Malayan
Insurance vs. CA (165 SCRA 536)
GR
No. L-36413, 9/26/2016
Padilla,
J.:
Facts:
Malayan Insurance issued a Private Car Policy
in favor of Sio Choy covering a Willys jeep for third-party liability for
P20,000. The insured jeep, while being driven by Campollo, an employee of San
Leon, collided with a PANTRANCO passenger bus causing damage to the jeep and
injuries to its driver and to its passenger, Vallejos.
Vallejos filed an action for damages against Sio Choy, Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. and the
PANTRANCO.
Sio Choy, however, later filed a separate answer with a
cross-claim against Malayan wherein he alleged that he had actually paid Vallejos
the amount of P5,000.00 for hospitalization and other expenses, and, in his
cross-claim against Malayan, he alleged that the Malayan had issued in his
favor a private car comprehensive policy wherein the insurance company
obligated itself to indemnify Sio Choy, as insured, for the damage to his motor
vehicle, as well as for any liability to third persons arising out of any
accident during the effectivity of such insurance contract. He prayed that he
be reimbursed by the insurance company for the amount that he may be ordered to
pay.
Also later, Malayan
sought, and was granted, leave to file a third-party complaint against the San
Leon because the person driving the jeep of Sio Choy, at the time of the
accident, was an employee of San Leon, performing his duties within the scope
of his assigned task, and not an employee of Sio Choy; and that, as San Leon is
the employer of the deceased driver, Campollo, it should be liable for the acts
of its employee, pursuant to Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. Malayan prayed that judgment
be rendered against San Leon, making it liable for the amounts claimed by Vallejos
and/or ordering said San Leon to reimburse and indemnify the Malayan for any
sum that it may be ordered to pay Vallejos.
Malayan prays that San Leon be
ordered to reimburse Malayan any amount, in excess of one-half (1/2) of the
entire amount of damages, because it is jointly and severally liable with Sio
Choy.
Issue:Whether Malayan was solidarily liable with
Sio Choy and San Leon for damages to Vallejos
Held:No, Malayan is liable to Vallejos, but is NOT
solidarily liable with Sio Choy and San Leon.Sio Choy is made liable to said plaintiff as owner of the
ill-fated Willys jeep, pursuant to Article 2184 of the Civil Code which
provides:
Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the
owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the
vehicle, could have, by the use of due diligence, prevented the misfortune it
is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty
of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the
next preceding two months.
If the owner was not in the motor vehicle,
the provisions of article 2180 are applicable.
On the other hand, the basis of liability of San Leon to Vallejos, the
former being the employer of the driver of the Willys jeep at the time of the
motor vehicle mishap, is Article 2180 of the Civil Code:
Art. 2180. The
obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
xxx xxx xxx
Employers shall be
liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged ill any business or industry.
xxx xxx xxx
The responsibility
treated in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned proved
that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage.
It thus appears that respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc.
are the principal tortfeasors who are primarily liable to respondent Vallejos.
The law states that the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable
for a quasi-delict is solidarily.
On the other hand, the basis of Malayan's liability is its insurance
contract with respondent Sio Choy. If petitioner is adjudged to pay respondent
Vallejos in the amount of not more than P20,000.00, this is on account of its
being the insurer of respondent Sio Choy under the third party liability clause
included in the private car comprehensive policy existing between petitioner
and respondent Sio Choy at the time of the complained vehicular accident.
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.
In the case at bar, Malayan as insurer of Sio Choy, is liable to Vallejos,
but it cannot be made "solidarily" liable with the two principal
tortfeasors namely Sio Choy and San Leon. For if Malayan were solidarily liable
with said two (2) respondents by reason of the indemnity contract against third
party liability-under which an insurer can be directly sued by a third party —
this will result in a violation of the principles underlying solidary
obligation and insurance contracts.
In solidary obligation, the creditor may enforce the entire obligation
against one of the solidary debtors.
In the case at bar, the trial court held Malayan, Sio Choy and San Leon solidarily
liable to respondent Vallejos for a total amount of P29,103.00, but Malayan's liability is only up to P20,000.00.
In the context of a solidary obligation, Malayan may be compelled by Vallejos
to pay the entire obligation of P29,013.00,
notwithstanding the qualification made by the trial court. But Malayan cannot
be obliged to pay the entire obligation when the amount stated in its insurance
policy with respondent Sio Choy for indemnity against third party liability is
only P20,000.00. Moreover, the qualification made in the decision of the trial
court to the effect that petitioner is sentenced to pay up to P20,000.00 only
when the obligation to pay P29,103.00 is made solidary, is an evident breach of
the concept of a solidary obligation. Thus, We hold that the trial court, as
upheld by the Court of Appeals, erred in holding Malayan as solidarily liable
with respondents Sio Choy and San Leon to Vallejos.
