ANSELMO SERAFIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NICANDRO FILART AND JOSE CHUA, DEFENDANT, PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
QUIJANO-PADILLA, J.:
The Antecedent Facts
Plaintiff-appellee Anselmo Serafin is a tailor by profession managing two [2] tailoring shops at Carmen, Cebu[2]. On July 16, 1993 he went to Cebu City in order to purchase cloth which he would be using for his business. After he was done with his transaction, he went to the public transportation terminal between Legaspi and Jakosalem Streets in order to get a ride home to Carmen. When he reached the terminal, he boarded the mini bus on queue owned by his neighbor Nicandro Filart that was being driven by Jose Chua. He was able to find a seat on the left portion of the vehicle, three passengers away from the rear thereof.[3]
By reason of the slow moving traffic on that day, Anselmo Serafin fell asleep during the travel and was only awakened when the mini bus collided with a tricycle causing injuries on his left elbow. The collision happened at Cabahug Street, Jagobiao, Mandaue City. He immediately went to Consolacion Police Station, reported the incident and proceeded to a clinic for the treatment of his injuries.[4]
Since the clinic was not properly equipped to treat his injuries, he went to Chong Hua Hospital. He was confined for five [5] days therein and stainless steel was placed inside his hand[5] in order to correct and align the fracture he sustained during the accident. After his discharge from the hospital, his left hand was still immobile for about six [6] months making it difficult for him to practice his profession. Considering that he spent P30,000.00 for his hospitalization, he asked Nicandro Filart to help defray his expenses by contributing P10,000.00, but he was refused by the former saying he had no money.[6]
Hence, on September 15, 1995, he instituted a complaint for Damages with application for Writ of Preliminary Attachment against Nicandro Filart and the latter’s insurer Perla Compania De Seguros, Inc. [PERLACOMSE], herein defendant-appellant. The ground relied upon in his application for writ of attachment was that Nicandro Filart intimated to him that he will be selling his mini bus.
His application for writ of attachment was denied by the RTC because his allegations were mere recitals of the grounds for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment enumerated under Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court[7]. His Motion for Reconsideration[8] was likewise denied[9] by the RTC stating that the debtors inability to pay, is not necessarily synonymous with fraudulent intent not to honor an admitted obligation that will justify the issuance of a writ of attachment.
Thereafter, PERLACOMSE in its answer averred that Anselmo Serafin had no cause of action against it on the premise that the contract of insurance is one where when the insured is not liable, the insurer is likewise not liable. Even if the insured is liable, its liability is limited and is subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance.[10]
Nicandro Filart on the other hand alleged that on July 16, 1993 at around 7:30 o’clock in the evening, his driver Jose Chua was driving his mini bus loaded with passengers going to Carmen. Before reaching Jagobiao, Mandaue City, his driver saw Anselmo Serafin flagging him but since the mini bus was full of passengers already and for fear of incurring a traffic violation he did not stop to pick-up the latter.
Since the flow of traffic was slow moving, unknown to Jose Chua, Anselmo Serafin snuck in to get a ride by holding on to the metal bars on the left rear portion of the vehicle, exposing himself to the perils of travel.
Since Anselmo took a ride on his mini bus without the consent of his driver, he is therefore not a passenger within the meaning and context of the law. Nicandro Filart asserts that he exercised due diligence in the selection of his driver and he supervised the same with utmost diligence of a very cautious person with due regard for all circumstances. Apart from that, the mini bus was regularly and properly maintained being a mechanic by profession he did not allow his mini bus to travel without personally checking and inspecting the same.[11]
Defendant Jose Chua was served summons and copy of the complaint on February 20, 1994, but he did not tender any answer.[12] However, no order of default was issued.
After Anselmo Serafin has concluded his testimony, he offered for admission Exhibits “A” to “Q”[13] with all their sub-markings which were all admitted[14] by the court a quo over the objection of PERLACOMSE[15] and Nicandro Filart.[16]
During the course of the trial, PERLACOMSE asked to be dropped as a party defendant because Anselmo Serafin has already claimed and received P5,000.00 from them under the “no fault clause” of the insurance. Thus, upon full payment thereon it has already done its part in accordance with the insurance policy taken by Nicandro Filart.[17] The court a quo denied[18] the motion of PERLACOMSE stating that the payment made by the latter is mandated by law particularly Section 378 of the Insurance Code and the same shall not be construed as a final settlement of the entire claim.
