BENEDICTO vs INTERMEDIATE APPELATE COURT CAÑERO, JC

G.R. No. 70876 | 19 July 1990 | Feliciano, J.

DOCTRINE:
A common carrier, both from the nature of its business and for insistent reasons of public policy, is burdened by the law
with the duty of exercising extraordinary diligence not only in ensuring the safety of passengers but also in caring for goods
transported by it. The registered owner rule also applies in carriage of goods.

FACTS:
- Private respondent Greenhills Wood, a lumber manufacturing firm with business address at Dagupan City,
operates a sawmill in Maddela, Quirino. Private respondent bound itself to sell and deliver to Blue Star Inc., a
company with business operations in Valenzuela, a 100,000 board ft. of sawn lumber where an initial delivery
would be made on May 15, 1980.
- To effect the initial delivery, Greenhills, through its resident manager Cruz, contracted Licuden, the driver of a
cargo truck to transport its sawn lumber to the consignee Blue Star in Valenzuela. This cargo truck was
registered in the name of petitioner Benedicto, the proprietor of Macoven Trucking, a business enterprise
engaged in hauling freight with its main office at Paranaque.
- On the day of the expected arrival of sawn lumber, the Manager of Blue Star called up Greenhills informing the
latter that the sawn lumber on board the subject cargo truck has not yet arrived in Valenzuela. 3 days after the
supposed arrival of sawn lumbers, as Blue Star still had not received the sawn lumber, they were constrained
to look for other suppliers.
- Failure to persuade Blue Star to continue with their contract, Greenhills filed Criminal Case against Licuden for
Estafa and to petitioner a Civil Case for recovery of the value of the lost sawn lumber plus damages.
- Petitioner Benedicto denied liability alleging that she was a complete stranger to the contract of carriage, the
subject truck having been sold by her to Tee. That the reason the truck remained registered in her name
notwithstanding the sale to Tee was because there was still a balance to be paid. Petitioner also urges that the
doctrine of the registered owner of a common carrier being answerable to the public for the negligence of the
driver despite the sale to another person, applies only to cases involving death or injury to persons and not
including delivery of goods.
- RTC ruled in favor of Greenhills based on the registered owner rule. This was affirmed by CA in toto.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Benedicto is liable being the registered owner from failure in the delivery of goods– YES

HELD:
There is no dispute that petitioner Benedicto has been holding herself out to the public as engaged in the business
of hauling or transporting goods for hire or compensation. Petitioner Benedicto is, in brief, a common carrier. A common
carrier, both from the nature of its business and for insistent reasons of public policy, is burdened by the law with the duty
of exercising extraordinary diligence not only in ensuring the safety of passengers but also in caring for goods
transported by it. The loss or destruction or deterioration of goods turned over to the common carrier for conveyance to
a designated destination, raises instantly a presumption of fault or negligence on the part of the carrier, save only where
such loss, destruction or damage arises from extreme circumstances such as a natural disaster or calamity or act of the
public enemy in time of war, or from an act or omission of the shipper himself or from the character of the goods or their
packaging or container. The presumption may be overcome only by proof of extraordinary diligence on the part of carrier.
 On petitioners insistence that there was no perfected contract of carriage for the reason that there was no proof
that her consent or that of Tee had been obtained; no proof that the driver, Licuden, was authorized to bind the registered
owner; and no proof that the parties had agreed on the freightage to be paid, the Court held that Licuden was entrusted
with possession and control of the freight truck by the registered owner (and by the alleged secret owner, for that matter).
Driver Licuden, under the circumstances, was clothed with at least implied authority to contract to carry goods and to
accept delivery of such goods for carriage to a specified destination.

PETITION DENIED.