Title
Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Interpacific Container Services
Case
G.R. No. 194328
Decision Date
Jul 1, 2015
Insured truck caused fatal accident; insurer denied claim citing driver intoxication; courts ruled insurer failed to prove intoxication, upheld claim validity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170598)

Facts of the Case

Gloria Dee Chong, the owner of a Fuso truck insured under Commercial Vehicle Policy No. 279675 with Stronghold Insurance Company, filed a claim for P550,000.00 after her vehicle was involved in a fatal accident in Brgy. Palihan, Hermosa, Bataan, resulting in multiple casualties and injuries. The insurance company denied the claim, asserting that the driver was heavily intoxicated at the time of the incident, based on statements from local officials and a medico-legal certificate.

Procedural History

Respondents initiated litigation in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City after their claim was unjustly denied. The respondents contended there was insufficient evidence of intoxication and insisted on the insurance company’s liability under the policy. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering the payment of the insurance claim, while the petitioner appealed the RTC's decision to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, holding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to show the driver’s intoxication, thereby necessitating payment of the insurance claim. The appellate court rejected the petitioner's evidence as hearsay and reiterated the absence of intoxication in the police blotter as a critical factor.

Legal Issues Raised by the Petitioner

In its petition, the petitioner raised several issues, arguing that the appellate court erred in not appreciating the evidence of the driver’s intoxication, in finding the petitioner liable, and in upholding the imposition of interest on the awarded claim.

Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court reiterated that it typically does not re-evaluate factual findings. It underscored that the petitioner did not substantiate its claim regarding the driver’s intoxication with credible evidence, emphasizing the dubious nature of the medical certificate. It also mentioned the insufficiency of the evidence presented by the petitioner to counteract the respondents' prima facie case.

Burden of Proof

The Court reinforced the principle that the burden of proving intoxication rested on the petitioner, noting that respondents established enti

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.