GR L 23491; (July, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23491 July 31, 1968
TAURUS TAXI CO., INC., FELICITAS V. MONJE, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. THE CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Alfredo Monje, a taxi driver employed by Taurus Taxi Co., Inc., died in a collision on December 6, 1962. At the time, a Commercial Vehicle Comprehensive Policy issued by The Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. to Taurus Taxi was in force, insuring each passenger, including the driver, for P5,000.00. An endorsement to the policy stated the company would indemnify any authorized driver provided such driver “is not entitled to indemnity under any other policy.” The heirs of Alfredo Monje (his widow and children) and Taurus Taxi demanded payment under this policy. The defendant insurer refused to pay, arguing that the deceased driver had received workmen’s compensation from another insurance policy (Ed. A. Keller Co., Ltd.) issued to Taurus Taxi, thus triggering the “other policy” exclusion clause. The lower court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and ordered the defendant to pay the sum of P5,000.00 with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.
ISSUE
Whether the payment of workmen’s compensation benefits to the heirs of the deceased driver under a separate insurance policy bars their recovery of indemnity under the comprehensive vehicle insurance policy which contains a clause excluding drivers entitled to indemnity “under any other policy.”
RULING
No. The payment of workmen’s compensation does not constitute “indemnity under any other policy” as contemplated by the exclusion clause in the insurance contract. Workmen’s compensation is a statutory benefit required by law, not a contractual indemnity. The obligation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is distinct from the contractual obligation to indemnify under the insurance policy. Therefore, the defendant-appellant insurer is not released from its liability to pay the P5,000.00 indemnity. Furthermore, any ambiguity in the insurance policy must be construed strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured. The lower court’s decision was affirmed.