Scribd
Upload
162 views3 pages

VIRGINES CALVO VIRGINES CALVO Doing Business Under The Name and Style TRANSORIENT CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, vs. UCPB

1) Virgines Calvo doing business as Transorient Container Terminal Services, Inc. entered into a contract with San Miguel Corporation to transport cargo from Manila to SMC's warehouse. Upon delivery, 18 reels were found damaged. 2) SMC collected payment from their insurer UCPB, who then sued Calvo as subrogee. The RTC found Calvo liable as a customs broker, warehouseman, and common carrier responsible for exercising extraordinary diligence. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed Calvo's liability. As a common carrier, Calvo is responsible for the cargo from receipt to delivery and failed to prove she exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent damage. Calvo also accepted the cargo

Uploaded by

Venus Jane Finuliar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
162 views3 pages

VIRGINES CALVO VIRGINES CALVO Doing Business Under The Name and Style TRANSORIENT CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, vs. UCPB

1) Virgines Calvo doing business as Transorient Container Terminal Services, Inc. entered into a contract with San Miguel Corporation to transport cargo from Manila to SMC's warehouse. Upon delivery, 18 reels were found damaged. 2) SMC collected payment from their insurer UCPB, who then sued Calvo as subrogee. The RTC found Calvo liable as a customs broker, warehouseman, and common carrier responsible for exercising extraordinary diligence. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed Calvo's liability. As a common carrier, Calvo is responsible for the cargo from receipt to delivery and failed to prove she exercised extraordinary diligence to prevent damage. Calvo also accepted the cargo

Uploaded by

Venus Jane Finuliar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

VIRGINES CALVO doing business under the name and style TRANSORIENT CONTAINER TERMINAL

SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. (formerly Allied Guarantee Ins. Co.,
Inc.) respondent.G.R. No. 148496. March 19, 2002

FACTS:

1. Petitioner Virgines Calvo is the owner of Transorient Container Terminal Services, Inc. (TCTSI), a sole
proprietorship customs broker.

2. Petitioner 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 at the Tabacalera Compound, Romualdez St., Ermita, Manila

3. Unloaded and delivered to the warehouse. Upon inspection, found that 15 reels of the semi-chemical
fluting paper were “wet/stained/torn” and 3 reels of kraft liner board were likewise torn.

4. SMC collected payment from respondent UCPB under its insurance contract for the aforementioned
amount. In turn, respondent, as subrogee of SMC, brought suit against petitioner in the Regional Trial
Court

RTC held Calvo liable for the damage to the shipment, using as basis the findings of the surveyor stating
that “we opine that damages sustained by shipment is attributable to improper handling in transit
presumably whilst in the custody of the broker.”

 Defendant, being a customs broker, warehouseman and at the same time a common carrier is
supposed [to] exercise [the] extraordinary diligence required by law, hence the extraordinary
responsibility lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of and
received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered actually or constructively
by the carrier to the consignee or to the person who has the right to receive the same

affirmed by CA

In the case at bar, petitioner denies liability for the damage to the cargo. She claims that the “spoilage
or wettage” 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 nine days from July 14 to July 23, 1998
notwithstanding the fact that some of the containers were deformed, cracked, or otherwise damaged,
as noted in the Marine Survey Report

In addition, petitioner claims that Marine Cargo Surveyor Ernesto Tolentino testified that he has no
personal knowledge on whether the container vans were first stored in petitioner’s warehouse prior to
their delivery to the consignee. She likewise claims that after withdrawing the container vans from the
arrastre operator, her driver, Ricardo Nazarro, immediately delivered the cargo to SMC’s warehouse in
Ermita, Manila, which is a mere thirty-minute drive from the Port Area where the cargo came from.
Thus, the damage to the cargo could not have taken place while these were in her custody. 1
ISSUE: WON liable

 she is not a common carrier but a private carrier because, as a customs broker and
warehouseman, she does not indiscriminately hold her services out to the public but only offers
the same to select parties with whom she may contract in the conduct of her business.

HELD: Liable

1. Common Carrier

 The above 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. We think that Article 1732 deliberately refrained from making such
distinctions.
 Transportation of goods is also an integral part of her business

2. Liability

In Compania Maritima v. Court of Appeals, the meaning of “extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over
goods” was explained thus:

 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.
 It requires 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, and to exercise due care in the handling and stowage, including such methods as
their nature requires.”

Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the Survey Report (Exh. “H”) of the Marine Cargo Surveyors indicates
that when the shipper transferred the cargo in question to the arrastre operator, these were covered by
clean Equipment Interchange Report (EIR) and, when petitioner’s employees 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.

3. Allegation of defect in the container vans

Nor is there basis to exempt petitioner from liability under Art. 1734(4), which provides—
For this provision to apply, the rule is that if the improper packing or, in this case, the defect/s in the
container, is/are known to the carrier or his employees or apparent upon ordinary observation, but he
nevertheless accepts the same without protest or exception notwithstanding such condition, he is not
relieved of liability for damage resulting therefrom.

In this case, petitioner accepted the cargo without exception despite the 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. 1735 hold

You might also like