FGU v. SARMIENTO
386 SCRA 312
Aug. 6 2002
Doctrine:
In culpa contractual, the mere proof of the existence of the contract
and the failure of its compliance justify a corresponding right of
relief.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur holds a defendant liable where the
thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under
the latter’s management and the accident is such that, in the
ordinary course of things, cannot be expected to happen if those
who have its management/control use proper care.
FACTS:
• G.P Sarmiento Trucking Corporation (GPS) delivered 20 units
of Condura refrigerators using an Isuzu truck, driven by
Lambert Eroles, from the plant of Concepcion Industries Inc.
in Alabang to Dagupan City.
• Along McArthur highway in Barangay Anupol, Bamban,
Tarlac, it collided with an unidentified truck causing it to fall
into a deep canal, resulting in damage to the cargoes.
• FGU Insurance Corporation (FGU), an insurer of the
shipment, paid to Concepcion Industries, Inc. the value of
the covered cargoes amounting to P204,450.
• FGU sought reimbursement from GPS
• There being no reply, FGU filed a complaint for damages and
breach of contract of carriage against GPS and its driver
Lambert Eroles with the RTC of Makati.
• Respondents GPS filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that
they were exclusive haulers only of Concepcion Industries
and is not considered as a common carrier.
• Trial court granted motion to dismiss since petitioners
weren’t able to prove that it was a common carrier and
failed to prove that the defendant was negligent.
•
•
Petitioners appealed to Court of Appeals, which was later on
rejected stating that the petitioner failed to prove that:
o GPS is a common carrier
o Carrier was negligent
MR was denied, thus the petition
ISSUE:
1. W/N GPS may be considered as a common carrier
2. W/N may be presumed to have been negligent in delivering
the goods
3. W/N the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable
HELD:
1. NO.
GPS, being an exclusive contractor and hauler of Concepcion
Industries Inc. offering services to no one else, cannot be considered
a common carrier.
Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms, or associations
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or
goods or both by land, water, or air for hire or compensation,
offering their services to the public, and never exclusively.
The test of a common carrier is the carriage of passenger or goods,
making its space available for transportation service for a fee.
2. YES
GPS cannot escape from liability. In culpa contractual, the mere
proof of the existence of the contract & the failure of its compliance
give rise to a suit for damages. The law will not allow a party to be
free from liability for misperformace or contravention of any
contract/ obligation.
A failure of compliance with the obligation gives rise to a
presumption of lack of care and corresponding liability on the part of
the obligor. He has the burden of establishing otherwise. This GPS
has failed to do.
Eroles, on the other hand, may not be ordered to pay petitioner
without concrete proof of his negligence/fault. The driver, not being
a party to the contract of carriage between petitioner’s principal and
defendant, may not be held liable under the agreement. A contract
can only bind the parties who have entered into it or their successors
who have assumed their personality/juridical position. Such contract
can neither favor nor prejudice a third person. Petitioner’s civil action
against the driver can only be based on culpa aquiliana, which would
require the claimant for damages to prove the defendant’s
negligence/fault.
(c) the indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendant’s
duty to the plaintiff.
Thus, it is not applicable when an unexplained accident may be
attributable to one of several causes, for some of which the
defendant could not be responsible.
On the other hand, while the truck driver can be said to have been
in control & management of the vehicle, it is not equally shown that
the accident has been exclusively due to his negligence. If it were
so, the negligence could allow res ipsa loquitur to properly work
against him. However, clearly this is not the case.
WHEREFORE, order of RTC of Makati is affirmed only insofar as
Lambert Elores is concerned. Its decision regarding GP Sarmiento
Trucking Corp. is REVERSED and is orderd to pay FGU Insurance
Corporation the value of the damaged and lost cargoes of P204,450.
3. NO
Res ipsa loquitur1 holds a defendant liable where the thing which
caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the latter’s
management and that such accident would not have happened if the
defendant used proper care.
It is regarded as a mode of proof, or a procedural convenience since
it serves as a substitute for the burden of producing specific proof of
negligence. In other words, there is no more need to produce
evidence since such negligence is already presumed given the
circumstances.
However, the doctrine is allowed only when:
(a) the event is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur in the
absence of negligence
(b) other responsible causes are sufficiently eliminated by the
evidence (includes the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons)
1
doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened NOTE:
A suit for damages serves to preserve the interests of the promise. These
interests include:
Expectation interest – interest in having the benefit of his bargain by being
put in as good a position as he would have been in had the contract been
performed;
Reliance interest – interest in being reimbursed for loss caused by reliance
on the contract by being put in as good a position as he would have been in
had the contract not been made;
Restitution interest – interest in having restored to him any benefit that he
has conferred on the other party.