JEWEL VILLACORTA vs. THE INSURANCE COMMISSION G.R. No. L 54171

JEWEL VILLACORTA vs. THE INSURANCE COMMISSION G.R. No. L 54171.
October 28, 1980
FACTS:
 Complainant (petitioner) was the owner of a Colt Lancer , insured with
respondent company against st loss or damage to the car (a) by accidental
collision or overturning, or collision or overturning consequent upon mechanical
breakdown or consequent upon wear and tear; (b) by fire, external explosion,
self-ignition or lightning or burglary, housebreaking or theft; and (c) by malicious
act.
 The vehicle was brought to the Sunday Machine Works, Inc., for general check-
up and repairs.
 While it was in the custody of the Sunday Machine Works, the car was allegedly
taken by six (6) persons and driven out to Montalban, Rizal.
 While travelling, the car figured in an accident, hitting and bumping a gravel and
sand truck parked at the right side of the road going south.
 As a consequence, the car was damaged extensively.
 The driver, Benito Mabasa, and one of the passengers died and the other four
sustained physical injuries.
 Complainant, thereafter, filed a claim for total loss with the respondent company
but claim was denied.
Respondent’s Commission’s grounds for dismissal:
 Respondent insurance commission, however, dismissed petitioner's complaint
for recovery of the total loss of the vehicle against private respondent, sustaining
respondent insurer's contention that the accident did not fall within the provisions
of the policy either for the Own Damage or Theft coverage, invoking the policy
provision on "Authorized Driver" clause.
 Respondent commission upheld private respondent's contention on the
"Authorized Driver" clause in this wise: "It must be observed that under the
above-quoted provisions, the policy limits the use of the insured vehicle to two
(2) persons only, namely: the insured himself or any person on his (insured's)
permission. Under the second category, it is to be noted that the words "any
person' is qualified by the phrase ". . . on the insured's order or with his
permission.'
 Respondent commission likewise upheld private respondent's assertion that the
car was not stolen and therefore not covered by the Theft clause, ruling that
"(T)he element of 'taking' in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code means that
the act of depriving another of the possession and dominion of a movable thing
is coupled . . . with the intention, at the time of the 'taking', of withholding it with
the character of permanency.
ISSUE: Whether the private respondent insurance company is liable for the
damages incurred by the car.
RULING: YES.
THE FINDING OF THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION THAT MABASA WAS NOT
AN AUTHORIZED DRIVER IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT AN
INSURANCE CONTRACT IS A CONTRACT OF ADHESION
First, respondent commission's ruling that the person who drove the vehicle
in the person of Benito Mabasa, who, according to its own finding, was one
of the residents of the Sunday Machine Works, Inc. to whom the car had been
entrusted for general check-up and repairs was not an "authorized driver"
of petitioner-complainant is too restrictive and contrary to the
established principle that insurance contracts, being contracts of adhesion
where the only participation of the other party is the signing of his
signature or his "adhesion" thereto, "obviously call for greater strictness
and vigilance on the part of courts of justice with a view of protecting
the weaker party from abuse and imposition, and prevent their becoming
traps for the unwary."
THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZED DRIVER CLAUSE

The main purpose of the "authorized driver" clause, is that a person other
than the insured owner, who drives the car on the insured's order, such as
his regular driver, or with his permission, such as a friend or member of
the family or the employees of a car service or repair shop must be duly
licensed drivers and have no disqualification to drive a motor vehicle.
WHEN THE EMPLYEES OF THE SHOPOWNER USES THE CAR, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF
AUTHORIZED DRIVER CLAUSE
A car owner who entrusts his car to an established car service and repair
shop necessarily entrusts his car key to the shop owner and employees who
are presumed to have the insured's permission to drive the car for
legitimate purposes of checking or road-testing the car. The mere
happenstance that the employee(s) of the shop owner diverts the use of the
car to his own illicit or unauthorized purpose in violation of the trust
reposed in the shop by the insured car owner does not mean that the
"authorized driver" clause has been violated such as to bar recovery.
THE TAKING OF THE CAR CONSTITUTES THEFT

Secondly,(since when a car is unlawfully taken, it is the theft clause, not
the "authorized driver" clause, that applies), where a car is admittedly as
in this case unlawfully and wrongfully taken by some people, be they
employees of the car shop or not to whom it had been entrusted, without
the owner's consent or knowledge, such taking constitutes or partakes of
the nature of theft as defined under the Revised Penal Code
THE TAKING WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF JOY RIDE

The police found from the waist of the car driver Mabasa who smashed the
car and was found dead right after the incident "one Cal. 45 Colt. and one
apple type grenade," hardly the materials one would bring along on a "joy
ride". Then, again, it is equally evident that the taking proved to be
quite permanent rather than temporary, for the car was totally smashed in
the fatal accident and was never returned in serviceable and useful
condition to petitioner-owner.

JEWEL VILLACORTA vs. THE INSURANCE COMMISSION G.R. No. L 54171

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JEWEL VILLACORTA vs. THE INSURANCE COMMISSION G.R. No. L 54171

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JEWEL VILLACORTA vs. THE INSURANCE COMMISSION G.R. No. L 54171.

October 28, 1980

THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZED DRIVER CLAUSE

THE TAKING OF THE CAR CONSTITUTES THEFT

THE TAKING WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF JOY RIDE

You might also like