15.travelers insurance v. ca

8/9/2019 15.Travelers Insurance v. CA

1/8

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 82036. May 22, 1997]

TRAVELLERS INSURANCE & SURETY C R! RATI N, petitioner, vs . " N.C URT # A!!EALS a$% VICENTE MEN 'A, respondents .

E C I S I N

"ERM SISIMA, (R., J .)

The petition herein seeks the review and reversal of the decision [1] of respondentCo rt of !ppeals ["] affir#in$ in toto the % d$#ent [&] of the Re$ional Trial Co rt ['] in an

action for da#a$es [(]filed )* private respondent Vicente +endo,a- .r/ as heir of his#other who was killed in a vehic lar accident/

0efore the trial co rt- the co#plainant l #ped the errin$ ta ica) driver- the owner of the ta ica)- and the alle$ed ins rer of the vehicle which feat red in the vehic lar accident into one co#plaint/ The errin$ ta ica) was alle$edl* covered )* a third2part*lia)ilit* ins rance polic* iss ed )* petitioner Travellers Ins rance 3 S ret* Corporation/

The evidence presented )efore the trial co rt esta)lished the followin$ facts4

“At about 5:30 o’clock in the morning of July 20, 1980, a 8!year ol" #oman by the name of$eli%a &ine%a "e 'en"o%a #a( on her #ay to hear ma(( at the )ayuman *athe"ral+ hile

#alking along )ayuman corner -regorio .erfecto /treet(, (he #a( bum e" by a ta i that #a(running fa(t+ /e eral er(on( #itne((e" the acci"ent, among #hom #ere olan"o 'ar illa,4rne(to o e% an" 4ulogio )abalno+ After the bum ing, the ol" #oman #a( (een ( ra#le" on the

a ement+ ight a#ay, the goo" /amaritan that he #a(, 'ar illa ran to#ar"( the ol" #oman an"hel" her on hi( la to in6uire from her #hat ha" ha ene", but ob iou(ly (he #a( alrea"y in (hock an" coul" not talk+ At thi( moment, a ri ate 7ee (to e"+ ith the "ri er of that ehicle, thet#o hel e" boar" the ol" #oman on the 7ee an" brought her to the 'ary John(ton o( ital in)on"o+

4rne(to o e%, a "ri er of a a((enger 7ee ney lying along )ayuman /treet from .ritil,)on"o, to i%al A enue an" ice! er(a, al(o #itne((e" the inci"ent+ t #a( on hi( return tri from

i%al A enue #hen o e% (a# the laintiff an" hi( brother #ho #ere crying near the (cene of theacci"ent+ on learning that the t#o #ere the (on( of the ol" #oman, o e% tol" them #hat ha"ha ene"+ )he 'en"o%a brother( #ere then able to trace their mother at the 'ary John(ton

o( ital #here they #ere a" i(e" by the atten"ing hy(ician that they (houl" bring the atient tothe ;ational


2/8

)he e i"ence (ho#( that at the moment the ictim #a( bum e" by the ehicle, the latter #a(running fa(t, (o much (o that becau(e of the (trong im act the ol" #oman #a( thro#n a#ay an"(he fell on the a ement+ n truth, in that relate" criminal ca(e again(t "efen"ant =umlao

the trial court foun" a( a fact that therein accu(e" >#a( "ri ing the (ub7ect ta icab in acarele((, reckle(( an" im ru"ent manner an" at a ( ee" greater than #hat #a( rea(onable an"

ro er #ithout taking the nece((ary recaution to a oi" acci"ent to er(on( con(i"ering thecon"ition of the traffic at the lace at the time aforementione"’ + 'oreo er, the "ri er fle"from the (cene of the acci"ent an" #ithout ren"ering a((i(tance to the ictim+

