EN BANC

[G.R. No. 86889 : December 4, 1990.]

192 SCRA 51
LUZ FARMS, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondent.
DECISION
PARAS, J.:
This is a petition for prohibition with prayer for restraining order and/or
preliminary and permanent injunction against the Honorable Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform for acting without jurisdiction in enforcing the
assailed provisions of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 and in promulgating the Guidelines and Procedure
Implementing Production and Profit Sharing under R.A. No. 6657, insofar as the
same apply to herein petitioner, and further from performing an act in violation
of the constitutional rights of the petitioner.
As gathered from the records, the factual background of this case, is as follows:
On June 10, 1988, the President of the Philippines approved R.A. No. 6657,
which includes the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage (Rollo,
p. 80).
On January 2, 1989, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform promulgated the
Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing as
embodied in Sections 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 (Rollo, p. 80).
On January 9, 1989, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform promulgated its Rules and
Regulations implementing Section 11 of R.A. No. 6657 (Commercial Farms).
(Rollo, p. 81).
Luz Farms, petitioner in this case, is a corporation engaged in the livestock and
poultry business and together with others in the same business allegedly stands
to be adversely affected by the enforcement of Section 3(b), Section 11, Section
13, Section 16(d) and 17 and Section 32 of R.A. No. 6657 otherwise known as
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and of the Guidelines and Procedures
Implementing Production and Profit Sharing under R.A. No. 6657 promulgated
on January 2, 1989 and the Rules and Regulations Implementing Section 11
thereof as promulgated by the DAR on January 9, 1989 (Rollo, pp. 2-36).
: rd

Hence, this petition praying that aforesaid laws, guidelines and rules be declared
unconstitutional. Meanwhile, it is also prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction
or restraining order be issued enjoining public respondents from enforcing the
same, insofar as they are made to apply to Luz Farms and other livestock and
poultry raisers.

This Court in its Resolution dated July 4, 1939 resolved to deny, among others,
Luz Farms' prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction in its Manifestation
dated May 26, and 31, 1989. (Rollo, p. 98).
Later, however, this Court in its Resolution dated August 24, 1989 resolved to
grant said Motion for Reconsideration regarding the injunctive relief, after the
filing and approval by this Court of an injunction bond in the amount of
P100,000.00. This Court also gave due course to the petition and required the
parties to file their respective memoranda (Rollo, p. 119).
The petitioner filed its Memorandum on September 6, 1989 (Rollo, pp. 131-168).
On December 22, 1989, the Solicitor General adopted his Comment to the
petition as his Memorandum (Rollo, pp. 186-187).
Luz Farms questions the following provisions of R.A. 6657, insofar as they are
made to apply to it:
(a) Section 3(b) which includes the "raising of livestock (and poultry)" in
the definition of "Agricultural, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural
Activity."
(b) Section 11 which defines "commercial farms" as "private agricultural
lands devoted to commercial, livestock, poultry and swine raising . . ."
(c) Section 13 which calls upon petitioner to execute a production-sharing
plan.
(d) Section 16(d) and 17 which vest on the Department of Agrarian
Reform the authority to summarily determine the just compensation to
be paid for lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
(e) Section 32 which spells out the production-sharing plan mentioned in
Section 13
". . . (W)hereby three percent (3%) of the gross sales from the
production of such lands are distributed within sixty (60) days of the end
of the fiscal year as compensation to regular and other farmworkers in
such lands over and above the compensation they currently receive:
Provided, That these individuals or entities realize gross sales in excess of
five million pesos per annum unless the DAR, upon proper application,
determine a lower ceiling.
In the event that the individual or entity realizes a profit, an additional
ten (10%) of the net profit after tax shall be distributed to said regular
and other farmworkers within ninety (90) days of the end of the fiscal
year . . ."
The main issue in this petition is the constitutionality of Sections 3(b), 11, 13
and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988),
insofar as the said law includes the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its
coverage as well as the Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in
accordance therewith.
:-cralaw

