Title
Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co. vs. Vda. de Misa
Case
G.R. No. L-24377
Decision Date
Oct 26, 1968
Passengers injured in a taxicab-truck collision sued La Mallorca, which claimed insurance coverage. Court ruled La Mallorca liable due to estoppel from insurance representation, but insurer not liable as damages stemmed from contractual representation, not accident liability.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-24377)

Factual Background

On the incident date, the passengers hired a taxicab operated by La Mallorca, which collided with a truck, resulting in injuries to the passengers. They subsequently filed for damages against La Mallorca. The taxicab operator denied liability but filed a third-party complaint against Far Eastern Surety, seeking indemnification under its accident insurance policy.

Lower Court Proceedings

The Court of First Instance awarded damages to Vda. de Misa and Pinto, ordering La Mallorca to pay for actual, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Furthermore, the court ruled in favor of La Mallorca concerning its third-party liability insurance against Far Eastern Surety, ordering the insurance company to indemnify La Mallorca with P10,000 as part of their insurance contract.

Court of Appeals Decision

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld that the collision was primarily due to the truck driver's fault but still held La Mallorca liable to the passengers based on representations that suggested they were insured. The court dismissed the insurer's argument that it was only liable for amounts La Mallorca would be legally responsible for, ordering Far Eastern Surety to pay indemnities to La Mallorca.

Insurance Policy Interpretation

The central legal conflict revolved around the interpretation of the insurance policy. The insurer claimed that its liability was limited to actual bodily injuries and did not extend to moral damages and attorney's fees, asserting that La Mallorca was not legally liable; hence Far Eastern Surety could not be required to fulfill the indemnity obligations. The appellate court disagreed, citing that La Mallorca's liability could arise from its contractual representations to the passengers.

Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court examined whether the insurer had an obligation to pay under its policy provisions. It noted that the insurance contract specified indemnification only related to "all sums" which La Mallorca is legally liable to pay due to accidents related to the use of the motor vehicle. The Court also emphasized that the indemnities awarded were influenced by La Mallorca's representation to the passengers regarding insurance coverage, not strictly because of the accident itself.

Conclusion on Insurance Liability

Ultimately, the Supreme Court determined that the da

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an analytical tool focused on understanding Philippine cases deeply, not a general AI assistant.