8/12/2019 Cases Digests in Insurance

1/2

8/12/2019 Cases Digests in Insurance

2/2

respondent '!landers and A"J %2& the motion todismiss filed b! '!landers and %& petitioners? motionfor reconsideration of the -ovember 1=, 1447 order.

On April @, 144I, petitioners filed in the Courtof Appeals a special civil action for certiorari underule @E of the ules of Court. On #arch E, 1444, theCA dismissed the petition. /ence, this petition.

ISSUE:hether or not the private respondent?s %eaboard&right of subrogation was e)tinguished when (received pa!ment from A" in settlement of itsobligation.

HELD:-o. (he court ruled based in the case of *anila*ahoanysupra, the tortfeasor an #iguelCorporation paid the insured without 'nowing that theinsurer had alread! made such pa!ment. A" was notsimilarl! situated, being full! aware of the priorpa!ment made b! the insurer to the consignee.Drivate respondent eaboard asserts that, being in badfaith, A" should bear the conse:uences of its actions.

hile #anila #ahogan! is silent on whether thee)istence of good faith or bad faith on the tortfeasor?spart affects the insurer?s right of subrogation, theree)ists a wealth of delict andas such must be commenced within four = !ears fromthe da! the! ma! be brought. espondent appealed to

the CA, which promulgated its decision reversing the(C because it was not a :uasi>delict but a writtencontract %based on the tic'ets issued&, hence theprescription period had not !et been barred. t ruledabsolving ulpicio "ines, nc. of an! liabilit! torespondent, the CA held Kector and oriano ;ointl! andseverall! liable to respondent for the reimbursement ofthe amount of D7,=EE,=21.0I paid to Calte). /ence,this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:hether or not the given case was alread! barred b!prescription.

HELD:-o. (he C concurred with the CA?s ruling thatrespondent?s action did not !et prescribe. (he legalprovision governing this case was not Article 11=@ ofthe Civil Code but Article 11== of the Civil Code, whichstates8

Article ##++. The follo!in actions must bebrouht !ithin ten years from the time thecause of action

accruescralavvonlinela!library-# /pon a !rittencontractchanroblesvirtuala!library-2 /pon an obliation created byla!chanroblesvirtuala!library-1 /pon a judment.

/owever, the cause of action was not based upon awritten contract, but upon an obligation created b! law./ence, it came under Article 11== %2& of the Civil Code.(his is because the subrogation of respondent to therights of Calte) as the insured was b! virtue of thee)press provision of law embodied in Article 2207 ofthe Civil Code, to wit8

Article 2207. If the plaintiffs property hasbeen insured, and he has received indemnityfrom the insurance company for the injury orloss arisin out of the !ron or breach ofcontract complained of, the insurancecompany shall be subroated to the rihts ofthe insured aainst the !rondoer or the

person !ho has violated the contract. If theamount paid by the insurance company doesnot fully cover the injury or loss, the arieved

party shall be entitled to recover the deficiencyfrom the person causin the loss or injury.

Keril!, the contract of affreightment that Calte)and Kector entered into did not give rise to the legalobligation of Kector and oriano to pa! the demand forreimbursement b! respondent because it concernedonl! the agreement for the transport of Calte)?spetroleum cargo.