Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

FGU INSURANCE, petitioners

Vs.
MAKATI RTC, G.P. SARMIENTO TRUCKING CORP, respondents
G.R. 161282
FACTS:
Respondent GPS agreed to deliver 30 refrigerator units from the plant
of Concepcion Industries Inc. (CII) in Alabang to Central Luzon Appliances in
Dagupan. The truck however, collided with another truck resulting to damage to the
fridyiders.
FGU, the insurer of CII, paid CII the damages, and sought reimbursement from
GPS. GPU did not pay, thus FGU filed a complaint for breach of contract of carriage
and damages against CII. GPU filed motion to dismiss by way of demurrer to
evidence which the RTC granted.
RTC ruled that GPS was not a common carrier and that it failed to adduce
evidence that its driver was negligent. Thus, GPS could not be made liable for
damages to the cargo. CA affirmed. The SC ruled that GPS was not a common
carrier, but still held it liable for damages under the doctrine of culpa
contractual. The decision became final and executory.
FGU filed a motion for execution with the RTC, but GPS filed an opposition to
the motion for execution praying that it be denied since it constituted unjust
enrichment. In contends that after FGU paid the insureds claim, the ownership of
the fridyiders were transferred to FGU and it sold them to third parties, thus GPS
believed that FGU should not be allowed to doubly recover damages for the losses it
suffered.
Thus the RTC issued an order granting the motion to set the case for
hearing to determine if FGU did indeed sell the fridyiders.
FGU thus filed a petition for mandamus with the SC.
ISSUE:
w/n the RTC neglected its ministerial duty of issuance of the writ of
execution
HELD:
NO. Once a judgment becomes final, the winning party is entitled to a
writ of execution and the issuance thereof becomes a court's ministerial duty.
The lower court cannot vary the mandate of the superior court or reexamine it for
any other purpose other than execution; much less may it review the same upon
any matter decided on appeal or error apparent; nor intermeddle with it further than
to settle so much as has been demanded.
DOCTRINE OF FINALITY/IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENT:
a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and
whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of
the land. Any act which violates this principle must immediately be struck
down.
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
In the case at bar, the SC said that there was indeed a need to determine the
whereabouts of the fridyiders. If indeed, there was an actual delivery of the
refrigerators and FGU profited from the sale after the delivery, there would be an
unjust enrichment if the realized profit would not be deducted from the
judgment amount.

Вам также может понравиться