Travellers Insurance & Surety Corporation v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 20, 1980, Feliza Vineza de Mendoza, a 78-year-old woman, was fatally injured when a taxi, identified as Lady Love Taxi with Plate No. 438, bumped her while she was walking along Tayuman corner Gregorio Perfecto Streets. The taxi was allegedly driven by Rodrigo Dumlao and owned by Armando Abellon. The victim was brought to Mary Johnston Hospital, then to U.S.T. Hospital, where she died the same morning due to "traumatic shock" from severe injuries. The driver fled the scene without rendering assistance. Procedural History: The victim's heir, Vicente Mendoza, Jr., filed an action for damages against the driver and owner of the taxicab. An amended complaint impleaded petitioner, Travellers Insurance & Surety Corporation, as the alleged compulsory insurer of the taxicab. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch II, Manila, rendered judgment finding the driver, owner, and petitioner jointly and severally liable for actual and compensatory damages, death indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner sought review and reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision, primarily contending that it did not issue an insurance policy covering the taxicab and, alternatively, that private respondent failed to file a written notice of claim as required by Section 384 of the Insurance Code.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner, as the alleged insurer, can be held jointly and severally liable with the driver and owner of the taxicab for damages arising from the vehicular accident. Whether the private respondent complied with the requirement of filing a written notice of claim with the petitioner as mandated by Section 384 of the Insurance Code.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court are reversed and set aside insofar as Travellers Insurance & Surety Corporation was found jointly and severally liable. The complaint against Travellers Insurance & Surety Corporation is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue of joint and several liability: The Court held that the private respondent failed to establish the existence and terms of the insurance contract between petitioner and the owner of the taxicab. The amended complaint did not attach a copy of the insurance contract, and petitioner denied issuing such a policy. Without the contract, the trial court could not ascertain the nature and limits of petitioner's liability, nor the right of the private respondent to sue the insurer directly. The Court emphasized that the cause of action against the owner and driver is based on tort or quasi-delict, while the cause of action against the insurer is based on contract. Confusing these distinct sources of obligation led the trial court to erroneously hold the insurer jointly and severally liable without proof of the contract. The Court reiterated that while third persons can sue the insurer directly if the policy provides indemnity against liability to them, this does not make the insurer solidarily liable with the insured, as their liabilities stem from different legal bases. On the second issue of failure to file a notice of claim: The Court found that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that petitioner had issued an insurance contract, the private respondent's cause of action against petitioner had not legally accrued. Section 384 of the Insurance Code, at the time of the incident, required the filing of a written notice of claim within six months from the date of the accident, otherwise the claim would be deemed waived. The Court noted that the private respondent did not dispute petitioner's assertion that no written claim was filed. Consequently, the private respondent failed to comply with an indispensable requirement, which barred their cause of action against the insurer. The Court clarified that the one-year prescriptive period to file suit against the insurer begins to run from the date of rejection of a filed claim, and without a filed claim, there is no basis for rejection and thus no accrual of a cause of action against the insurer.
Main Doctrine
An insurer cannot be held jointly and severally liable with the insured for damages arising from a vehicular accident if the existence and terms of the insurance contract, particularly its coverage for third-party liability, are not proven before the trial court. Furthermore, the claimant's failure to file a written notice of claim with the insurer, as required by Section 384 of the Insurance Code, bars their cause of action against the insurer.