FGU INSURANCE CORP. VS. G.P. SARMIENTO TRUCKING CORP.

(GPS)
G.R. No. 141910. August 6, 2002

Facts: GPS is an exclusive contractor and hauler of Concepcion Industries, Inc. One day, it was to deliver certain
goods of Concepcion Industries, Inc. aboard one of its trucks. On its way, the truck collided with an unidentified
truck, resulting in damage to the cargoes.
FGU, insurer of the shipment paid to Concepcion Industries, Inc. the amount of the damage and filed a suit against
GPS. GPS filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prove that it was a common carrier.

Issue: Whether or not GPS falls under the category of a common carrier.

Held: Note that GPS is an exclusive contractor and hauler of Concepcion Industries, Inc. offering its service to no
other individual or entity.
A common carrier is one which offers its services whether to the public in general or to a limited clientele in particular
but never on an exclusive basis. Therefore, GPS does not fit the category of a common carrier although it is not freed
from its liability based on culpa contractual.

CALVO VS. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE TERMINAL SERVICE, INC.

G.R. No. 148496. March 19, 2002

Facts: A contract was entered into between Calvo and San Miguel Corporation (SMC) for the transfer of certain
cargoes from the port area in Manila to the warehouse of SMC. The cargo was insured by UCPB General Insurance
Co., Inc. When the shipment arrived and unloaded from the vessel, Calvo withdrew the cargo from the arrastre
operator and delivered the same to SMC’s warehouse. When it was inspected, it was found out that some of the goods
were torn. UCPB, being the insurer, paid for the amount of the damages and as subrogee thereafter, filed a suit
against Calvo.
Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that it is a private carrier not required to observe such extraordinary diligence
in the vigilance over the goods.
As customs broker, she does not indiscriminately hold her services out to the public but only to selected parties.

Issue: Whether or not Calvo is a common carrier liable for the damages for failure to observe extraordinary diligence
in the vigilance over the goods.

Held: The law makes no distinction between a carrier offering its services to the general community or solicits
business only from a narrow segment of the general population. Note that the transportation of goods holds an
integral part of Calvo’s business, it cannot indeed be doubted that it is a common carrier.

STIPULATION IN THE CHARTER PARTY EXEMPTING LIABILITY

HOME INSURANCE CO. VS. AMERICAN STEAMSHIP AGENCIES

23 SCRA 24

Facts: A Peruvian firm shipped on board its vessel certain goods with San Miguel Brewery as its consignee and Home
Insurance Co. (HIC) as its insurer. The cargo was found to have shortages when it arrived. HIC paid for said shortages
and thereafter, demanded recovery of the amount from American Steamship Agencies (ASA). The trial court ordered
ASA to reimburse HIC since according to the Code of Commerce, “the ship agent is civilly liable for damages in favor
of third persons due to the conduct of the carrier’s captain and that the stipulation in the charter party exempting the
owner of the ship from liability is against public policy.

Issue: Whether or not the stipulation in the charter party exempting the ship owner from liability for negligence of its
agents is valid.
Held: The stipulation in the charter party exempting the ship owner from liability for negligence of its agents is valid
and not against public policy considering that the ship was totally chartered for the use of a single party, hence, the
public at large is not involved and strict public policy governing common carriers cannot be applied.