Defendant Filart formally offered Exhibit “1[19]” with its sub-markings.
Thereafter the court a quo rendered a decision against the defendants. The dispositive portion of the decision, reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered this Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the latter jointly, solidarily (sic) and severally liable to pay plaintiff the following:
1.P30,000.00 for medical/hospitalization expenses;
2. P20,000.00 moral damages;
3. P20,000.00 for exemplary damages;
4. P5,000.00 litigation expenses and
5. P10,000.00 attorney’s fees.SO ORDERED.”[20]
Both defendants appealed the decision before Us. Since Nicandro Filart failed to submit proof of payment of the docket fees, his appeal was dismissed per Resolution[21] dated January 31, 2012.
PERLACOMSE in support of its appeal raised the following assignment of errors, to wit:
“I. IN FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE ANSELMO SERAFIN WAS A PASSENGER OF THE VEHICLE DRIVEN BY DEFENDANT JOSE CHUA, WHEN IT MET A VEHICULAR ACCIDENT AT JAGOBIAO, MANDAUE CITY, ON JULY 16, 1993, AT ABOUT 7:45 P.M. IT IS CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE; AND
II. IN HOLDING OR DECLARING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PERLACOMSE JOINTLY, SOLIDARILY (sic) AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH DEFENDANTS NICANDRO FILART AND JOSE CHUA TO PAY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE ANSELMO SERAFIN’S CLAIMS FOR MEDICAL/HOSPITALIZATION EXPENSES, MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, LITIGATION EXPENSES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES.”[22]
The only question left for Our determination is the liability of the insurer, PERLACOMSE. The non-perfection of the appeal by Nicandro Filart puts to rest any question of the court a quo‘s finding of his negligence along with the status of Anselmo Serafin as a bona fide passenger of the former’s mini bus.
PERLACOMSE asserts that the court a quo made a mistake in holding them solidarily liable with Nicandro Filart since the contract of insurance was only between it and the latter with the delineated terms and conditions. The insurance was only for passenger and third party liabilities. On third party liability, PERLACOMSE set the limit at P20,000.00 and for the passenger liability at P12,000.00 per person; and at P40,000.00 per accident.[23]
We agree.
A solidary or joint and several obligation is one in which each debtor is liable for the entire obligation, and each creditor is entitled to demand the whole obligation. In a joint obligation, each obligor answers only for a part of the whole liability and to each obligee belongs only a part of the correlative rights. Well-entrenched is the rule that solidary obligation cannot lightly be inferred. There is solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, when the law so provides or when the nature of the obligation so requires.[24]
It is settled that where the insurance contract provides for indemnity against liability to third persons, the liability of the insurer is direct and such third persons can directly sue the insurer. The direct liability of the insurer under indemnity contracts against third party liability does not mean, however, that the insurer can be held solidarily liable with the insured and/or the other parties found at fault, since they are being held liable under different obligations. The liability of the insured carrier or vehicle owner is based on tort, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code; while that of the insurer arises from contract, particularly, the insurance policy. The third-party liability of the insurer is only up to the extent of the insurance policy and that required by law; and it cannot be held solidarily liable for anything beyond that amount. Any award beyond the insurance coverage would already be the sole liability of the insured and/or the other parties at fault.[25]
However, even if We agree that PERLACOMSE is not solidarily liable with Nicandro Filart, the same does not entail that it is without obligation.
