This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-10-07 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Common carriers are obliged to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by them. Accordingly, they are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated. There are very few instances when the presumption of negligence does not attach and these instances are enumerated in Article 1734. In those cases where the presumption is applied, the common carrier must prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence in order to overcome the presumption.[12] | |||||
|
2003-08-19 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| To be sure, petitioner fits the test of a common carrier as laid down in Bascos vs. Court of Appeals.[24] The test to determine a common carrier is "whether the given undertaking is a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has held out to the general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the business transacted."[25] In the case at bar, the petitioner admitted that it is engaged in the business of shipping and lighterage,[26] offering its barges to the public, despite its limited clientele for carrying or transporting goods by water for compensation.[27] | |||||