G.R. No. L-54171 – 188 Phil. 497 – 100 SCRA 467 – Criminal Law – Crimes Against Property; Special Penal Laws – Carnapping – Elements; Intent to Gain
Mercantile Law – Law on Insurance – Liability of Auto Insurer in Carnapping – Taking a car for a joy ride is theft / carnapping – meaning of “Authorized Driver” in Car Insurance Policies
Jewel Villacorta is the owner of a sedan (Lancer) which was insured by Empire Insurance Company. The coverage includes insurance against theft. In 1978, the car was brought to an auto repair shop for maintenance and repairs. While in the custody of the repair shop, an employee of the shop brought the car out of the shop for a joy ride. Unfortunately, the employee crashed the car which resulted in its total wreck. Jewel filed an insurance claim but Empire denied her claim. Jewel filed a case before the Insurance Commission but the IC ruled against Jewel. The IC ruled that:
1. There was a violation of the Authorized Driver Clause. Under this clause, only Jewel or any person she authorizes is allowed to drive the car. Since Jewel does not know who the driver is, then she could not have authorized the driver.
2. The Theft Clause is not applicable because the driver did not steal the car. He merely borrowed it for a joyride. There must be an intent on the part of the taker of the car “permanently to deprive the insured of his car” and that since the taking here was for a “joy ride” and “merely temporary in nature,” a “temporary taking is held not a taking insured against.”
ISSUE: Whether or not the ruling of the Insurance Commission is correct.
HELD: No.
1. The IC’s interpretation of the authorized driver clause is too restrictive and contrary to the established principle that insurance contracts, being contracts of adhesion where the only participation of the other party is the signing of his signature or his “adhesion” thereto, “obviously call for greater strictness and vigilance on the part of courts of justice with a view of protecting the weaker party from abuse and imposition, and prevent their becoming traps for the unwary. The main purpose of the “authorized driver” clause is that a person other than the insured owner, who drives the car on the insured’s order, such as his regular driver, or with his permission, such as a friend or member of the family or the employees of a car service or repair shop must be duly licensed drivers and have no disqualification to drive a motor vehicle.
2. The IC’s interpretation of intent to gain in theft is wrong. Even if the taking was temporary, in this case for a joy ride, there is still intent to gain. When a person, either with the object of going to a certain place, or learning how to drive, or enjoying a free ride, takes possession of a vehicle belonging to another, without the consent of its owner, he is guilty of theft because by taking possession of the personal property belonging to another and using it, his intent to gain is evident since he derives therefrom utility, satisfaction, enjoyment and pleasure.
