Title
Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-36413
Decision Date
Sep 26, 1988
A 1967 car accident involving a jeep and a bus led to a damages suit. The Supreme Court ruled that the jeep owner and the driver's employer were solidarily liable, while the insurer's liability was contractual, entitling it to reimbursement from the employer.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188376)

Key Dates

Policy issued: 29 March 1967; effective 18 April 1967–18 April 1968.
Accident: 19 December 1967.
Trial court judgment: 27 April 1970.
Court of Appeals judgment: 22 February 1973.
Supreme Court decision: 26 September 1988.

Applicable Law and Legal Sources

Primary statutory provisions applied: Articles 2176, 2180, 2184, and 1217 of the Civil Code (as quoted and applied in the decision). Contract law principles governing insurance contracts (indemnity) and equitable subrogation as described in the cited authorities. For constitutional reference, the decision was rendered in 1988; the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the applicable constitutional framework at the time of the decision.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff Vallejos sued Sio Choy (owner), Malayan Insurance (insurer of the jeep under a private car comprehensive policy with third‑party liability coverage), and PANTRANCO. Sio Choy cross‑claimed against the insurer for indemnity. Malayan Insurance filed a third‑party complaint against San Leon Rice Mill, Inc., asserting the driver was the mill’s employee acting within the scope of his employment. Trial rendered judgment for plaintiff against Sio Choy, Malayan Insurance, and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc.; Court of Appeals affirmed with modification that San Leon Rice Mill had no obligation to indemnify the insurer. The Supreme Court granted review limited to whether San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. is liable to reimburse the petitioner insurer for amounts the insurer may be ordered to pay.

Facts Established by the Courts

Malayan Insurance issued a comprehensive private car policy to Sio Choy with third‑party liability coverage up to P20,000 and own‑damage coverage up to P600. On 19 December 1967, the insured jeep, driven by Juan P. Campollo (an employee of San Leon Rice Mill, Inc.), collided with a PANTRANCO bus; Vallejos, a passenger in the jeep, sustained injuries. The trial court awarded Vallejos P29,103 (actual, lost income, moral damages, attorney’s fees) and held Sio Choy, Malayan Insurance, and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. jointly and severally liable, subject to the insurer’s P20,000 policy limit. PANTRANCO’s counterclaims were dismissed for lack of proof.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether the trial court and Court of Appeals were correct in holding Malayan Insurance solidarily liable with Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. to Vallejos.
  2. Whether Malayan Insurance, having paid under its policy, is entitled to reimbursement from San Leon Rice Mill, Inc.

Supreme Court Holding — Solidary Liability

The Supreme Court held that only Sio Choy (owner) and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. (employer of the driver) are solidarily liable to Vallejos for the P29,103 awarded. The insurer’s liability is contractual (indemnity under the third‑party clause) and distinct in nature from the tort liability of the owner and employer. Consequently, the insurer cannot properly be characterized as a solidary obligor together with the principal tortfeasors. The Court explained that treating the insurer as a solidary debtor would conflict with the nature of insurance contracts and the doctrine of solidary obligations because a creditor could then demand entire performance from the insurer beyond the policy limit, contradicting the contractual policy cap.

Supreme Court Holding — Subrogation and Reimbursement

The Court ruled that, if Malayan Insurance pays up to its policy limit of P20,000, it becomes subrogated to the insured’s (Sio Choy’s) rights against the third party (San Leon Rice Mill, Inc.). Subrogation operates as an equitable assignment of the insured’s remedies upon payment by the insurer and does not depend on privity of contract. Consequently, by virtue of payment, the insurer stands in the insured’s shoes and may seek reimbursement from co‑obligors. Applying Article 1217 (payment by one solidary debtor gives the payor a right to claim from co‑debtors their respective shares), the Court determined the insurer is entitled to be reimbursed pro tanto from San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. for the insurer’s share of the obligation.

Calculation of Reimbursement

The trial award against the solidary debtors totaled P29,103. If the insurer pays P20,000 under its policy, the Court computed the insurer’s equitable right of contribution from San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. as one‑half of the entire obligation (1/2 of P29,103), yielding P14,551.50. The Court ordered that the judgment be affirmed with the modification that only Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. are solidarily liable to Vallejos and that the insurer, upon payment to Vallejos up to P20,000, is e

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.