First Integrated Bonding & Insurance Co., Inc. v. Hernando, G.R. No.

51221, [July
31, 1991], 276 PHIL 884-893

FACTS: Silverio Blanco was the owner of a passenger jeepney which he insured
against liabilities for death and injuries to third persons with First Integrated Bonding
and Insurance Company, Inc. (First Insurance) under Motor Vehicle Policy No. V-05-
63751 with the face value of P30,000.00 (p. 15, Rollo).

On November 25, 1976, the said jeepney driven by Blanco himself bumped a five-year
old child, Deogracias Advincula, causing the latter’s death.

A complaint (pp. 38-41, Rollo) for damages was brought by the child’s parents, the
Advincula spouses, against Silverio Blanco. First Insurance was also impleaded in the
complaint as the insurer. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 1104 of the
Court of First Instance of Abra (now Regional Trial Court).

Summons were served on Silverio Blanco and First Insurance. However, only Blanco
filed an answer. Upon motion of the Advincula spouses, First Insurance was declared in
default (p. 45, Rollo) on January 19,..

The insured argued that the injured have no cause of action against the petitioner for
not being a party to the contract of insurance.

ISSUE: Whether the injured party for whom the contract of insurance is intended can
sue directly the insurer.

HELD: PRIMARY LIABILITY. — First Insurance cannot evade its liability as insurer by
hiding under the cloak of the insured. Its liability is primary and not dependent on the
recovery of judgment from the insured. “. . . the insurer’s liability accrues immediately
upon the occurrence of the injury or event upon which the liability depends, and does
not depend on the recovery of judgment by the injured party against the insured.

PERLA COMPANIA de SEGUROS, INC., petitioner,  vs. HON. CONSTANTE A.

ANCHETA, , respondents.

Facts:

There was a collision between the IH Scout which private respondents Ramos et.al
were riding a Superlines bus and had sustained injuries in varying degrees. They filed a
complaint for damages against Superline, the bus driver and Perla Compania (insurer of
the bus). The bus was insured by Perla Compania for P50,000 and P50,000 for
passenger liability and third person liability. While the vehicle that Ramos et.al were
riding was insured with Malayan Insurance.

Even before summons were served the respondent judge Ancheta ordered Perla
Compania to pay immediately P5,000 under the “no fault clause”. However they’ve
denied liability under the position that under Section 378 of the Insurance Code the
insurer liable to pay the P5,000 was the insurer of the vehicle which private respondents
were riding (Malayan).

Issue:

Whether or not Perla Compania is the insurer liable to indemnify Ramos under Section
378 of the Insurance Code.

Ruling:

No. Irrespective of whether or not fault or negligence lies with the driver of the
Superlines bus, as private respondents were not occupants of the bus, they cannot
claim the "no fault indemnity" provided in Sec. 378 from petitioner. The claim should be
made against the insurer of the vehicle they were riding. This is very clear from the law.
Undoubtedly, in ordering petitioner to pay private respondents the 'no fault indemnity,'
respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in a manner that amounts to lack of
jurisdiction

11) Summit Guaranty & Insurance Co, Inc. v. Insurance Commissioner Arnaldo

Facts:

 As a result of a vehicular accident that happened on November 26,1976 whereby

a Ford Pick-up with Plate No. UC-5925 Phil. '76 owned by Marcos Olaso was
bumped by a cargo truck with Plate No. OY-783 then owned by Alberto Floralde,
FGU insurance corporation FGU by reason of Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy
No. IC-VF-07185 paid Olaso the sum of P 2,817.50 as its share in the repair cost
of the said Ford Pick-up.
 Having thus been subrogated to the rights and causes of action of said Olaso in
the said amount FGU formally demanded payment of said amount from Floralde
and attempted to verify Floralde's insurance carrier. Floralde failed to reveal his
insurance carrier. In the early part of 1978 FGU was able to ascertain the Identity
of Floralde's insurance carrier to be the Summit Guaranty and Insurance
Company, Inc. (Summit).
 FGU wrote to the insurance commissioner requesting for a conference with
Summit and demanded from Summit through counsel the payment of the
damages sustained by the car of Olaso but to no avail. Hence FGU filed IC Case
 No. 825 in the Insurance Commissioner's Office against Summit for recovery of
said amount.
 A motion to dismiss the complaint was filed by Summit on May 30,1978 on the
ground of prescription under Section 384 of PD No. 612.
 Summit filed the herein petition for certiorari and prohibition with restraining order
in this Court alleging that respondent commissioner acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in denying the aforesaid motion for
reconsideration when it has been shown that the action has already prescribed
so petitioner sought an order to restrain the respondent commissioner from
further proceeding in the case during the pendency of the petition.
Issue: WON the action has already prescribed.

Ruling:

In the present case, it is not denied that an extrajudicial demand for payment was made
by respondent FGU on petitioner but petitioner failed to respond to the same.
Nevertheless the complaint was filed even before a denial of the claim was made by
petitioner. For all legal purposes, the one-year prescriptive period provided for in
Section 384 of the Insurance Code has not begun to run. The cause of action arises
only and starts to run upon the denial of the claim by the insurance company.