Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.: - Second Division
Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.: - Second Division
511
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.
the goods entrusted to it for sale, carriage and delivery. It MENDOZA, J.:
requires common carriers to render service with the greatest skill 1
and foresight and “to use all reasonable means to ascertain the This is a petition for review of the decision, dated May
2
31,
nature and characteristic of goods tendered for shipment, and to 2001, of the Court of Appeals, affirming the decision of the
exercise due care in the handling and stowage, including such Regional
methods as their nature requires.”
______________
512
1 Per Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., and concurred in by Justices
Bienvenido L. Reyes and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 2 Per Judge Oscar Pimentel.
Same; Same; To prove the exercise of extraordinary diligence, VOL. 379, MARCH 19, 2002 513
a customs broker must do more than merely show the possibility
that some other party could be responsible for the damage.—Anent Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.
petitioner’s insistence that the cargo could not have been
damaged while in her custody as she immediately delivered the Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 148, which ordered
containers to SMC’s compound, suffice it to say that to prove the petitioner to pay respondent, as subrogee, the amount of
exercise of extraordinary diligence, petitioner must do more than P93,112.00 with legal interest, representing the value of
merely show the possibility that some other party could be damaged cargo handled by petitioner, 25% thereof as
responsible for the damage. It must prove that it used “all attorney’s fees, and the cost of the suit.
reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of The facts are as follows:
goods tendered for [transport] and that [it] exercise[d] due care in Petitioner Virgines Calvo is the owner of Transorient
the handling [thereof].” Petitioner failed to do this. Container Terminal Services, Inc. (TCTSI), a sole
Same; Same; If the improper packing or the defects in the
proprietorship customs broker. At the time material to this
container are known to the carrier or his employees or apparent
case, petitioner entered into a contract with San Miguel
upon ordinary observation, but he nevertheless accepts the same
Corporation (SMC) for the transfer of 114 reels of semi-
without protest or exception notwithstanding such condition, he is
chemical fluting paper and 124 reels of kraft liner board
not relieved of liability for damage resulting therefrom.—The rule
from the Port Area in Manila to SMC’s warehouse at the
is that if the improper packing or, in this case, the defect/s in the
Tabacalera Compound, Romualdez St., Ermita, Manila.
container, is/are known to the carrier or his employees or
The cargo was insured by respondent UCPB General
apparent upon ordinary observation, but he nevertheless accepts
Insurance Co., Inc.
the same without protest or exception notwithstanding such
On July 14, 1990, the shipment in question, contained in
condition, he is not relieved of liability for damage resulting
30 metal vans, arrived in Manila on board “M/V Hayakawa
therefrom. In this case, petitioner accepted the cargo without
Maru” and, after 24 hours, were unloaded from the vessel
exception despite the apparent defects in some of the container
to the custody of the arrastre operator, Manila Port
vans. Hence, for failure of petitioner to prove that she exercised
Services, Inc. From July 23 to July 25, 1990, petitioner,
extraordinary diligence in the carriage of goods in this case or
pursuant to her contract with SMC, withdrew the cargo
that she is exempt from liability, the presumption of negligence as
from the arrastre operator and delivered it to SMC’s
provided under Art. 1735 holds.
warehouse in Ermita, Manila. On July 25, 1990, the goods
were inspected by Marine Cargo Surveyors, who found that
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the 15 reels of the semi-chemical fluting paper were
Court of Appeals. “wet/stained/torn” and 3 reels of kraft liner board were
likewise torn. The damage was placed at P93,112.00.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. SMC collected payment from respondent UCPB under
Montilla Law Office for petitioner. its insurance contract for the aforementioned amount. In
Leano and Leano Law Office for respondent. turn, respondent, as subrogee of SMC, brought suit against
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b075abdeec58b9982000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/13 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b075abdeec58b9982000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/13
8/2/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 379 8/2/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 379
petitioner in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 148, Makati carrier, and of their arrival at the place of destination in bad
City, which, on December 20, 1995, rendered judgment order, makes out a prima facie case against the carrier, so that if
finding petitioner liable to respondent for the damage to no explanation is given as to how the injury occurred, the carrier
the shipment. must be held responsible. It is incumbent upon the carrier to
The trial court held: prove that the loss was due to accident or some other
circumstances inconsistent with its liability.” (cited in
It cannot be denied . . . that the subject cargoes sustained damage Commercial Laws of the Philippines by Agbayani, p. 31, Vol. IV,
while in the custody of defendants. Evidence such as the 1989 Ed.)