)hree ?3@ #itne((e( #ho #ere at the (cene at the time i"entifie" the ta i in ol e", thoughnot nece((arily the "ri er thereof+ 'ar illa (a# a lone ta i ( ee"ing a#ay 7u(t after the bum ing#hich, #hen it a((e" by him, (ai" #itne(( notice" to be a a"y o e )a i #ith .late ;o+ 38,

ainte" maroon, #ith baggage bar attache" on the baggage com artment an" #ith an antenaeB(icCattache" at the right rear (i"e+ )he (ame "e(cri tion( #ere re eale" by 4rne(to o e%, #hofurther "e(cribe" the ta i to ha e reflectori%e" "ecoration( on the e"ge( of the gla(( at the

back+ A thir" #itne(( in the er(on of 4ulogio )abalno ma"e (imilar "e(cri tion(

although, becau(e of the fa(t ( ee" of the ta i, he #a( only able to "etect the la(t "igit of the latenumber #hich i( >8’+ B)Che olice rocee"e" to the garage of a"y o e )a i an" then an"there they took o((e((ion of (uch a ta i an" later im oun"e" it in the im oun"ing area of theagency concerne"+ B)Che eye#itne((e( #ere unanimou( in ointing to that a"y o e)a i #ith .late ;o+ 38, ob iou(ly the ehicle in ol e" herein+

=uring the in e(tigation, "efen"ant Arman"o Abellon, the regi(tere" o#ner of a"y o e)a i bearing ;o+ 38! A .ili ina( )a i 1980, certifie" to the fact >that the ehicle #a( "ri en la(tJuly 20, 1980 by one o"rigo =umlao ’ t #a( on the ba(i( of thi( affi"a it of theregi(tere" o#ner that cau(e" the olice to a rehen" o"rigo =umlao, an" con(e6uently to ha ehim ro(ecute" an" e entually con icte" of the offen(e + B/Cai" =umlao ab(con"e" in

that criminal ca(e, ( ecially at the time of the romulgation of the 7u"gment therein (o much (othat he i( no# a fugiti e from 7u(tice+D BEC

5rivate respondent filed a co#plaint for da#a$es a$ainst !r#ando !)ellon as theowner of the 6ad* 6ove Ta i and Rodri$o D #lao as the driver of the 6ad* 6ove ta ica)that ) #ped private respondent7s #other/ S )se8 entl*- private respondent a#endedhis co#plaint to incl de petitioner as the co#p lsor* ins rer of the said ta ica) nder Certificate of Cover No/ 1''99:(2&/

!fter trial- the trial co rt rendered % d$#ent in favor of private respondent- thedispositive portion of which reads4

“ 4 4$< 4, 7u"gment i( hereby ren"ere" in fa or of the laintiff, or more articularly the> eir( of the late $eli%a &ine%a "e 'en"o%a,’ an" again(t "efen"ant( o"rigo =umlao, Arman"oAbellon an" )ra eller( n(urance an" /urety *or oration, by or"ering the latter to ay, 7ointlyan" (e erally, the former the follo#ing amount(:

(a) The sum of P2,924.70, as actual and compensatory damages, with interest thereon at the rateof 2! per annum from "cto#er 7, 9$0, when the complaint was filed, until the said amount is

fully paid%

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/may1997/82036.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/may1997/82036.htm#_edn6


3/8

(#) P&0,000.00 as death indemnity%

(c) P2',000.00 as moral damages%

(d) P 0,000.00 as #y way of correcti e or e emplary damages% and

(e) *nother P 0,000.00 #y way of attorney+s fees and other litigation e penses.

=efen"ant( are further or"ere" to ay, 7ointly an" (e erally, the co(t( of thi( (uit+

SO ORDERED +DB C

5etitioner appealed fro# the aforecited decision to the respondent Co rt of !ppeals/ The decision of the trial co rt was affir#ed )* respondent appellateco rt/ 5etitioner7s +otion for Reconsideration [:] of Septe#)er ""- 1;:9 was denied in aResol tion [;] dated Fe)r ar* ;- 1;::/


4/8

in(urer, the contract being (olely to reimbur(e the in(ure" for liability actually "i(charge" by himthru ayment to thir" er(on(, (ai" thir" er(on(’ recour(e being thu( limite" to the in(ure"alone+DB10C

Since private respondent failed to attach a cop* of the ins rance contract to his

co#plaint- the trial co rt co ld not have )een a)le to apprise itself of the real nat re andpec niar* li#its of petitioner7s lia)ilit*/ +ore i#portantl*- the trial co rt co ld not havepossi)l* ascertained the ri$ht of private respondent as third person to s e petitioner asins rer of the 6ad* 6ove ta ica) )eca se the trial co rt never saw nor read theins rance contract and learned of its ter#s and conditions/