In the instant case, while PERLACOMSE admits that it insured Nicandro Filart, it insisted that its liability is limited under the “no fault clause” which indemnifies the claimant the amount of P5,000.00. As the party asserting its limited liability, PERLACOMSE then has the burden of evidence to establish its claim. In civil cases, the party that alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to prove its claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. Regrettably, PERLACOMSE failed to discharge this burden. The Court cannot rely on mere allegations of limited liability without proof.[26]
The failure of respondent PERLACOMSE to present the insurance policy which, understandably, is not in Anselmo Serafin’s possession, but in the custody and absolute control of PERLACOMSE as the insurer and/or Nicandro Filart as the insured gives rise to the presumption that its presentation is prejudicial to the cause of PERLACOMSE. When the evidence tends to prove a material fact which imposes a liability on a party, and he has it in his power to produce evidence which, from its very nature, must overthrow the case made against him if it is not founded on fact, and he refuses to produce such evidence, the presumption arises that the evidence, if produced, would operate to his prejudice and support the case of his adversary.[27]
PERLACOMSE had all the opportunity to prove before the court a quo that its liability under the insurance policy it issued to Nicandro Filart, was limited; yet, it failed to do so. Moreover, its unsubstantiated allegations regarding the limit of insurance which were not previously ventilated cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[28] The failure of PERLACOMSE to rebut that which would have naturally invited an immediate, pervasive, and stiff opposition from it created an adverse inference that either the controverting evidence to be presented by PERLACOMSE would only prejudice its case, or that the uncontroverted evidence of Anselmo Serafin indeed speaks of the truth.[29]
Contradictory to the allegations of PERLACOMSE, upon perusal of the Cash Voucher it offered as its Exhibit “1”, showed that Policy No. 60CC-CB-04759 was taken with Nicandro Filart as the assured and the insured amount is P40,000.00.[30] Otherwise put, PERLACOMSE insured Nicandro Filart in the amount of P40,000.00 and not just for the amount of P5,000.00 under the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance.
As already discussed, since the liability of PERLACOMSE arose from the insurance policy and as differentiated with the liability of Nicandro Filart which was based on the contract of carriage, the former could be held liable to the amount it undertook to insure the latter. As admitted, Anselmo Serafin already received the amount of P5,000.00 under the no-fault clause, PERLACOMSE should be held liable in the amount of P35,000.00 only. Any amount in excess of the coverage can be claimed by Anselmo Serafin from the insured Nicandro Filart.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated July 22, 2005 by the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 23, Cebu City in Civil Case No. CEB-14592 for Damages with Application for Writ of Preliminary Attachment is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
PERLACOMSE is liable up to P35,000.00 only.
SO ORDERED.
Ingles,* and Azcarraga-Jacob, JJ., concur.
* J. Hernando, Per Office Order No. 14-14-GTI, June 26, 2014.
[1] Records, pp. 130-134, penned by the Honorable Judge Generosa G. Labra.
[2] TSN, November 3, 1994, p. 4.
[3] TSN, November 3, 1994, p. 2.
[4] TSN, August 15, 1994, p. 15.
[5] Records, p. 2.
[6] TSN, September 2, 1994, pp. 13-14.
[7] Records, p. 8.
[8] Records, p. 10.
[9] Records, p. 12.
[10] Records, pp. 15-17.
[11] Records, p. 21.
[12] Records, p. 13.
[13] Exhibits Folder, pp. 1-2.
“B”- Medical Certificate;
“C-H”- Chong Hua Receipts;
“I-J”- Receipts of the Professional Fees of Doctors;
“K-L”- Receipts of Payment to Chong Hua Hospital; and
“Q”- Various Medical Receipts
[14] Records, p. 90.
[15] Records, pp. 86-87.
[16] Records, pp. 88-89.
[17] Records, pp. 68-70.
[18] Records, p. 78.
[19] Records, pp. 108-109.
[20] Records, p. 134.
[21] Rollo, pp. 28-29.
[22] Rollo, p. 38.
[23] Rollo, p. 44.
[24] The Heirs of George Y. Poe v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 156302, April 7, 2009.
[25] The Heirs of George Y. Poe v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 156302, April 7, 2009.
[26] The Heirs of George Y. Poe v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 156302, April 7, 2009.
[27] The Heirs of George Y. Poe v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 156302, April 7, 2009.
[28] Polanco, et al. v. Cruz, G.R. No. 182426, February 13, 2009.
[29] The Heirs of George Y. Poe v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 156302, April 7, 2009.
[30] Exhibits Folder, p. 23.