1.

DE GUZMAN V CA  Article 1732 makes no distinction between one whose

principal business activity is the carrying of persons
or goods or both, and one who does such carrying
only as an ancillary activity. Article 1732 also carefully
avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise
offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis
and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or
unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish
between a carrier offering its services to the "general public,"
i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers
services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the
general population.
 The hijacking of the carrier's truck - does not fall within any of
the five (5) categories of exempting causes listed in Article
1734 PERO KASAMA IF attended by "grave or irresistible
threat, violence or forcE

NATIONAL STEEL V CA  It has been held that the true test of a common carrier is the carriage of
passengers or goods, provided it has space, for all who opt to avail
themselves of its transportation service for a fee VSI did not offer its
services to the general public. It carried passengers or goods only for
those it chose under a “special contract of charter party
 liability for damage to the cargo, are determined primarily by stipulations
in their contract of private carriage or charter party.
 Civil code wont apply, but code of commerce
FIRST PHIL IND COORP V  The test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods is:
CA (1) 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 person generally as a business and not as a casual occupation;
(2) He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his business is
confined;
(3) He must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is conducted
and over his established roads; and
(4) The transportation must be for hire.
 PIPELINE IS COMMON CARRIER

CALVO V UCPB  Customs broker is a common carrier as transportation of goods is an

integral part of her business
FGU V GP SARMIENTO  GPS cannot be considered a common carrier as it renders service
exclusively to Concepcion Industries
PHILAMGEN V PKS  PKS Shipping has engaged itself in the business of carrying goods for
others, although for a limited clientele, undertaking to carry such
goods for a fee
 Neither can the concept of a common carrier change merely because
individual contracts are executed or entered into with patrons of the
carrier.
 Since may extraordinary waves, hence fortuitous event X liable
ASIA LIGHTRAGE V CA  Tho it has no fixed and publicly known route, maintains no terminals, and
issues no tickets, common carrier parin
 Liable parin since , it had already previously sustained damage when it hit
a sunken object while docked at the Engineering Island X due diligence
2. CRUZ V SUN HOLIDAYS  Common carrier since lahat ng activities pati boat ride kasama sa usapan.
tumuloy parin kahit may cyclone warnings HENCE liable
1. BASCOS V CA  To exculpate the carrier from liability arising from hijacking, he must
prove that the robbers or the hijackers acted with grave or irresistible
threat, violence, or force.

AF BROKERAGE V CA  Customs broker- common carrier

 Tho improperly packed, KNOWLEDGE- wala parin ginwa HENCE LIABLE
TORRES MADRID V FEB  BROKERAGE IS COMMON CARRIER
MITSUI  TMBI is liable to Sony/Mitsui for breaching the contract of carriage. In
turn, TMBI is entitled to reimbursement from BMT (ETO YUNG LIABILITY)
MAY SINAMA DIN DITONG HIJACKING- not proved HENCE liable dito
2. CRISOSTOMO V CA  Booking company NOT Common carrier
 KASALANAN NUNG PETITIONER, KATANGAHAN NYA
ASIAN TERMINALS V  An Arrastre Operator should OBSERVE THE SAME DEGREE OF DILIGENCE
DAEHAN FIRE as that required of COMMON CARRIERS and warehouseman – liable ditto
SPS PERENA V SPS  A school bus operator is a common carrier PNR ALSO NEGLIGENT
ZARATE  Pero the Pereñas and PNR should jointly and severally be liable
3. FISHER V YANGCO  OLD CASE, PWEDE DITO YUNG EXPLOSIVE KASI NGA DAW VITAL MERCH
DAW AND WALANG DANGER CHUCHU, PERO SA NGAYON ANG
APPLICABLR DOCTRINE IS THATDAPAT WALANG DISCRIMINATION
3. US V QUINAHON  The law prohibits common carriers from subjecting any person, etc., or
locality, or any particular kind of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable
prejudice or discrimination whatsoever.
 MAY DISCRIMINATION, MAHAL SINGIL SA GOV
LOADSTAR V CA  It is not necessary that the carrier be issued a certificate of public
convenience
 the bare fact that the vessel was carrying a particular type of cargo for
one shipper, appears to be purely co-incidental-=COMM CARRIER
HOME INSURANCE V  Stipulation for NON LIABILITY IS VALID IF Private carrier (charter)
AMERICAN STEAMSHIP
SAN PABLO V  a ferry boat service has been considered as a continuation of the
PANTRANCO highway when crossingrivers or even lakes, which are small body of
waters – separating the land, however, in this case the two terminals,
separated by an open sea HENCE iba pang CPC DAPAT
1. DE GUZMAN V CA  Article 1732 makes no distinction between one whose
principal business activity is the carrying of persons
or goods or both, and one who does such carrying
only as an ancillary activity. Article 1732 also carefully
avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise
offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis
 and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or
unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish
between a carrier offering its services to the "general public,"
i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers
services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the
general population.
 The hijacking of the carrier's truck - does not fall within any of
the five (5) categories of exempting causes listed in Article
1734 PERO KASAMA IF attended by "grave or irresistible
threat, violence or forcE

