Case Digest: VIRGINES CALVO vs. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC, G.R. No. 148496

Virgines Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 148496, March 19, 2002

Subject: Transportation Law

 

FACTS

Petitioner Virgines Calvo is the owner of Transorient Container Terminal Services, Inc. (TCTSI), a sole proprietorship customs broker. At the time material to this case, 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. The cargo was insured by respondent UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.

On July 14, 1990, the shipment in question, contained in 30 metal vans, arrived in Manila on board "M/V Hayakawa Maru" and, after 24 hours, were unloaded from the vessel to the custody of the arrastre operator, Manila Port Services, Inc. From July 23 to July 25, 1990, petitioner, pursuant to her contract with SMC, 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 were "wet/stained/torn" and 3 reels of kraft liner board were likewise torn. The damage was placed at P93,112.00.

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, Branch 148, Makati City, which rendered judgment finding petitioner liable to respondent for the damage to the shipment and accordingly ordered petitioner to pay the sum of P93,112.00 plus interest; 25% thereof as lawyer's fee; and costs of suit. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on appeal. Hence this petition for review on certiorari.

Petitioner contends that she is not a common carrier but a private carrier because 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.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not the petitioner is a common carrier.

2. Whether or not the petitioner is liable for the damaged goods.

RULING

1. Yes, the petitioner is a common carrier.

Under the law, common carriers are 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." 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.

In this case, petitioner is a common carrier because the transportation of goods is an integral part of her business. To uphold petitioner's contention would be to deprive those with whom she contracts the protection which the law affords them notwithstanding the fact that the obligation to carry goods for her customers, as already noted, is part and parcel of petitioner's business.

2. Yes, petitioner is liable for the damaged goods.

Under the law, 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.

The claim of petitioner 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 and not in her custody is untenable. Improper packing or 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 holds true. Therefore, petitioner is liable for the damaged goods.