7/27/2019 Maglana vs Consolacion

1/2

Maglana vs Consolacion

Maglana died in an accident while driving a motorcycle. The PUJ, while

overtaking another passenger jeep, bumped Maglana who was coming from

the opposite lane. Maglana died on the spot.

The PUJ was driven by Into, operated and owned by defendant Destrajo.

The heirs of Maglana filed a civil action for damages against Destrajo andAFISCO Insurance Coroporation. Meanwhile, Into was held guilty for

homicide thru reckless imprudence.

RTC held

o Destrajo negligent as the operator of the jeepney

o Since the insurance contract is in the nature of suretyship, then the

liability of the insurer is seondary only up to the extent of the

insurance coverage

On MR, the heirs of Maglana (petitioners) argued the following:

o That AFISCO should not merely be held secondarily liable because the

Insurance Code provides that the insurers liability is direct and

primary and/or jointly and severally with the operator of the vehiclealthough only up to the extent of the insurance coverage

o That the became the direct beneficiaries under the stated provision of

the policy which, in effect, is a stipulation pour autrui

o That the Php 20,000.00 coverage of the insurance policy issued by

AFISCO should have been awarded in their favor

AFISCOs argument

o Since the Insurance Code does not expressly provide for a solidary

obligation, the presumption is that the obligation is joint

Issues + Ratio:

WON AFISCO should be directly liable Yes

o

General rule (from Shafer case): where an insurance policy insures

directly against liability, the insurers liability accrues immediately

upon the occurrence of the injury or vent upon which the liability

depends, and does not depend on the recovery of judgment by the

injured party against the insured

o Ratio behind the third part liability (TPL) of the Compulsory Motor

Vehicle Liability Insurance to protect injured persons against the

insolvency of the insured person a certain beneficial interest in the

proceeds of the policy

WON AFISCO is solidarily liable with Destrajo (PUJ operator) No

o

The rule is that where the insurance contract provides for indemnityagainst liability to 3rdpersons, such 3rd persons can directly sue the

insurer

o However, the direct liability of the insurer under indmenity contracts

against 3rdparty liability does not mean that the insurer can be held

solidarily liable with the insured and/or other parties found at fault.

Ratio: The liability of the insurer is based on contract; that of

the insured is based on tort

7/27/2019 Maglana vs Consolacion

2/2

In the case at bar, the liability of Destrajo is based on Art. 2180

o Extent of the liability and manner of enforcement in ordinary

contracts vs from that of insurance contracts

Solidary obligations the creditor may enforce the entire

obligation against one of the solidary debtors

In an insurance contract, the insurer undertakes for aconsideration to indmenify the insured against loss, damage or

liability arising from an unknown or contingent event

o Petitioners have the option either to claim the Php 15,000.00 from

AFISCO and the balance from Destrajoo ir enforce the entire judgment

from Destrajo subject to reimbursement from AFISCO to the extent of

the insurance coverage