20. Manila Mahogany vs.

CA (1987)

Facts: Petitioner insured its Mercedes Benz 4-door sedan with respondent insurance company.
The insured vehicle was bumped and damaged by a truck owned by San Miguel Corporation. For
the damage caused, respondent company paid petitioner P5,000.00 in amicable settlement.
Petitioner’s general manager executed a Release of Claim, subrogating respondent company to
all its right of action against San Miguel Corporation. Respondent company wrote to the Insurer
Adjusters, Inc. to demand reimbursements from San Miguel Corporation of the amount it had
paid the petitioner. Insurer Adjusters, Inc. refused reimbursement alleging that San Miguel
Corporation had already paid petitioner P4,500.00 for the damages to petitioner’s motor vehicle,
as evidenced by a cash voucher and Release of Claim executed by the General Manager of the
petitioner discharging San Miguel Corporation from “all actions, claims, demands the right of
action that now exist or hereafter develop arising out of or as a consequence of the accident”.
Respondent insurance company thus demanded from petitioner reimbursement of the sum of
P4,500.00 paid by San Miguel Corporation. The petitioner refused.

Issue: Whether the insurer is entitled to recover from the insured the amount of insurance money
paid?

Ruling: Although petitioner’s right to file a deficiency claim against San Miguel Corporation is
with legal basis, without prejudice to the insurer’s right of subrogation, the compromise
agreement of P5,000.00 being based on the insurance policy, the insurer is entitled to recover
from the insured the amount of insurance money paid, since petitioner by its own acts released
San Miguel Corporation, thereby defeating private respondent’s right of subrogation. The right
of action of petitioner against the insurer was also nullified.

Private respondent may recover the sum of P5,000.00 it had earlier paid to the petitioner. As held
in Philippine Air Lines vs. Heald Lumber Co., if a property is insured and the owner receives the
indemnity from the insurer, it is provided in Art. 2207 of the New Civil Code that the insurer is
deemed subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer and if the amount paid by
the insurer does not fully cover the loss, then the aggrieved party is the one entitled to recover
the deficiency. Under this legal provision, the real party in interest with regard to the portion of
the indemnity paid is the insurer and not the insured. The right of subrogation can only exist after
the insurer has paid the insured, otherwise the insured will be deprived of his right to full
indemnity. If the insurance proceeds are not sufficient to cover the damages suffered by the
insured, then he may sue the party responsible for the damage for the remainder, to the extent of
the amount he has already received from the insurer. The insurer enjoys the right of subrogation.
Since the insurer can be subrogated to only such rights as the insured may have, should the
insured, after receiving payment from the insurer release the wrongdoer who caused the loss, the
insurer loses his rights against the latter. But in such a case, the insurer will be entitled to recover
from the insured whatever it has paid to the latter, unless the release was made with the consent
of the insurer.

Main point: Since the insurer can be subrogated to only such rights as the insured may have,
should the insured, after receiving payment from the insurer release the wrongdoer who caused
the loss, the insurer loses his rights against the latter.