COMMERCIAL LAW
Reminders on Transportation Law
Common carriers
Reminders on Transportation Law
Common Carriers
Definition 1. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms
or associations engaged in t he business of carrying or
transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water , or air,
for compensation, offering their services to the public (Art. 1732,
New Civil Co de). 2. Complimentary to the foregoing definition is
Sec. 13, par. (b) of the Public Service Act (CA. 146, as amended).
It defines public service. to be x x x every pers on that now or
hereafter may own, operate manage or control in the Philippines,
for hire or compensation, with general or limited clientele,
whether permanent, occasional o r accidental and done for general
business purposes, and done for common carrier, railroad, street
railway, subway motor vehicle, either for freight or passenger, or
steamship line, ferries and transportation, engaged in the
transportation of pas sengers or freight or both, shipyard, marine
repair shop, wharf or doc , ice plant, ice refrigeration plant,
canal, irrigation system, gas, electric light, heat and pow er,
water supply and power petroleum, sewerage system, wire or wireless
communication systems, wire or wireless broadcasting stations and
other similar public service s.. The concept of common carrier
under Article 1732 may be seen to coincide neatly with the notion
of public service, under the Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amende d,
which at least partially supplements the law on common carriers
provided for in the New Civil Code (Philippine American General
Insurance Company vs. PKS Shipping C o., G.R. No. 149038, 401 SCRA
222). 3. The determination of whether or not a carrier is common or
private have consistently followed the fact pattern in De Guzman
vs. CA, 168 SCRA 612, a case decided on December 22, 1968. Here,
the respondent, a jun dealer, engaged in the busine ss of buying
and selling bottles and scrap metal in Pangasinan. Upon gathering
suffici ent quantities of jun , he would bring the materials to
Manila for resale using two sixwheeler truc s. On the return trip,
he would load his vehicles with cargo of cer tain
The Supreme Court ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE, the Respondent is a
common carrier. Art. 1732 of the Civil Code ma es no distinction
between one whose prin cipal business is the carrying of persons or
goods or both, and one who does the same only as an ancillary
activity or a sideline. The law does not li ewise require that to b
e a common carrier, a person or enterprise should conduct its
business in a regular or sche duled basis. A carrier may be common.
even if its activities are merely episodic, occas ional or even if
unscheduled. Neither does Art. 1732 distinguish between a carrier
offeri ng its services to the general public, the general community
or population and one who offers services or solicits business only
from a narrow segment of the general populati on.
merchants to Pangasinan and would charge freight rates lower
than the normal commercial rates. In one of those return trips,
petitioner, De Guzman, contracte d the respondent to deliver from
Ma ati to Urdaneta, Pangasinan two truc loads of mil . Only one
truc reached its destination. The other truc was hijac ed somewhere
i n Paniqui, Tarlac. Petitioner now wants to hold respondent liable
as a common carr ier. The latter contends that it cannot be liable
as a common carrier because the tra nsporting of goods on the
return trip is not his usual occupation but a mere casual activi ty
and a mere sideline to his jun dealership and that it had no
certificate of public co nvenience normally granted by law to
common carriers. Is respondent a common carrier?
4. A certificate of public convenience is not required to ma e
an entity a commo n carrier. A certificate of public convenience is
not a requisite for an enterpris e to be a common carrier (De
Guzman vs. CA, 168 SCRA 612, December 22, 1968). Further, a common
carrier may be considered as such despite its having a limited
clientele (Phil. American General Insurance Co., vs. PKS Shipping
Co., G.R. No. 149038, 401 SCRA 222). 5. The absence of a fixed
route or the failure of an enterprise to issue tic ets does not
prevent it from being considered as a common carrier. The defense
that a car rier cannot be considered common because it has no
publicly nown route and terminals , with a limited clientele and
issues no tic ets is unavailing. The principal busi ness of
petitioner is that of lighterage and drayage and that it offers its
barges for t he transporting of goods by water for compensation
even if done on an irregular rat her than scheduled manner and with
only limited clientele. A common carrier need not have fixed and
publicly nown routes. Neither does it have to maintain terminals or
i ssue tic ets (Asia Lighterage and Shipping co., vs. CA, G.R.
