(23) PARTIES; NATURE OF LIABILITY OF JOINT TORTFEASORS | JTS

VDA. DE MAGLANA v. CONSOLACION GR No. 60506 | August 6, 1992 | Romero

DRIVING MOTORCYCLE TO WORK; OVERTAKING JEEP

Insurer of directly liability: “where an insurance policy insures directly
against liability, the insurer’s liability accrues immediately upon the
occurrence of the injury or even upon which the liability depends, and does
not depend on the recovery on the judgment by the injured party against the
insured.”
Maglanas: AFISCO should be held solidarily liable!
The Maglanas filed an MR contesting the second paragraph of the trial
court’s decision. They argues that AFISCO should no be held secondarily
liable because the Insurance Code provides that the insurer’s liability is
“direct and primary and/or jointly and severally with the operator of the
vehicle.”

Liability of insurance company: The direct liability of the insurer under AFISCO: Insurance Code says no such thing! It must be then presumed
indemnity contracts against third-party liability does not mean that the that our obligation is merely joint.
insurer can be held solidarily liable with the insured and/or the other
parties found at fault. The liability of the insurer is based on contract; CFI denied the MR.
that of the insured is based on tort. It reasoned that the insurance contract “is in the nature of suretyship, then
the liability of the insurer is secondary only up to the extent of the insurance
FACTS coverage.”
Maglana was on his way to work when Destrajo’s jeep hit him which
caused his instant death. A second MR was filed but was again denied.
Lope Maglana was an employee of the Bureau of Customs in Davao. Early
morning of December 20, 1978, Maglana was driving a motorcycle owned by ISSUE: Whether AFISCO should be held solidarily liable with Destrajo. NO.
the BoC. He met an accident wherein he died on the spot.
Destrajo reasserts his position that AFISCO is directly and solidarily liable
The jeep was overtaking another passenger jeep. with the negligent operator up to the extent of its insurance coverage.
The PUJ jeep that bumped him was driven by Pepito Into, but was operated
and owned by Patricio Destrajo. It was narrated that while Destrajo’s jeep HELD:
was overtaking another jeep that the going to the city poblacion, it was The insurance policy between the parties show that AFISCO can be held
running abreast with the overtaken jeep and consequently bumped into directly liable. (see Annex for copy of insurance policy)
Maglana’s motorcycle who was headed towards Lasa, Davao City. The provision leads to no other conclusion but that AFISCO can be held
directly liable by the Maglanas. As ruled “where an insurance policy insures
Heirs of Maglana filed a case for damages against Destrajo and AFISCO. 1 directly against liability, the insurer’s liability accrues immediately upon the
An information for homicide thru reckless imprudence was also filed occurrence of the injury or even upon which the liability depends, and does
against Into. not depend on the recovery on the judgment by the injured party against the
Into was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate sentence of 1 year, 8 mos., insured.”2 The underlying reason behind the third party liability of the
and 1 day prision correccional to 4 years, 9 mos., and 11 days of prision Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance is “to protect injured persons
correccional. He was also ordered to indemnify the heirs of Maglana for against the insolvency of the insured who causes such injury, and to give
P12K plus P5K as moral and exemplary damages with costs. such injured persons a certain beneficial interest in the proceeds of the
policy.”
CFI found that Destrajo failed to exercise diligence as a jeepney
operator. AFISCO cannot be held solidarily liable with Destrajo.
In the second paragraph of the trial court’s disposition it was held that In Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. CA, the Court held that:
“[AFISCO] is ordered to reimburse Destrajo whatever amounts the latter “While it true that where the insurance contract provides for
shall have paid only up to the extent of its insurance coverage.” indemnity against liability to third persons, such third persons can
directly sue the insurer, however, the direct liability of the insurer

1 2
Abbreviation for Afisco Insurance Corporation. Shafer vs. Judge, RTC of Onlongapo City, Br. 75.
CHAN GOMASAN OF SITO BERDE
(23) PARTIES; NATURE OF LIABILITY OF JOINT TORTFEASORS | JTS

VDA. DE MAGLANA v. CONSOLACION GR No. 60506 | August 6, 1992 | Romero

under indemnity contracts against third party liability does not mean
that the insurer can be held solidarily liable with the insured and/or
the other parties found at fault. The liability of the insurer is based on Sec. 1 — LIABILITY TO THE PUBLIC
contract; that of the insured is based on tort…For if insurer were
solidarily liable with the insured, 2 respondents by reason of the
indemnity contract against third party liability – under which an
insurer can be directly sued by a third party – this will result in a
violation of the principles underlying solidary obligation and
insurance contracts.
Maglanas cannot validly claim against AFISCO.
While in solidary obligations, the creditor may enforce the entire obligation
against one of the solidary debtors, in an insurance contract, the insurer
undertakes for a consideration to indemnify the insured against loss,
damage, or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event.
ANNEX: Insurance Policy
1. The Company will, subject to the Limits of Liability, pay all sums
necessary to discharge liability of the insured in respect of 
a. death of or bodily injury to any THIRD PARTY 
b. . . . .
2. ....
3. In the event of the death of any person entitled to indemnity under
this Policy, the Company will, in respect of the liability incurred to
such person indemnify his personal representatives in terms of, and
subject to the terms and conditions hereof.

Thus, the Maglanas cannot validly claim that AFISCO, whose liability is
limited to P20K, can be held solidarily liable with Destrajo for the total
amount of P53,901.70. Since under both law and the insurance policy,
AFISCO’S liability is only up to P20K,the second paragraph of the lower
court’s decision may have unwittingly sown confusion among the Maglanas
and their counsel. What should have been clearly stressed as to leave no
room for doubt was the liability of AFISCO under the explicit terms of the
insurance contract.

AFISCO’s liability is direct but not solidary.

In conclusion, the Court held that the liability of AFISCO based on the
insurance contract is direct, but not solidary with that of Destrajo which is
based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. As such, the Maglanas have the
option either to claim the P15K from AFISCO and the balance from Destrajo
or enforce the entire judgment from Destrajo subject to reimbursement
from AFISCO to the extent of the insurance coverage.

Recomputation of fees:
For probable loss of income: correct amount is P192K from CFI’s P28K.
Death indemnity: P50K.

CHAN GOMASAN OF SITO BERDE