Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
of the trial and appellate courts to have disregarded the IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby
stipulations of the parties and to have substituted their own rendered ordering defendant Perla Compania de Seguros,
interpretation of the insurance policy. In Phil. American Inc. to pay plaintiff Milagros Cayas the sum of P50,000.00
General Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Mutuc, we ruled that under its maximum liability as provided for in the
contracts which are the private laws of the contracting insurance policy; and the sum of P5,000.00 as reasonable
parties should be fulfilled according to the literal sense of attorneys fees, with costs against said defendant.
their stipulations, if their terms are clear and leave no room
for doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, for __________________
contracts are obligatory, no matter what form they may be,
1 Jose A.R. Melo, J., ponente, with Esteban M. Lising and Celso L.
whenever the essential requisites for their validity are
Magsino, JJ., concurring.
present. 2 Luis L. Victor, presiding judge.
7 Exh. C.
NC-794; while three others, namely: Rosario del
Carmen, Ricardo Magsarili and Charlie Antolin, 745
agreed to a settlement of P4,000.00 each with Milagros VOL. 185, MAY 28, 745
Cayas. 1990
At the pre-trial of Civil Case No. NC-794, Milagros Perla Compania de Seguros,
Cayas failed to appear and hence, she was declared as Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
in default. After trial, the court rendered a decision in7
executed against her, Milagros Cayas filed a complaint
favor of Perea with its dispositive portion reading against PCSI in the Office of the Insurance
thus: Commissioner praying that PCSI be ordered to pay
WHEREFORE, under our present imperatives, judgment P40,000.00 for all the claims against her arising from
is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the the vehicular accident plus legal and other
defendant Milagros Cayas who is hereby ordered to
expenses. Realizing her procedural mistake, she later
8
Pesos for Attorneys fees, under the imperatives of the the detention of the insured vehicle, she paid P4,000
monetary power of the peso today; to each of the following injured passengers: Rosario del
With costs against the defendant.
Carmen, Ricardo Magsarili and Charlie Antolin; that
SO ORDERED.
she could not have suffered said financial setback had
the counsel for PCSI, who also represented her,
appeared at the trial of Civil Case No. NC-794 and Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
attended to the claims of the three other victims; that About two months later, Milagros Cayas filed a motion
she sought reimbursement of said amounts from the to declare PCSI in default for its failure to file an
defendant, which, notwithstanding the fact that her answer. The motion was granted and plaintiff was
claim was within its contractual liability under the allowed to adduce evidence ex-parte. On July 13, 1982,
insurance policy, refused to make such the court rendered judgment by default ordering PCSI
reimbursement; that she suffered moral damages as a to pay Milagros Cayas P50,000 as compensation for
consequence of such refusal, and that she was the injured passengers, P5,000 as moral damages and
constrained to secure the services of counsel to protect P5,000 as attorneys fees.
her rights. She prayed that judgment be rendered Said decision was set aside after the PCSI filed a
directing PCSI to pay her P50,000 for compensation of motion therefor. Trial of the case ensued. In due course,
the injured victims, such sum as the court might the court promulgated a decision in Civil Case No. N-
approximate as damages, and P6,000 as attorneys fees. 4161, the dispositive portion of which was quoted
In view of Milagros Cayas failure to prosecute the earlier, finding that:
case, the court motu proprio ordered its dismissal In disavowing its obligation to plaintiff under the
without prejudice. Alleging that she had not received
11 insurance policy, defendant advanced the proposition that
a copy of the answer to the complaint, and that out of before it can be made to pay, the liability must first be
sportsmanship, she did not file a motion to hold PCSI determined in an appropriate court action. And so plaintiffs
in default, Milagros Cayas moved for the liability was determined in that case filed against her by
Perea in the Naic CFI. Still, despite this determination of
reconsideration of the dismissal order. Said motion for
liability, defendant sought escape from its obligation by
reconsideration was acted upon favorably by the court
positing the theory that plaintiff Milagros Cayas lost the
in its order of March 31, 1982. Naic case due to her negligence because of which, efforts
