Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. v. Ancheta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 27, 1977, a collision occurred between an IH Scout, in which private respondents were riding, and a Superlines bus along the national highway in Sta. Elena, Camarines Norte. Private respondents sustained physical injuries. Procedural History: Private respondents filed a complaint for damages against Superlines, the bus driver, and petitioner, the insurer of the bus, with the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte. Petitioner's bus was insured with it for P50,000.00 for passenger liability and P50,000.00 for third-party liability. The IH Scout was insured with Malayan Insurance Co. The Petition: Even before summons could be served, the respondent judge issued an order directing petitioner to immediately pay P5,000.00 under the "no fault clause" of the Insurance Code within five days. Petitioner denied liability, arguing that the claim should be against the insurer of the vehicle in which private respondents were riding, as per Section 378 of the Insurance Code. After its motions for reconsideration were denied, and a writ of execution was ordered, petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner, the insurer of the Superlines bus, is liable to indemnify private respondents under the "no fault indemnity" provision of Section 378 of the Insurance Code, given that the private respondents were occupants of the IH Scout. Whether the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in ordering petitioner to pay the "no fault indemnity" to private respondents, contravening Section 378 of the Insurance Code.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The respondent judge's orders dated March 1, 1978, and January 3, 1979, requiring petitioner to pay private respondents the amount of P5,000.00 as "no fault indemnity" and ordering the issuance of a writ of execution, are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The temporary restraining order issued by the Court on January 24, 1979, is made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of liability under the "no fault indemnity" provision: The Court held that Section 378 of the Insurance Code clearly states that "[i]n the case of an occupant of a vehicle, claim shall lie against the insurer of the vehicle in which the occupant is riding, mounting or dismounting from." The law mandates that the claim be made against the insurer of the vehicle the occupant is riding. The fact that the vehicle might not be the one that caused the accident is irrelevant, as the law allows the paying insurer to recover from the owner of the responsible vehicle. This provision ensures immediate compensation to victims pending determination of fault. Therefore, since private respondents were occupants of the IH Scout and not the Superlines bus, their claim for "no fault indemnity" should have been made against the insurer of the IH Scout, not petitioner, the insurer of the Superlines bus. On the respondent judge's grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, in ordering petitioner to pay the "no fault indemnity" to private respondents. This was because the order contravened the clear and unambiguous provisions of Section 378 of the Insurance Code, which dictates that the claim must be made against the insurer of the vehicle occupied by the injured party. The issuance of the corrective writ of certiorari was therefore warranted to annul and set aside the erroneous orders.
Main Doctrine
Under Section 378 of the Insurance Code, in the case of an occupant of a vehicle, the claim for 'no fault indemnity' shall lie against the insurer of the vehicle in which the occupant is riding, mounting, or dismounting from, and not against the insurer of the directly offending vehicle.