5etitioner- nderstanda)l*- did not vol nteer to present an* ins rance contractcoverin$ the 6ad* 6ove ta ica) that fatall* hit private respondent7s #other- considerin$that petitioner precisel* presented the defense of lack of ins rance covera$e )efore thetrial co rt/ Neither did the trial co rt iss e a subpoena duces tecum to have theins rance contract prod ced )efore it nder pain of conte#pt/

>e th s find hardl* a )asis in the records for the trial co rt to have validl* fo ndpetitioner lia)le %ointl* and severall* with the owner and the driver of the 6ad* 6oveta ica)- for da#a$es accr in$ to private respondent/

!pparentl*- the trial co rt did not distin$ ish )etween the private respondent7sca se of action a$ainst the owner and the driver of the 6ad* 6ove ta ica) and his ca seof action a$ainst petitioner/ The for#er is )ased on torts and quasi-delicts while thelatter is )ased on contract/ Conf sin$ these two so rces of o)li$ations as the* arisefro# the sa#e act of the ta ica) fatall* hittin$ private respondent7s #other- and in theface of overwhel#in$ evidence of the reckless i#pr dence of the driver of the 6ad*6ove ta ica)- the trial co rt )r shed aside its i$norance of the ter#s and conditions of the ins rance contract and forthwith fo nd all three 2 the driver of the ta ica)- the owner of the ta ica)- and the alle$ed ins rer of the ta ica) 2 %ointl* and severall* lia)le for act al- #oral and e e#plar* da#a$es as well as attorne*7s fees and liti$atione penses/ This is clearl* a #isapplication of the law )* the trial co rt- and respondentappellate co rt $rievo sl* erred in not havin$ reversed the trial co rt on this $ro nd/

“ hile it i( true that #here the in(urance contract ro i"e( for in"emnity again(t liability to thir" er(on(, (uch thir" er(on( can "irectly (ue the in(urer, ho#e er, the "irect liability of the in(urer un"er in"emnity contract( again(t thir"! arty liability "oe( not mean that the in(urer can be hel"(oli"arily liable #ith the in(ure" an"Gor the other artie( foun" at fault+ )he liability of thein(urer i( ba(e" on contractF that of the in(ure" i( ba(e" on tort+D B11C

!ppl*in$ this principle nderl*in$ solidar* o)li$ation and ins rance contracts- we r ledin one case that4

“ n (oli"ary obligation, the cre"itor may enforce the entire obligation again(t one of the (oli"ary"ebtor(+


5/8

n the ca(e at bar, the trial court hel" etitioner together #ith re( on"ent( /io *hoy an" /aneon ice 'ill( nc+ (oli"arily liable to re( on"ent &alle7o( for a total amount of .29,103+00,

#ith the 6ualification that etitioner’( liability i( only u to .20,000+00+ n the conte t of a(oli"ary obligation, etitioner may be com elle" by re( on"ent &alle7o( to ay the entireobligation of .29,103+00, not#ith(tan"ing the 6ualification ma"e by the trial court+ Hut, ho#

can etitioner be oblige" to ay the entire obligation #hen the amount (tate" in it( in(urance olicy #ith re( on"ent /io *hoy for in"emnity again(t thir"! arty liability i(only .20,000+00I 'oreo er, the 6ualification ma"e in the "eci(ion of the trial court to the effectthat etitioner i( (entence" to ay u to .20,000+00 only #hen the obligation to ay .29,103+00i( ma"e (oli"ary i( an e i"ent breach of the conce t of a (oli"ary obligation+D B12C

The a)ove principles take on #ore si$nificance in the li$ht of the co nter2alle$ationof petitioner that- ass #in$ arguendo that it is the ins rer of the 6ad* 6ove ta ica) in8 estion- its lia)ilit* is li#ited to onl* 5(?-???/??- this )ein$ its standard a#o nt of covera$e in vehicle ins rance policies/ It )ears repeatin$ that no cop* of the ins rancecontract was ever proffered )efore the trial co rt )* the private respondent-notwithstandin$ knowled$e of the fact that the latter7s co#plaint a$ainst petitioner is one

nder a written contract/ Th s- the trial co rt proceeded to hold petitioner lia)le for anaward of da#a$es e ceedin$ its li#ited lia)ilit* of 5(?-???/??/ This onl* shows )e*onddo )t that the trial co rt was nder the erroneo s pres #ption that petitioner co ld )efo nd lia)le a)sent proof of the contract and )ased #erel* on the proof of recklessi#pr dence on the part of the driver of the 6ad* 6ove ta ica) that fatall* hit privaterespondent7s #other/

