G.R. No. L-8686, 30 July 1915, 31 Phil 189


Quinajon and Quitorano have been engaged in the transportation of passengers and merchandise in the port of Currimao by means of virayes. They charged and collected from some shippers and merchants, a certain price for each package of merchandise, loaded or unloaded, according to a certain schedule.

They collected 6 centavos for each package, of whatever kind of merchandise, large or small, heavy or light, from those merchants only with whom they had a special contract. From other merchants, with whom they had not made said special contract, as well as the Province of Ilocos Norte, they collected a different rate (10 centavos).

They were charged with violation of Act. No. 98 of the Civil Commission which compels common carriers to render to all persons exactly the same or analogous service for exactly the same price, to the end that there may be no unjust advantage or unreasonablediscrimination.

The law provides that no common carrier shall directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device, charge, demand collect, or receive from any person or persons, a greater or less compensation for any service rendered in the transportation of passengers or property, between points in the Philippine Islands, than he charges, demands, collects, or receives from any other person or
persons, for doing a like or contemporaneous service, under substantially similar conditions or circumstances.

The law prohibits any common carrier from making or giving any unnecessary orunreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation or locality, or any particular kind of traffic, or to subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular kind of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or discrimination whatsoever.


ON Quinajon and Quitorano violated Act No. 98


No.The law does not require that the same charge shall be made for the carrying of passengers or property, unless all the conditions are alike and contemporaneous. It is notbelieved that the law prohibits the charging of a different rate for the carrying of passengers or property when the actual cost of handling and transporting the same is different. It is not believed that the law intended to require common carriers to carry the same kind of merchandise, even at the same price, under different and unlike conditions and where the actual cost is different.

A common carrier may enter into special agreements for handling and transportingmerchandise, whereby advantage may accrue to individuals, when it is made clearly to appear that by such agreements the common carrier has only its interests and the legitimate increase of its profits in view, and when the consideration given to the individual is for the interest of the common carrier alone, and when the common carrier gives all shippers exactly the same rate, under the same conditions.

*Case digest by Rosemarie G. Banatanto-Baliquig, LLB-IV, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2018-2019