The Supreme Court held that a common carrier is liable for the loss of goods due to the failure to exercise extraordinary diligence, even if the goods were stolen. This ruling underscores the high standard of care expected from common carriers in safeguarding goods entrusted to them, emphasizing their responsibility to take measures that prevent loss or damage during transit.

Hauling Hijack: Who Bears the Loss When Soya Beans Vanish?

This case revolves around a shipment of soya beans that disappeared after being rejected by the intended recipient. Annie Tan, a common carrier, was hired by Great Harvest Enterprises, Inc. to transport 430 bags of soya beans from Manila to Quezon City. After the shipment was rejected, the driver, upon instruction, was to deliver the goods to Great Harvest’s warehouse. However, the truck and its cargo never reached the warehouse, leading to a legal battle over who should bear the loss.

The central legal question is whether Tan, as a common carrier, should be held liable for the value of the stolen soya beans. The determination of liability rests on the degree of diligence required of common carriers under Philippine law. Article 1733 of the Civil Code explicitly states:

ARTICLE 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.

Building on this principle, the Civil Code further clarifies the extent of a common carrier’s responsibility in Article 1734, which enumerates exceptions to their liability. These exceptions include natural disasters, acts of public enemies, and the inherent nature of the goods themselves. However, none of these exceptions were applicable in this case, as the loss was due to theft, not a fortuitous event.

The Supreme Court emphasized the policy rationale behind requiring extraordinary diligence from common carriers. This high standard is rooted in the public nature of their service and the inherent imbalance in the relationship between carriers and those who entrust goods to them. Common carriers essentially have complete control over the goods during transit, placing a significant responsibility on them to ensure their safety.

The court also highlighted the economic principle of allocative efficiency. By requiring common carriers to internalize the costs of losses, the law encourages them to take precautions, leading to a more efficient allocation of resources. This approach contrasts with a system where shippers bear the risk of loss, which could discourage trade and lead to market instability. The decision underscores that the standard business practice when a recipient rejects cargo was to deliver it to Great Harvest’s warehouse and the court thus found no deviation from the original destination.

The petitioner argued that the hijacking of the truck constituted a fortuitous event, absolving her of liability. However, the Court distinguished this case from previous rulings where armed robbery involving grave threats was considered a fortuitous event. In this instance, the loss was attributed to the petitioner’s failure to exercise extraordinary diligence by not providing security for the cargo or obtaining insurance.

To further understand the basis of the ruling, a comparison of the arguments is helpful:

Petitioner’s Argument	Court’s Rebuttal
Contract limited to delivery to Selecta Feeds	Standing agreement to deliver to Great Harvest’s warehouse upon rejection
Loss due to fortuitous event (hijacking)	Loss due to failure to exercise extraordinary diligence
Not liable for actions of third parties	Liable for failing to take preventative measures

The Court gave significant weight to the factual findings of the trial court, which found that the petitioner had agreed to deliver rejected goods to the respondent’s warehouse. The Supreme Court reiterated that findings of fact by lower courts, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally binding. The principle is important as it ensures that appellate courts give due respect to the trial court’s unique position in observing the witnesses.

The absence of grave threat or violence during the theft was a critical factor in the Court’s decision. The Court cited Article 1745 of the Civil Code, which considers stipulations relieving common carriers of liability for acts of thieves or robbers acting without grave threat as unreasonable and contrary to public policy. The Supreme Court’s decision also looked at the De Guzman v. Court of Appeals.

Under Article 1745 (6) above, 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.” We believe and so hold that the limits of the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried are reached where the goods are lost as a result of a robbery which is attended by “grave or irresistible threat, violence or force.”

This case serves as a reminder to common carriers of their responsibility to exercise extraordinary diligence. It is a reminder to take proactive measures, such as conducting thorough background checks on employees, providing adequate security for cargo, and obtaining insurance coverage, to protect the goods entrusted to their care. The ruling reinforces the principle that common carriers are not merely transporters but also custodians responsible for the safe delivery of goods.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the public policy considerations that underpin the law of common carriers. The Court’s analysis ensures that those who engage in public service internalize the costs and actively work to protect their clients. This ultimately promotes fairness and stability in the market.

FAQs

What is a common carrier?	A common carrier is a person or entity engaged in the business of transporting goods or passengers for compensation, offering services to the public.
What level of diligence is required of common carriers?	Common carriers are required to exercise extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods they transport, as mandated by Article 1733 of the Civil Code.
What happens if a common carrier fails to exercise extraordinary diligence?	If a common carrier fails to exercise extraordinary diligence, they are held responsible for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the loss is due to specific exceptions.
What are some exceptions to a common carrier’s liability?	Exceptions include natural disasters, acts of public enemies in war, acts or omissions of the shipper, the character of the goods, and orders from competent public authority.
Was the theft considered a fortuitous event in this case?	No, the theft was not considered a fortuitous event because it was not attended by grave or irresistible threat, violence, or force.
What proactive measures should common carriers take?	Common carriers should conduct thorough background checks on employees, provide adequate security for cargo, and obtain insurance coverage.
What was the main reason the common carrier was held liable in this case?	The common carrier was held liable because she failed to exercise extraordinary diligence by not providing security or insurance for the shipment.
What is the economic justification for requiring extraordinary diligence?	The economic justification is to achieve allocative efficiency, where common carriers internalize the costs of losses, encouraging them to take precautions.

This case reinforces the importance of extraordinary diligence for common carriers in the Philippines. The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that carriers must take proactive steps to safeguard goods, and their failure to do so will result in liability for losses. This ruling protects shippers and maintains a level playing field in the transportation industry.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ANNIE TAN v. GREAT HARVEST ENTERPRISES, INC., G.R. No. 220400, March 20, 2019