G.R. No. 140023 ; August 14, 2003
RUDY LAO, Petitioner, vs. STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rudy Lao owned two trucks insured by respondent Standard Insurance Co., Inc. While the policy for one truck was in effect, an accident occurred wherein it rear-ended the other truck, also owned by Lao, in Iloilo City. The insured truck sustained significant damage. Lao filed a claim, but the insurer denied it. The denial was based on a police blotter entry indicating that the driver of the insured truck was Leonardo Anit, whose license restriction (for vehicles not exceeding 4,500 kgs) was violated as the truck weighed more, thus breaching the policy’s “authorized driver” clause.
Lao contested this, asserting that the driver was actually Giddie Boy Coyel, who held a valid license for such a vehicle. As evidence, he presented a Motor Vehicle Accident Report prepared by the investigating officer three days after the incident, which named Coyel as the driver of the insured truck. The insurer maintained its denial based on the contemporaneous police blotter.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of the accident was an authorized driver under the insurance policy, a determination hinging on the credibility and weight of conflicting evidence: the police blotter versus the subsequent accident report.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the insurance claim but deleted the awards for exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. On the factual issue, the Court upheld the findings of the lower courts that Leonardo Anit was the driver. The police blotter, being an entry in an official record made by a public officer in the performance of his duty, constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein under Rule 130, Section 44 of the Rules of Court. This prima facie status was not successfully overturned by the petitioner.
The subsequent Motor Vehicle Accident Report, while admissible, was correctly accorded less weight by the trial court. The Court deferred to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, which found the policeman’s testimony supporting the later report to be less reliable. The insurer therefore validly denied the claim based on a breach of the policy’s “authorized driver” condition. However, the awards for exemplary damages and attorney’s fees were improper. Exemplary damages cannot be awarded in the absence of an award for moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. Furthermore, attorney’s fees were not warranted as the petitioner’s act of filing the claim was not shown to be malicious or in bad faith.