The constitutional provision under consideration reads as follows:

ARTICLE XIII
x x x

AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM

Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program
founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are
landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of
other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this
end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all
agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention
limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological,
developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of
just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall
respect the rights of small landowners. The State shall further provide
incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
x x x"
Luz Farms contended that it does not seek the nullification of R.A. 6657
in its entirety. In fact, it acknowledges the correctness of the decision of
this Court in the case of the Association of Small Landowners in the
Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (G.R. 78742, 14 July
1989) affirming the constitutionality of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law. It, however, argued that Congress in enacting the said law
has transcended the mandate of the Constitution, in including land
devoted to the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage
(Rollo, p. 131). Livestock or poultry raising is not similar to crop or tree
farming. Land is not the primary resource in this undertaking and
represents no more than five percent (5%) of the total investment of
commercial livestock and poultry raisers. Indeed, there are many owners
of residential lands all over the country who use available space in their
residence for commercial livestock and raising purposes, under "contractgrowing arrangements," whereby processing corporations and other
commercial livestock and poultry raisers (Rollo, p. 10). Lands support the
buildings and other amenities attendant to the raising of animals and
birds. The use of land is incidental to but not the principal factor or
consideration in productivity in this industry. Including backyard raisers,
about 80% of those in commercial livestock and poultry production
occupy five hectares or less. The remaining 20% are mostly corporate
farms (Rollo, p. 11).
On the other hand, the public respondent argued that livestock and poultry
raising is embraced in the term "agriculture" and the inclusion of such enterprise
under Section 3(b) of R.A. 6657 is proper. He cited that Webster's International
Dictionary, Second Edition (1954), defines the following words:
"Agriculture the art or science of cultivating the ground and raising and
harvesting crops, often, including also, feeding, breeding and
management of livestock, tillage, husbandry, farming.
It includes farming, horticulture, forestry, dairying, sugarmaking . . .
Livestock domestic animals used or raised on a farm, especially for profit.
Farm a plot or tract of land devoted to the raising of domestic or other
animals." (Rollo, pp. 82-83).
The petition is impressed with merit.

The question raised is one of constitutional construction. The primary task in

constitutional construction is to ascertain and thereafter assure the realization of
the purpose of the framers in the adoption of the Constitution (J.M. Tuazon & Co.
vs. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413 [1970]).
: rd

Ascertainment of the meaning of the provision of Constitution begins with the

language of the document itself. The words used in the Constitution are to be
given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed in
which case the significance thus attached to them prevails (J.M. Tuazon & Co.
vs. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413 [1970]).
It is generally held that, in construing constitutional provisions which are
ambiguous or of doubtful meaning, the courts may consider the debates in the
constitutional convention as throwing light on the intent of the framers of the
Constitution. It is true that the intent of the convention is not controlling by
itself, but as its proceeding was preliminary to the adoption by the people of the
Constitution the understanding of the convention as to what was meant by the
terms of the constitutional provision which was the subject of the deliberation,
goes a long way toward explaining the understanding of the people when they
ratified it (Aquino, Jr. v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183 [1974]).
The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on
the meaning of the word "agricultural," clearly show that it was never the
intention of the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry
industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform
program of the Government.
The Committee adopted the definition of "agricultural land" as defined under
Section 166 of R.A. 3844, as laud devoted to any growth, including but not
limited to crop lands, saltbeds, fishponds, idle and abandoned land (Record,
CONCOM, August 7, 1986, Vol. III, p. 11).
The intention of the Committee is to limit the application of the word
"agriculture." Commissioner Jamir proposed to insert the word "ARABLE" to
distinguish this kind of agricultural land from such lands as commercial and
industrial lands and residential properties because all of them fall under the
general classification of the word "agricultural". This proposal, however, was not
considered because the Committee contemplated that agricultural lands are
limited to arable and suitable agricultural lands and therefore, do not include
commercial, industrial and residential lands (Record, CONCOM, August 7, 1986,
Vol. III, p. 30).
In the interpellation, then Commissioner Regalado (now a Supreme Court
Justice), posed several questions, among others, quoted as follows:
x x x
"Line 19 refers to genuine reform program founded on the primary right
of farmers and farmworkers. I wonder if it means that leasehold tenancy
is thereby proscribed under this provision because it speaks of the
primary right of farmers and farmworkers to own directly or collectively
the lands they till. As also mentioned by Commissioner Tadeo,
farmworkers include those who work in piggeries and poultry projects.
I was wondering whether I am wrong in my appreciation that if
somebody puts up a piggery or a poultry project and for that purpose
hires farmworkers therein, these farmworkers will automatically have the

