FGU Insurance Corporation v. G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corporation (GPS), through its driver Lambert Eroles, undertook to deliver 30 units of refrigerators from Concepcion Industries, Inc. (Concepcion) to Dagupan City. The truck collided with an unidentified truck and fell into a canal, damaging the cargoes. FGU Insurance Corporation (FGU), as insurer of the shipment, paid Concepcion P204,450.00 and, as subrogee, sought reimbursement from GPS. Procedural History: GPS asserted it was an exclusive hauler for Concepcion since 1988 and not a common carrier, claiming the damage was accidental. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed FGU's complaint on a demurrer to evidence, holding that FGU failed to prove GPS was a common carrier, thus the presumption of negligence under Article 1735 of the Civil Code was not applicable. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's dismissal. The Petition: FGU appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning whether GPS was a common carrier, whether negligence could be presumed, and if the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent GPS may be considered as a common carrier as defined under the law and existing jurisprudence. 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 transport safely were subsequently damaged while in its protective custody and possession. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in the instant case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint with respect to respondent Lambert M. Eroles but reversed the dismissal concerning G.P. Sarmiento Trucking Corporation. GPS was ordered to pay FGU Insurance Corporation the value of the damaged and lost cargoes amounting to P204,450.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent GPS may be considered as a common carrier: The Court held that GPS cannot be considered a common carrier. Common carriers are defined as entities engaged in transporting passengers or goods for hire, offering their services to the public, whether generally or to a limited clientele, but never on an exclusive basis. GPS, being an exclusive contractor and hauler for Concepcion Industries, Inc., and rendering services to no other entity, did not meet this definition. The Court distinguished this from a common carrier, emphasizing that the exclusive nature of the service rendered GPS a private carrier. On whether respondent GPS, either as a common carrier or a private carrier, may be presumed to have been negligent: The Court ruled that while GPS is not a common carrier, it cannot escape liability under culpa contractual. The existence of the contract of carriage and the failure to deliver the goods in its custody gave rise to a presumption of negligence on the part of GPS. The burden was on GPS to prove it exercised due diligence or that a fortuitous event caused the damage, which it failed to do. The Court reiterated that a breach of contract creates a duty to make recompense unless extenuating circumstances are proven. On whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable: The Court clarified that res ipsa loquitur is a mode of proof, not a source of liability, and applies when an accident ordinarily does not occur without negligence, other causes are eliminated, and the negligence is within the defendant's duty. While the driver was in control of the vehicle, the circumstances of the accident did not sufficiently establish that it was exclusively due to his negligence, thus precluding the application of res ipsa loquitur against him. The Court also noted that the presumption of negligence in culpa contractual already attaches by the failure of the covenant, making res ipsa loquitur less critical in such cases.
Main Doctrine
A trucking corporation that exclusively hauls for a single client is considered a private carrier, not a common carrier. However, even as a private carrier, it is presumed negligent upon failure to deliver goods in its custody, and must prove it exercised due diligence or that a fortuitous event occurred to be absolved of liability.