NATIONAL STEEL V CA  It has been held that the true test of a common carrier is the carriage of
passengers or goods, provided it has space, for all who opt to avail
themselves of its transportation service for a fee VSI did not offer its
services to the general public. It carried passengers or goods only for
those it chose under a “special contract of charter party
 liability for damage to the cargo, are determined primarily by stipulations
in their contract of private carriage or charter party.
 Civil code wont apply, but code of commerce
FIRST PHIL IND COORP V  The test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods is:
CA (1) 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 person generally as a business and not as a casual occupation;
(2) He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his business is
confined;
(3) He must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is conducted
and over his established roads; and
(4) The transportation must be for hire.
 PIPELINE IS COMMON CARRIER

CALVO V UCPB  Customs broker is a common carrier as transportation of goods is an

integral part of her business
FGU V GP SARMIENTO  GPS cannot be considered a common carrier as it renders service
exclusively to Concepcion Industries
PHILAMGEN V PKS  PKS Shipping has engaged itself in the business of carrying goods for
others, although for a limited clientele, undertaking to carry such
goods for a fee
 Neither can the concept of a common carrier change merely because
individual contracts are executed or entered into with patrons of the
carrier.
 Since may extraordinary waves, hence fortuitous event X liable

ASIA LIGHTRAGE V CA  Tho it has no fixed and publicly known route, maintains no terminals, and
issues no tickets, common carrier parin
 Liable parin since , it had already previously sustained damage when it hit
a sunken object while docked at the Engineering Island X due diligence
2. CRUZ V SUN HOLIDAYS  Common carrier since lahat ng activities pati boat ride kasama sa usapan.
tumuloy parin kahit may cyclone warnings HENCE liable
1. BASCOS V CA  To exculpate the carrier from liability arising from hijacking, he must
prove that the robbers or the hijackers acted with grave or irresistible
threat, violence, or force.

AF BROKERAGE V CA  Customs broker- common carrier

 Tho improperly packed, KNOWLEDGE- wala parin ginwa HENCE LIABLE
TORRES MADRID V FEB  BROKERAGE IS COMMON CARRIER
MITSUI  TMBI is liable to Sony/Mitsui for breaching the contract of carriage. In
turn, TMBI is entitled to reimbursement from BMT (ETO YUNG LIABILITY)
MAY SINAMA DIN DITONG HIJACKING- not proved HENCE liable dito
2. CRISOSTOMO V CA  Booking company NOT Common carrier
 KASALANAN NUNG PETITIONER, KATANGAHAN NYA
ASIAN TERMINALS V  An Arrastre Operator should OBSERVE THE SAME DEGREE OF DILIGENCE
DAEHAN FIRE as that required of COMMON CARRIERS and warehouseman – liable ditto
SPS PERENA V SPS  A school bus operator is a common carrier PNR ALSO NEGLIGENT
ZARATE  Pero the Pereñas and PNR should jointly and severally be liable
3. FISHER V YANGCO  OLD CASE, PWEDE DITO YUNG EXPLOSIVE KASI NGA DAW VITAL MERCH
DAW AND WALANG DANGER CHUCHU, PERO SA NGAYON ANG
APPLICABLR DOCTRINE IS THATDAPAT WALANG DISCRIMINATION
3. US V QUINAHON  The law prohibits common carriers from subjecting any person, etc., or
locality, or any particular kind of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable
prejudice or discrimination whatsoever.
 MAY DISCRIMINATION, MAHAL SINGIL SA GOV
LOADSTAR V CA  It is not necessary that the carrier be issued a certificate of public
convenience
 the bare fact that the vessel was carrying a particular type of cargo for
one shipper, appears to be purely co-incidental-=COMM CARRIER
HOME INSURANCE V  Stipulation for NON LIABILITY IS VALID IF Private carrier (charter)
AMERICAN STEAMSHIP
SAN PABLO V  a ferry boat service has been considered as a continuation of the
PANTRANCO highway when crossingrivers or even lakes, which are small body of
waters – separating the land, however, in this case the two terminals,
separated by an open sea HENCE iba pang CPC DAPAT
1. DE GUZMAN V CA  Article 1732 makes no distinction between one whose
principal business activity is the carrying of persons
or goods or both, and one who does such carrying
only as an ancillary activity. Article 1732 also carefully
avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise
offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis
and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or
unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish
between a carrier offering its services to the "general public,"
i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers
services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the
general population.
  The hijacking of the carrier's truck - does not fall within any of
the five (5) categories of exempting causes listed in Article
1734 PERO KASAMA IF attended by "grave or irresistible
threat, violence or forcE

