Case Digest (G.R. No. 84628)
Facts:
Heirs of Ildefonso Coscolluela, Sr., Inc. v. Rico General Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 84628, November 16, 1989, the Supreme Court Third Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner is a domestic corporation and registered owner of an Isuzu KBD pick‑up insured by Rico General Insurance Corporation under Commercial Vehicle Policy No. CV/122415 (renewal certificate No. 02189) for the period October 1, 1986 to October 1, 1987. On August 28, 1987, while covered by the policy, the insured vehicle was severely damaged when it was fired upon by unidentified armed persons at Hacienda Puyas, Murcia, Negros Occidental; four persons were also killed in the same incident.
After the insurer, Rico, refused the petitioner's P80,000 claim for repairs by letter dated October 8, 1987, petitioner filed a complaint for damages (Civil Case No. 4707) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 47, Bacolod City. Rico moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, invoking an exceptions clause in the policy that excluded loss “directly or indirectly … occasioned by … civil commotion, mutiny, rebellion, insurrection …” and requiring the insured to prove the loss was independent of such occurrences.
The RTC granted the motion and dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, finding the damage arose from civil commotion; a motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, but the trial judge ordered that the records would not be transmitted to the Court of Appeals and stated that the “appropriate remedy” was a petition for review by way of certiorari. Petitioner then filed an original petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which denied the petition, affirmed the RTC’s dismissal, and additionally ruled that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal, not certiorari.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari; the Court considered (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming dismissal for lack of cause of a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the RTC’s dismissal of the complaint for damages on the ground that the complaint lacked a cause of action?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying due course to petitioner’s certiorari petition on the ground that the proper remedy was...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)