G.R. No. 223134, August 14, 2019
VICENTE G. HENSON, JR., PETITIONER, VS. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

On May 9, 2006, a water leak in a building owned by petitioner Vicente Henson, Jr. damaged equipment belonging to tenant Copylandia. Copylandia’s insurer, respondent UCPB General Insurance Co., indemnified Copylandia on November 2, 2006, and was subrogated to its rights. Respondent filed a complaint for damages against the other tenant, NASCL, on May 20, 2010. Years later, on April 21, 2014, respondent sought to amend its complaint to implead Henson as a defendant, arguing he was the negligent building owner at the time of the leak.
Henson opposed his inclusion, contending the action had prescribed. He argued respondent’s cause of action was based on quasi-delict, which prescribes in four years from the tortious act on May 9, 2006. Thus, the attempt to sue him in 2014 was time-barred. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals ruled for respondent, holding the prescriptive period was ten years based on an obligation created by law (subrogation), starting from the date of indemnification on November 2, 2006.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent’s claim against petitioner has prescribed.

RULING

The Supreme Court, in a Decision penned by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, ruled that the claim had NOT prescribed. The Court clarified that the applicable prescriptive period depends on the nature of the action filed by the subrogee insurer. An insurer’s subrogatory action is not automatically classified as a quasi-delict; it is governed by the same prescriptive period applicable to the original cause of action it substitutes. Here, respondent’s complaint alleged negligence against the building owner, a cause of action sounding in quasi-delict. Consequently, the four-year prescriptive period under Article 1146 of the Civil Code applies.
However, the prescriptive period for a quasi-delict is four years from the day the cause of action accrues. For an insurer-subrogee, the cause of action accrues, and the prescriptive period begins to run, only upon payment of the insurance claim to the insured. This is because the insurer’s right to sue arises solely from that payment. Respondent paid Copylandia on November 2, 2006, and filed its original complaint against other parties on May 20, 2010, well within the four-year period. The subsequent amendment to include Honson on April 21, 2014, related back to the timely filing of the original complaint. Therefore, the action against petitioner was not barred by prescription. The assailed CA Decision was affirmed.