NATIONAL STEEL V CA  It has been held that the true test of a common carrier is the carriage of
passengers or goods, provided it has space, for all who opt to avail
themselves of its transportation service for a fee VSI did not offer its
services to the general public. It carried passengers or goods only for
those it chose under a “special contract of charter party
 liability for damage to the cargo, are determined primarily by stipulations
in their contract of private carriage or charter party.
 Civil code wont apply, but code of commerce
FIRST PHIL IND COORP V  The test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods is:
CA (1) 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 person generally as a business and not as a casual occupation;
(2) He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his business is
confined;
(3) He must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is conducted
and over his established roads; and
(4) The transportation must be for hire.
 PIPELINE IS COMMON CARRIER

CALVO V UCPB  Customs broker is a common carrier as transportation of goods is an

integral part of her business
FGU V GP SARMIENTO  GPS cannot be considered a common carrier as it renders service
exclusively to Concepcion Industries
PHILAMGEN V PKS  PKS Shipping has engaged itself in the business of carrying goods for
others, although for a limited clientele, undertaking to carry such
goods for a fee
 Neither can the concept of a common carrier change merely because
individual contracts are executed or entered into with patrons of the
carrier.
 Since may extraordinary waves, hence fortuitous event X liable

ASIA LIGHTRAGE V CA  Tho it has no fixed and publicly known route, maintains no terminals, and
issues no tickets, common carrier parin
 Liable parin since , it had already previously sustained damage when it hit
a sunken object while docked at the Engineering Island X due diligence
2. CRUZ V SUN HOLIDAYS  Common carrier since lahat ng activities pati boat ride kasama sa usapan.
tumuloy parin kahit may cyclone warnings HENCE liable
1. BASCOS V CA  To exculpate the carrier from liability arising from hijacking, he must
prove that the robbers or the hijackers acted with grave or irresistible
threat, violence, or force.
AF BROKERAGE V CA  Customs broker- common carrier
 Tho improperly packed, KNOWLEDGE- wala parin ginwa HENCE LIABLE
TORRES MADRID V FEB  BROKERAGE IS COMMON CARRIER
MITSUI  TMBI is liable to Sony/Mitsui for breaching the contract of carriage. In
turn, TMBI is entitled to reimbursement from BMT (ETO YUNG LIABILITY)
MAY SINAMA DIN DITONG HIJACKING- not proved HENCE liable dito
2. CRISOSTOMO V CA  Booking company NOT Common carrier
 KASALANAN NUNG PETITIONER, KATANGAHAN NYA
ASIAN TERMINALS V  An Arrastre Operator should OBSERVE THE SAME DEGREE OF DILIGENCE
DAEHAN FIRE as that required of COMMON CARRIERS and warehouseman – liable ditto
SPS PERENA V SPS  A school bus operator is a common carrier PNR ALSO NEGLIGENT
ZARATE  Pero the Pereñas and PNR should jointly and severally be liable
3. FISHER V YANGCO  OLD CASE, PWEDE DITO YUNG EXPLOSIVE KASI NGA DAW VITAL MERCH
DAW AND WALANG DANGER CHUCHU, PERO SA NGAYON ANG
APPLICABLR DOCTRINE IS THATDAPAT WALANG DISCRIMINATION
3. US V QUINAHON  The law prohibits common carriers from subjecting any person, etc., or
locality, or any particular kind of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable
prejudice or discrimination whatsoever.
 MAY DISCRIMINATION, MAHAL SINGIL SA GOV
LOADSTAR V CA  It is not necessary that the carrier be issued a certificate of public
convenience
 the bare fact that the vessel was carrying a particular type of cargo for
one shipper, appears to be purely co-incidental-=COMM CARRIER
HOME INSURANCE V  Stipulation for NON LIABILITY IS VALID IF Private carrier (charter)
AMERICAN STEAMSHIP
SAN PABLO V  a ferry boat service has been considered as a continuation of the
PANTRANCO highway when crossingrivers or even lakes, which are small body of
waters – separating the land, however, in this case the two terminals,
separated by an open sea HENCE iba pang CPC DAPAT
1. DE GUZMAN V CA  Article 1732 makes no distinction between one whose
principal business activity is the carrying of persons
or goods or both, and one who does such carrying
only as an ancillary activity. Article 1732 also carefully
avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise
offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis
and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or
unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish
between a carrier offering its services to the "general public,"
i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers
services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the
general population.
 The hijacking of the carrier's truck - does not fall within any of
the five (5) categories of exempting causes listed in Article
1734 PERO KASAMA IF attended by "grave or irresistible
threat, violence or forcE

