G.R. No. 156302 ; April 7, 2009
THE HEIRS OF GEORGE Y. POE, Petitioners, vs. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

On January 26, 1996, George Y. Poe was run over and killed by a ten-wheeler Isuzu hauler truck owned by Rhoda Santos and driven by Willie Labrador. The truck was insured with respondent Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. (MICI) under Policy No. CV-293-007446-8. The heirs of George Y. Poe (petitioners) filed a Complaint for damages against Rhoda Santos and MICI. In their Joint Answer, MICI admitted the truck was insured but stated its liability would attach only upon a judicial pronouncement that the insured and her driver were liable, and subject to policy limitations. After petitioners presented evidence, the RTC declared Rhoda Santos and MICI to have waived their right to present evidence due to their failure to do so despite several postponements. This order was upheld by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. On February 28, 2000, the RTC rendered a Decision ordering Rhoda Santos and MICI to pay jointly and solidarily various damages to petitioners. MICI and Rhoda Santos filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On January 24, 2001, the RTC issued an Order amending its Decision, dismissing the case against MICI and ordering only Rhoda Santos to pay damages. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On June 15, 2001, the RTC issued an Order reinstating its original February 28, 2000 Decision. MICI received a copy of this Order on June 27, 2001. On July 9, 2001, MICI filed a Notice of Appeal from the February 28, 2000 Decision as reinstated. Petitioners opposed the Notice of Appeal and moved for issuance of a writ of execution. On September 6, 2001, the RTC denied MICI’s Notice of Appeal and granted the motion for execution, ruling that the period to appeal had lapsed. MICI filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. On June 26, 2002, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, set aside the RTC’s September 6, 2001 Order, and directed the RTC to give due course to MICI’s Notice of Appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the 15-day period to appeal should be reckoned from MICI’s receipt of the June 15, 2001 Order reinstating the February 28, 2000 Decision, not from its receipt of the original Decision. Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the period for MICI to appeal should be reckoned from its receipt of the RTC Order dated June 15, 2001, which reinstated the original Decision dated February 28, 2000.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The period to appeal is counted from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. The RTC Order dated June 15, 2001, which granted petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration and reinstated the Decision of February 28, 2000, was a new and fresh judgment. Therefore, the 15-day reglementary period to appeal commenced from MICI’s receipt of a copy of that June 15, 2001 Order on June 27, 2001. MICI’s Notice of Appeal filed on July 9, 2001 was well within the 15-day period. The RTC thus erred in denying the Notice of Appeal and in issuing the writ of execution. The Supreme Court also addressed the substantive issue of MICI’s liability, ruling that based on the insurance policy and the provisions of the Insurance Code, MICI’s liability is not solidary with the insured tortfeasor (Rhoda Santos). MICI’s liability is based on its insurance contract and is separate from the civil liability arising from the quasi-delict. The insurance policy only obligates MICI to indemnify the insured for liability to third persons. MICI’s direct liability to the injured third party exists only under specific circumstances outlined in the Insurance Code, which were not present here. The Court modified the award of damages, deleting the awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for lack of basis, and recomputed the actual damages for loss of earning capacity.