II

5etitioner did not tire in ar$ in$ )efore the trial co rt and the respondent appellateco rt that- ass #in$ arguendo that it had iss ed the ins rance contract over the 6ad*6ove ta ica)- private respondent7s ca se of action a$ainst petitioner did nots ccessf ll* accr e )eca se he failed to file with petitioner a written notice of clai#within si @=A #onths fro# the date of the accident as re8 ired )* Section &:' of theIns rance Code/

!t the ti#e of the vehic lar incident which res lted in the death of privaterespondent7s #other- d rin$ which ti#e the Ins rance Code had not *et )een a#ended)* 0atas 5a#)ansa @0/5/A 0l$/ :9'- Section &:' provided as follows4

“Any er(on ha ing any claim u on the olicy i((ue" ur(uant to thi( cha ter (hall, #ithout anyunnece((ary "elay, re(ent to the in(urance com any concerne" a #ritten notice of claim (ettingforth the amount of hi( lo((, an"Gor the nature, e tent an" "uration of the in7urie( (u(taine" a(

certifie" by a "uly licen(e" hy(ician+ ;otice of claim mu(t be file" #ithin (i month( from "ateof the acci"ent, other#i(e, the claim (hall be "eeme" #ai e"+ Action or (uit for reco ery of"amage "ue to lo(( or in7ury mu(t be brought in ro er ca(e(, #ith the *ommi((ion or the *ourt(#ithin one year from "ate of acci"ent, other#i(e the claimant’( right of action (hall re(cribeDBem ha(i( an" un"er(coring (u lie"C+

In the land#ark case of Summit Guaranty and Insurance Co., Inc. v. De Guzman,[1&] we r led that the one *ear prescription period to )rin$ s it in co rt a$ainst the ins rer

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/may1997/82036.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/may1997/82036.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/may1997/82036.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/may1997/82036.htm#_edn13


6/8

sho ld )e co nted fro# the ti#e that the ins rer re%ects the written clai# filed therewith)* the ins red- the )eneficiar* or the third person interested nder the ins rancepolic*/ >e e plained4

“ t i( ery ob iou( that etitioner com any i( trying to u(e /ection 38 of the n(urance *o"e a(

a cloak to hi"e it(elf from it( liabilitie(+ )he fact( of the(e ca(e( e i"ently reflect the "eliberateeffort( of etitioner com any to re ent the filing of a formal action again(t it+ Hearing in min"that if it (uccee"( in "oing (o until one year la (e( from the "ate of the acci"ent it coul" (et uthe "efen(e of re(cri tion, etitioner com any ma"e ri ate re( on"ent( belie e that theirclaim( #oul" be (ettle" in or"er that the latter #ill not fin" it nece((ary to imme"iately bring(uit+ n iolation of it( "utie( to a"o t an" im lement rea(onable (tan"ar"( for the rom tin e(tigation of claim( an" to effectuate rom t, fair an" e6uitable (ettlement of claim(, an" #ithmanife(t ba" faith, etitioner com any "e i(e" mean( an" #ay( of (talling the (ettlement

rocee"ing(+ B;Co (te ( #ere taken to roce(( the claim an" no re7ection of (ai" claim #a(e er ma"e e en if ri ate re( on"ent ha" alrea"y com lie" #ith all the re6uirement(+

)hi( *ourt ha( ma"e the ob(er ation that (ome in(urance com anie( ha e been in entinge cu(e( to a oi" their 7u(t obligation( an" it i( only the /tate that can gi e the rotection #hichthe in(uring ublic nee"( from o((ible abu(e( of the in(urer(+D B1 C

It is si$nificant to note that the aforecited Section &:' was a#ended )* 0/5/ 0l$/:9' to cate$oricall* provide that Baction or s it for recover* of da#a$e d e to loss or in% r* # st )e )ro $ht in proper cases- with the Co##issioner or the Co rts within one*ear *+o %-$ a/ o* - /a - otherwise the clai#ant7s ri$ht of action shall prescri)e[e#phasis o rs]/ [1(]

