Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

141910 August 6, 2002

FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. G.P. SARMIENTO TRUCKING CORPORATION an !AM"ERT M. ERO!ES, respondents. #ITUG, J.: .P. Sar!iento Truc"in# $orporation % PS& undertoo" to deliver on '( )une '**+ thirt, %-.& units of $ondura S.D. /hite refri#erators aboard one of its Isu0u truc", driven b, 1a!bert 2roles, fro! the plant site of $oncepcion Industries, Inc., alon# South Superhi#h/a, in 3laban#, Metro Manila, to the $entral 1u0on 3ppliances in Da#upan $it,. 4hile the truc" /as traversin# the north diversion road alon# Mc3rthur hi#h/a, in 5aran#a, 3nupol, 5a!ban, Tarlac, it collided /ith an unidentified truc", causin# it to fall into a deep canal, resultin# in da!a#e to the car#oes. F 6 Insurance $orporation %F 6&, an insurer of the ship!ent, paid to $oncepcion Industries, Inc., the value of the covered car#oes in the su! of P7.+,+8..... F 6, in turn, bein# the subro#ee of the ri#hts and interests of $oncepcion Industries, Inc., sou#ht rei!burse!ent of the a!ount it had paid to the latter fro! PS. Since the truc"in# co!pan, failed to heed the clai!, F 6 filed a co!plaint for da!a#es and breach of contract of carria#e a#ainst PS and its driver 1a!bert 2roles /ith the Re#ional Trial $ourt, 5ranch 99, of Ma"ati $it,. In its ans/er, respondents asserted that PS /as the e:clusive hauler onl, of $oncepcion Industries, Inc., since '*((, and it /as not so en#a#ed in business as a co!!on carrier. Respondents further clai!ed that the cause of da!a#e /as purel, accidental.1wphi1.nt The issues havin# thus been ;oined, F 6 presented its evidence, establishin# the e:tent of da!a#e to the car#oes and the a!ount it had paid to the assured. PS, instead of sub!ittin# its evidence, filed /ith leave of court a !otion to dis!iss the co!plaint b, /a, of de!urrer to evidence on the #round that petitioner had failed to prove that it /as a co!!on carrier. The trial court, in its order of -. 3pril '**9,' #ranted the !otion to dis!iss, e:plainin# thusl,< =6nder Section ' of Rule '-' of the Rules of $ourt, it is provided that >2ach part, !ust prove his o/n affir!ative alle#ation, :::.? =In the instant case, plaintiff did not present an, sin#le evidence that /ould prove that defendant is a co!!on carrier.

=: : :

:::

:::

=3ccordin#l,, the application of the la/ on co!!on carriers is not /arranted and the presu!ption of fault or ne#li#ence on the part of a co!!on carrier in case of loss, da!a#e or deterioration of #oods durin# transport under '@-8 of the $ivil $ode is not availin#. =Thus, the la/s #overnin# the contract bet/een the o/ner of the car#o to /ho! the plaintiff /as subro#ated and the o/ner of the vehicle /hich transports the car#o are the la/s on obli#ation and contract of the $ivil $ode as /ell as the la/ on Auasi delicts. =6nder the la/ on obli#ation and contract, ne#li#ence or fault is not presu!ed. The la/ on Auasi delict provides for so!e presu!ption of ne#li#ence but onl, upon the attendance of so!e circu!stances. Thus, 3rticle 7'(8 provides< >3rt. 7'(8. 6nless there is proof to the contrar,, it is presu!ed that a person drivin# a !otor vehicle has been ne#li#ent if at the ti!e of the !ishap, he /as violatin# an, traffic re#ulation.? =2vidence for the plaintiff sho/s no proof that defendant /as violatin# an, traffic re#ulation. Bence, the presu!ption of ne#li#ence is not obtainin#. =$onsiderin# that plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that defendant is a co!!on carrier and defendant?s driver /as the one ne#li#ent, defendant cannot be !ade liable for the da!a#es of the sub;ect car#oes.=7 The subseAuent !otion for reconsideration havin# been denied,- plaintiff interposed an appeal to the $ourt of 3ppeals, contendin# that the trial court had erred %a& in holdin# that the appellee corporation /as not a co!!on carrier defined under the la/ and e:istin# ;urisprudenceC and %b& in dis!issin# the co!plaint on a de!urrer to evidence. The $ourt of 3ppeals re;ected the appeal of petitioner and ruled in favor of PS. The appellate court, in its decision of '. )une '***,+ discoursed, a!on# other thin#s, that D =: : : in order for the presu!ption of ne#li#ence provided for under the la/ #overnin# co!!on carrier %3rticle '@-8, $ivil $ode& to arise, the appellant !ust first prove that the appellee is a co!!on carrier. Should the appellant fail to prove that the appellee is a co!!on carrier, the presu!ption /ould not ariseC conseAuentl,, the appellant /ould have to prove that the carrier /as ne#li#ent. =: : : ::: :::

