Insurance Case Digest: CCC Insurance Corp. v. CA (1970)

G.R. No. L-25920 January 30, 1970

Lessons Applicable: Motor vehicle liability insurance - "Authoried Driver Clause" (Insurance)

Laws Applicable: 

FACTS:

• Carlos F. Robes insured with the CCC Insurance Corporation his Dodge Kingsway car against loss or damage through accident for an amount not exceeding P8,000
• June 25 1961: Carlos' driver Domingo Reyes met a vehicular collision along Rizal Avenue Extension, Potrero, Malabon, Rizal
• Ccc Insurance Corporation denied his claim reasoning that the driver was not an "authorized driver"
• Reyes, who cannot read and write, who has never passed any examination for drivers, and has not applied for a license from the duly constituted government agency entrusted with the duty of licensing drivers, cannot be considered an authorized driver
• AUTHORIZED DRIVER:
 Any of the following: 
(a) The insured;
(b)    Any person driving on the Insured's order or with his permission, provided that the person driving is permitted in accordance with licensing laws or regulations to drive the motor vehicle covered by this Policy, or has been so permitted and is not disqualified by order of a court of law or by reason of any enactment or regulation from driving such Motor Vehicle. 
• RTC: favored Robes and CCC was order to pay

ISSUE: W/N Domingo Reyes was an authorized driver

HELD: YES. CA affirmed

• Court of Appeals found that the driver's license No. 271703 DP was genuine
• Domingo Reyes is in possession of a driver's license issued by the Motor Vehicles Office which on its face appears to have been regularly issued
• Neither Gloria Presa nor the officer-in-charge Marciano A. Monzon was placed on the witness stand to be examined in order to determine whether said license is indeed void
• Section 24 of the Revised Motor Vehicles Law, Act 3992 of the Philippine Legislature, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 587, 1204 and 2863,1
  
  
  An examination or demonstration to show any applicant's ability to operate motor vehicles may also be required in the discretion of the Chief, Motor Vehicles Office or his deputies.
• Section 26 of the Act prescribes further:
  
  
  SEC. 26.    Issuance of chauffeur's license; professional badge: If, after examination, or without the same, the Chief, Motor Vehicles Office or his deputies, believe the applicant to possess the necessary qualifications and knowledge, they shall issue to such applicant a license to operate as chauffeur ... 
• There is no proof that the owner of the automobile knew that the circumstance surrounding such issuance showed that it was irregular
• the weight of authority is in favor of a liberal interpretation of the insurance policy for the benefit of the party insured, and strictly against the insurer 

Insurance Case Digest: Malayan Insurance Co, Inc. v CA (1986)

G.R. No. L-59919 November 26, 1986

Lessons Applicable: Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance - Authorized Driver Cause (Insurance)

Laws Applicable: 

FACTS:

• Aurelio Lacson ,owner of a Toyota NP Land Cruiser, Model 1972, bearing Plate No. NY-362 and with engine Number F-374325 insured with Malayan Insurance Co
• Dec. 1, 1975: Aurelio brought it to the shop of Carlos Jamelo for repair
• Dec. 2, 1975: Rogelio Mahinay, together with Johnny Mahinay, Rogelio Macapagong and Rogelio Francisco took and drove the Toyota Land Cruiser and it met an accident with Bo
• Carlos reported the incident to the police and instituted a criminal case for Qualified Theft against his employees
• Rogelio Mahinay pleaded guilty and was convicted of theft
• Aurelio was not allowed to claim on the ground that the claim is not covered by the policy inasmuch as the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of the accident was not a duly licensed driver
• Trial Court: favored Aurelio
• CA: Affirmed

ISSUE: W/N the taking of the vehicle by another person without permission or authority from the owner or person-in-charge thereof is sufficient to place it within the ambit of the word theft in the policy

HELD: YES.

• The damages therefore were sustained in the course of the unlawful taking
• Bacolod IFCs interest in the insured vehicle was in the amount of P2,000.00 only compared to plaintiff's P26,000.00 it is well to presume that Bacolod IFC did not deem it wise to be impleaded as party-plaintiff in this case. This inaction on the part of BIFC will only show that it was not really interested to intervene.