No. L-78848 – SHERMAN SHAFER, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF OLONGAPO CITY, BRANCH 75, AND MAKATI INSURANCE COMPANY, INC, respondents.
PADILLA, J.
Rule Synopsis
Where the civil aspect of a criminal case for reckless negligence is tried with the latter, the accused may raise as a defense, insofar as his civil liability is concerned, the presence of a TPL insurer. He can implead said insurer in the criminal proceeding.
Facts
Sherman Shafer insured his car with Makati Insurance Company, Inc., for third party liability (TPL). During the policy’s effectivity, Shafer was charged with an information for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and serious physical injuries.
The owner of the other vehicle filed a separate civil action against Shafer for damages. Whereas, one Poblete, Sr., who was a passenger in the same car and was allegedly injured sought to enforce civil damages in the course of the criminal proceedings. Shafer then filed a third party complaint against Makati Insurance.
The lower court dismissed Shafer’s third party complaint saying the same was premature. In effect, it held that there is necessity for conviction first for the cause of action for the said complaint to arise. The SC reversed.
Issue
May the accused in a criminal action for reckless imprudence, where the civil action is jointly prosecuted, legally implead the insurance company as third party defendant under its private car insurance policy, as one of his modes of defense in the civil aspect of said proceedings?
Ruling and Discussion
Yes. The accused may legally implead the insurance company as third party defendant.
Where an insurance policy insures directly against liability, the insurer’s liability accrues immediately upon the occurrence of the injury or event upon which the liability depends, and does not depend on the recovery of judgment by the injured party against the insured. The injured for whom the contract of insurance is intended can sue directly the insurer.
In the event that the injured fails or refuses to include the insurer as party defendant in his claim for indemnity against the insured, the latter is not prevented by law to avail of the procedural rules intended to avoid multiplicity of suits. That is, as in this case, to implead the insurer in a third party complaint. There is no need on the part of the insured to wait for the decision of the trial court finding him guilty of reckless imprudence. The occurrence of the injury to the third party immediately gave rise to the liability of the insurer under its policy. Where the civil aspect of the criminal case is tried jointly with the latter, the accused may raise all defenses available to him.
Dispositive
Petition granted. Order set aside.