=5ecause it is the appellant /ho insists that the appellees can still be considered as a co!!on carrier, despite its Eli!ited clientele,? %assu!in# it /as reall, a co!!on carrier&, it follo/s that it %appellant& has the burden of provin# the sa!e. It %plaintiffDappellant& E!ust establish his case b, a preponderance of evidence, /hich !eans that the evidence

as a /hole adduced b, one side is superior to that of the other.? %Su!!a Insurance $orporation vs. $ourt of 3ppeals, 7+- S$R3 '@8&. This, unfortunatel,, the appellant failed to do DD hence, the dis!issal of the plaintiff?s co!plaint b, the trial court is ;ustified. =: : : ::: :::

=5ased on the fore#oin# disAuisitions and considerin# the circu!stances that the appellee truc"in# corporation has been Eits e:clusive contractor, hauler since '*@., defendant has no choice but to co!pl, /ith the directive of its principal,? the inevitable conclusion is that the appellee is a private carrier. =: : : ::: :::

=: : : the lo/er court correctl, ruled that Fthe application of the la/ on co!!on carriers is not /arranted and the presu!ption of fault or ne#li#ence on the part of a co!!on carrier in case of loss, da!a#e or deterioration of #oodGsH durin# transport under GarticleH '@-8 of the $ivil $ode is not availin#.F : : :. =Finall,, 4e advert to the lon# established rule that conclusions and findin#s of fact of a trial court are entitled to #reat /ei#ht on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for stron# and valid reasons.=8 PetitionerFs !otion for reconsideration /as li"e/ise deniedC9 hence, the instant petition,@ raisin# the follo/in# issues< I 4B2TB2R R2SPOND2NT PS M3I 52 $ONSID2R2D 3S 3 $OMMON $3RRI2R 3S D2FIN2D 6ND2R TB2 134 3ND 2JISTIN )6RISPR6D2N$2. II 4B2TB2R R2SPOND2NT PS, 2ITB2R 3S 3 $OMMON $3RRI2R OR 3 PRIV3T2 $3RRI2R, M3I 52 PR2S6M2D TO B3V2 522N N2 1I 2NT 4B2N TB2 OODS IT 6ND2RTOOK TO TR3NSPORT S3F21I 42R2 S65S2L62NT1I D3M3 2D 4BI12 IN ITS PROT2$TIV2 $6STODI 3ND POSS2SSION. III 4B2TB2R TB2 DO$TRIN2 OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR IS 3PP1I$3512 IN TB2 INST3NT $3S2. On the first issue, the $ourt finds the conclusion of the trial court and the $ourt of 3ppeals to be a!pl, ;ustified. PS, bein# an e:clusive contractor and hauler of $oncepcion Industries, Inc.,

