Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Driver and security guard were merely offered by the contractors and
assigned to Producers Bank
Producers did NOT have the power to (1) select and engage (2) pay
wages (3) dismiss or (4) control. It was the respective contractors.
CA affirmed.
provide the needed security for the money, the vehicle, and his two
other companions. The three acted as agents
REPUBLIC GLASS CORP V QUA (2004)
Republic and Gervel seeks to recover from Qua his share in the payment
they made as sureties of Ladtek.
Ladtek obtained a loan from Metrobank. Republic Glass (RGC), Gervel, and
Qua were Ladtek's sureties.
Agreement: RGC, Gervel and Qua would reimburse each other the
proportionate share on any sum that any of them might pay to the creditor
(Metrobank).
Ladtek defaulted. RGC and Gervel paid a sum of money thereby partially
paying Ladtek's obligation to Metrobank. They then wrote to Qua
demanding that he pay them. Qua refused. As a result, RGC and Gervel
foreclosed several stocks Qua owned and sold them.
HOWEVER, if we allow RGC and Gervel to collect from Qua, then Qua
would pay much more than his stipulated liability. They can recover
reimbursement from the co-debtor Qua only in so far as their payment
exceed their share in the obligation. This is not the case here. The two paid
less than their share in the obligation, therefore they cannot demand
reimbursement since their payment is actually less than their actual debt.
Issues:
1 W/N Capital Insurance may be sued by the Guingons
2 W/N Capital Insurance may be sued jointly with the Insured
Held:
Yes to both
Ratio:
Re: Capital Insurance may be sued
The policy involves insurance for third-party liability. Since the insured
is liable to the third person, such third person can sue the insurer.
1 Proposal bond: If Motor City shall become a successful bidder and 1) fails to guarantee performance of the
contract 2) refuse to accept it 3) shall not answer for any delay or default of the EXECUTION of the contact,
DAR shall be indemnified for loss or damage not to exceed 33k
DAR filed a suit for specific performance and damages v. Motor city
and co-defendant Eastern City.
Eastern argument: denied liability, the Proposal Bond was a
mere offer and not binding and pleaded by way of cross claim that
Motor City indemnify Easter whatever amount court would order it
to pay. Proposal bond to assure owner of project of the good faith
of bidder and that bidder will enter into the contract v.
performance bond which is to assure project owner that the
contractor will perform the contract and make good on damages.
TC: Motor City to deliver last unit and pay indemnity for later delivery. In
case of default, payment will be assumed by Eastern.
CA: re-affirmed but change on the date of computation for interest to
March 3, 1978.
ISSUE: WON Eastern liable for the contractual breach by Motor City? YES
HELD: Easterns liability under the Proposal Bond accured the moment
Motor failed to post the 10k performance bond, and incurred in delay and
defaulted in the repair/delivery of the 7th jeep. Delay and % of indemnity
counted from the date of last demand. Easterns liability shall NOT exceed
the amt in the Proposal Bond of 33k.
AS SURETY, EASTERN LIABLE upon happening of ANY of the
events:
1 refusal of Motor City to guarantee performance of contract.
-There was a breach of this, no performance bond of 10k was ever
posted. DAR did not waive this condition.
2 refusal of Motor City to enter into the contract
-NO, was entered into
3 to answer for any delay or default in the execution of the contract
as stated in the proposal
-Eastern argument: this pertains to the SIGNING or the conclusion
of the contract not the performance
The Proposal Bond was drafted by Eastern-contract of adhesion and any
ambiguity must be construed against Eastern.
Antonio Zaragoza sold a car to Angela Fidelino, but she failed to pay
the price in the manner stipulated in their agreement, so Zaragoza filed a
replevin suit. The car was taken from Fidelino's possession on the strength
of a writ of delivery. However, the car was returned to her when a
surety bond for the car's release was posted by Mabini Insurance.
The court ruled in favor of Zaragoza, ordering Fidelino to pay
the balance of the purchase price. Zaragoza moved for the
amendment of the decision to include Mabini Insurance as a party
solidarily liable with Fidelino, and the court granted his motion.
3
4
5
2 SEC. 10. Judgment to include recovery against sureties. The amount, if any, to be awarded to either
party upon any bond filed by the other in accordance with the provisions of this rule, shag be claimed,
ascertained, and granted under the same procedure as prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57.
3 SEC. 20. Claim for damages on account of illegal attachment. If the judgment on the action be in
favor of the party against whom attachment was issued, he may recover, upon the bond given or deposit made
by the attaching creditor, any damages resulting from the attachment. Such damages may be awarded only
upon application and after proper hearing, and shall be included in the final judgment. The application must be
filed before the trial or before appeal is perfected or before the judgment becomes executory, with due notice
to the attaching creditor and his surety or sureties, setting forth the facts showing his right to damages and the
amount thereof
properties sold were the sole means available by which Northern Motors
Inc. could enforce its claim against Macronics.
