liable. - cooperative gross negligence of the Pereñas and PNR had
exercise of due diligence in order to minimize the loss or damage to the goods it carried. caused the collision that led to the death of Aaron.

CA
SPS PERENAS
Affrimed RTC's Decision
 The Pereñas were engaged in the business of transporting students from their respective residences
and back.
 In their business, the Pereñas used a van which had the capacity to transport 14 students at a time.
They employed Clemente Alfaro (Alfaro) as driver of the van.
 In June 1996, the Zarates contracted the Pereñas to transport Aaron to and from Don Bosco.
 Aaron took his place on the left side of the van near the rear door. Considering that the students ISSUE:
were due at Don Bosco by 7:15 a.m., and that they were already running late because of the heavy
vehicular traffic on the South Superhighway, Alfaro took the van to an alternate route. W/N Perenas operated as a private carrier thus the diligence need to be exerciseby them is only due diligence
of a good father of family.
 At the time, the narrow path was marked by piles of construction materials and parked passenger
jeepneys, and the railroad crossing in the narrow path had no railroad warning signs, or watchmen,
or other responsible persons manning the crossing. In fact, the bamboo barandilla was up, leaving
the railroad crossing open to traversing motorists. RULING:
 At about the time the van was to traverse the railroad crossing, PNR Commuter No. 302 (train),
operated by Alano, was in the vicinity of the Magallanes Interchange travelling northbound. No.
 As the train neared the railroad crossing, Alfaro drove the van eastward across the railroad tracks,
closely tailing a large passenger bus. His view of the oncoming train was blocked because he COMMON CARRIER PRIVATE CARRIER
overtook the passenger bus on its left side. DEFINITION
is a person, corporation, firm or is one who, without making the
 The train blew its horn to warn motorists of its approach. When the train was about 50 meters
association engaged in the activity a vocation, or without
away from the passenger bus and the van, Alano applied the ordinary brakes of the train. He business of carrying or holding himself or itself out to
applied the emergency brakes only when he saw that a collision was imminent. transporting passengers or goods the public as ready to act for all
 The passenger bus successfully crossed the railroad tracks, but the van driven by Alfaro did not. The or both, by land, water, or air, for who may desire his or its
train hit the rear end of the van, and the impact threw nine of the 12 students in the rear, including compensation, offering such services, undertakes, by special
Aaron, out of the van. Aaron landed in the path of the train, which dragged his body and severed his services to the public. agreement in a particular
instance only, to transport goods
head, instantaneously killing him.
or persons from one place to
 Alano fled the scene on board the train, and did not wait for the police investigator to arrive.
another either gratuitously or for

2
 hire.
GOVERNING LAWS
provisions on common carriers of The provisions on ordinary
the Civil Code, the Public Service contracts of the Civil Code
Act, and other special laws govern the contract of private
relating to transportation carriage.
PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE
presumed to be at fault or to
have acted negligently in case of
the loss of the effects of
passengers, or the death or PLANTERS VS PERNAS
injuries to passengers
DILIGENCE REQUIRED HOW COMMON CARRIER (VESSEL) BECAME A HOW COMMON CARRIER (VAN) WAS DETERMINED
A common carrier is required to The diligence required of a RPIVATE CARRIER OR REMAIN AS SUCH TO BE A COMMON CARRIER BY NATURE OF ITS
observe extraordinary diligence private carrier is only ordinary, BUSINESS.
that is, the diligence of a good
father of the family.

the true test for a common carrier is not the quantity or extent of the business actually transacted, or the
number and character of the conveyances used in the activity, but whether the

1. Undertaking is a part of the activity engaged in by the carrier that he has held out to the general
public as his business or occupation.
2. If the undertaking is a single transaction, not a part of the general business or occupation engaged
in, as advertised and held out to the general public, the individual or the entity rendering such
service is a private, not a common, carrier.
3. The question must be determined by the character of the business actually carried on by the
carrier, not by any secret intention or mental reservation it may entertain or assert when charged
with the duties and obligations that the law imposes.

Applying these considerations to the case before us, there is no question that the Pereñas as the operators of
a school bus service were: (a) engaged in transporting passengers generally as a business, not just as a casual
occupation; (b) undertaking to carry passengers over established roads by the method by which the business
was conducted; and (c) transporting students for a fee. Despite catering to a limited clientèle, the Pereñas
operated as a common carrier because they held themselves out as a ready transportation indiscriminately
to the students of a particular school living within or near where they operated the service and for a fee.