No.147246, 409 SCRA 340) . 6. The concept of a common carrier is
not limited to moving objects. A corporati on which is a grantee of
pipeline concession to install, operate pipelines and thro ugh such
pipes, is engaged in the business of transporting and carrying
petroleum product s for persons who want to employ its services for
compensation is a common carrier eve n if it has a limited
clientele. The term common carrier. does not only include entities
using trains, truc s, ships and the li e. The definition of the
term common carrier. un der Art. 1732 ma es no distinction as to
the means of transporting, as long as it is by l and, water, or
air. (First Philippine Industrial Corporation vs. CA, G.R. No.
125948, 300 SC RA 661). 7. A customs bro er is considered a common
carrier. A customs bro er whose principal function is to prepare
the correct customs declaration and proper ship ping documents as
required by law is a common carrier. It suffices that it underta es
to deliver the goods for pecuniary consideration (A.F. Sanchez Bro
erage Inc. vs. C A and FGU Insurance Corp., G.R. 147079, 447 SCRA
427). There is greater reason for holding a person who is a customs
bro er to be a common carrier because the transportation of goo ds
is an integral part of its business (Calvo vs. UCPB General
Insurance Co., Inc., 37 9 SCRA 510). 8. A travel agency engaged in
the business of arranging, facilitating, boo ing, tic eting and
accommodation of travelers is neither a private nor a common carri
er. It
does not underta e to transport people from one place to
another, its covenant w ith its customers being to ma e travel
arrangements for its customers which services inc lude procuring
tic ets and facilitating travel permits or visas as well as boo ing
cu stomers for tours. Although one s tic et was bought through the
efforts of the travel agency, this does not ma e the latter a
common carrier. At most the travel agency is merely a n agent of
the airline with whom the customer ultimately contracted for
carriage. The co ntract between the travel agency and the traveler
is an ordinary contract of services a nd not one of carriage
(Crisostomo vs. CA, 409 SCRA 528). 9. Generally, the true test of a
common carrier is the carriage of passengers or goods, providing
services to those who opt to avail themselves of its transporta
tion services for a fee. If the carrier renders and offers its
services exclusively f or a particular person or entity and to no
other, the carrier is not a common carrier (FGU Insur ance Corp.
vs. G.P. Sarmiento Truc ing Corp., 386 SCRA 312).
the business transacted 409 SCRA 340).
In other words, we have to consider whether or not the part of
the business engaged in by the carrier which he ral public as his
occupation rather than the quantity or extent of (Asia Lighterage
and Shipping, Inc., vs. CA, G.R. No. 147246,
given underta ing is has held out to the gene
Specifically, the tests whether a party is a common carrier of
goods are: (a) He must be engaged in the business of carrying goods
for others as a public employment, and must hold himself out as
ready to engage in the transportation of goods for persons
generally as a business and not as a casual occupation; (b) He must
underta e to carry goods of the ind to which his business is
confined; (c) He must underta e to carry by the method by which his
business is conducted and over his established roads; and, (d) The
transportation must be for hire (First Philippine Industrial
Corporation vs. CA, 300 SCRA 661). 10. The electric power industry
traditionally consists of three subsectors namel y: (a) generation
sector, which consists of generation companies and their power
generation facilities; (b) the transmission sector, which conveys
electric power through high voltage power bac bone or grids; (c)
and the distribution sector, which consists of distribution
utilities that convey electricity from the high voltage
transmission to end-users via the subtransmission assets. 11.
Section 6, Chapter 11 of the Electric Power Industry Reform Act,
R.A. 9136 (EPIRA) of 2001 declares that, Generation of electric
power shall be competitive and open.. Thus, (a) it shall not be a
public utility operation requiring a local or national franchise;
(b) the prices charged by a generation company for supply of
electrici ty shall not be subject to regulation by the ERC
