Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VIRGINES CALVO DOING BUSINESS UNDER NAME v. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO.

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 157917 2012-08-29	SPS. TEODORO v. SPS. NICOLAS BERSAMIN, J.
Given the breadth of the aforequoted characterization of a common carrier, the Court has considered as common carriers pipeline operators,[18] custom brokers and warehousemen,[19] and barge operators[20] even if they had limited clientèle.
	GR No. 171194 2010-02-04	ASIAN TERMINALS v. DAEHAN FIRE NACHURA, J.
In a claim for loss filed by the consignee (or the insurer), the burden of proof to show compliance with the obligation to deliver the goods to the appropriate party devolves upon the arrastre operator. Since the safekeeping of the goods is its responsibility, it must prove that the losses were not due to its negligence or to that of its employees.[36] To prove the exercise of diligence in handling the subject cargoes, petitioner must do more than merely show the possibility that some other party could be responsible for the loss or the damage. It must prove that it exercised due care in the handling thereof.[37] Petitioner failed to do this. Instead, it insists that it be exonerated from liability, because the customs broker's representative received the subject shipment in good order and condition without exception. The appellate court's conclusion on this matter is instructive: ATI may not disclaim responsibility for the shortage/pilferage of fourteen (14) boxes of printed aluminum sheet while the container van remained in its custody for seven (7) days (at the Container Yard) simply because the alleged representative of the customs broker had withdrawn the shipment from its premises and signed the EIR without any complaint. The signature of the person/broker representative merely signifies that said person thereby frees the ATI from any liability for loss or damage to the cargo so withdrawn while the same was in the custody of such representative to whom the cargo was released. It does not foreclose any remedy or right of the consignee to prove that any loss or damage to the subject shipment occurred while the same was under the custody, control and possession of the arrastre operator.[38]
	GR No. 168402 2008-08-06	ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA REYES, R.T., J.
To prove the exercise of extraordinary diligence, petitioner must do more than merely show the possibility that some other party could be responsible for the damage. It must prove that it used "all reasonable means to ascertain the nature and characteristic of the goods tendered for transport and that it exercised due care in handling them.[42] Extraordinary diligence must include safeguarding the shipment from damage coming from natural elements such as rainfall.
	GR No. 161745 2005-09-30	LEA MER INDUSTRIES v. MALAYAN INSURANCE CO. PANGANIBAN, J.
Common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in their vigilance over the goods and the safety of the passengers they transport, as required by the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy.[24] Extraordinary diligence requires rendering service with the greatest skill and foresight to avoid damage and destruction to the goods entrusted for carriage and delivery.[25]
	GR No. 161833 2005-07-08	PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. UNKNOWN OWNER OF VESSEL M/V 'NATIONAL R CALLEJO, SR., J.
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."[42]