Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 182 views

    Travellers Insurance & Surety Corp Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous vAVKlB1
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner insurance company was not liable for damages to the private respondent. While third parties can directly sue an insurer if the insurance contract provides for liability to third parties, the insurer cannot be held jointly liable with the insured. The private respondent did not file the required written notice of claim to the insurer within six months of the accident as required by law at that time. As no claim was filed, the insurer had no opportunity to reject it, and thus the private respondent's right to bring suit had prescribed. The petition of the insurance company was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Travellers Insurance & Surety Corp Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous vAVKlB1
    182 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner insurance company was not liable for damages to the private respondent. While third parties can directly sue an insurer if the insurance contract provides for liability to third parties, the insurer cannot be held jointly liable with the insured. The private respondent did not file the required written notice of claim to the insurer within six months of the accident as required by law at that time. As no claim was filed, the insurer had no opportunity to reject it, and thus the private respondent's right to bring suit had prescribed. The petition of the insurance company was granted.

    Original Description:

    Travellers Insurance & Surety Corp vs CA

    Original Title

    Travellers Insurance & Surety Corp vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner insurance company was not liable for damages to the private respondent. While third parties can directly sue an insurer if the insurance contract provides for liability to third parties, the insurer cannot be held jointly liable with the insured. The private respondent did not file the required written notice of claim to the insurer within six months of the accident as required by law at that time. As no claim was filed, the insurer had no opportunity to reject it, and thus the private respondent's right to bring suit had prescribed. The petition of the insurance company was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    182 views2 pages

    Travellers Insurance & Surety Corp Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous vAVKlB1
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner insurance company was not liable for damages to the private respondent. While third parties can directly sue an insurer if the insurance contract provides for liability to third parties, the insurer cannot be held jointly liable with the insured. The private respondent did not file the required written notice of claim to the insurer within six months of the accident as required by law at that time. As no claim was filed, the insurer had no opportunity to reject it, and thus the private respondent's right to bring suit had prescribed. The petition of the insurance company was granted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case Title: TRAVELLERS INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION v COURT OF APPEALS

    AND VICENTE MENDOZA


    G.R. NO. 82036; 272 SCRA 536 ; May 22, 1997
    PONENTE: HERMOSISIMA, JR

    FACTS
    Vicente Mendoza, Jr. as heir of his mother (Feliza Vineza de Mendoza) who was killed in a vehicular
    accident, filed an action for damages against the erring taxicab driver (Rodrigo Dumlao), the owner
    (Armando Abellon) of the taxicab (Lady Love Taxi with Plate No. 438-HA Pilipinas Taxi 1980) and the
    alleged insurer of the vehicle which featured in the vehicular accident. The erring taxicab was allegedly
    covered by a third-party liability insurance policy issued by petitioner Travellers Insurance & Surety
    Corporation. Petitioner was included in the complaint as the compulsory insurer of the said taxicab under
    Certificate of Cover No. 1447785-3.
    The trial court rendered judgment in favor of private respondent and ordered Rodrigo Dumlao,
    Armando Abellon and petitioner to pay private respondent death indemnity, moral damages, exemplary
    damages, attorneys fees and other litigation expenses, jointly and severally.
    The decision was affirmed by the CA and the subsequent MR was denied.
    Hence this petition.

    ISSUE: Whether petitioner Travellers Insurance & Surety Corporation is liable for Damages to private
    respondent?
    HELD: NO.
    I. The right of the person injured to sue the insurer of the party at fault (insured), depends on whether the
    contract of insurance is intended to benefit third persons also or on the insured. And the test applied has
    been this: Where the contract provides for indemnity against liability to third persons, then third persons
    to whom the insured is liable can sue the insurer. Where the contract is for indemnity against actual loss or
    payment, then third persons cannot proceed against the insurer, the contract being solely to reimburse the
    insured for liability actually discharged by him thru payment to third persons, said third persons recourse
    being thus limited to the insured alone.
    The trial court did not distinguish between the private respondents cause of action against the owner
    and the driver of the Lady Love taxicab and his cause of action against petitioner. The former is based on
    torts and quasi-delicts while the latter is based on contract. Confusing these two sources of obligations as
    they arise from the same act of the taxicab fatally hitting private respondents mother, and in the face of
    overwhelming evidence of the reckless imprudence of the driver of the Lady Love taxicab, the trial court
    brushed aside its ignorance of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract and forthwith found all
    three - the driver of the taxicab, the owner of the taxicab, and the alleged insurer of the taxicab - jointly
    and severally liable for actual, moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees and litigation
    expenses. This is clearly a misapplication of the law by the trial court, and respondent appellate court
    grievously erred in not having reversed the trial court on this ground.
    While it is true that where the insurance contract provides for indemnity against liability to third persons,
    such third persons can directly sue the insurer, however, the direct liability of the insurer under indemnity
    contracts against third-party liability does not mean that the insurer can be held solidarily liable with the
    insured and/or the other parties found at fault. The liability of the insurer is based on contract; that of the
    insured is based on tort.
    II. At the time of the vehicular incident which resulted in the death of private respondents mother, during
    which time the Insurance Code had not yet been amended by Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 874, Section 384
    provided as follows:
    Any person having any claim upon the policy issued pursuant to this chapter shall, without any
    unnecessary delay, present to the insurance company concerned a written notice of claim setting forth the
    amount of his loss, and/or the nature, extent and duration of the injuries sustained as certified by a duly
    licensed physician. Notice of claim must be filed within six months from date of the accident, otherwise,
    the claim shall be deemed waived. Action or suit for recovery of damage due to loss or injury must be
    brought in proper cases, with the Commission or the Courts within one year from date of accident,
    otherwise the claimants right of action shall prescribe
    It is significant to note that the aforecited Section 384 was amended by B.P. Blg. 874 to categorically
    provide that action or suit for recovery of damage due to loss or injury must be brought in proper cases,
    with the Commissioner or the Courts within one year from denial of the claim, otherwise the claimants
    right of action shall prescribe.
    We have certainly ruled with consistency that the prescriptive period to bring suit in court under an
    insurance policy, begins to run from the date of the insurers rejection of the claim filed by the insured, the
    beneficiary or any person claiming under an insurance contract. This ruling is premised upon the
    compliance by the persons suing under an insurance contract, with the indispensable requirement of
    having filed the written claim mandated by Section 384 of the Insurance Code before and after its
    amendment. Absent such written claim filed by the person suing under an insurance contract, no cause of
    action accrues under such insurance contract, considering that it is the rejection of that claim that triggers
    the running of the one-year prescriptive period to bring suit in court, and there can be no opportunity for
    the insurer to even reject a claim if none has been filed in the first place, as in the instant case.

    Disposition: PETITION GRANTED.

    You might also like