Scribd
Upload
164 views1 page

FGU Insurance vs. Roxas, GR 189526, Aug. 9, 2017

FGU Insurance paid an insured, CII, for damaged refrigerators after a truck collision involving GPS. FGU then sought reimbursement from GPS. The RTC and Court of Appeals ruled against FGU, but the Supreme Court found GPS liable under culpa contractual. When FGU sought execution, GPS argued it would be unlawful and unjust enrichment. The RTC agreed to a hearing. The issue is whether the RTC neglected its duty. The Supreme Court held that while a final judgment cannot normally be amended, exceptions allow reopening when circumstances after finality make execution unjust. It found a hearing was needed to determine if the refrigerators were actually turned over.

Uploaded by

mhickey babon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
164 views1 page

FGU Insurance vs. Roxas, GR 189526, Aug. 9, 2017

FGU Insurance paid an insured, CII, for damaged refrigerators after a truck collision involving GPS. FGU then sought reimbursement from GPS. The RTC and Court of Appeals ruled against FGU, but the Supreme Court found GPS liable under culpa contractual. When FGU sought execution, GPS argued it would be unlawful and unjust enrichment. The RTC agreed to a hearing. The issue is whether the RTC neglected its duty. The Supreme Court held that while a final judgment cannot normally be amended, exceptions allow reopening when circumstances after finality make execution unjust. It found a hearing was needed to determine if the refrigerators were actually turned over.

Uploaded by

mhickey babon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

FGU Insurance vs.

Roxas
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.

You might also like