14 Virgines Calvo v. UCPB

Eloise
Case No. 14 | Virgines Calvo (doing business under the name and style Transorient Container Terminal Services, Inc.) v. UCPB
General Insurance Co., Inc. (2002) | | Diligence required of common carriers
Facts: Transorient Container Terminal Services, Inc. owned by petitioner Virgines Calvo entered into a contract with San Miguel
Corporation (SMC) for the transfer of 114 reels of semi-chemical fluting paper and 124 reels of kraft liner board from the Port Area
in Manila to SMC's warehouse. The cargo was insured by respondent UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.
On July 14, 1990 the cargo arrived in Manila on board "M/V Hayakawa Maru" and later on unloaded from the vessel to the custody
of the arrastre operator, Manila Port Services, Inc.
On July 23 to July 25, 1990, Calvo withdrew the cargo from the arrastre operator and delivered it to SMC's warehouse in Ermita,
Manila.
On July 25, 1990, the goods were inspected by Marine Cargo Surveyors, who found that 15 reels of the semi-chemical fluting paper
and 3 reels of kraft liner were "wet/stained/torn."
SMC collected payment from UCPB the total damage of P93,112 under its insurance contract.
UCPB brought suit against Calvo as subrogee of SMC.
Petitioner Calvo: contended that thespoilage took place while the goods were in the custody of either the carrying vessel "M/V
Hayakawa Maru," which transported the cargo to Manila, or the arrastre operator, to whom the goods were unloaded and who
allegedly kept them in open air for 9 days notwithstanding the fact that some of the containers were deformed, cracked, or
otherwise damaged
Trial Court found Calvo liable. CA affirmed.
Issues and Corresponding Ruling:

1. Whether petitioner is a common carrier. YES. Pursuant to Article 1732, petitioner is a common carrier as transportation of goods
is an integral part of her business. 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”. This article makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or
goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity . . . Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any
distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such
service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services
to the “general public,” i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a
narrow segment of the general population.
2. Whether petitioner is liable for the damage of the goods. YES. Petitioner is liable because she failed to prove that she exercised
extraordinary diligence in the carriage of goods, the presumption of negligence as provided under Art. 1735 applies. Under Article
1735 of the Civil Code, if the goods are proved to have been lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to
have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they have observed the extraordinary diligence required
by law. The burden of the plaintiff is to prove merely that the goods he transported have been lost, destroyed or deteriorated.
Thereafter, the burden is shifted to the carrier to prove that he has exercised the extraordinary diligence required by law. Thus, it
has been held that the mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier, and of their arrival at the place of destination in
bad order, makes out a prima facie case against the carrier, so that if no explanation is given as to how the injury occurred, the
carrier must be held responsible.
Doctrine: Extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods—The extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods tendered
for shipment requires the common carrier to know and to follow the required precaution for avoiding damage to, or destruction of
the goods entrusted to it for sale, carriage and delivery.
Verdict: Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

14 Virgines Calvo v. UCPB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 Virgines Calvo v. UCPB

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

14 Virgines Calvo v. UCPB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eloise

UCPB brought suit against Calvo as subrogee of SMC.

Trial Court found Calvo liable. CA affirmed.

Issues and Corresponding Ruling:

Verdict: Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

You might also like