right to own eventually, directly or ultimately or collectively, the land on

which the piggeries and poultry projects were constructed. (Record,
CONCOM, August 2, 1986, p. 618).
x x x
The questions were answered and explained in the statement of then
Commissioner Tadeo, quoted as follows:
x x x
"Sa pangalawang katanungan ng Ginoo ay medyo hindi kami
nagkaunawaan. Ipinaaalam ko kay Commissioner Regalado na hindi
namin inilagay ang agricultural worker sa kadahilanang kasama rito ang
piggery, poultry at livestock workers. Ang inilagay namin dito ay farm
worker kaya hindi kasama ang piggery, poultry at livestock workers
(Record, CONCOM, August 2, 1986, Vol. II, p. 621).
It is evident from the foregoing discussion that Section II of R.A. 6657 which
includes "private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and
swine raising" in the definition of "commercial farms" is invalid, to the extent
that the aforecited agro-industrial activities are made to be covered by the
agrarian reform program of the State. There is simply no reason to include
livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of agrarian reform. (Rollo, p. 21).
Hence, there is merit in Luz Farms' argument that the requirement in Sections
13 and 32 of R.A. 6657 directing "corporate farms" which include livestock and
poultry raisers to execute and implement "production-sharing plans" (pending
final redistribution of their landholdings) whereby they are called upon to
distribute from three percent (3%) of their gross sales and ten percent (10%) of
their net profits to their workers as additional compensation is unreasonable for
being confiscatory, and therefore violative of due process (Rollo, p. 21).
:-cralaw

It has been established that this Court will assume jurisdiction over a
constitutional question only if it is shown that the essential requisites of a
judicial inquiry into such a question are first satisfied. Thus, there must be an
actual case or controversy involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of
judicial determination, the constitutional question must have been opportunely
raised by the proper party, and the resolution of the question is unavoidably
necessary to the decision of the case itself (Association of Small Landowners of
the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. 78742; Acuna v.
Arroyo, G.R. 79310; Pabico v. Juico, G.R. 79744; Manaay v. Juico, G.R. 79777,
14 July 1989, 175 SCRA 343).
However, despite the inhibitions pressing upon the Court when confronted with
constitutional issues, it will not hesitate to declare a law or act invalid when it is
convinced that this must be done. In arriving at this conclusion, its only criterion
will be the Constitution and God as its conscience gives it in the light to probe its
meaning and discover its purpose. Personal motives and political considerations
are irrelevancies that cannot influence its decisions. Blandishment is as
ineffectual as intimidation, for all the awesome power of the Congress and
Executive, the Court will not hesitate "to make the hammer fall heavily," where
the acts of these departments, or of any official, betray the people's will as
expressed in the Constitution (Association of Small Landowners of the
Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. 78742; Acuna v. Arroyo,
G.R. 79310; Pabico v. Juico, G.R. 79744; Manaay v. Juico, G.R. 79777, 14 July

