Myline Cordial

Virgines Calvo doing business under the name and style Transorient Container Terminal Services, Inc. vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. (formerly Allied Guarantee Ins. Co., Inc.)
G.R. No. 148496, March 19, 2002

FACTS:
Petitioner Virgines Calvo is the owner of Transorient Container Terminal Services, Inc. (TCTSI), a sole proprietorship customs broker. She 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 in Ermita, Manila. The cargo was insured by respondent UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. Upon delivery, the goods were inspected and 15 reels of the semi-chemical fluting paper and 3 reels of kraft liner board were found damaged.

ISSUE:
1. Is a customs broker or warehouseman who offers his services to select clients a common carrier?
2. Is petitioner liable for the damage of the goods?

RULING:
1. Pursuant to Article 1732, petitioner is a common carrier as transportation of goods is an integral part of her business. Article 1732 defines “common carriers” as 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. This 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.

2. Petitioner is liable because she failed to prove that she exercised extraordinary diligence in the carriage of goods, the presumption of negligence as provided under Art. 1735 applies. Under Article 1735 of the Civil Code, if the goods are proved to have been lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they have observed the extraordinary diligence required by law. The burden of the plaintiff is to prove merely that the goods he transported have been lost, destroyed or deteriorated. Thereafter, the burden is shifted to the carrier to prove that he has exercised the extraordinary diligence required by law. Thus, it has been held that the mere proof of delivery of goods in good order to a carrier, and of their arrival at the place of destination in bad order, makes out a prima facie case against the carrier, so that if no explanation is given as to how the injury occurred, the carrier must be held responsible.

NOTES:

Extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods, meaning
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.