Short answer. A transporter is a common carrier if it is engaged in the business of carrying passengers or goods by land, water, or air for compensation, and offers those services to the public. Serving only a few regular clients does not automatically disqualify a transporter — what matters is whether services are held out to the public generally.
What the law says
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.
Civil Code, Article 1732 — Who Are Common Carriers. Read the full provision →
The statutory definition
Article 1732 defines common carriers as 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. Three elements matter here: (1) the carrier is in the business of transporting — this is what it does, not a one-off favor; (2) it does so for compensation; and (3) it offers its services to the public. All three must be present.
The "offering to the public" requirement explained
This is where the question of a "few regular clients" becomes legally significant. The law does not require that a carrier actually serve a large number of customers, or that it hold itself out to literally everyone. What matters is whether the service is available to the public — or at least to the segment of the public the carrier targets — on a regular, commercial basis. A freight forwarder that happens to have only three regular shippers may still qualify as a common carrier if it is open to taking on new clients and its business is structured around commercial transport.
Private carriers are different
A private carrier transports goods or passengers but not as a public business. It carries specific cargo for specific parties under a special agreement, without holding itself out to the general public. The legal consequences differ sharply: private carriers are held only to ordinary diligence, while common carriers must meet the demanding standard of extraordinary diligence under Article 1733. Whether a particular transporter is a common carrier or a private carrier is a factual question that courts examine case by case, looking at how the business actually operates, not just what its contracts say.
Why the classification matters
If a transporter is a common carrier, it carries a heavy burden of proof whenever goods are lost or damaged: it is presumed negligent and must show it exercised extraordinary diligence to escape liability. This presumption does not apply to private carriers. For a business owner shipping cargo, or a passenger injured during transport, the first question to settle is whether the transporter was a common carrier — because the answer determines who bears the burden of proving what went wrong, and how high that burden sits.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Spouses Teodorico and Nanette Pereña vs. Spouses Nicolas and Teresita L. Zarate, et al, G.R. No. 157917, August 29, 2012 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- A.F. Sanchez Brokerage Inc. vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 147079, December 21, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- C.V. Gaspar Salvage & Lighterage Corporation vs. LG Insurance Company, Ltd., (United States Branch), G.R. No. 206892 / G.R. No. 207035, February 3, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation (DOTr), G.R. No. 242860, March 11, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →