20. G.R. No. 148496 - Calvo v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc_.pdf - SECOND DIVISION[G.R No 148496 VIRGINES CALVO doing business under the name and

20. G.R. No. 148496 - Calvo v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc_.pdf

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 8 pages.

SECOND DIVISION [G.R. No. 148496. March 19, 2002.] VIRGINES CALVO doing business under the name and style VIRGINES CALVO doing business under the name and style TRANSORIENT CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. TRANSORIENT CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., petitioner , vs vs . UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. (formerly Allied Guarantee UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. (formerly Allied Guarantee Ins. Co., Inc.) Ins. Co., Inc.) respondent . Montilla Law Office for petitioner. Leano and Leano Law Office for respondent. SYNOPSIS SYNOPSIS Petitioner, Virgines Calvo is the owner of Transorient Container Terminal Services, Inc., a sole proprietorship customs broker, was held liable by the RTC and the CA for damages to the cargo handled by petitioner. On appeal, petitioner contended that: she is not liable beyond what ordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods transported by her would require because her company is not a common carrier but a private or special carrier; and that the cargo could not have been damaged while in her custody as she immediately delivered the containers to SMC's compound. DHITcS The Supreme Court upheld the assailed decision on appeal, ruling: that petitioner is a common carrier because the transportation of goods is an integral part of her business: that as such, she is bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the carriage of goods; that to prove extraordinary diligence, petitioner must do more than merely show the possibility that some other party could be responsible for the damage; and that improper packing of the goods could be a basis to exempt petitioner from liability, but petitioner accepted the cargo without exception despite the apparent defects in some of the container vans. SYLLABUS 1. CIVIL LAW; COMMON CARRIERS; CUSTOMS BROKER AND WAREHOUSEMAN AS COMMON CARRIER; CASE AT BAR. — Petitioner contends that contrary to the @ndings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, 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. The contention has no merit. In De Guzman v. Court of Appeals , the Court dismissed a similar contention and held the party to be a common carrier, . . . as [email protected] in Article 1732 of the Civil Code. . . . There is greater reason for holding petitioner to be a common carrier because the transportation of goods is an integral part of her business. To uphold petitioners' 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.
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture