FGU Insurance vs Sarmiento

FGU IN FGU INSU SURA RANC NCE E CO CORP RPOR ORA ATIO ION, N, petitioner G.P P.  petitioner,, vs. G. CORPORATION and LAMBERT M. EROLES, respondents.

SARM SA RMIE IENT NTO O

TRUC TR UCKI KING NG

FACTS:

P. Sarmiento Trucking Corporation (GPS) undertook to deliver on 18 June 1994 thirt (!") unit# unit# o$ Condura Condura S.%. &hite re$rigerato re$rigerator# r# driven driven ' am'ert role#* role#* $rom the plant plant #ite o$  Concepci Concepcion on +ndu#tr +ndu#trie#* ie#* +nc.* +nc.* in ,etro ,etro ,anila ,anila to the Central Central u-on u-on pplia ppliance# nce# in %agupa %agupan n Cit. /n it# &a* it collided &ith an unidenti$ied truck* cau#ing it to $all into a deep canal* re#ulting in damage to the cargoe#. 0G +n#ura +n#uranc nce e Corpo Corporat ration ion (0G)* (0G)* an in#ur in#urer er o$ the #hipme #hipment nt** paid paid to Conce Concepci pcion on +ndu#trie#* +nc.* the value o$ the covered cargoe# in the #um o$ P2"4*43"."". 0G* in turn* 'eing the #u'rogee o$ the right# and intere#t# o$ Concepcion +ndu#trie#* +nc.* #ought reim'ur#ement o$  the amount it had paid to the latter $rom GPS. Since the trucking compan $ailed to heed the claim* 0G $iled a complaint $or damage# and 'reach o$ contract o$ carriage again#t GPS and it# driver am'ert role#. +n it# an#&er* re#pondent# a##erted that GPS &a# the eclu#ive hauler onl o$ Concepcion +ndu#trie#* +nc.* #ince 1988* and it &a# not #o engaged in 'u#ine## a# a common carrier. ISSUES: 1. WHE WHETHE THER R RESPON RESPONDEN DENT T GPS MAY MAY BE CONSID CONSIDERE ERED D AS A COMMON COMMON CARRIE CARRIER R AS DEFINED UNDER THE LAW AND EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE.

2. WHETHER RESPONDENT GPS, EITHER AS A COMMON CARRIER OR A PRIVATE CARRIER, MAY BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT WHEN THE GOODS IT UNDERTOOK TO TRANSP TRANSPOR ORT T SAFEL SAFELY Y WE WERE RE SUBSEQ SUBSEQUEN UENTL TLY Y DAMAG DAMAGED ED WH WHILE ILE IN ITS PROTEC PROTECTIV TIVE E CUSTODY AND POSSESSION. 3. WH WHETH ETHER ER TH THE E DO DOCTR CTRINE INE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR IS APPLICAB APPLICABLE LE IN THE INSTA INSTANT CASE.

HELD:

/n the $ir#t i##ue* the Court $ind# the conclu#ion o$ the trial court and the Court o$ ppeal# to 'e ampl 5u#ti$ied. GPS* 'eing an eclu#ive contractor and hauler o$ Concepcion +ndu#trie#* +nc.* rendering or o$$ering it# #ervice# to no other individual or entit* cannot 'e con#idered a common carrier. Common carrier# are per#on#* corporation#* $irm# or a##ociation# engaged in the 'u#ine## o$ carring or tran#porting pa##enger# or good# or 'oth* ' land* &ater* or air* $or  hire or compen#ation* o$$ering their #ervice# to the pub!". Given accepted #tandard#* GPS