NATIONAL STEEL V CA  It has been held that the true test of a common carrier is the carriage of
 passengers or goods, provided it has space, for all who opt to avail
themselves of its transportation service for a fee VSI did not offer its
services to the general public. It carried passengers or goods only for
those it chose under a “special contract of charter party
 liability for damage to the cargo, are determined primarily by stipulations
in their contract of private carriage or charter party.
 Civil code wont apply, but code of commerce
FIRST PHIL IND COORP V  The test for determining whether a party is a common carrier of goods is:
CA (1) 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 person generally as a business and not as a casual occupation;
(2) He must undertake to carry goods of the kind to which his business is
confined;
(3) He must undertake to carry by the method by which his business is conducted
and over his established roads; and
(4) The transportation must be for hire.
 PIPELINE IS COMMON CARRIER

CALVO V UCPB  Customs broker is a common carrier as transportation of goods is an

integral part of her business
FGU V GP SARMIENTO  GPS cannot be considered a common carrier as it renders service
exclusively to Concepcion Industries
PHILAMGEN V PKS  PKS Shipping has engaged itself in the business of carrying goods for
others, although for a limited clientele, undertaking to carry such
goods for a fee
 Neither can the concept of a common carrier change merely because
individual contracts are executed or entered into with patrons of the
carrier.
 Since may extraordinary waves, hence fortuitous event X liable

ASIA LIGHTRAGE V CA  Tho it has no fixed and publicly known route, maintains no terminals, and
issues no tickets, common carrier parin
 Liable parin since , it had already previously sustained damage when it hit
a sunken object while docked at the Engineering Island X due diligence
2. CRUZ V SUN HOLIDAYS  Common carrier since lahat ng activities pati boat ride kasama sa usapan.
tumuloy parin kahit may cyclone warnings HENCE liable
1. BASCOS V CA  To exculpate the carrier from liability arising from hijacking, he must
prove that the robbers or the hijackers acted with grave or irresistible
threat, violence, or force.

AF BROKERAGE V CA  Customs broker- common carrier

 Tho improperly packed, KNOWLEDGE- wala parin ginwa HENCE LIABLE
TORRES MADRID V FEB  BROKERAGE IS COMMON CARRIER
MITSUI  TMBI is liable to Sony/Mitsui for breaching the contract of carriage. In
turn, TMBI is entitled to reimbursement from BMT (ETO YUNG LIABILITY)
MAY SINAMA DIN DITONG HIJACKING- not proved HENCE liable dito
2. CRISOSTOMO V CA  Booking company NOT Common carrier
 KASALANAN NUNG PETITIONER, KATANGAHAN NYA
ASIAN TERMINALS V  An Arrastre Operator should OBSERVE THE SAME DEGREE OF DILIGENCE
DAEHAN FIRE as that required of COMMON CARRIERS and warehouseman – liable ditto
SPS PERENA V SPS  A school bus operator is a common carrier PNR ALSO NEGLIGENT
ZARATE  Pero the Pereñas and PNR should jointly and severally be liable
3. FISHER V YANGCO  OLD CASE, PWEDE DITO YUNG EXPLOSIVE KASI NGA DAW VITAL MERCH
DAW AND WALANG DANGER CHUCHU, PERO SA NGAYON ANG
APPLICABLR DOCTRINE IS THATDAPAT WALANG DISCRIMINATION
3. US V QUINAHON  The law prohibits common carriers from subjecting any person, etc., or
locality, or any particular kind of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable
prejudice or discrimination whatsoever.
 MAY DISCRIMINATION, MAHAL SINGIL SA GOV
LOADSTAR V CA  It is not necessary that the carrier be issued a certificate of public
convenience
 the bare fact that the vessel was carrying a particular type of cargo for
one shipper, appears to be purely co-incidental-=COMM CARRIER
HOME INSURANCE V  Stipulation for NON LIABILITY IS VALID IF Private carrier (charter)
AMERICAN STEAMSHIP
SAN PABLO V  a ferry boat service has been considered as a continuation of the
PANTRANCO highway when crossingrivers or even lakes, which are small body of
waters – separating the land, however, in this case the two terminals,
separated by an open sea HENCE iba pang CPC DAPAT