Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 873 views

    FGU Insurance Corp. vs. GP Sarmiento Trucking Services Corp. DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Lou Angelique Heruela
    FGU Insurance sued GP Sarmiento Trucking Corp. and its driver after a cargo shipment was damaged in a collision. The lower court found for the defendants, ruling that GP Sarmiento was a private, not common, carrier since it transported only for one company. The Supreme Court held that while GP Sarmiento was a private carrier, it was still liable under the contract of carriage as its failure to deliver the cargo as agreed. The driver was not a party to the contract and was not found independently negligent, so the case against the driver was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    FGU Insurance Corp. vs. GP Sarmiento Trucking Services Corp. DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Lou Angelique Heruela
    873 views1 page
    FGU Insurance sued GP Sarmiento Trucking Corp. and its driver after a cargo shipment was damaged in a collision. The lower court found for the defendants, ruling that GP Sarmiento was a private, not common, carrier since it transported only for one company. The Supreme Court held that while GP Sarmiento was a private carrier, it was still liable under the contract of carriage as its failure to deliver the cargo as agreed. The driver was not a party to the contract and was not found independently negligent, so the case against the driver was dismissed.

    Original Title

    FGU Insurance Corp. vs. GP Sarmiento Trucking Services Corp. DIGEST.docx

    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 Insurance sued GP Sarmiento Trucking Corp. and its driver after a cargo shipment was damaged in a collision. The lower court found for the defendants, ruling that GP Sarmiento was a private, not common, carrier since it transported only for one company. The Supreme Court held that while GP Sarmiento was a private carrier, it was still liable under the contract of carriage as its failure to deliver the cargo as agreed. The driver was not a party to the contract and was not found independently negligent, so the case against the driver was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    873 views1 page

    FGU Insurance Corp. vs. GP Sarmiento Trucking Services Corp. DIGEST

    Uploaded by

    Lou Angelique Heruela
    FGU Insurance sued GP Sarmiento Trucking Corp. and its driver after a cargo shipment was damaged in a collision. The lower court found for the defendants, ruling that GP Sarmiento was a private, not common, carrier since it transported only for one company. The Supreme Court held that while GP Sarmiento was a private carrier, it was still liable under the contract of carriage as its failure to deliver the cargo as agreed. The driver was not a party to the contract and was not found independently negligent, so the case against the driver was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    FGU Insurance Corp. vs. GP Sarmiento Trucking Corp. and Lambert M.

    Eroles

    Facts
    Respondent GP Sarmiento Trucking Company (GTS) undertook to transport cargoes
    for Concepcion Industries Inc. when it collided with an unidentified truck, causing damage to
    the cargoes. Petitioner, FGU, insurer of the shipment, paid to Concepcion Industries the
    value of the covered cargoes. Then, as subrogee of Concepcion Industries Inc., petitioner
    FGU sued GPS for breach of contract of carriage for reimbursement. Instead of filing an
    answer, GPS filed a demurrer to evidence, claiming that it could not be held liable as a
    common carrier because it was only a private carrier, being the exclusive hauler only of
    Concepcion Industries Inc. since 1988.
    The lower court granted the motion, ruling that plaintiff FGU failed to prove that GPS
    was a common carrier. The CA affirmed the trial court's order.

    Issue
    Whether or not GPS is considered a common carrier and may be presumed negligent
    and therefore liable for damages.

    Ruling
    The Supreme Court held that GPS cannot be considered a common carrier as it
    renders service exclusively to Concepcion Industries; that notwithstanding, GPS cannot
    escape from liability since in culpa contractual, mere proof of the existence of the contract
    and the failure of its compliance justify prima facie a corresponding right of relief.
    Respondent driver, however, who is not a party to the contract of carriage, may not be held
    liable under the agreement without concrete proof of his negligence or fault.
    Hence, the Supreme Court affirmed the assailed order of the trial court and the CA
    insofar as the respondent driver was concerned, but GPS trucking company was ordered to
    pay the petitioner FGU the value of the damaged and lost cargoes.

    You might also like