Case Digest (G.R. No. 194320)
Facts:
Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Rodelio Alberto and Enrico Alberto Reyes, G.R. No. 194320, February 01, 2012, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.At about 5:00 a.m. on December 17, 1995, a multiple-vehicle collision occurred at the corner of EDSA and Ayala Avenue, Makati City, involving a Nissan bus, an Isuzu tanker, a Fuzo cargo truck (plate PDL 297) driven by respondent Enrico Alberto Reyes, and a Mitsubishi Galant (plate TLM 732). The police on-the-spot report prepared by SPO1 Alfredo M. Dungga stated that the tanker was ahead of the Mitsubishi and the Nissan bus was to their right; all three were halted when the Fuzo cargo truck struck the rear of the Mitsubishi and the rear left of the Nissan bus, which pushed the Mitsubishi into the tanker.
On December 15, 1994, petitioner Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. issued an insurance policy covering the Mitsubishi Galant in favor of First Malayan Leasing and Finance Corporation. Malayan Insurance later paid P700,000 to the assured and, claiming subrogation by operation of law, sent demand letters to respondents (the truck’s registered owner and driver) to reimburse the amount; upon respondents’ refusal it filed a complaint for damages for gross negligence on October 18, 1999.
During trial (RTC, Branch 51, Manila; Civil Case No. 99-95885), Malayan Insurance presented one witness (a motor car claim adjuster) and documentary evidence including the police report, a claim check voucher and a Release of Claim and Subrogation Receipt; respondents presented no witnesses and denied liability, alleging the Nissan bus driver’s reckless driving caused the collision. On February 2, 2009 the trial court ruled for Malayan Insurance, awarding P700,000 with legal interest, attorney’s fees of P10,000, and costs.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 93112). In a Decision dated July 28, 2010 the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court judgment and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, holding that the police report was not properly identified and therefore could not be accorded evidentiary value, and that Malayan Insurance failed to prove respondents’ negligence and its right to subrogation. Malayan Insurance’s motion for reconsideration was denied...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in excluding the police report when the investigating police officer who prepared it did not testify in court.
- Whether the evidence on record was sufficient to establish negligence (gross negligence) on the part of respondents.
- Whether Malayan Insurance’s subrogation to the a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)