________________
exerted by defendants lawyers in protecting Cayas rights
8 Exh. G. proved futile and rendered nugatory. Blame was laid
9 Exh. H. entirely on plaintiff by defendant for losing the Naic case.
10 Original Record on Appeal, pp. 2 & 16. Defendant labored under the impression that had Cayas
11 Original Record on Appeal, p. 10.
cooperated fully with defendants lawyers, the latter could
746
have won the suit and thus relieved of any obligation to
746 SUPREME COURT Perea. Defendants posture is stretching the factual
circumstances of the Naic case too far. But even accepting
REPORTS defendants postulate, it cannot be said, nor was it shown
ANNOTATED positively and convincingly, that if the Naic case had
Perla Compania de Seguros, proceeded on trial on the merits, a decision favorable to
Milagros Cayas could have been obtained. Nor was it Said contentions, having been raised and threshed out
definitely established that if the pre-trial was undertaken in the Court of Appeals and rejected by it, may no
in that case, defendants lawyers could have mitigated the longer be addressed to this Court.
claim for damages by Perea against Cayas.12
Petitioners other contentions are primarily
The court, however, held that inasmuch as Milagros concerned with the extent of its liability to private
Cayas failed to establish that she underwant moral respondent under the insurance policy. This, we
suffering and mental anguish to justify her prayer for consider to be the only issue in this case.
damages, there should be no such award. But, there Petitioner seeks to limit its liability only to the
being proof that she was compelled to engage the payment made by private respondent to Perea and
services of counsel to protect her rights under the only up to the amount of P12,000.00. It altogether
insurance policy, the court allowed attorneys fees in denies liability for the payments made by private
________________ respondents to the other three (3) injured passengers
Rosario del Carmen, Ricardo Magsarili and Charlie
p. 24, Rollo.
Antolin in the amount of P4,000.00 each or a total of
12
747 P12,000.00.
VOL. 185, MAY 28, 747 There is merit in petitioners assertions.
1990 The insurance policy involved explicitly limits
Perla Compania de Seguros, petitioners liability to P12,000.00 per person and to
Inc. vs. Court of Appeals P50,000.00 per accident. Pertinent provisions of the
13
desires, to take over and conduct in his (sic) name the _______________
defense or settlement of any claim, or to prosecute in his
(sic) name for its own benefit any claim for indemnity or 14 L-34768, February 28, 1984, 127 SCRA 766, 769, citing Young
damages or otherwise, and shall have full discretion in the vs. Midland Textile Insurance, Co., 30 Phil. 617.
15 Art. 1306, Civil Code.
conduct of any proceedings in the settlement of any claim,
and the insured shall give all such information and 749
assistance as the Company may require. If the Company VOL. 185, MAY 28, 749
shall make any payment in settlement of any claim, and
1990
such payment includes any amount not covered by this
Policy, the Insured shall repay the Company the amount Perla Compania de Seguros,
not so covered. Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
In like manner, we rule as valid and binding upon
We have ruled in Stokes vs. Malayan Insurance Co., private respondent the condition above-qouted
Inc., that the terms of the contract constitute the
14
requiring her to secure the written permission of
measure of the insurers liability and compliance petitioner before effecting any payment in settlement
therewith is a condition precedent to the insureds of any claim against her. There is nothing
right of recovery from the insurer. In the case at bar, unreasonable, arbitrary or objectionable in this
the insurance policy clearly and categorically placed
stipulation as would warrant its nullification. The parties finds application in the present case. Thus, it
17
same was obviously designed to safeguard the was error on the part of the trial and appellate courts
insurers interest against collusion between the to have disregarded the stipulations of the parties and
insured and the claimants. to have substituted their own interpretation of the
In her cross-examination before the trial court, insurance policy. In Phil. American General Insurance
Milagros Cayas admitted, thus: Co., Inc. vs. Mutuc, we ruled that contracts which are
18