January 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 196576 : January 30, 2012]
NAPOLEON M. CRUZ v. SPOUSES MARIANO BASISTER AND ANA BASISTER, AND IRENE ALEJANDRO
lt;div align="justify">Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 30 January 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw
G.R. No. 196576 (Napoleon M. Cruz v. Spouses Mariano Basister and Ana Basister, and Irene Alejandro) - For the Court's consideration is the Motion for Reconsideration dated 12 December 2011 filed by petitioner, moving for the reconsideration of this Court's Resolution dated 12 October 2011. This Resolution denied his Petition dated 26 May 2011 for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA).
In the instant Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner insists that he is not liable for temperate damages for the pecuniary loss sustained by respondents spouses Mariano Basister and Ana Basister (Sps. Basister) on account of the Compromise Agreement executed between them and his insurer, Paramount General Insurance Corporation (Paramount Insurance), as well as the withdrawal of the case against his co-defendant Wilfredo Bechayda (Bechayda). He maintains that this Compromise Agreement and the withdrawal of the case against Bechayda released him from any obligation. His argument is anchored on the assertion that Article 1217 of the Civil Code on the payment of one of solidary debtors is applicable to the case at bar. These contentions cannot be sustained.
In Malayan Insurance v. CA [248 Phil. 1, 8-9 (1988)], this Court distinguished the liability of the insurer from that of the insured in cases based on tort, to wit:
While it is true that where the insurance contract provides for indemnity against liability to third persons, such third persons can directly sue the insurer, however, the direct liability of the insurer 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 contract; that of the insured is based on tort.
In the case at bar, petitioner as insurer of Sio Choy, is liable to respondent Vallejos, but it cannot, as incorrectly held by the trial court, be made "solidarily" liable with the two principal tortfeasors namely respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. For if petitioner-insurer were solidarily liable with said two (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.
In solidary obligation, the creditor may enforce the entire obligation against one of the solidary debtors. On the other hand, insurance is defined as "a contract whereby one undertakes for a consideration to indemnify another against loss, damage, or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event."
In the case at bar, the trial court held petitioner together with respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mills Inc. solidarily liable to respondent Vallejos for a total amount of P29,103.00, with the qualification that petitioner's liability is only up to P20,000.00. In the context of a solidary obligation, petitioner may be compelled by respondent Vallejos to pay the entire obligation of P29,013.00, notwithstanding the qualification made by the trial court. But, how can petitioner be obliged to pay the entire obligation when the amount stated in its insurance policy with respondent Sio Choy for indemnity against third party liability is only P20,000.00? Moreover, the qualification made in the decision of the trial court to the effect that petitioner is sentenced to pay up to P20,000.00 only when the obligation to pay P29,103.00 is made solidary, is an evident breach of the concept of a solidary obligation. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear from the above discussion that petitioner can still be held liable even after the payment made by Paramount Insurance. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that the Compromise Agreement covered only property damage, and did not include the other claims, such as loss of earnings.
Finally, there is no reason to reverse the finding of the CA with regard to the award of temperate or moderate damages, which "may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with certainty." [Spouses Hernandez v. Spouses Dolor, 479 Phil. 593, 604 (2004)]cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The 27 November 2009 Decision and 31 March 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED with FINALITY. No further pleadings shall be allowed. (Brion, J., on leave under the Court's Wellness Program on January 16-30, 2012; Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated acting member per S.O. No. 1174 dated 9 January 2012; Reyes, J., no part for being the ponente of the assailed CA decision; Peralta, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated 5 October 2011)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court