1989).
Thus, where the legislature or the executive acts beyond the scope of its
constitutional powers, it becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare what the
other branches of the government had assumed to do, as void. This is the
essence of judicial power conferred by the Constitution "(I)n one Supreme Court
and in such lower courts as may be established by law" (Art. VIII, Section 1 of
the 1935 Constitution; Article X, Section I of the 1973 Constitution and which
was adopted as part of the Freedom Constitution, and Article VIII, Section 1 of
the 1987 Constitution) and which power this Court has exercised in many
instances (Demetria v. Alba, 148 SCRA 208 [1987]).
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Sections 3(b),
11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 insofar as the inclusion of the raising of
livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage as well as the Implementing Rules
and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith, are hereby DECLARED null
and void for being unconstitutional and the writ of preliminary injunction issued
is hereby MADE permanent.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan (C.J.), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Feliciano, J., is on leave.
Separate Opinions
SARMIENTO, J., concurring:
I agree that the petition be granted.
It is my opinion however that the main issue on the validity of the assailed
provisions of R.A. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988) and
its Implementing Rules and Guidelines insofar as they include the raising of
livestock, poultry, and swine in their coverage cannot be simplistically reduced to
a question of constitutional construction.
It is a well-settled rule that construction and interpretation come only after it
has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without
them. A close reading however of the constitutional text in point, specifically,
Sec. 4, Art. XIII, particularly the phrase, ". . . in case of other farmworkers, to
receive a just share of the fruits thereof," provides a basis for the clear and
possible coverage of livestock, poultry, and swine raising within the ambit of the
comprehensive agrarian reform program. This accords with the principle that
every presumption should be indulged in favor of the constitutionality of a
statute and the court in considering the validity of a statute should give it such
reasonable construction as can be reached to bring it within the fundamental
law. 1
The presumption against unconstitutionality, I must say, assumes greater weight
when a ruling to the contrary would, in effect, defeat the laudable and noble
purpose of the law, i.e., the welfare of the landless farmers and farmworkers in
the promotion of social justice, by the expedient conversion of agricultural lands
into livestock, poultry, and swine raising by scheming landowners, thus,

rendering the comprehensive nature of the agrarian program merely illusory.

The instant controversy, I submit, boils down to the question of whether or not
the assailed provisions violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution
(Article II, section 1) which teaches simply that all persons or things similarly
situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
imposed. 2
There is merit in the contention of the petitioner that substantial distinctions
exist between land directed purely to cultivation and harvesting of fruits or crops
and land exclusively used for livestock, poultry and swine raising, that make real
differences, to wit:
x x x
No land is tilled and no crop is harvested in livestock and poultry farming. There
are no tenants nor landlords, only employers and employees.
Livestock and poultry do not sprout from land nor are they "fruits of the land."
Land is not even a primary resource in this industry. The land input is
inconsequential that all the commercial hog and poultry farms combined occupy
less than one percent (1%) (0.4% for piggery, 0.2% for poultry) of the 5.45
million hectares of land supposedly covered by the CARP. And most farms utilize
only 2 to 5 hectares of land.
: nad

In every respect livestock and poultry production is an industrial activity. Its use
of an inconsequential portion of land is a mere incident of its operation, as in any
other undertaking, business or otherwise.
The fallacy of defining livestock and poultry production as an agricultural
enterprise is nowhere more evident when one considers that at least 95% of
total investment in these farms is in the form of fixed assets which are industrial
in nature.
These include (1) animal housing structures and facilities complete with
drainage, waterers, blowers, misters and in some cases even piped-in music; (2)
feedmills complete with grinders, mixers, conveyors, exhausts, generators, etc.;
(3) extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies; (4) antipollution equipment such as bio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons
and concrete ponds; (5) deepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses and
accessory facilities; (6) modern equipment such as sprayers, pregnancy testers,
etc.; (7) laboratory facilities complete with expensive tools and equipment; and
a myriad other such technologically advanced appurtances.
How then can livestock and poultry farmlands be arable when such are almost
totally occupied by these structures?
The fallacy of equating the status of livestock and poultry farmworkers with that
of agricultural tenants surfaces when one considers contribution to output. Labor
cost of livestock and poultry farms is no more than 4% of total operating cost.
The 98% balance represents inputs not obtained from the land nor provided by
the farmworkers inputs such as feeds and biochemicals (80% of the total
cost), power cost, cost of money and several others.
Moreover, livestock and poultry farmworkers are covered by minimum wage law
rather than by tenancy law. They are entitled to social security benefits where
tenant-farmers are not. They are paid fixed wages rather than crop shares. And