renderin# or offerin# its services to no other individual or entit,, cannot be considered a co!!on carrier. $o!!on carriers are persons, corporations, fir!s or associations en#a#ed in the business of carr,in# or transportin# passen#ers or #oods or both, b, land, /ater, or air, for hire or co!pensation, offerin# their services to the $u%&'(,( /hether to the public in #eneral or to a li!ited clientele in particular, but never on an e:clusive basis.* The true test of a co!!on carrier is the carria#e of passen#ers or #oods, providin# space for those /ho opt to avail the!selves of its transportation service for a fee.'. iven accepted standards, PS scarcel, falls /ithin the ter! =co!!on carrier.= The above conclusion noth/ithstandin#, PS cannot escape fro! liabilit,. In culpa contractual, upon /hich the action of petitioner rests as bein# the subro#ee of $oncepcion Industries, Inc., the !ere proof of the e:istence of the contract and the failure of its co!pliance ;ustif,, prima facie, a correspondin# ri#ht of relief.'' The la/, reco#ni0in# the obli#ator, force of contracts,'7 /ill not per!it a part, to be set free fro! liabilit, for an, "ind of !isperfor!ance of the contractual underta"in# or a contravention of the tenor thereof.'- 3 breach upon the contract confers upon the in;ured part, a valid cause for recoverin# that /hich !a, have been lost or suffered. The re!ed, serves to preserve the interests of the pro!isee that !a, include his =e:pectation interest,= /hich is his interest in havin# the benefit of his bar#ain b, bein# put in as #ood a position as he /ould have been in had the contract been perfor!ed, or his =reliance interest,= /hich is his interest in bein# rei!bursed for loss caused b, reliance on the contract b, bein# put in as #ood a position as he /ould have been in had the contract not been !adeC or his =restitution interest,= /hich is his interest in havin# restored to hi! an, benefit that he has conferred on the other part,.'+ Indeed, a#ree!ents can acco!plish little, either for their !a"ers or for societ,, unless the, are !ade the basis for action.'8 The effect of ever, infraction is to create a ne/ dut,, that is, to !a"e reco!pense to the one /ho has been in;ured b, the failure of another to observe his contractual obli#ation'9 unless he can sho/ e:tenuatin# circu!stances, li"e proof of his e:ercise of due dili#ence %nor!all, that of the dili#ence of a #ood father of a fa!il, or, e:ceptionall, b, stipulation or b, la/ such as in the case of co!!on carriers, that of e:traordinar, dili#ence& or of the attendance of fortuitous event, to e:cuse hi! fro! his ensuin# liabilit,. Respondent truc"in# corporation reco#ni0es the e:istence of a contract of carria#e bet/een it and petitioner?s assured, and ad!its that the car#oes it has assu!ed to deliver have been lost or da!a#ed /hile in its custod,. In such a situation, a default on, or failure of co!pliance /ith, the obli#ation M in this case, the deliver, of the #oods in its custod, to the place of destination D #ives rise to a presu!ption of lac" of care and correspondin# liabilit, on the part of the contractual obli#or the burden bein# on hi! to establish other/ise. PS has failed to do so. Respondent driver, on the other hand, /ithout concrete proof of his ne#li#ence or fault, !a, not hi!self be ordered to pa, petitioner. The driver, not bein# a part, to the contract of carria#e bet/een petitioner?s principal and defendant, !a, not be held liable under the a#ree!ent. 3 contract can onl, bind the parties /ho have entered into it or their successors /ho have assu!ed their personalit, or their ;uridical position.'@ $onsonantl, /ith the a:io! re inter alio acta alii ne!ue nocet pro"e t, such contract can neither favor nor pre;udice a third person. Petitioner?s civil action a#ainst the driver can onl, be based on culpa a!uiliana# /hich, unli"e culpa

