Scribd
Upload
111 views2 pages

Vda de Maglana vs. Consolacion

Lope Maglana died after his motorcycle was bumped by a jeepney driven by Pepito Into and owned by defendant Destrajo. [1] Maglana's heirs filed a case against Destrajo and insurance company AFISCO for damages. [2] The lower court found Destrajo liable and ordered AFISCO to reimburse Destrajo up to its insurance limit, showing secondary liability. [3] The Supreme Court then ruled that while AFISCO is directly liable up to its insurance limit, it cannot be solidarily liable with Destrajo for the entire obligation as their liabilities come from different sources.

Uploaded by

HABUYO, SARAH MAE L.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
111 views2 pages

Vda de Maglana vs. Consolacion

Lope Maglana died after his motorcycle was bumped by a jeepney driven by Pepito Into and owned by defendant Destrajo. [1] Maglana's heirs filed a case against Destrajo and insurance company AFISCO for damages. [2] The lower court found Destrajo liable and ordered AFISCO to reimburse Destrajo up to its insurance limit, showing secondary liability. [3] The Supreme Court then ruled that while AFISCO is directly liable up to its insurance limit, it cannot be solidarily liable with Destrajo for the entire obligation as their liabilities come from different sources.

Uploaded by

HABUYO, SARAH MAE L.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Figuracion Vda. De Maglana v. Hon.

Francisco Consolacion

G.R. No. 60506, 6 August 1992, 212 SCRA 268

Facts:

Lope Maglana while driving his motorcycle, was bumped by a PUJ jeep which was driven by
Pepito Into and was operated and owned by defendant Destrajo.

Maglana died and his heirs filed an action against Destrajo and the Afisco Insurance Corporation
(AFISCO) for damages and attorney’s fees.

The lower court rendered a decision finding that Destrajo had not exercised extraordinary
diligence as the operator of the jeepney ordered him to pay for the damages and also ordered
AFISCO to reimburse Destrajo whatever amounts the latter shall have paid only up to the extent
of its insurance coverage, signifying only secondary liability.

The heirs however, filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to the said second paragraph
arguing that AFISCO should not merely be held secondarily liable because the Insurance Code
provides that the insurer’s liability is “direct and primary and/or jointly and severally with the
operator of the vehicle”, although only up to the extent of the insurance coverage.

Issue: Whether or not AFISCO’s liability is direct and primary and/or solidary with Destrajo?

Ruling: No. While in solidary obligations, the creditor may enforce the entire obligation against
one of the solidary debtors, in an insurance contract, the insurer undertakes for a consideration to
indemnify the insured against loss, damage or liability arising from an unknown or contingent
event. Petitioner under the insurance contract is liable only up to P20,000.00, cannot be made
solidarily liable with the insured for the entire obligation of P29,013.00 otherwise there would
result "an evident breach of the concept of solidary obligation." Although the insurance policy
clearly provides that AFISCO can be held directly liable by petitioners on the basis of the
insurance contract, nonetheless, AFISCO may not be held solidarily liable with Destrajo since
their respective liabilities are based on different grounds. The liability of the insurer is based on
contract; that of the insured is based on tort. As such, petitioners have the option either to claim
from AFISCO to the extent agreed upon in the contract and the balance from Destrajo or enforce
the entire judgment from Destrajo subject to reimbursement from AFISCO to the extent of the
insurance coverage.
Maglana vs. Consolacion

(Maglana driving his motorcycle)

Maglana : The weather is fine today and I’m early for work.

(Loud thud, a jeepney crashed Maglana’s motorcycle)

(Maglana dies)

Rowena Maglana : We should file a case against that jeepney operator and the insurance
company. My husband’s dead because of them!

(Maglana’s heirs filed an action for damages and attorney's fees against operator Destrajo and the
Afisco Insurance Corporation (AFISCO)

(PUJ driver Into was sentence to imprisonment)

(Destrajo was ordered to pay for the loss of income of the deceased Maglana)

(Destrajo appealed contending that AFISCO should not merely be held secondarily liable
because the Insurance Code provides that the insurer's liability is "direct and primary and/or
jointly and severally with the operator of the vehicle, although only up to the extent of the
insurance coverage)

Atty. Ledesma : Mrs. Maglana , the Supreme Court has decided that the insurance contract is
liable only up to P20,000.00, cannot be made solidarily liable with the insured for the entire
obligation of P29,013.00 otherwise there would result an evident breach of the concept of
solidary obligation. What we can do is to either to claim the P15,000 from AFISCO and the
balance from Destrajo or enforce the entire judgment from Destrajo subject to reimbursement
from AFISCO to the extent of the insurance coverage.

Mrs. Maglana : Thank you Atty. Ledesma for all your help.

Atty. Ledesma: No worries Mrs. Maglana. It’s the least that I can do for your loss.

You might also like