US Vs Quinahon Digest

U.S. v.
Quinajon and Quitoriano

G.R. No. L-8686, July 30, 1915
Johnson, J.:
FACTS:
Defendants Pascual Quinajon and Eugenio Quitoriano have been engaged for more than four years in
the transportation of passengers and merchandise in the port of Currimao by means of virayes. They, by
means of their virayes and employees, unloaded 5,986 sacks of rice belonging to the provincial
government of Ilocos Norte from Manila and demanded from the provincial treasurer for the unloading
of each one 10 centavos which amounted to P598.60.
The prosecuting attorney of the Province of Ilocos Norte filed a complaint against the defendants stating
that the provincial government of Ilocos Norte suffered damaged in the sum of 359.16, inasmuch as it
should have paid only 239.44, in accordance with the said normal rate of 6 centavos for each package.
The provincial fiscal presented witnesses to prove that defendants entered into a special contract with
certain merchants, under and by virtue of the terms of which they charged and collected, for loading
merchandise in said port, the sum of 6 centavos for each package, without reference to its size or
weight.
Defendants were charged of violating Act No. 98 of the Civil Commission.
Said Act No. 98 is "An Act to regulate commerce in the Philippine Islands." Its purpose, so far as it is
possible, is to compel 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 unreasonable
discrimination. It applies to persons or corporation engaged as common carriers of passengers or
property. A common carrier is a person or corporation whose regular business is to carry passengers or
property for all persons who may choose to employ and renumerate him. A common carrier is a person
or corporation who undertakes to carry goods or persons for hire.
The appellants admit that they are common carriers. They were found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine
of P200 and costs, and to return to the provincial government of the Province of Ilocos Norte the sum of
P359.16.
From that sentence each of the defendants appealed to this court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants and appellants have violated Act No. 98.
HELD: YES.
It will be noted that the law requires common carriers to carry for all persons, either passengers or
property, for exactly the same charge for a like or contemporaneous service in the transportation of like
kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances or conditions. The law prohibits common
carriers from subjecting any person, etc., or locality, or any particular kind of traffic, to any undue or
unreasonable prejudice or discrimination whatsoever.
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 not believed 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. It is when the price charged is for the purpose of
favoring persons or localities or particular kinds of merchandise, that the law intervenes and prohibits. It
is favoritism and discrimination which the law prohibits. The difference in charge must not be made to
favor one merchant, or shipper, or locality, to the disadvantage of another merchant, or shipper, or
locality. If the services are alike and contemporaneous, discrimination in the price charged is prohibited.
In the case at bar, there is no proof that the conditions were different. There is no proof that the
services rendered by the defendants for the different parties were unlike or even not contemporaneous.
There is no pretense that it actually cost more to handle the rice for the province than it did for the
merchants with whom the special contracts were made. From the evidence it would seem that there
was a clear discrimination made against the province. Discrimination is the thing which is specifically
prohibited and punished under the law.

US Vs Quinahon Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

US Vs Quinahon Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

US Vs Quinahon Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S. v.

Quinajon and Quitoriano

You might also like