contractual# /ould reAuire the clai!ant for da!a#es to prove ne#li#ence or fault on the part of the defendant.'( 3 /ord in passin#. Re ip a lo!uitur# a doctrine bein# invo"ed b, petitioner, holds a defendant liable /here the thin# /hich caused the in;ur, co!plained of is sho/n to be under the latter?s !ana#e!ent and the accident is such that, in the ordinar, course of thin#s, cannot be e:pected to happen if those /ho have its !ana#e!ent or control use proper care. It affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of e:planation b, the defendant, that the accident arose fro! /ant of care.'* It is not a rule of substantive la/ and, as such, it does not create an independent #round of liabilit,. Instead, it is re#arded as a !ode of proof, or a !ere procedural convenience since it furnishes a substitute for, and relieves the plaintiff of, the burden of producin# specific proof of ne#li#ence. The !a:i! si!pl, places on the defendant the burden of #oin# for/ard /ith the proof.7. Resort to the doctrine, ho/ever, !a, be allo/ed onl, /hen %a& the event is of a "ind /hich does not ordinaril, occur in the absence of ne#li#enceC %b& other responsible causes, includin# the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons, are sufficientl, eli!inated b, the evidenceC and %c& the indicated ne#li#ence is /ithin the scope of the defendantFs dut, to the plaintiff.7' Thus, it is not applicable /hen an une:plained accident !a, be attributable to one of several causes, for so!e of /hich the defendant could not be responsible.77 Re ip a lo!uitur #enerall, finds relevance /hether or not a contractual relationship e:ists bet/een the plaintiff and the defendant, for the inference of ne#li#ence arises fro! the circu!stances and nature of the occurrence and not fro! the nature of the relation of the parties.7- Nevertheless, the reAuire!ent that responsible causes other than those due to defendant?s conduct !ust first be eli!inated, for the doctrine to appl,, should be understood as bein# confined onl, to cases of pure %nonDcontractual& tort since obviousl, the presu!ption of ne#li#ence in culpa contractual, as previousl, so pointed out, i!!ediatel, attaches b, a failure of the covenant or its tenor. In the case of the truc" driver, /hose liabilit, in a civil action is predicated on culpa ac!uiliana, /hile he ad!ittedl, can be said to have been in control and !ana#e!ent of the vehicle /hich fi#ured in the accident, it is not eAuall, sho/n, ho/ever, that the accident could have been e:clusivel, due to his ne#li#ence, a !atter that can allo/, forth/ith, re ip a lo!uitur to /or" a#ainst hi!. If a de!urrer to evidence is #ranted but on appeal the order of dis!issal is reversed, the !ovant shall be dee!ed to have /aived the ri#ht to present evidence.7+ Thus, respondent corporation !a, no lon#er offer proof to establish that it has e:ercised due care in transportin# the car#oes of the assured so as to still /arrant a re!and of the case to the trial court.1wphi1.nt )*EREFORE, the order, dated -. 3pril '**9, of the Re#ional Trial $ourt, 5ranch 99, of Ma"ati $it,, and the decision, dated '. )une '***, of the $ourt of 3ppeals, are AFFIRME+ onl, insofar as respondent 1a!bert M. 2roles is concerned, but said assailed order of the trial court and decision of the appellate court are RE#ERSE+as re#ards .P. Sar!iento Truc"in# $orporation /hich, instead, is hereb, ordered to pa, F 6 Insurance $orporation the value of the da!a#ed and lost car#oes in the a!ount of P7.+,+8..... No costs. SO ORD2R2D.

$a%i"e# &r.# '.&.# (apunan# )nare *Santia+o# an" Au tria*,artine-# &&.# concur.

Footnot,s
'

Rollo, p. '+. Rollo, pp. '+D'8. Rollo, p. '@ Rollo, p. 7.. Rollo, pp. 7+D7(. Rollo, p. -7. Rollo, p. -. 3rticle '@-7, $ivil $ode.

Sec. '-GbH, Public Service 3ct as a!endedC see also u0!an vs. $ourt of 3ppeals, .R. 1D+@(77, 77 Dece!ber '*((.
'.

National Steel $orporation vs. $ourt of 3ppeals, 7(- S$R3 +8.

''

$alalas vs. $ourt of 3ppeals, --7 S$R3 -89C Sabena 5el#ian 4orld 3irlines vs. $ourt of 3ppeals, 788 S$R3 -(.
'7

See 3rticles ''8*, '-.(, '-'8, '-89, $ivil $ode. 3nson on $ontracts, '*-*, p. +7+C '@3 3! )ur 7d, p. @7( citin# Par"s vs. Par"s, '(@ P7d '+8. Restate!ent, Second, $ontracts, N-++. Fuller and Purdue, The Reliance Interest in $ontract Da!a#es, +9 Iale 1.).9' %'*-9&. Richardson on $ontracts, '*8', p. -.*. 3rticle '-'', $ivil $ode. $alalas vs. $ourt of 3ppeals, supraC See 3rticle 7'@9, $ivil $ode. 3frica vs. $alte: %Phils.& Inc., '9 S$R3 ++(C 1a,u#an vs. Inter!ediate 3ppellate $ourt, '9@ S$R3 -@9. Ra!os vs. $ourt of 3ppeals, -7' S$R3 9...

'-

'+

'8

'9

'@

'(

'*

7.

7'

San#co, Torts and Da!a#es V.', '**-, p. 7*, citin# 8( 3! )ur 7d, pp. 89D8(. See Ra!os vs. $ourt of 3ppeals, supra.
77

4ords and Phrases Vol. -@, p. +(-. 8@5 3! )ur 7d, p. +*9. Section ', Rule -8, Rules of $ourtC Section ', Rule --, '**@ Rules of $ivil Procedure.

7-

7+