Maglana vs Consolacion

Maglana died in an accident while driving a motorcycle. The PUJ, while

overtaking another passenger jeep, bumped Maglana who was coming from
the opposite lane. Maglana died on the spot.
The PUJ was driven by Into, operated and owned by defendant Destrajo.
The heirs of Maglana filed a civil action for damages against Destrajo and
AFISCO Insurance Coroporation. Meanwhile, Into was held guilty for
homicide thru reckless imprudence.
RTC held
o Destrajo negligent as the operator of the jeepney
o Since the insurance contract is in the nature of suretyship, then the
liability of the insurer is seondary only up to the extent of the
insurance coverage
On MR, the heirs of Maglana (petitioners) argued the following:
o That AFISCO should not merely be held secondarily liable because the
Insurance Code provides that the insurers liability is direct and
primary and/or jointly and severally with the operator of the vehicle
although only up to the extent of the insurance coverage
o That the became the direct beneficiaries under the stated provision of
the policy which, in effect, is a stipulation pour autrui
o That the Php 20,000.00 coverage of the insurance policy issued by
AFISCO should have been awarded in their favor
AFISCOs argument
o Since the Insurance Code does not expressly provide for a solidary
obligation, the presumption is that the obligation is joint
Issues + Ratio:
WON AFISCO should be directly liable Yes
o General rule (from Shafer case): where an insurance policy insures
directly against liability, the insurers liability accrues immediately
upon the occurrence of the injury or vent upon which the liability
depends, and does not depend on the recovery of judgment by the
injured party against the insured
o Ratio behind the third part liability (TPL) of the Compulsory Motor
Vehicle Liability Insurance to protect injured persons against the
insolvency of the insured person a certain beneficial interest in the
proceeds of the policy
WON AFISCO is solidarily liable with Destrajo (PUJ operator) No
o The rule is that where the insurance contract provides for indemnity
against liability to 3
rd
persons, such 3
rd
persons can directly sue the
insurer
o However, the direct liability of the insurer under indmenity contracts
against 3
rd
party liability does not mean that the insurer can be held
solidarily liable with the insured and/or other parties found at fault.
Ratio: The liability of the insurer is based on contract; that of
the insured is based on tort
In the case at bar, the liability of Destrajo is based on Art. 2180
o Extent of the liability and manner of enforcement in ordinary
contracts vs from that of insurance contracts
Solidary obligations the creditor may enforce the entire
obligation against one of the solidary debtors
In an insurance contract, the insurer undertakes for a
consideration to indmenify the insured against loss, damage or
liability arising from an unknown or contingent event
o Petitioners have the option either to claim the Php 15,000.00 from
AFISCO and the balance from Destrajoo ir enforce the entire judgment
from Destrajo subject to reimbursement from AFISCO to the extent of
the insurance coverage