Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.
Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.
*
G.R. No. 148496. March 19, 2002.
* SECOND DIVISION.
511
512
MENDOZA, J.:
1
This is a petition for review of the decision, dated May
2
31,
2001, of the Court of Appeals, affirming the decision of the
Regional
______________
513
514
______________
515
VOL. 379, MARCH 19, 2002 515
Calvo vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.
516
The contention
7
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, thus—
The Civil Code defines “common carriers” in the
following terms:
______________
517
______________
518
rain gutter deformed/cracked
MAXU-
—
2062880
ICSU- — left side rubber gasket on door
363461-3 distorted/partly loose
PERU- — with pinholes on roof panel right portion
204209-4
TOLU- — wood flooring we[t] and/or with signs of
213674-3 water soaked
MAXU- — with dent/crack on roof panel
201406-0
ICSU- — rubber gasket on left
10
side/door panel partly
412105-0 detached loosened.
In addition, petitioner claims that Marine Cargo Surveyor
Ernesto Tolentino testified that he has no personal
knowledge on whether the container vans were first stored
in petitioner’s warehouse prior to their delivery to the
consignee. She likewise claims that after withdrawing the
container vans from the arrastre operator, her driver,
Ricardo Nazarro, immediately delivered the cargo to SMC’s
warehouse in Ermita, Manila, which is a mere thirty-
minute drive from the Port Area where the cargo came
from. Thus, the damage to the cargo 11could not have taken
place while these were in her custody.
Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the Survey Report
(Exh. “H”) of the Marine Cargo Surveyors indicates that
when the shipper transferred the cargo in question to the
arrastre operator, these were covered by clean Equipment
Interchange Report (EIR) and, when petitioner’s employees
withdrew the cargo from the arrastre operator, they did so
without exception or protest either with regard to the
condition of container vans or their contents. The Survey
Report pertinently reads—
Details of Discharge:
______________
519
Transfer/Delivery:
On July 23, 1990, shipment housed onto 30’ x 20’ cargo
containers was [withdrawn] by Transorient Container Services,
Inc. . . . without exception.
[The cargo] was finally delivered to the consignee’s storage
warehouse located at Tabacalera Compound,
12
Romualdez Street,
Ermita, Manila from July 23/25, 1990.
From the [Survey Report], it [is] clear that the shipment was
discharged from the vessel to the arrastre, Marina Port Services
Inc., in good order and condition as evidenced by clean Equipment
Interchange Reports (EIRs). Had there been any damage to the
shipment, there would have been a report to that effect made by
the arrastre operator. The cargoes were withdrawn by the
defendant-appellant from the arrastre still in good order and
condition as the same were received by the former without
exception, that is, without any report of damage or loss. Surely, if
the container vans were deformed, cracked, distorted or dented,
the defendant-appellant would report it immediately to the
consignee or make an exception on the delivery receipt or note the
same in the Warehouse Entry Slip (WES). None of these took
place. To put it simply, the defendantappellant received the
shipment in good order and condition and delivered the same to
the consignee damaged. We can only conclude that the damages to
the cargo occurred while it was in the possession of the
defendantappellant. Whenever the thing is lost (or damaged) in
the possession of the debtor (or obligor), it shall be presumed that
the loss (or damage) was due to his fault, unless there is proof to
the contrary. No proof was proffered to rebut this legal
presumption and the presumption of negligence attached 13
to a
common carrier in case of loss or damage to the goods.
______________
520
______________
521
Judgment affirmed.
——o0o——