11. Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.
and to exercise due care in the handling and stowage, including such
1. Calvo owns Transorient Container Terminal Services Inc (TCTSI), a sole
proprietorship customs broker.
2. Calvo entered into a contract w/ San Mig Corp (SMC) for the transfer of
semi-chemical fluting paper from the Port Area in Manila to SMCs
warehouse at Ermita Manila.
3. SMC insured the cargo from the UCPB insurance company
4. The shipments arrived in Manila & were unloaded from the vessel to the
custody of the arrestee operator, Manila Port Services.
5. Calvo withdrew the cargo from the arrastre operator & delivered it to
SMCs warehouse
6. Upon inspection, the goods were wet, stained, & torn. SMC collected
payment from UCPB, the latter was subrogated of the rights of SMC upon
petitioner.
7. UCPB filed a case against petitioner for damages.
8. RTC: Calvo liable. Stating it is a common carrier and failed to observe the
extraordinary diligence required by law. Since Calvo is a common carrier,
there is presumption of negligence when the goods are lost/destroyed.
And that if the goods are delivery in good condition to the carrier but in a
bad condition at the place of destination, there is a prima facie case
against the carrier. And if there is no explanation given as to how the injury
occurred, the carrier must be held responsible. It ordered to pay UCPB
P93,112.00 + interest.
Calvo contends:
o It is not a common carrier but a private carrier since as a customs broker &
warehouse man, she doesnt indiscriminately hold her services out to the
public but only offers it to selected parties
HELD:
Art 1732 (definition of common carrier) doesnt distinguish b/w a carrier offering its
services to the general public and one who offers its services only from a narrow
segment of the general population
o Calvo is a common carrier since the transportation of goods is an integral
part of her business. She carried goods for her customers.
As to Calvos liability, Art 1733 prescribes that Common carriers, from the nature
of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe
extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the
passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.
o Extraordinary diligence requires the common carriers to render service
with the greatest skill and foresight and to use all reasonable means to
ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods tendered for shipment,
methods as their nature requires
In this case, Calvo denies liability, she was claiming that the spoilage took place
while goods were inside the vessel or due to the arrestre operator who unloaded
the goods & allegedly kept them open air for 9 days. She also claimed that after
withdrawing the container vans from the arrastre operator, she immediately deliver
the cargo to SMCs warehouse which was only 30-minute drive from the port area,
hence, the damage could not have taken place.
Court held that the survey report indicates that when the shipper
transferred the cargo to the arrestee operator these were covered by clean
Equipment Interchange Report (EIR) & when Calvos employees withdrew
the cargo from the arrestre operator they did it without exception or
protest as to the condition of the container vans / their contents.
The rule is that whenever the thing is lost/damages in possession of the
obligor (Calvo), there is a presumption that the loss/damages was due to
the latters fault unless there is proof to the contrary.
Here, Calvo received the shipment in good order & condition but delivered
it to SMC damages. Hence the conclusion that the damages occurred while
it was in possession of Calvo. And there was no proof offered to rebut such
presumption. Hence, there is a presumption of negligence attached to a
common carrier in case of loss/damages.
As to her insistence that the cargo could not have been damages while it was in her
custody, since she immediately delivered the containers to SMCs warehouse:
SC: Calvo must do more than showing the possibility that it was another
party who could be responsible for the damage. It must prove that it used
all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods &
that it exercised due care in handling it which Calvo failed to do.
Calvo is not exempt from liability under Art. 1734 (4) w/c provides that Common
carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods,
unless the same is due to any of the following causes only:
(4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers.
For this to apply, the rule is that defects in the container are known to the
carrier / his employees / apparent upon ordinary observation but still
accepts the same without protest of such condition. He is not relived of
liability for the damage.
In this case, Calvo accepted the cargo without exception despite apparent
defects in some of the container vans. Hence, for failure of petitioner to
prove that she exercised extraordinary diligence in the carriage of goods in
this case or that she is exempt from liability, the presumption of negligence
as provided under Art. 173515 holds.