as in any other industry, they receive additional benefits such as allowances,

bonuses, and other incentives such as free housing privileges, light and water.
Equating livestock and poultry farming with other agricultural activities is also
fallacious in the sense that like the manufacturing sector, it is a market for,
rather than a source of agricultural output. At least 60% of the entire domestic
supply of corn is absorbed by livestock and poultry farms. So are the byproducts of rice (rice-bran), coconut (copra meal), banana (banana pulp meal),
and fish (fish meal). 3
x x x
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that both kinds of lands are not similarly
situated and hence, cannot be treated alike. Therefore, the assailed provisions
which allow for the inclusion of livestock and poultry industry within the
coverage of the agrarian reform program constitute invalid classification and
must accordingly be struck down as repugnant to the equal protection clause of
the Constitution.
chanrobles virtual law library

Endnotes

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. L-47822 December 22, 1988
PEDRO DE GUZMAN, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO CENDANA, respondents.
Vicente D. Millora for petitioner.
Jacinto Callanta for private respondent.

FELICIANO, J.:
Respondent Ernesto Cendana, a junk dealer, was engaged in buying up used bottles and scrap metal in
Pangasinan. Upon gathering sufficient quantities of such scrap material, respondent would bring such material
to Manila for resale. He utilized two (2) six-wheeler trucks which he owned for hauling the material to Manila.
On the return trip to Pangasinan, respondent would load his vehicles with cargo which various merchants
wanted delivered to differing establishments in Pangasinan. For that service, respondent charged freight rates
which were commonly lower than regular commercial rates.

Sometime in November 1970, petitioner Pedro de Guzman a merchant and authorized dealer of General Milk
Company (Philippines), Inc. in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, contracted with respondent for the hauling of 750
cartons of Liberty filled milk from a warehouse of General Milk in Makati, Rizal, to petitioner's establishment in
Urdaneta on or before 4 December 1970. Accordingly, on 1 December 1970, respondent loaded in Makati the
merchandise on to his trucks: 150 cartons were loaded on a truck driven by respondent himself, while 600
cartons were placed on board the other truck which was driven by Manuel Estrada, respondent's driver and
employee.
Only 150 boxes of Liberty filled milk were delivered to petitioner. The other 600 boxes never reached petitioner,
since the truck which carried these boxes was hijacked somewhere along the MacArthur Highway in Paniqui,
Tarlac, by armed men who took with them the truck, its driver, his helper and the cargo.
On 6 January 1971, petitioner commenced action against private respondent in the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan, demanding payment of P 22,150.00, the claimed value of the lost merchandise, plus damages
and attorney's fees. Petitioner argued that private respondent, being a common carrier, and having failed to
exercise the extraordinary diligence required of him by the law, should be held liable for the value of the
undelivered goods.
In his Answer, private respondent denied that he was a common carrier and argued that he could not be held
responsible for the value of the lost goods, such loss having been due to force majeure.
On 10 December 1975, the trial court rendered a Decision 1 finding private respondent to be a common

carrier and holding him liable for the value of the undelivered goods (P 22,150.00) as well as for P
4,000.00 as damages and P 2,000.00 as attorney's fees.
On appeal before the Court of Appeals, respondent urged that the trial court had erred in considering him a
common carrier; in finding that he had habitually offered trucking services to the public; in not exempting him
from liability on the ground of force majeure; and in ordering him to pay damages and attorney's fees.
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that respondent had been engaged in
transporting return loads of freight "as a casual
occupation a sideline to his scrap iron business" and not as a common carrier. Petitioner came to this Court
by way of a Petition for Review assigning as errors the following conclusions of the Court of Appeals:
1. that private respondent was not a common carrier;
2. that the hijacking of respondent's truck was force majeure; and
3. that respondent was not liable for the value of the undelivered cargo. (Rollo, p. 111)
We consider first the issue of whether or not private respondent Ernesto Cendana may, under the facts earlier
set forth, be properly characterized as a common carrier.
The Civil Code defines "common carriers" in the following terms:
Article 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in
the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for
compensation, offering their services to the public.

