11. Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. 1. Calvo Calvo owns owns Transor ransorien ientt Contai Containe nerr Termin erminal al Servi Service ces s Inc (TCTSI), a sole proprietorship customs broker. 2. Calvo enter entered ed into into a contract contract w/ San i! Corp Corp (SC) "or "or the trans"er o" semi#chemical $utin! paper "rom the %ort &rea in anila to SC's warehouse at rmita anila. . SC insured insured the car!o car!o "rom the *C%+ *C%+ insurance insurance compan compan -. The shipmen shipments ts arrived arrived in anila anila were were unloaded unloaded "rom the the vessel to the custod o" the arrestee operator, anila %ort Services. . Calvo Calvo withdre withdrew w the the car!o car!o "rom the arrastr arrastre e operat operator or delivered it to SC's warehouse 0. *pon inspec inspection tion,, the !oods were were wet, stained, stained, torn. SC SC collected pament "rom *C%+, the latter was subro!ated o" the ri!hts o" SC upon petitioner. . *C%+ led led a case a!ainst a!ainst petiti petitioner oner "or "or dama!es. dama!es. 3. 4TC5 4TC5 Calvo liable. liable. Statin! it is a common common carrier carrier and "ailed to observe the e6traordinar dili!ence re7uired b law. Since Calv Calvo o is a comm common on carr carrie ier, r, ther there e is pres presum umpt ptio ion n o" ne!li!ence when the !oods are lost/destroed. &nd that i" the !oods are deliver in !ood condition to the carrier but in a bad condition at the place o" destination, there is a prima "acie case a!ainst the carrier. &nd i" there is no e6planation !iven as to how the in8ur occurred, the carrier must be held responsible. It ordered to pa *C%+ %9,112.:: ; interest. Calvo contends5 o It is not a common carrier but a private carrier since as a custo stoms broker war warehouse ouse man, an, she she doesn oesn't 't indiscriminatel hold her services out to the public but onl o?5 &rt 12 (denition o" common carrier) doesn't distin!uish b/w a carrier o
o
6traord 6traordinar inar dili!en dili!ence ce re7uir re7uires es the common common carrier carriers s to render service with the !reatest skill and "oresi!ht and @to use use all reaso reasonab nable le means means to ascer ascertai tain n the the natur nature e and chara characte cteris ristic tic o" !oods !oods tende tendere red d "or shipme shipment nt,, and and to e6erc e6ercise ise due care in the handlin! handlin! and stowa!e, stowa!e, includin includin! ! such methods as their nature re7uires
In this this case, case, Calvo Calvo denie denies s liabil liabilit it,, she was claimi claimin! n! that that the the spoila!e took place while !oods were inside the vessel or due to the arrestre arrestre operator operator who unloaded unloaded the !oods !oods alle!edl alle!edl kept them open air "or 9 das. She also claimed that a"ter withdrawin! the container container vans "rom the arrastr arrastre e operator operator,, she immediate immediatel l deliver the car!o to SC's warehouse which was onl :#minute drive "rom the port area, hence, the dama!e could not have taken place. •
Court held that the surve report indicates that when the shipper trans"erred trans"erred the car!o to the arrestee operator these were covered b clean 7uipment Interchan!e 4eport (I4) when when Calvo's Calvo's emploee emploees s withdre withdrew w the car!o "rom the arrestre operator the did it without e6ception or protest as to the condition o" the container vans / their contents. The rule is that whenever the thing is lost/a!ages in "oss "osses essi sion on o# the the obli oblig gor $Ca $Calvo% lvo%,, ther there e is a "resu!"tion that the loss/a!ages was ue to the latter’s #ault unless there is "roo# to the contrary. =ere, Calvo received the shipment in !ood order condition but delivered it to SC dama!es. =ence the conclusion that the dama!es occurred while it was in possession o" Calvo. &nd there was no proo" o
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 SMC’s warehouse: SC5 Calvo must do more than showin! the possibilit that it was another part who could be responsible "or the dama!e. It must prove that it used @all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic o" !oods that it e6ercised due care in handlin! it which Calvo "ailed to do. •
Calvo is not e6empt "rom liabilit under &rt. 1- (-) w/c provides that @Common @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: (! "he character of the goods or defects in the pac#ing or in the containers.” Aor this to appl, the rule is that de"ects in the container are known to the carrier / his emploees / apparent upon ordinar observation but still accepts the same without •
protest o" such condition. =e is not relived o" liabilit "or the dama!e. In this case, Calvo accepted the car!o without e6ception despite apparent de"ects in some o" the container vans. =ence, "or "ailure o" petitioner to prove that she e6ercised e6traordinar dili!ence in the carria!e o" !oods in this case or that she is e6empt "rom liabilit, the presumption o" ne!li!ence as provided under &rt. 11 holds.
