Shafer v. Makati Insurance Company
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Sherman Shafer obtained a private car policy with third party liability (TPL) coverage from Makati Insurance Company, Inc. for his Ford Laser car. Subsequently, an information for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and serious physical injuries was filed against petitioner. The information alleged that petitioner, while driving his Ford Laser, hit a Volkswagen car, causing damage to the latter and serious physical injuries to its passenger, Jovencio Poblete, Sr. The owner of the damaged Volkswagen filed a separate civil action, while Jovencio Poblete, Sr., a passenger, did not reserve his right to file a separate civil action but testified on his claim for damages in the criminal case. Procedural History: Upon motion, petitioner was granted leave to file a third-party complaint against Makati Insurance Company, Inc. The insurance company moved to vacate the order and dismiss the third-party complaint. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the third-party complaint, holding that it was premature as petitioner had not yet been found guilty and sentenced to pay indemnity or damages. The RTC stated that petitioner should wait for the outcome of the criminal case to determine if he has a cause of action against the insurer. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the RTC's order, contending that the dismissal of the third-party complaint curtails his right to self-defense in the civil aspect of the case. He raises the legal question of whether an accused in a reckless imprudence case, where the civil action is jointly prosecuted, can implead the insurance company as a third-party defendant under its TPL policy as a mode of defense.
Issue(s)
Whether the third-party complaint filed by the petitioner against the insurance company was premature. Whether an accused in a criminal action for reckless imprudence, where the civil action is jointly prosecuted, can legally implead the insurance company as a third-party defendant under its private car insurance policy as one of his modes of defense in the civil aspect of said proceedings.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The questioned order dated 24 April 1987 is SET ASIDE, and a new one is entered admitting petitioner's third-party complaint against the private respondent Makati Insurance Company, Inc.
Ratio Decidendi
On the prematurity of the third-party complaint: The Court held that the dismissal of the third-party complaint on the ground of prematurity was erroneous. The liability of the insurance company under a compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance policy accrues immediately upon the occurrence of the injury or event upon which the liability depends, and does not depend on the recovery of a judgment by the injured party against the insured. The injured party can sue the insurer directly, and the insured is not prevented by law from availing of procedural rules intended to avoid multiplicity of suits, even if there is a "no action" clause in the policy. The occurrence of the injury to the third party immediately gave rise to the insurer's liability under its policy, negating the need for the insured to wait for a final decision finding him guilty. On the propriety of impleading the insurance company as a third-party defendant: The Court affirmed that a third-party complaint is a procedural device allowed to minimize lawsuits and avoid the necessity of bringing multiple actions involving the same subject matter. The Court found the insurance company's contention that the third-party complaint would clutter and delay the criminal case to be without merit. The civil aspect of the offense, which involves compensation for personal injuries, is impliedly instituted with the criminal case. Therefore, the petitioner could raise all available defenses, including his claim for indemnity from the insurer under the policy, which arose from the offense charged. This claim against the insurance company is directly related to the criminal action and its civil consequences.
Main Doctrine
A third-party complaint filed by an insured against its insurance company for indemnity under a compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance policy is not premature, even before the insured's liability to the injured third party is finally determined, as the insurer's liability accrues upon the occurrence of the injury, and such a complaint is allowed to avoid multiplicity of suits.