The above article 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 (in local Idiom as "a sideline").
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. We think that Article 1733 deliberaom making such distinctions.
So understood, the concept of "common carrier" under Article 1732 may be seen to coincide neatly with the
notion of "public service," under the Public Service Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1416, as amended) which at
least partially supplements the law on common carriers set forth in the Civil Code. Under Section 13, paragraph
(b) of the Public Service Act, "public service" includes:
... every person that now or hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control in the Philippines,
for hire or compensation, with general or limited clientele, whether permanent, occasional or
accidental, and done for general business purposes, any common carrier, railroad, street
railway, traction railway, subway motor vehicle, either for freight or passenger, or both, with or
without fixed route and whatever may be its classification, freight or carrier service of any
class, express service, steamboat, or steamship line, pontines, ferries and water craft,
engaged in the transportation of passengers or freight or both, shipyard, marine repair shop,
wharf or dock, ice plant,
ice-refrigeration plant, canal, irrigation system, gas, electric light, heat and power, water
supply and power petroleum, sewerage system, wire or wireless communications systems,
wire or wireless broadcasting stations and other similar public services. ... (Emphasis
supplied)
It appears to the Court that private respondent is properly characterized as a common carrier even though he
merely "back-hauled" goods for other merchants from Manila to Pangasinan, although such back-hauling was
done on a periodic or occasional rather than regular or scheduled manner, and even though private
respondent'sprincipal occupation was not the carriage of goods for others. There is no dispute that private
respondent charged his customers a fee for hauling their goods; that fee frequently fell below commercial
freight rates is not relevant here.
The Court of Appeals referred to the fact that private respondent held no certificate of public convenience, and
concluded he was not a common carrier. This is palpable error. A certificate of public convenience is not a
requisite for the incurring of liability under the Civil Code provisions governing common carriers. That liability
arises the moment a person or firm acts as a common carrier, without regard to whether or not such carrier has
also complied with the requirements of the applicable regulatory statute and implementing regulations and has
been granted a certificate of public convenience or other franchise. To exempt private respondent from the
liabilities of a common carrier because he has not secured the necessary certificate of public convenience,
would be offensive to sound public policy; that would be to reward private respondent precisely for failing to
comply with applicable statutory requirements. The business of a common carrier impinges directly and
intimately upon the safety and well being and property of those members of the general community who
happen to deal with such carrier. The law imposes duties and liabilities upon common carriers for the safety
and protection of those who utilize their services and the law cannot allow a common carrier to render such
duties and liabilities merely facultative by simply failing to obtain the necessary permits and authorizations.
We turn then to the liability of private respondent as a common carrier.

Common carriers, "by the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy" 2 are held to a very high

