Scribd
Upload
37 views1 page

Cruz v. Sps Basister Gr. No. 196576, January 30, 2012 Facts

This case involves a car accident where the respondent spouses executed a compromise agreement with the petitioner's insurer for property damage claims. The petitioner argued he was not liable for temperate damages since his insurer already paid under the agreement. However, the court ruled that the insurer's liability is based on the insurance contract, while the petitioner's liability is based on tort law. The agreement only covered property damage and not other claims. Therefore, the court affirmed the decision finding the petitioner liable for temperate damages.

Uploaded by

Jake Pipania Baruado
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
37 views1 page

Cruz v. Sps Basister Gr. No. 196576, January 30, 2012 Facts

This case involves a car accident where the respondent spouses executed a compromise agreement with the petitioner's insurer for property damage claims. The petitioner argued he was not liable for temperate damages since his insurer already paid under the agreement. However, the court ruled that the insurer's liability is based on the insurance contract, while the petitioner's liability is based on tort law. The agreement only covered property damage and not other claims. Therefore, the court affirmed the decision finding the petitioner liable for temperate damages.

Uploaded by

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

Cruz v.

Sps Basister
Gr. No. 196576, January 30, 2012

Facts:
✓ Respondent spouses Mariano and Ana Basister executed a Compromise Agreement with the
petitioner’s (Napoleon Cruz) insurer Paramount General Insurance Corporation.
✓ The case against his co-defendant Wilfredo Bechayda was withdrawn.
✓ The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner is liable for the award of temperate damages.
✓ Petitioner’s petition dated May 26, 2011 was denied by this court for failure to sufficiently show
any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals.
✓ Hence, an instant Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioner on December 12, 2011.
✓ Petitioner insisted that he is not liable for temperate damages for the pecuniary loss sustained by
respondent spouses on account of the Compromise Agreement executed between them and his
insurer, as well as the withdrawal of the case of Bechayda.
✓ He argued that the Compromise Agreement and the withdrawal of the case against Bechayda
released him from any obligation under Article 1217 of the Civil Code.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner Napoleon Cruz is liable for the temperate or moderate damages even
after the payment made by his insurer Paramount Insurance.
Rulings:
This court distinguished the liability of the insurer from the insured by reviewing the case of
Malayan Insurance v. CA.
“While it is true that where the insurance contract provides for indemnity against liability to third
persons, such third persons can directly sue the insurer, however, the direct liability of the insurer under
indemnity contracts against third party liability does not mean that the insurer can be held solidarily liable
with the insured and/or the other parties found at fault. The liability of the insurer is based on contract;
that of the insured is based on tort.”
It was ruled in the aforementioned case, “Petitioner as insurer of Sio Choy, is liable to respondent
Vallejos, but it cannot, … be made “solidarily” liable with the two principal tortfeasors (Sio Choy and San
Leon Rice Mill, Inc.) for if petitioner-insurer were solidarily liable with said two respondents by reason
of the indemnity contract against third party liability – under which an insurer can be directly sued
by a third party – this will result in a violation of the principles underlying solidary obligation and
insurance contracts.”
Thus, this court finds no error on the decision of CA that the Compromise Agreement covered only
property damage, and did not include the other claims, such as loss of earnings. And no reason for this court
to reverse its decision with regard to the award of temperate or moderate damages.
Petition was DENIED and the decision on November 29, 2009 and the resolution of the Court of
Appeals on March 31, 2011 are hereby AFFIRMED.

Digested by,

Ayen Barataman
1 – Arellano

You might also like