●Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public. By the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, they are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and in the safety of their passengers.
In A.F. Sanchez Brokerage Inc. v. Court of Appeals, we held that a customs broker - whose principal business is the preparation of the correct customs declaration and the proper shipping documents - is still considered a common carrier if it also undertakes to deliver the goods for its customers. The law does not distinguish between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of goods and one who undertakes this task only as an ancillary activity.
Despite TMBI's present denials, we find that the delivery of the goods is an integral, albeit ancillary, part of its brokerage services. TMBI admitted that it was contracted to facilitate, process, and clear the shipments from the customs authorities, withdraw them from the pier, then transport and deliver them to Sony's warehouse in Laguna.
Further, TMBI's General Manager Victor Torres described the nature of its services as follows:
ATTY. VIRTUDAZO: Could you please tell the court what is the nature of the business of [TMBI]?
Witness MR. Victor Torres of Torres Madrid: We are engaged in customs brokerage business. We acquire the release documents from the Bureau of Customs and eventually deliver the cargoes to the consignee's warehouse and we are engaged in that kind of business, sir.
That TMBI does not own trucks and has to subcontract the delivery of its clients' goods, is immaterial. As long as an entity holds itself to the public for the transport of goods as a business, it is considered a common carrier regardless of whether it owns the vehicle used or has to actually hire one.
Lastly, TMBI's customs brokerage services - including the transport/delivery of the cargo - are available to anyone willing to pay its fees. Given these circumstances, we find it undeniable that TMBI is a common carrier.
Consequently, TMBI should be held responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods it transports unless it results from:
(1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity;
(2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil;
(3) Act of omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers;
(5) Order or act of competent public authority. (Torres-Madrid Brokerage vs. FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance, G.R. No. 194121, July 11, 2016)
● There is greater reason for holding petitioner to be a common carrier because the transportation of goods is an integral part of her business. To uphold petitioner’s contention would be to deprive those with whom she contracts the protection which the law affords them notwithstanding the fact that the obligation to carry goods for her customers, as already noted, is part and parcel of petitioner’s business. (Calvo v. UCPB, G.R. No. 148496. March 19, 2002)
A customs brokerage may be considered a common carrier if it also undertakes to deliver the goods for its customers
4/
5
Oleh
Philippine Legal Forms