CALVO v.

UCPB  The main contention of Calvo is that she is not a common carrier but is a private carrier
G.R. No. 148496/ MAR. 19, 2002/ MENDOZA, J./LEGAL EFFECTS/SANJER
NATURE Petition for Review of the Decision of the CA
PETITIONERS Virgines Calvo, et al.
RESPONDENTS UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., et al.
SUMMARY. Calvo contracted with SMC for the transfer of goods to their warehouse in
Manila. The goods were insured by UCPB. When the goods arrived in Manila, Calvo
immediately withdrew the cargo from the arrastre operator without any protests or exceptions.
The goods later on were found to be damaged. UCPB paid SMC for the insured goods. UCPB
then filed a suit against Calvo for causing damage to the goods.
The Court held that when petitioner accepted the cargo without exception despite the apparent
defects in some of the container vans, the damages were incurred while said cargo was in her
custody. Moreover, 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 holds.
DOCTRINE. Art. 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of
public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and
for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all circumstances of each
case
FACTS
 Calvo is the owner of Transorient Container Terminal Services Inc.(TCTSI), a sole
proprietorship customs broker.
 Calvo contracted with San Miguel Corporation for the transfer of 114 reels of semi
chemical flutting paper and 124 reels of Kraft liner board.
 Said cargo was insured with UCPB General Insurance Co, and was to board from Manila
Port Area to SMC’s warehouse in Manila.
o July 14, 1990 – shipment contained in 30 metal vans arrived in Manila
o July 15 – said shipment was unloaded to the custody of the arrastre operator –
Manila Port Services Inc.
o July 23-25- Calvo withdrew cargo from the arrastre and delivered the same to
the warehouse of SMC in Manila.
o July 25- said cargo was then inspected by Marine Cargo Surveyors and found
that the shipment was damaged (15 reels of fluting paper were
“wet/stained/torn”, 3 reels of kraft liner board were also torn)
as she only offer her services to select parties and not to the public. She insists that the
spoilage took place while the goods were in the custody of the carrying vessel.
 Calvo claims that after withdrawing the vans from the arrastre operator, it was
immediately delivered to the warehouse of SMC in Manila which was only a mere 30
min drive from the Port where the cargo came. Because of this, Calvo alleged that the
damage could not have taken place while the cargo was in her custody.
 Not being a common carrier, she is not required to observe extraordinary diligence.
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON Calvo (TCTSI) is a common carrier and therefore liable to pay damages. – YES.
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 was found by the Court that when Calvo withdrew the cargo from the arrastre operator, they
did so without exception or protest either with regard to the condition of the container vans or
their contents.
It can be concluded that since there were no exceptions or protest, the goods that were
withdrawn was in good order and the damage only occurred while it was in the custody of
Calvo.
In order to be absolved from any liability, Calvo should have exercised extraordinary diligence
in the delivery of the goods. However, Calvo failed to adduced evidences which would prove
that she indeed exercised due care in the handling of the goods by using all reasonable means.
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 holds.
DECISION.
Decision of CA is AFFIRMED.

 SMC collected payment from UCPB under the insurance contract which covered the cargo
since it was damaged.
 UCPB, as subrogee of SMC, brought suit against Calvo in the RTC of Makati to recover the
amount they paid for the damage caused by Calvo to the cargo.

o RTC: Found Calvo to be liable to UCPB for the damage to the shipment. Being
a common carrier, Calvo should have exercised extraordinary diligence. Calvo
failed to adduced evidence to prove that she indeed devised ways and means to
ensure the safety of the cargo.
o CA: Affirmed the Decision of RTC.