Warehouse Entry Slip (Exh. “E”), the Damage Report (Exh. “F”) Defendant, being a customs broker, warehouseman and at the
with entries appearing therein, classified as “TED” and “TSN,” same time a common carrier is supposed [to] exercise [the]
which the claims processor, Ms. Agrifina De Luna, claimed to be extraordinary diligence required by law, hence the extraordinary
tearrage at the end and tearrage at the middle of the subject responsibility lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally
damaged cargoes respectively, coupled with the Marine Cargo placed in the possession of and received by the carrier for
Survey Report (Exh. “H” - “H-4-A”) confirms the fact of the transportation until the same are delivered actually or
constructively by the carrier to the consignee or to the person who
514 3
has the right to receive the same.
516 ______________
The contention has no merit. In De Guzman v. Court of VOL. 379, MARCH 19, 2002 517
7
Appeals, the Court dismissed a similar contention and held Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.
the party to be a common carrier, thus—
The Civil Code defines “common carriers” in the system, wire or wireless communications systems, wire or wireless
8
“Article 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or There is greater reason for holding petitioner to be a
associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting common carrier because the transportation of goods is an
passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, integral part of her business. To uphold petitioner’s
offering their services to the public.” contention would be to deprive those with whom she
contracts the protection which the law affords them
The above article makes no distinction between one whose
notwithstanding the fact that the obligation to carry goods
principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or
for her customers, as already noted, is part and parcel of
both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity
petitioner’s business.
. . . Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction
Now, as to petitioner’s liability, Art. 1733 of the Civil
between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on
Code provides:
a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an
occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for 204209-4
reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary
TOLU- — wood flooring we[t] and/or with signs of
diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the 213674-3 water soaked
passengers transported by them, according to all the
circumstances of each case. . . . MAXU- — with dent/crack on roof panel
201406-0
9
In Compania Maritima v. Court of Appeals, the meaning of ICSU- — rubber gasket on left side/door panel partly
10
“extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods” was 412105-0 detached loosened.
explained thus:
The extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods In addition, petitioner claims that Marine Cargo Surveyor
tendered for shipment requires the common carrier to know and Ernesto Tolentino testified that he has no personal
to follow the required precaution for avoiding damage to, or knowledge on whether the container vans were first stored
destruction of the goods entrusted to it for sale, carriage and in petitioner’s warehouse prior to their delivery to the
delivery. It requires common carriers to render service with the consignee. She likewise claims that after withdrawing the
greatest skill and foresight and “to use all reasonable means to container vans from the arrastre operator, her driver,
ascertain the nature and characteristic of goods tendered for Ricardo Nazarro, immediately delivered the cargo to SMC’s
shipment, and to exercise due care in the handling and stowage, warehouse in Ermita, Manila, which is a mere thirty-
including such methods as their nature requires.” minute drive from the Port Area where the cargo came
from. Thus, the damage to the cargo 11could not have taken
In the case at bar, petitioner denies liability for the damage place while these were in her custody.
to the cargo. She claims that the “spoilage or wettage” took Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the Survey Report
place while the goods were in the custody of either the (Exh. “H”) of the Marine Cargo Surveyors indicates that
carrying vessel “M/V Hayakawa Maru,” which transported when the shipper transferred the cargo in question to the
the cargo to Manila, or the arrastre operator, to whom the arrastre operator, these were covered by clean Equipment
goods were unloaded and who allegedly kept them in open Interchange Report (EIR) and, when petitioner’s employees
air for nine days from July 14 to July withdrew the cargo from the arrastre operator, they did so
without exception or protest either with regard to the
______________
condition of container vans or their contents. The Survey
Report pertinently reads—
8 Id., pp. 617-618 (italics in the original).
9 164 SCRA 685, 692 (1988).
Details of Discharge:
rain gutter deformed/cracked
MAXU-
— VOL. 379, MARCH 19, 2002 519
2062880 Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.
ICSU- — left side rubber gasket on door
363461-3 distorted/partly loose 1990, containerized onto 30’ x 20’ secure metal vans, covered by
clean EIRs. Except for slight dents and paint scratches on side and
PERU- — with pinholes on roof panel right portion
roof panels, these containers were deemed to have [been] received 520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
in good condition.
Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.
....
Anent petitioner’s insistence that the cargo could not have 14 See 5-A AMBROSIO PADILLA, CIVIL CODE ANNOTATED 472 (6th
been damaged while in her custody as she immediately ed., 1990), citing Southern Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and City of
delivered the Iloilo, 114 Phil. 198; 4 SCRA 258 (1962).
15 Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4
______________ and 5 of [Art. 1734], if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated,
common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted
12 CA Decision, p. 6; Rollo, p. 26 (emphasis in the original).
negligently unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence
13 Id., pp. 6-7; id., pp. 26-27 (emphasis in the original).
as required in Article 1733.
520
521
Judgment affirmed.
——o0o——
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b075abdeec58b9982000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/13