#carcel $all# &ithin the term common carrier. The a'ove conclu#ion noth&ith#tanding* GPS cannot e#cape $rom lia'ilit. +n culpa contractual * upon &hich the action o$ petitioner re#t# a# 'eing the #u'rogee o$  Concepcion +ndu#trie#* +nc.* the mere proo$ o$ the ei#tence o$ the contract and the $ailure o$ it# compliance 5u#ti$* prima facie* a corre#ponding right o$ relie$. The la&* recogni-ing the o'ligator $orce o$ contract#* &ill not permit a part to 'e #et $ree $rom lia'ilit $or an kind o$  mi#per$ormance o$ the contractual undertaking or a contravention o$ the tenor thereo$.  'reach upon the contract con$er# upon the in5ured part a valid cau#e $or recovering that &hich ma have 'een lo#t or #u$$ered. The e$$ect o$ ever in$raction i# to create a ne& dut* that i#* to make recompen#e to the one &ho ha# 'een in5ured ' the $ailure o$ another to o'#erve hi# contractual o'ligation unle## he can #ho& etenuating circum#tance#* like proo$ o$ hi# eerci#e o$ due diligence or o$ the attendance o$ $ortuitou# event* to ecu#e him $rom hi# en#uing lia'ilit. 6e#pondent trucking corporation recogni-e# the ei#tence o$ a contract o$ carriage 'et&een it and petitioner# a##ured* and admit# that the cargoe# it ha# a##umed to deliver have 'een lo#t or damaged &hile in it# cu#tod. +n #uch a #ituation* a de$ault on* or $ailure o$ compliance &ith* the o'ligation in thi# ca#e* the deliver o$ the good# in it# cu#tod to the place o$ de#tination 7 give# ri#e to a pre#umption o$ lack o$ care and corre#ponding lia'ilit on the part o$ the contractual o'ligor the 'urden 'eing on him to e#ta'li#h other&i#e. GPS ha# $ailed to do #o. 6e#pondent driver* on the other hand* &ithout concrete proo$ o$ hi# negligence or $ault* ma not him#el$ 'e ordered to pa petitioner. The driver* not 'eing a part to the contract o$ carriage 'et&een petitioner# principal and de$endant* ma not 'e held lia'le under the agreement.  contract can onl 'ind the partie# &ho have entered into it or their #ucce##or# &ho have a##umed their per#onalit or their 5uridical po#ition. Con#onantl &ith the aiom res inter alios acta aliis neque nocet prodest * #uch contract can neither $avor nor pre5udice a third per#on. Petitioner# civil action again#t the driver can onl 'e 'a#ed on culpa aquiliana,  &hich* unlike culpa contractual, &ould reuire the claimant $or damage# to prove negligence or $ault on the part o$ the de$endant.   &ord in pa##ing. Res ipsa loquitur, a doctrine 'eing invoked ' petitioner* hold# a de$endant lia'le &here the thing &hich cau#ed the in5ur complained o$ i# #ho&n to 'e under the latter# management and the accident i# #uch that* in the ordinar cour#e o$ thing#* cannot 'e epected to happen i$ tho#e &ho have it# management or control u#e proper care. +t i# not a rule o$ #u'#tantive la& and* a# #uch* it doe# not create an independent ground o$ lia'ilit. +n#tead* it i# regarded a# a mode o$ proo$* or a mere procedural convenience #ince it $urni#he# a #u'#titute $or* and relieve# the plainti$$ o$* the 'urden o$ producing #peci$ic proo$ o$ negligence. The maim #impl place# on the de$endant the 'urden o$ going $or&ard &ith the proo$. 6e#ort to the doctrine* ho&ever* ma 'e allo&ed onl &hen (a) the event i# o$ a kind &hich doe# not ordinaril occur in the a'#ence o$ negligence (') other re#pon#i'le cau#e#* including the conduct o$ the plainti$$ and third per#on#* are #u$$icientl eliminated ' the evidence and (c) the indicated negligence i# &ithin the #cope o$ the de$endant:# dut to the plainti$$.Thu#* it i# not applica'le

&hen an uneplained accident ma 'e attri'uta'le to one o$ #everal cau#e#* $or #ome o$ &hich the de$endant could not 'e re#pon#i'le. Res ipsa loquitur  generall $ind# relevance &hether or not a contractual relation#hip ei#t# 'et&een the plainti$$ and the de$endant* $or the in$erence o$ negligence ari#e# $rom the circum#tance# and nature o$ the occurrence and not $rom the nature o$ the relation o$ the partie#. ;everthele##* the reuirement that re#pon#i'le cau#e# other than tho#e due to de$endant# conduct mu#t $ir#t 'e eliminated* $or the doctrine to appl* #hould 'e under#tood a# 'eing con$ined onl to ca#e# o$ pure (non7contractual) tort #ince o'viou#l the pre#umption o$  negligence in culpa contractual * a# previou#l #o pointed out* immediatel attache# ' a $ailure o$ the covenant or it# tenor. +n the ca#e o$ the truck driver* &ho#e lia'ilit in a civil action i# predicated on culpa acquiliana * &hile he admittedl can 'e #aid to have 'een in control and management o$ the vehicle &hich $igured in the accident* it i# not euall #ho&n* ho&ever* that the accident could have 'een eclu#ivel due to hi# negligence* a matter that can allo&* $orth&ith* res ipsa loquitur to &ork again#t him. #HEREFORE* the order o$ the 6egional Trial Court and the deci#ion o$ the Court o$   ppeal#* are 00+6,% onl in#o$ar a# re#pondent am'ert ,. role# i# concerned* 'ut #aid a##ailed order o$ the trial court and deci#ion o$ the appellate court are 6