GR 82036; (May, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 82036 May 22, 1997
TRAVELLERS INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and VICENTE MENDOZA, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Vicente Mendoza, Jr. filed an action for damages arising from the death of his mother, Feliza Vineza de Mendoza, who was fatally struck by a speeding Lady Love taxicab while walking to church. The evidence established that the taxicab, driven recklessly by Rodrigo Dumlao and owned by Armando Abellon, fled the scene. Eyewitnesses identified the vehicle by its distinct features and plate number. Dumlao was later convicted in a related criminal case but became a fugitive. Mendoza amended his complaint to include petitioner Travellers Insurance & Surety Corporation as the alleged compulsory insurer of the taxicab under a third-party liability policy. The trial court ruled in favor of Mendoza, holding all defendants jointly and severally liable, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether Travellers Insurance can be held liable as the compulsory insurer of the offending vehicle, given the petitioner’s denial of issuing such a policy and the private respondent’s alleged failure to comply with the condition precedent of filing a written claim.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed the complaint against Travellers Insurance. The Court held that the petitioner’s liability, if any, is contractual and premised on the existence of a valid insurance policy. The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish the policy’s existence and its terms. The Court found that private respondent failed to substantiate the issuance of Certificate of Cover No. 1447785-3, as no copy of the policy was formally offered in evidence. Furthermore, even assuming a policy existed, the claimant failed to comply with a mandatory condition under Section 384 of the Insurance Code, which requires a written claim to be filed with the insurer. The cause of action against an insurer accrues only upon its refusal to pay the claim. Since no written claim was proven to have been filed and subsequently rejected by Travellers, no cause of action had accrued against it. The Court emphasized that compliance with such procedural conditions in an insurance contract is a prerequisite to liability, and failure to comply results in a waiver of the right to claim against the insurer. Therefore, the petitioner could not be held jointly and severally liable with the driver and the vehicle owner.