Philam Gen Vs PKS Facts: Davao Union Marketing Corporation (DUMC) contracted the services of respondent PKS shipping

company (PKS) to transport its 75,000 bags of cement. DUMC insured the full amount of the goods with the petitioner insurance company (Philamgen). Ironically, the barge sank bringing down the entire cargo of 75,000 bags of cement. DUMC filed a formal claim for the entire amount of insurance, to which Philamgen promptly paid. Philamgen then sought a reimbursement of the amount it paid to DUMC but the PKS refused to pay, which prompted Philamgen to file a suit against PKS. The trial court, finding the cause of the loss to be through fortuitous event, dismissed the complaint filed. Philamgen interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. In this appeal before the Supreme Court, Philamgen contended that the appellate court committed patent error in ruling that PKS is not a common carrier and it is not liable for the loss of the subject cargo. According to the Supreme Court, the issue of whether a carrier is private or common carrier on the basis of facts found by the trial court or the appellate court can be a valid and reviewable question of law. Contrary to the conclusion made by the appellate court, its factual findings indicated that PKS engaged itself in the business of carrying goods for others, although for a limited clientele, undertaking to carry such goods for a fee. Hence, the Court found PKS to be a common carrier. However, the Court also found that PKS exercised the proper diligence demanded of a common carrier. The factual findings of the appellate court were strengthened by the Certificate of Inspection of the barge issued by the Philippine Coastguard and the Coastwise Load Line Certificate, which attested to the seaworthiness of the vessel involved in this case. Hence, the Court found no error in the judgment made by the appellate court in absolving PKS from liability for the loss of the DUMC cargo. Doctrine: Much of the distinction between a "common or public carrier" and a "private or special carrier" lies in the character of the business, such that if the undertaking is an isolated transaction, not a part of the business or occupation, and the carrier does not hold itself out to carry the goods for the general public or to a limited clientele, although involving the carriage of goods for a fee, the person or corporation providing such service could very well be just a private carrier. A typical case is that of a charter party which includes both the vessel and its crew, such as in a bareboat or demise, where the charterer obtains the use and service of all or some part of a ship for a period of time or a voyage or voyages and gets the control of the vessel and its crew.