On March 1985, Leisure Club, Inc. filed a civil case against Northern Motors
Inc. for replevin and damages. It sought the recovery of certain office
furniture and equipments. The lower court ordered the delivery of subject
properties to Leisure Club Inc. subject to the posting of the requisite bond.
Accordingly, Leisure Club Inc. posted a replevin bond in the amount
of P42,000.00 issued by Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. In due
course, the lower court issued the writ of replevin, thereby enabling Leisure
Club Inc. to take possession of the disputed properties.
Northern Motors filed a counterbond for the release of the disputed
properties. However, efforts to recover these properties proved futile as
Leisure Club Inc. was never heard of again. The lower court eventually
rendered its decision in favor of Northern Motors Inc.
Northern Motors then filed a "Motion for Issuance of Writ of
Execution Against Bond of Plaintiff's Surety", which was treated by the
lower court as an application for damages against the replevin bond. The
lower court issued then issued the disputed Order finding Stronghold liable
under its surety bond for the damages awarded to Northern Motors Inc.
Petitioners Arguments
It is not a party to the case and that the decision clearly became
final and executory and, therefore, is no longer liable on the bond.
with respect to the defendant the motion against the bond was
filed before any appeal was instituted and definitely on or before
the judgment became final.
ISSUE AND HOLDING: Whether or not the Stronghold is liable under its
surety bond for the damages awarded to Northern Motors. YES
The Court found that Stronghold Insurance never denied that it issued a
replevin bond. Under the terms of the said bond, Stronghold Insurance
together with Leisure Club solidarily bound themselves for P42,000
(a) for the prosecution of the action,
(b) for the return of the property to the defendant if the return thereof be
adjudged, and
(c) for the payment of such sum as may in the cause be recovered against
the plaintiff and the costs of the action.
In the case at bar, all the necessary conditions for proceeding against the
bond are present, to wit:
(i) the plaintiff a quo, in bad faith, failed to prosecute the action, and after
relieving the property, it promptly disappeared;
(ii) the subject property disappeared with the plaintiff, despite a court
order for their return; and
(iii) a reasonable sum was adjudged to be due to respondent, by way of
actual and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit.
Northern Motors proved the damages it suffered thru evidence
presented in the hearing of the case itself and in the hearing of its motion
for execution against the replevin bond. No evidence to the contrary was
presented by Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. in its behalf.
The obligation of Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc., under the bond is
specific. It assures "the payment of such sum as may in the cause be
recovered against the plaintiff, and the costs of the action.
PETITION DENIED.
PHIL PRYCE ASSURANCE CORP VS CA
1994 || Nocon, J
Facts
Phil Pryce Assurance Corp (formerly known as Interworld Assurance
Corp) issued 2 surety bonds in behalf of its principal, Sagum General
Merchandise for P500k and P1M. The complaint for recovery of P1.5M was
filed by Gegroco Inc. Phil Pryce admitted to issuing the 2 surety bonds but
denied liability
Defense of Phil Pryce:
1 The checks which were to pay for the premiums bounced and were
dishonored hence there is no contract to speak of between
petitioner and its supposed principal;
But facts show that Phil Pryce admitted to have issued the bonds.
Leonardo Guzman, witness for Gegroco, testified that (1) Sagum
was required to submit a surety bond to guaranty payment of
spare parts it purchased from Gegroco. (2) Sagum submitted the
surety bonds which Gegroco accepted
4 process or proceedings whereby a creditor must proceed against a principal debtor before proceeding
against a surety or subsidiary debtor
As long as the liability of the surety to creditor exists, the premium remains
to be collectible from Arranz. As the loan and interest to Ylang-ylang
remains unpaid, the surety continued to be bound to the creditor & as a
corrolary its right to premiums.
PETITION DENIED
Thus, the obligation was already due and demandable for the first
installments as well as the first of the 10 equal yearly installments on the 2
contracts.
On premiums on the performance bonds
Surety company claims that RTC erred in not awarding it the amount of P7k
as premiums on performance bonds.
The premium is consideration for furnishing the bonds and the obligation to
pay subsists for as long as the liability of the surety exists.
SC agrees with Surety that UNIVERSAL should pay the P7k to Manila Surety
as it was expressly undertaken by UNIVERSAL.
Down payment of P10k by UNIVERSAL
Surety company claims RTC erred in not applying the down payment of
UNIVERSAL of P10,000 to the guaranteed indebtedness. NCC 1254 where
there is no imputation of payment made by either debtor or creditor, debt
which is most onerous to the debtor shall be deemed to have been
satisfied. P10k should be applied to the guaranteed portion of the debt,
thus releasing part of the liability (P53k P43k).
