Title
Travellers Insurance and Surety Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 82036
Decision Date
May 22, 1997
A 78-year-old woman fatally struck by a taxi led to a damages suit against the driver, owner, and alleged insurer. The Supreme Court ruled the insurer not liable due to lack of proof of an insurance policy and failure to file a timely claim notice.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 76590)

Background of the Case

The incident is characterized by a vehicular accident that led to the death of Feliza Mendoza, who was walking to attend mass when she was hit by a speeding taxi. Key witnesses, including Rolando Marvilla, Ernesto Lopez, and Eulogio Tabalno, testified to the reckless driving and subsequent events leading to the victim's hospitalization and eventual death due to severe injuries. Vicente Mendoza, as the heir, filed for damages against Dumlao, the taxi owner Armando Abellon, and Travellers Insurance as the insurer for the taxi.

Initial Court Decisions

The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Vicente Mendoza, ordering the defendants, including Travellers Insurance, to pay substantial damages, which included actual damages, death indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. This ruling was subsequently affirmed in its entirety by the Court of Appeals, which prompted the petitioner to seek a review.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Travellers Insurance contended that it was not the compulsory insurer of the taxi involved in the accident. It further asserted that even if it had provided insurance coverage, private respondent had failed to meet legal requirements by not filing a written notice of claim with the insurer within the timeframe stipulated by the Insurance Code.

Legal Analysis of Insurance Coverage

The court noted a critical absence in the trial records: the failure of the private respondent to attach a copy of the insurance policy to the amended complaint. This omission meant the court could not ascertain the nature, terms, or limits of the insurance coverage. The decision emphasized that whether a third-party had the right to sue an insurer depends on whether the insurance contract intended to benefit third parties. If the coverage was meant merely to indemnify the insured, third parties would not have a direct cause to pursue action against the insurer.

Distinction Between Torts and Contracts

There was a misinterpretation by the trial court, conflating the theories of liability against the taxi driver and owner (torts and quasi-delicts) with that against the insurer, which is contract-based. The fundamental principle emphasized was that the liability of an insurer arises from the contract itself, not from the tortious act of the driver.

Written Notice of Claim Requirement

The court addressed the fact that private respondent did not provide a written notice of claim to Travellers Insurance within the required six-month period specified in Section 384 of the Insurance Code. The court referenced established jurisprudence that clarified a claim against an insurer cannot accrue without the filing of a notice of claim. This failure significantly impacted the private respondent’s ability to assert his claims against the insurer.

Judgment of the Court

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found meri

...continue reading

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