Text of the provision
Art. 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.
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
Common carriers are persons or entities engaged in transporting passengers or goods by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public. The Supreme Court reads this broadly — it makes no distinction between a carrier's main and ancillary business, or between offering service to the general public and to a narrow segment.
Related provisions
- Article 1733 — Extraordinary Diligence Required.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
- Westwind Corporation vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. and Asian Terminal, Inc./Orient Freight International Inc. vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. and Asian Terminals, Inc, G.R. No. 200289 / G.R. No. 200314, November 25, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.