Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LOADMASTERS CUSTOMS SERVICES v. GLODEL BROKERAGE CORPORATION

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 185964 2014-06-16	ASIAN TERMINALS v. FIRST LEPANTO-TAISHO INSURANCE CORPORATION REYES, J.
"Subrogation is the substitution of one person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim or right, so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to a debt or claim, including its remedies or securities."[42] The right of subrogation springs from Article 2207 of the Civil Code which states: Art. 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrong-doer or the person who has violated the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury.
	GR No. 200289 2013-11-25	WESTWIND SHIPPING CORPORATION v. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO. PERALTA, J.
The contention of OFII is likewise untenable. A customs broker has been regarded as a common carrier because transportation of goods is an integral part of its business.[19] In Schmitz Transport & Brokerage Corporation v. Transport Venture, Inc.,[20] the Court already reiterated: It is settled that under a given set of facts, a customs broker may be regarded as a common carrier. Thus, this Court, in A.F. Sanchez Brokerage, Inc. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals held:
	GR No. 168987 2012-10-17	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. FRANCISCO LAO LIM PERALTA, J.
Lastly, the Court finds petitioner's claim that only herein respondent, (third-party defendant before the trial court) Rainbow Tours and Travel, Inc., should be made liable to respondents Lao Lim and Go, to be untenable. They have acted together in creating the confusion leading to the erroneous cancellation of aforementioned respondents' confirmed bookings and the failure to inform respondents of such fact. As such, they have become joint tortfeasors, and in Loadmasters Customs Services, Inc. vs. Glodel Brokerage Corporation,[17] the Court elucidated thus: x x x Where there are several causes for the resulting damages, a party is not relieved from liability, even partially. It is sufficient that the negligence of a party is an efficient cause without which the damage would not have resulted. It is no defense to one of the concurrent tortfeasors that the damage would not have resulted from his negligence alone, without the negligence or wrongful acts of the other concurrent tortfeasor. As stated in the case of Far Eastern Shipping v. Court of Appeals,
	GR Nos. 169829-30 2008-04-16	STEEL CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. SCP EMPLOYEES UNION-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS AZCUNA, J.
On February 28, 2005, the CA rendered a Decision[45] denying the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 79446 while partially granting the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 82314. The decretal portion of which stated:
	GR Nos. 169829-30 2008-04-16	STEEL CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. SCP EMPLOYEES UNION-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS AZCUNA, J.
Meanwhile, in Cert. Case No. 000200-01, the NLRC issued a Resolution dated April 17, 2002, declaring petitioner as having no obligation to recognize respondent as the certified bargaining agent; dismissing the charge of unfair labor practice; declaring as illegal the strike held by the union; and declaring the loss of employment of the officers of the union.[30] Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration[31] of the resolution praying that additional employees be dismissed. For its part, respondent also filed a Motion for Reconsideration.[32]
	GR Nos. 169829-30 2008-04-16	STEEL CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. SCP EMPLOYEES UNION-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS AZCUNA, J.
Meantime, in the first certified case, Cert. Case No. 000200-01, the NLRC, in a Decision[40] dated February 12, 2003 opted to resolve the parties' respective motions for reconsideration collectively. In said decision, the NLRC modified its earlier resolution by ordering the reinstatement of the union officers whom it previously ordered terminated, which in effect denied petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration.[41] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in a Resolution dated June 30, 2003.[42] These decision and resolution became the subject of a petition before the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 79446.
	GR Nos. 169829-30 2008-04-16	STEEL CORPORATION OF PHILIPPINES v. SCP EMPLOYEES UNION-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS AZCUNA, J.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[48] which was denied in the Resolution[49] dated September 22, 2005.