11. Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.
o Extraordinary diligence requires the common carriers to
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.
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, and to
exercise due care in the handling and stowage, including
such 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.