View full case

TRAVELLERS INSURANCE v. CA

FACTS:

Vicente Mendoza, Jr. filed an action for damages as the heir of his mother who was killed in a vehicular accident. The complaint included the erring taxicab driver, the owner of the taxicab, and the alleged insurer of the vehicle. It was alleged that the taxicab was covered by a third-party liability insurance policy issued by Travellers Insurance & Surety Corporation.

Evidence presented before the trial court established that on July 20, 1980, Feliza Vineza de Mendoza was on her way to hear mass when she was bumped by a fast-running taxi at Tayuman corner Gregorio Perfecto Streets. Several witnesses saw the accident, and the old woman was brought to the hospital where she eventually died. The driver of the taxi fled the scene.

Three witnesses identified the taxi involved as a Lady Love Taxi with Plate No. 438. They described the vehicle as maroon, with a baggage bar attached, and reflectorized decorations on the edges of the glass at the back.

An investigation identified the registered owner of the taxi as Armando Abellon, and it was certified that the vehicle was driven by Rodrigo Dumlao on the day of the accident. Dumlao was later apprehended and convicted of the offense, but he absconded before the promulgation of the judgment, making him a fugitive from justice.

Vicente Mendoza, Jr. filed a complaint for damages against Armando Abellon as the owner of the taxi and Rodrigo Dumlao as the driver. He later amended the complaint to include Travellers Insurance as the compulsory insurer of the taxi.

The trial court ruled in favor of Vicente Mendoza, Jr., ordering the defendants to pay damages. Travellers Insurance appealed the decision, arguing that it did not issue an insurance policy for the taxi and that Vicente Mendoza, Jr. failed to file a written notice of claim as required by the Insurance Code.

The petition for review seeks to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's judgment in favor of Vicente Mendoza, Jr.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner, Travellers Insurance & Surety Corporation, was the third-party liability insurer of the Lady Love taxicab involved in the accident.

  2. Whether the private respondent filed a written notice of claim with the petitioner as required by Section 384 of P.D. No. 612, otherwise known as the Insurance Code.

RULING:

  1. Existence of Insurance Contract

    • The Court found that the private respondent did not attach a copy of the insurance contract to the amended complaint. This omission prevented the trial court from verifying the real nature and extent of liability under the alleged insurance contract. Consequently, there was no basis to hold Travellers Insurance & Surety Corporation liable as there was no proof of the contract's existence.

  2. Written Notice of Claim

    • The private respondent failed to file a written notice of claim with the petitioner within six months from the date of the accident as required by Section 384 of the Insurance Code. Hence, no cause of action against the petitioner accrued, and the claimant's right to sue was deemed waived.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Third-Party Beneficiary in Insurance Contracts

    • A third person can directly sue the insurer only if the insurance contract is intended to benefit third parties. If the insurance contract is for indemnity against liability, third persons can sue the insurer. If it is for indemnity against actual loss, third persons cannot claim against the insurer but only against the insured.

  2. Contract vs. Tort Liability

    • The liability of the insurer is based on contract, whereas the liability of the insured (taxicab owner/driver) is based on tort. These bases of liability should not be confused or combined to hold the insurer solidarily liable with the insured.

  3. Written Notice of Claim Requirement

    • Section 384 of the Insurance Code, before and after amendment by B.P. Blg. 874, mandates that a written notice of claim must be filed within a specified period. The failure to file this notice results in the waiver of the right to claim against the insurer.

  4. Accrual of Cause of Action

    • The cause of action against the insurer accrues from the date of the insurer's rejection of the claim, not from the date of the accident. Without a written claim and subsequent rejection, the prescriptive period for filing suit does not begin.