First Integrated Bonding & Insurance Co., Inc. v. Hernando, G.R. No. 51221, (July 31, 1991), 276 PHIL 884-893
First Integrated Bonding & Insurance Co., Inc. v. Hernando, G.R. No. 51221, (July 31, 1991), 276 PHIL 884-893
First Integrated Bonding & Insurance Co., Inc. v. Hernando, G.R. No. 51221, (July 31, 1991), 276 PHIL 884-893
51221, [July
31, 1991], 276 PHIL 884-893
FACTS: Silverio Blanco was the owner of a passenger jeepney which he insured
against liabilities for death and injuries to third persons with First Integrated Bonding
and Insurance Company, Inc. (First Insurance) under Motor Vehicle Policy No. V-05-
63751 with the face value of P30,000.00 (p. 15, Rollo).
On November 25, 1976, the said jeepney driven by Blanco himself bumped a five-year
old child, Deogracias Advincula, causing the latter’s death.
A complaint (pp. 38-41, Rollo) for damages was brought by the child’s parents, the
Advincula spouses, against Silverio Blanco. First Insurance was also impleaded in the
complaint as the insurer. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 1104 of the
Court of First Instance of Abra (now Regional Trial Court).
Summons were served on Silverio Blanco and First Insurance. However, only Blanco
filed an answer. Upon motion of the Advincula spouses, First Insurance was declared in
default (p. 45, Rollo) on January 19,..
The insured argued that the injured have no cause of action against the petitioner for
not being a party to the contract of insurance.
ISSUE: Whether the injured party for whom the contract of insurance is intended can
sue directly the insurer.
HELD: PRIMARY LIABILITY. — First Insurance cannot evade its liability as insurer by
hiding under the cloak of the insured. Its liability is primary and not dependent on the
recovery of judgment from the insured. “. . . the insurer’s liability accrues immediately
upon the occurrence of the injury or event upon which the liability depends, and does
not depend on the recovery of judgment by the injured party against the insured.
Facts:
There was a collision between the IH Scout which private respondents Ramos et.al
were riding a Superlines bus and had sustained injuries in varying degrees. They filed a
complaint for damages against Superline, the bus driver and Perla Compania (insurer of
the bus). The bus was insured by Perla Compania for P50,000 and P50,000 for
passenger liability and third person liability. While the vehicle that Ramos et.al were
riding was insured with Malayan Insurance.
Even before summons were served the respondent judge Ancheta ordered Perla
Compania to pay immediately P5,000 under the “no fault clause”. However they’ve
denied liability under the position that under Section 378 of the Insurance Code the
insurer liable to pay the P5,000 was the insurer of the vehicle which private respondents
were riding (Malayan).
Issue:
Whether or not Perla Compania is the insurer liable to indemnify Ramos under Section
378 of the Insurance Code.
Ruling:
No. Irrespective of whether or not fault or negligence lies with the driver of the
Superlines bus, as private respondents were not occupants of the bus, they cannot
claim the "no fault indemnity" provided in Sec. 378 from petitioner. The claim should be
made against the insurer of the vehicle they were riding. This is very clear from the law.
Undoubtedly, in ordering petitioner to pay private respondents the 'no fault indemnity,'
respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in a manner that amounts to lack of
jurisdiction
11) Summit Guaranty & Insurance Co, Inc. v. Insurance Commissioner Arnaldo
Facts:
Ruling:
In the present case, it is not denied that an extrajudicial demand for payment was made
by respondent FGU on petitioner but petitioner failed to respond to the same.
Nevertheless the complaint was filed even before a denial of the claim was made by
petitioner. For all legal purposes, the one-year prescriptive period provided for in
Section 384 of the Insurance Code has not begun to run. The cause of action arises
only and starts to run upon the denial of the claim by the insurance company.