degree of care and diligence ("extraordinary diligence") in the carriage of goods as well as of passengers.
The specific import of extraordinary diligence in the care of goods transported by a common carrier is,
according to Article 1733, "further expressed in Articles 1734,1735 and 1745, numbers 5, 6 and 7" of the
Civil Code.
Article 1734 establishes the general rule that common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction or
deterioration of the goods which they carry, "unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:
(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 or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods;
(4) The character-of the goods or defects in the packing or-in the containers;
and
(5) Order or act of competent public authority.
It is important to point out that the above list of causes of loss, destruction or deterioration which exempt the
common carrier for responsibility therefor, is a closed list. Causes falling outside the foregoing list, even if they
appear to constitute a species of force majeure fall within the scope of Article 1735, which provides as follows:
In all cases other than those mentioned in numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the preceding article, if
the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary
diligence as required in Article 1733. (Emphasis supplied)
Applying the above-quoted Articles 1734 and 1735, we note firstly that the specific cause alleged in the instant
case the hijacking of the carrier's truck does not fall within any of the five (5) categories of exempting
causes listed in Article 1734. It would follow, therefore, that the hijacking of the carrier's vehicle must be dealt
with under the provisions of Article 1735, in other words, that the private respondent as common carrier is
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. This presumption, however, may be overthrown by
proof of extraordinary diligence on the part of private respondent.
Petitioner insists that private respondent had not observed extraordinary diligence in the care of petitioner's
goods. Petitioner argues that in the circumstances of this case, private respondent should have hired a security
guard presumably to ride with the truck carrying the 600 cartons of Liberty filled milk. We do not believe,
however, that in the instant case, the standard of extraordinary diligence required private respondent to retain a
security guard to ride with the truck and to engage brigands in a firelight at the risk of his own life and the lives
of the driver and his helper.
The precise issue that we address here relates to the specific requirements of the duty of extraordinary
diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried in the specific context of hijacking or armed robbery.
As noted earlier, the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods is, under Article 1733, given
additional specification not only by Articles 1734 and 1735 but also by Article 1745, numbers 4, 5 and 6, Article
1745 provides in relevant part:
Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and
contrary to public policy:
xxx xxx xxx

(5) that the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions
of his or its employees;
(6) that the common carrier's liability for acts committed by thieves, or of
robbers who donot act with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force, is
dispensed with or diminished; and
(7) that the common carrier shall not responsible for the loss, destruction or
deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition of the car
vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage.
(Emphasis supplied)
Under Article 1745 (6) above, a common carrier is held responsible and will not be allowed to divest or to
diminish such responsibility even for acts of strangers like thieves or robbers, except where such thieves or
robbers in fact acted "with grave or irresistible threat, violence or force." We believe and so hold that the limits
of the duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried are reached where the goods are
lost as a result of a robbery which is attended by "grave or irresistible threat, violence or force."
In the instant case, armed men held up the second truck owned by private respondent which carried
petitioner's cargo. The record shows that an information for robbery in band was filed in the Court of First
Instance of Tarlac, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 198 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Felipe Boncorno,
Napoleon Presno, Armando Mesina, Oscar Oria and one John Doe." There, the accused were charged with
willfully and unlawfully taking and carrying away with them the second truck, driven by Manuel Estrada and
loaded with the 600 cartons of Liberty filled milk destined for delivery at petitioner's store in Urdaneta,
Pangasinan. The decision of the trial court shows that the accused acted with grave, if not irresistible, threat,
violence or force. 3 Three (3) of the five (5) hold-uppers were armed with firearms. The robbers not only

took away the truck and its cargo but also kidnapped the driver and his helper, detaining them for several
days and later releasing them in another province (in Zambales). The hijacked truck was subsequently
found by the police in Quezon City. The Court of First Instance convicted all the accused of robbery,
though not of robbery in band. 4
In these circumstances, we hold that the occurrence of the loss must reasonably be regarded as quite beyond
the control of the common carrier and properly regarded as a fortuitous event. It is necessary to recall that even
common carriers are not made absolute insurers against all risks of travel and of transport of goods, and are
not held liable for acts or events which cannot be foreseen or are inevitable, provided that they shall have
complied with the rigorous standard of extraordinary diligence.
We, therefore, agree with the result reached by the Court of Appeals that private respondent Cendana is not
liable for the value of the undelivered merchandise which was lost because of an event entirely beyond private
respondent's control.
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on certiorari is hereby DENIED and the Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated 3 August 1977 is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1 Rollo, p. 14.
2 Article 1733, Civil Code.
3 Rollo, p. 22.
4 The evidence of the prosecution did not show that more than three (3) of the five (5) holduppers were armed. Thus, the existence of a "band" within the technical meaning of Article
306 of the Revised Penal Code, was not affirmatively proved by the prosecution.