063 Coquia v Fieldmen's Insurance

GR No. L-23276, Nov. 29, 1968

Ponente: Concepcion
Topic: The Policy
Author: Keith Meridores
Link:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1968/nov1968/gr_l
-23276_1968.html
FACTS:
1. Manila Yellow Taxicab was insured by Fieldmen's Insurance. The latter issued a Common Carrier Accident
Insurance Policy.
2. In 1962, one of the taxicabs of Manila Yellow met an accident in Pangasinan. It's driver Coquia (petitioner's
son) died.
3. The petitioner filed a complaint against Fieldmen's to collect in the CFI of Manila.
4. CFI of Manila: Fieldmen's must pay 4,000 plus costs.
5. An appeal was taken by Fieldmen's to the CA.
5.1. 1st defense: Coquia has no contractual relation with Fieldmen's
5.2. 2nd defense: Yellow Taxicab has not complied with the provisions of the policy concerning arbitration.
6. CA: matters are purely question of law. Certified it to the SC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Fieldmen's is liable to pay?

HELD:
Yes. The 2 defenses do not hold.
RATIO:
1st Defense of Fieldmen's: no contractual relations

1. This is incorrect. Yes, as a rule, if you do not have contractual relations,you cannot bring suit, but if there is
a stipulation pour autrui (like in this case) you can.
2. The stipulation pour autrui in this case: Yellow Taxicab has insurance contract with Fieldmen's in favor of
its drivers. (See Art. 1311 of the NCC)
3. Further in their policy, it states that:

"3.In terms of and subject to the limitations of and for the purposes of this Section, the Company will indemnify
any authorized Driver who is driving the Motor Vehicle...."

"8.The Company may, at its option, make indemnity payable directly to the claimants or heirs of claimants,
with or without securing the consent of or prior notification to the Insured, it being the true intention of this
Policy to protect, to the extent herein specified and subject always to the Terms Of this Policy, the liabilities of
the Insured towards the passengers of the Motor Vehicle and the Public."

4. Pursuant to these stipulations, the Company "will indemnify any authorized Driver who is driving the Motor
Vehicle" of the Insured and, in the event of death of said driver, the Company shall, likewise, "indemnify his
personal representatives." In fact, the Company "may, at its option, make indemnity payable directly to the
claimants or heirs of claimants ... it being the true intention of this Policy to protect ... the liabilities of the
Insured towards the passengers of the Motor Vehicle and the Public" in other words, third parties.

2nd Defense of Fieldmen's: non-compliance with policy on arbitration

1. The record shows that none of the parties to the contract invoked the section in the policy on arbitration , or
made any reference to arbitration, during the negotiations preceding the institution of the present case. In fact,
counsel for both parties stipulated, in the trial court, that none of them had, at any time during said
negotiations, even suggested the settlement of the issue between them by arbitration, as provided in said
section.
1.1 Their aforementioned acts or omissions had the effect of a waiver of their respective right to demand an
arbitration. (Kahnweiler vs. Phenix Ins. Co. of Brooklyn)
1.2 ... having proceeded throughout the entire course of their dealings with each other in entire disregard of
the provision of the contract regarding the mode of determining by arbitration the value of the extras, thereby
waived such provision. (St. Louis County vs. A. Hedenberg & Co., Inc.)

DOCTRINE
No specific doctrine. What this case highlights is the importance of what is contained in the policy.

SEPARATE OPINION:

-none-