Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 63 views

    FGU Vs Sarmiento Digest Week4 Camaymayan

    Uploaded by

    gmcamaymayan
    FGU vs Sarmiento Digest Week4 Camaymayan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    FGU Vs Sarmiento Digest Week4 Camaymayan

    Uploaded by

    gmcamaymayan
    63 views2 pages
    FGU vs Sarmiento Digest Week4 Camaymayan

    Original Title

    FGU vs Sarmiento Digest Week4 Camaymayan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    FGU vs Sarmiento Digest Week4 Camaymayan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    63 views2 pages

    FGU Vs Sarmiento Digest Week4 Camaymayan

    Uploaded by

    gmcamaymayan
    FGU vs Sarmiento Digest Week4 Camaymayan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    FGU Insurance vs Sarmiento Trucking

    Respondent G.P. Sarmiento Trucking (GPS) undertook to deliver units of Condura S.D.
    white refrigerators aboard one of its Suzuki Truck driven by Lambert Eroles from the
    its plant site in Alabang to the Central Appliance in Dagupan.
    On its way it collided with an unidentified truck causing it to fall into a deep canal,
    resulting in damage to the cargoes.
    Petitioner FGU Insruance as the insurer of the shipment paid Conception Industries
    the value of the covered cargoes, in turn being sugrogee of the rights and interest of
    Conception Industries. Petitioner sought reimbursement of the amount it had paid the
    Respondent.
    Respondent GPS failed to heed the claim of the Petitioner thus Petitioner filed a
    complaint for damages and breach of contract of carriage against Respondent GPS
    and its driver Eroles with the RTC
    After Petitioner presented their evidence, Respondent GPS filed a leave of court a
    motion to dismiss the complaint by way of demurrer to evidence on the ground that
    petitioner had failed to prove that it was a common carries.
    RTC granted the motion to dismiss.
    CA ruled in favor of the Respondent and denied the appeal of the petitioner.

    Issue: W/N the doctrine of Res IPSA LOQUITUR as invoke by Petitioner is applicable to the
    instant case?
    Ruling: NO the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur is not applicable.

    The doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur holds a defendant liable where the thing which
    caused the injury complained of is shown to be under his management and the
    accident is such in the ordinary course of things cannot be expected to happen if
    those who have its management or control use proper care. It affords reasonable
    evidence in the absence of explanation by the defendant that the accident arose
    from want of care.
    It is a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience since it furnishes a substitute
    for and relieves the plaintiff of, the burden of producing specific proof of negligence.
    The maxim places on the defendant the burden of going forward with the proof.
    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.
    The doctrine generally finds relevance whether or not a contractual relationship exist
    between the plaintiff and the defendant, for the inference of negligence arises from
    the circumstances and nature of the occurrence and not from the nature of the
    relation of the parties. It should be understood as being confined only to cases of
    pure(non-contractual) tort since obviously the presumption of negligence in culpa
    contractual, as previously pointed out immediately attaches by a failure of the
    covenant or its tenor.
    Respondent trucking corporation recognizes the existence of a contract of carriage
    between it and the petitioner and admits that the cargoes it has assumed to deliver
    have been lost or damaged while in its custody. In the current case the delivery of the
    goods in its custody to the place of destination gives rise to a presumption of lack of
    care and corresponding liability on the part of the contractual obligor the burden
    being on him to establish otherwise from which GPS has failed to do so.

    GPS liability is under Culpa contractual from which a breach upon the contract
    confers upon the injured party a valid cause for recovering that which may have been
    lost or suffered.

    You might also like