FGU v. RTC (G.R. No. 161282; February 23, 2011)
CASE DIGEST: FGU INSURANCE CORPORATION (Now BPI/MS INSURANCE CORPORATION) v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 66, and G.P. SARMIENTO TRUCKING CORPORATION
FACTS: GPS agreed to transport thirty (30) units of Condura refrigerators from CII to Central Luzon Appliances. However, the delivery truck collided with another truck resulting in the damage of said appliances. FGU Insurance Corporation, the insurer of the damaged refrigerators, paid CII, the insured. FGU, in turn, as subrogee of the insured’s rights and interests, sought reimbursement of the amount it paid from GPS.
The RTC ruled, among others, that FGU failed to adduce evidence that GPS was a common carrier and that its driver was negligent, thus, GPS could not be made liable for the damages of the subject cargoes. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the RTC. When elevated to the Supreme Court, it agreed with the lower courts that GPS was not a common carrier but nevertheless held it liable under the doctrine of culpa contractual.
GPS filed its Opposition to Motion for Execution with the RTC, praying that FGU’s motion for execution be denied on the ground that the latter’s claim was unlawful, illegal, against public policy and good morals, and constituted unjust enrichment. The RTC issued an order granting GPS motion to set case for hearing.ISSUE: Did the RTC unlawfully neglect the performance of its duty when it re-opened a case which already attained finality?
HELD: Where the judgment of a higher court has become final and executory and has been returned to the lower court, the only function of the latter is the ministerial act of carrying out the decision and issuing the writ of execution. In addition, a final and executory judgment can no longer be amended by adding thereto a relief not originally included.
But like any other rule, it has exceptions, namely: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.
The Court agreed with the RTC that there is indeed a need to find out the whereabouts of the subject refrigerators. For this purpose, a hearing is necessary to determine the issue of whether or not there was an actual turnover of the subject refrigerators to FGU by the assured CII. DISMISSED.
Project Jurisprudence is connected with the following:
Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/projectjuris/
Twitter page: https://twitter.com/projectjuris
YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQnK7a9MCpNGbBsBDel3alA
Another YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-Bd7nvmurwtJYmeBdP9QiA
FACTS: GPS agreed to transport thirty (30) units of Condura refrigerators from CII to Central Luzon Appliances. However, the delivery truck collided with another truck resulting in the damage of said appliances. FGU Insurance Corporation, the insurer of the damaged refrigerators, paid CII, the insured. FGU, in turn, as subrogee of the insured’s rights and interests, sought reimbursement of the amount it paid from GPS.
The RTC ruled, among others, that FGU failed to adduce evidence that GPS was a common carrier and that its driver was negligent, thus, GPS could not be made liable for the damages of the subject cargoes. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the RTC. When elevated to the Supreme Court, it agreed with the lower courts that GPS was not a common carrier but nevertheless held it liable under the doctrine of culpa contractual.
GPS filed its Opposition to Motion for Execution with the RTC, praying that FGU’s motion for execution be denied on the ground that the latter’s claim was unlawful, illegal, against public policy and good morals, and constituted unjust enrichment. The RTC issued an order granting GPS motion to set case for hearing.ISSUE: Did the RTC unlawfully neglect the performance of its duty when it re-opened a case which already attained finality?
HELD: Where the judgment of a higher court has become final and executory and has been returned to the lower court, the only function of the latter is the ministerial act of carrying out the decision and issuing the writ of execution. In addition, a final and executory judgment can no longer be amended by adding thereto a relief not originally included.
But like any other rule, it has exceptions, namely: (1) the correction of clerical errors; (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (3) void judgments; and (4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.
The Court agreed with the RTC that there is indeed a need to find out the whereabouts of the subject refrigerators. For this purpose, a hearing is necessary to determine the issue of whether or not there was an actual turnover of the subject refrigerators to FGU by the assured CII. DISMISSED.
Project Jurisprudence is connected with the following:
Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/projectjuris/
Twitter page: https://twitter.com/projectjuris
YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQnK7a9MCpNGbBsBDel3alA
Another YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-Bd7nvmurwtJYmeBdP9QiA
