Asia Lighterage and Shipping Inc vs CA and Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Inc.

Facts:

June 13, 1990 3,150 metric tons of better Western White Wheat in bulk valued at US$423,192.35 was shipped by Marubeni American Corporation of Portland, Oregon. MV Neo Cymbidium V-26 for delivery to the consignee General Milling Corporation in Manila Insured with Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Inc for Php 14,621,771.75 July 25, 1990 arrival in Manila and transferred to Asia Lighterage General Milling contracted Asia Lighterage as carrier to deliber cargo to its warehouse in Brgy Ugong, Pasig. August 15, 1990 900 metrci tons of shipment was loaded on barge PSTSI 3 Cargo did not reach destination August 17 transport of cargo was suspended due to warning og an incoming typhoon August 22 petitioner proceeded to pull the barge off to Engineering Island off Baseco to seek shelter from approaching typhoon Barge developed a list because of a hole it sustained after hitting an unseen protuberance underneath the water August 28, 1990 petitioner filed a Marine Protest Secured services of Gaspar Salavging Corporation which refloated the barge and hole was patched with clay and cement Barge was towed to ISLOFF terminal towards General Milling;s wharf Upon reaching Sta. Mesa spillways, the barge again ran aground due to strong current To avoid complete sinking of the barge, a portion of the goods was transferred to 3 other barges Septemner 6 towing bits of the barge broke and sank completely, resulting in total loss of the remaining cargo January 30 PGAC indemnified General Milling in the amounting to Php 4,104,654.22. PGAC tried to recover amount from Asia Lighterage but failed. July 3 private respondent filed with RTC RTC: Asia Lighterage to pay Php 4,104,654.22 with interest from date complaint was filed + 10% Asia Lighterage: It is not a common carrier CA: affirmed RTCs decision

ISSUE: WON Asia Lighterage is a common carrier?

HELD: Yes Petitioner contends that it is not a common carrier but a private carrier. Allegedly, it has no fixed and publicly known route, maintains no terminals, and issues no tickets. It points out that it is not obliged to carry indiscriminately for any person. It is not bound to carry goods unless it consents. In short, it does not hold out its services to the general public [22] In the case at bar, the principal business of the petitioner is that of lighterage and drayage and it offers its barges to the public for carrying or transporting goods by water for compensation. Petitioner is clearly a common carrier. We therefore hold that petitioner is a common carrier whether its carrying of goods is done on an irregular rather than scheduled manner, and with an only limited clientele. A common carrier need not have fixed and publicly known routes. Neither does it have to maintain terminals or issue tickets.