Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

VDA. DE MAGLANA v. HON.

FRANCISCO CONSOLACION
G.R. No. 60506
August 6, 1992
Romero, J.
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Insurance Law; Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance
SUMMARY: Lope Maglana was killed in a collision with a jeepney owned by Destrajo and insured with AFISCO. The
heirs filed a civil case against the owner and the insurer, and a criminal case against the driver. In the civil case, the
lower court held the owner Destrajo primarily liable for damages, while AFISCO was held liable only secondarily (to
reimburse Destrajo). Maglanas heirs now argue that AFISCOs liability must be direct and solidary. SC held that
while the insurers liability is indeed DIRECT in the case of third party liability insurance, it is NOT SOLIDARY. The
liability of the insurer is based on contract; that of the insured is based on tort.
DOCTRINE [DIVINA, P 93]: Insurers liability under Third Part Liability coverage accrues immediately upon
occurrence of injury or event upon which the liability depends and does not depend on the recovery of judgment
by the injured party against the insured. Therefore, insurer can be sued and held directly liable by the injured party
to the extent of the coverage.

Lope Maglana, while driving a motorcycle, was hit by a jeepney owned by Patricio Destrajo. Maglanas
heirs filed an action for damages against Destrajo and the AFISCO insurance Corp. They also filed a
criminal action against the jeepney driver, Pepito Into. The driver was convicted.
In the civil case, Destrajo was found to have failed to exercise sufficient diligence as a jeepney operator.
The trial court ordered Destrajo to pay the plaintiffs, and ordered AFISCO to reimburse Destrajo.

PLAINTIFFS (HEIRS OF MAGLANA) ARGUE: AFISCO should not merely be held secondarily liable because the
insurers liability is direct and primary and/or jointly and severally with the operator to the extent of the coverage.
(1) W/N the insurer, AFISCO, can be held directly liable by a third party YES.
Where an insurance policy insures directly against liability, the insurer's liability accrues immediately upon
the occurrence of the injury or even upon which the liability depends, and does not depend on the recovery
of judgment by the injured party against the insured. The underlying reason behind the third party liability
(TPL) of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance is "to protect injured persons against the
insolvency of the insured who causes such injury, and to give such injured person a certain beneficial
interest in the proceeds of the policy.
(2) W/N the insurer should be held solidarily liable with Destrajo NO.
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.
AFISCO, which, under the insurance contract is liable only up to P20,000.00, can not be made solidarily
liable with the insured for the entire obligation of P29,013.00 otherwise there would result "an evident
breach of the concept of solidary obligation."
In fine, we conclude that the liability of AFISCO based on the insurance contract is direct, but not solidary
with that of Destrajo which is based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

BINKEE

COM LAW REV CASE #706