SC: Rules in NCC 1252-1254 applies to a person owing several debts of the
same kind to a single creditor. Cannot be made applicable to a person
whose obligation as a mere surety is both contingent and singular.
Obligation included the payment of not only the first installment but also of
the 10 equal yearly installments. No error was made in holding the surety
company to the full extent of its undertaking.
Pablo Sarmientos liability
He executed the indemnity agreements in both (1) capacity as acting
general manager of UNIVERSAL (2) individual capacity. He is liable.
WHEREFORE judgment affirmed with modification that UNIVERSAL should
pay Manila Surety P7k for premiums.
SHAFER v JUDGE , RTC
Sherman Shafer obtained a private car policy over his Ford Laser car
from Makati Insurance Company for third party liability (TPL). During the
effectivity of the policy, Shafer got into an accident while driving the
vehicle. He hit and bump and Volkswagen driven by Felipo Legaspi causing
Sps. Lim were justified in asking petitioner FCP to demand the unpaid
installments from Perla.
THE MAGLANAs v. JUDGE FRANCISCO CONSOLACION and AFISCO
INSURANCE
1992 / Romero
Motor vehicle insurance > Comprehensive motor vehicle liability insurance
FACTS
Bureau of Customs [BoC] employee Lope Maglana was on his way to work,
driving a BoC-owned motorcycle, when a PUJ jeep bumped him. He was
thrown from the road, and he died on the spot.
Maglanas heirs filed an action for damages against the jeepney
operator and Afisco Insurance [AFISCO]. An information for homicide thru
reckless imprudence was filed against the driver. The lower court found
that the jeepney operator did not exercised sufficient diligence. AFISCO
was ordered to reimburse whatever amounts the jeepney operator
shall have paid only up to the extent of its insurance coverage.
ARGUMENTS
MAGLANAs AFISCO should not merely be held secondarily liable.
The 20k coverage of the insurance policy issued by AFISCO should
have been awarded in their favor.
o IC: 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.
o Insurance policy provides: In the event of the death of
any person entitled to indemnity under this Policy, the
Company will, in respect of the liability incurred to such
person indemnify his personal representatives in terms of,
and subject to the terms and conditions hereof.
AFISCO Presumption: JOINT obligation, since IC does not
expressly provide for a solidary obligation
The lower court denied the Maglanas MfR. Since the insurance
contract is in the nature of suretyship, then AFISCOs liability is secondary
only up to the extent of the coverage.
Facts:
10
passenger liability and P50,000.00 as and for third party liability. On the
other hand, the vehicle in which private respondents were riding was
insured with Malayan Insurance Co.
On March 1978, the CFI judge issued an order requiring Perla to
pay immediately the P5,000.00 under the "no fault clause" as provided for
under Section 378 of the Insurance Code.
1.
2.
Petitioners Argument:
Under Sec. 378 of the Insurance Code, the insurer liable to pay the
P5,000.00 is the insurer of the vehicle in which private
respondents were riding, not petitioner, as the provision states
that "[i]n the case of an occupant of a vehicle, claim shall lie
against the insurer of the vehicle in which the occupant is riding,
mounting or dismounting from."
4.
3.
The Court finds that the law is very clear the claim shall lie
against the insurer of the vehicle in which the "occupant" ** is
riding, and no other. The claimant is not free to choose from which
insurer he will claim the "no fault indemnity," as the law, by using
the word "shall, makes it mandatory that the claim be made against
the insurer of the vehicle in which the occupant is riding, mounting or
dismounting from.
That said vehicle might not be the one that caused the
accident is of no moment since the law itself provides that the
party paying the claim under Sec. 378 may recover against the
owner of the vehicle responsible for the accident. This is precisely
the essence of "no fault indemnity" insurance which was introduced to and
made part of our laws in order to provide victims of vehicular accidents or
their heirs immediate compensation, although in a limited amount,
pending final determination of who is responsible for the accident and
liable for the victims 'injuries or death. In turn, the "no fault indemnity"
provision is part and parcel of the Insurance Code provisions on
compulsory motor vehicle ability insurance [Sec. 373-389] and should be
read together with the requirement for compulsory passenger and/or third
party liability insurance [Sec. 377] which was mandated in order to ensure
ready compensation for victims of vehicular accidents.
Irrespective of whether or not fault or negligence lies with the
driver of the Superlines bus, as private respondents were not occupants of
the bus, they cannot claim the "no fault indemnity" provided in Sec. 378
from petitioner. The claim should be made against the insurer of the
vehicle they were riding.
PETITION GRANTED. ORDER ANNULED AND SET ASIDE.
11