>e have certainl* r led with consistenc* that the prescriptive period to )rin$ s it inco rt nder an ins rance polic*- )e$ins to r n fro# the date of the ins rer7s re%ection of the clai# filed )* the ins red- the )eneficiar* or an* person clai#in$ nder an ins rancecontract/ This r lin$ is pre#ised pon the co#pliance )* the persons s in$ nder anins rance contract- with the indispensa)le re8 ire#ent of havin$ filed the written clai##andated )* Section &:' of the Ins rance Code )efore and after itsa#end#ent/ !)sent s ch written clai# filed )* the person s in$ nder an ins rancecontract- no ca se of action accr es nder s ch ins rance contract- considerin$ that itis the re%ection of that clai# that tri$$ers the r nnin$ of the one2*ear prescriptive periodto )rin$ s it in co rt- and there can )e no opport nit* for the ins rer to even re%ect aclai# if none has )een filed in the first place- as in the instant case/

“)he one!year erio" (houl" in(tea" be counte" from the "ate of re7ection by the in(urer a( thi(

i( the time #hen the cau(e of action accrue(+

n 4agle /tar n(urance *o+, t"+, et al+ (+ *hia u, thi( *ourt rule":

>)he laintiff’( cau(e of action "i" not accrue until hi( claim #a( finally re7ecte" by thein(urance com any+ )hi( i( becau(e, before (uch final re7ection, there #a( no real nece((ity for

bringing (uit+’

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/may1997/82036.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/may1997/82036.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/may1997/82036.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/may1997/82036.htm#_edn15


7/8

)he hilo(o hy of the abo e ronouncement #a( ointe" out in the ca(e of A**$A (+ Al han(urance an" /urety *o+, i +:

>/ince a cau(e of action re6uire(, a( e((ential element(, not only a legal right of the laintiff an"a correlati e obligation of the "efen"ant but al(o an act or omi((ion of the "efen"ant in iolation

of (ai" legal right, the cau(e of action "oe( not accrue until the arty obligate" refu(e(, e re((lyor im lie"ly, to com ly #ith it( "uty’+D B1EC

>hen petitioner asseverates- th s- that no written clai# was filed )* privaterespondent and re%ected )* petitioner- and private respondent does not disp te s chasseveration thro $h a denial in his pleadin$s- we are constrained to r le thatrespondent appellate co rt co##itted reversi)le error in findin$ petitioner lia)le nder an ins rance contract the e istence of which had not at all )een proven in co rt/ ven if there were s ch a contract- private respondent7s ca se of action can not prevail)eca se he failed to file the written clai# #andated )* Section &:' of the Ins ranceCode/


8/8

co#pan*/ RTC and C! ordered that the owner- driver as well as the ins ranceco#pan* )eheld solidaril* lia)le/ ISSG

>ON RTC and C! erred < 6D E S2 >here the contract provides for inde#nit* a$ainst lia)ilit* to third persons- thenthird persons to who# the ins red is lia)le can s e the ins rer/>herethecontract is for inde#nit* a$ainst act al loss orpa*#ent- then third personscannot proceed a$ainst the ins rer- the contract )ein$ solel* to rei#) rse the ins red forlia)ilit* act all* dischar$ed )* hi# thr pa*#ent to third persons- said third personsJreco rse )ein$ th s li#ited to the ins red alone/ 0 t in the case at )ar-

there was no contract shown/ >hat then was the )asis of the RTC and the C! to sa*that the ins rance contract was a third2part* lia)ilit* ins rance polic*K Conse8 entl*- thetrial co rt was conf sed as it did not distin$ ish)etween theprivaterespondentJs ca se of action a$ainst the owner and the driver of the6ad*6oveta ica) and his ca se of action a$ainst petitioner/The for#er is )ased on tortsand 8 asi2delicts while the latter is )ased on contract/2 ven ass #in$ ar$ endo thatthere was s ch a contract- private respondentJs ca se of action cannot prevail )eca sehe failed to file the written clai# #andated )* the Ins rance Code @)efore it was a#ended2

action # st )e )ro $ht within si #onths fro# date of the accident@this is what7s applica)le hereA

after a#end#ent2Laction or s it for recover* of da#a$e d e to loss or in% r* # st )e)ro $ht in proper cases- with the Co##issioner or the Co rts within one *ear fro#denial of the clai#- otherwise the clai#antJs ri$ht of action shall prescri)eL A /

15.travelers insurance v. ca

Documents