VDA De Maglana vs. Consolacion G.R. No. 60506 August 6,1992 Facts: Lope Maglana was an employee of the Bureau of Customs in Davao City. On December 20, 1978, he was driving a motorcycle when he met an accident that resulted to his death. The PUJ (jeepney) that bumped the deceased was driven by Pepito Into. Patricio Destrajo was the owner and operator of the PUJ. An action for damages was instituted by the heirs of against Destrajo and AFISCO Insurance Corporation. The lower court rendered a decision finding that Destrajo had not exercised sufficient dilligence as the operator of the jeepney. The insurance company was also ordered to reimburse Destrajo of the amount the latter shall have paid but only up to the extent of the insurance coverage. The heirs of Maglana filed for a motion for reconsideration. They contended that AFISCO's should not be merely held as secondarily liable as the Insurance Code provides that the insurer's liability is "direct and primary and/or jointly and severally with the operator of the vehicle, although only up to the extent of the insurance coverage." Thus, the contention that the coverage of the insurance policy amounting to Php 20,000 issued by the company should have been awarded in their favor. The insurance company, on the other hand, argued that their obligation is joint. Issue: WON the liability of the insurer is direct, primary, and soliday with the jeepney operator. Held: The Court held that the heirs cannot validly claim that AFISCO can be held solidarily liable with Destrajo. The law and the
VDA De Maglana vs. ConsolacionG.R. No. 60506August
6,1992Facts:Lope Maglana was an employee of the Bureau of Customs
in Davao City. On December 20, 1978, he was driving a motorcycle
when he met an accident that resulted to his death. The PUJ
(jeepney) that bumped the deceased was driven by Pepito Into.
Patricio Destrajo was the owner and operator of the PUJ.An action
for damages was instituted by the heirs of against Destrajo and
AFISCO Insurance Corporation. The lower court rendered a decision
finding that Destrajo had not exercised sufficient dilligence as
the operator of the jeepney. The insurance company was also ordered
to reimburse Destrajo of the amount the latter shall have paid but
only up to the extent of the insurance coverage. The heirs of
Maglana filed for a motion for reconsideration. They contended that
AFISCO's should not be merely held as secondarily liable as the
Insurance Code provides that the insurer's liability is "direct and
primary and/or jointly and severally with the operator of the
vehicle, although only up to the extent of the insurance coverage."
Thus, the contention that the coverage of the insurance policy
amounting to Php 20,000 issued by the company should have been
awarded in their favor. The insurance company, on the other hand,
argued that their obligation is joint.Issue:WON the liability of
the insurer is direct, primary, and soliday with the jeepney
operator.Held:The Court held that the heirs cannot validly claim
that AFISCO can be held solidarily liable with Destrajo. The law
and the terms on the insurance policy provides that AFISCO's
liability is only up to Php 20,000.The Court provided that the
issue on the nature of the liability of the insurer and insured as
against the third party was already resolved in the case of Malayan
Insurance Co. Inc., vs. Court of Appeals. It ruled that "While such
third persons can directly sue the insurer, it 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 contract; that of the insured is based on tort."
