Jewel Villacorta vs. The Insurance Commission, et al.

,
G.R. No. 54171. October 28, 1980

The main purpose of the authorized driver clause is that a person other than the
insured owner, who drives the car on the insureds 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.

The mere happenstance that the employee(s) of the shop owner diverts the use of
the car to his own illicit or unauthorized purpose in violation of the trust reposed in
the shop by the insured car owner does not mean that the authorized driver
clause has been violated such as to bar recovery, provided that such employee is
duly qualified to drive under a valid drivers license. It is the theft clause, not the
authorized driver clause that applies.
JEWEL VILLACORTA vs. THE INSURANCE COMMISSION
G.R. No. L-54171, 28 October 1980100 SCRA 467
FACTS: Villacorta had her Colt Lancer car insured with Empire Insurance
C o m p a n y a g a i n s t o w n d a m a g e , t h e f t a n d 3 rd party liability. While
the
car
was
in
the
repair
shop,
one
of
the
employees
of t h e s a i d r e p a i r s h o p t o o k i t o u t f o r a j o y r i d e a f t e r w h
i c h i t figured in a vehicular accident. This resulted to the death of the
d r i v e r a n d s o m e o f t h e p a s s e n g e r s a s w e l l a s t o e x t e n s i v e da
mage to the car. V i l l a c o r t a fi l e d a c l a i m f o r t o t a l l o s s w i t h t h e s a i d
i n s u r a n c e company.
However, it denied the claim on the ground that the accident did not fall
within
the
provisions
of
the
policy
either
fort h e O w n D a m a g e o r T h e f t c o v e r a g e , i n v o k i n g t h e
p o l i c y provision on Authorized Driver Clause. This was upheld by the
Insurance Commission further stating that the car was not stolen and
therefore not covered by the Theft Clause because it is not evident that the
person who took the car for a joyride intends to permanently deprive the insured of
his/ her car.

ISSUE: Whether or not the insurer company should pay the said claim
HELD: Ye s . W h e r e t h e i n s u r e d s c a r i s w r o n g f u l l y t a k e n w i t h o u t t h e
insureds consent from the car service and repair shop to whom it had been
entrusted for check-up and repairs (assuming that s u c h t a k i n g w a s f o r a
j o y r i d e , i n t h e c o u r s e o f w h i c h i t w a s totally smashed in an
accident), respondent insurer is liable and must pay insured for the total loss of the
insured
vehicle
under
the
Theft
Clause
of
the policy.
A s s u m i n g , d e s p i t e t h e t o t a l l y i n a d e q u a t e e v i d e n c e , t h a t t h e taking
was temporary and for a joy ride, the Court sustains as the better view that
which holds that when a person, either with the object of going to a
certain
place,
or
learning
how
to
d r i v e , o r e nj o y i n g a f re e r i d e , t ake s p o s s e s s i o n o f a v eh i cl e
belonging to another, without the consent of its owner, he I
sguilty of theft because by taking possession of the personal
property belonging to another and using it, his intent to gain is e v i d e n t
s i n c e h e d e r i v e s t h e r e f r o m u t i l i t y , s a t i s f a c t i o n , enj
oymet and pleasure. ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision is set aside and
judgmenti s h e r e b y r e n d e r e d s e n t e n c i n g p r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n
t t o p a y petitioner the sum of P35,000.00 with legal interest from the
filing of the complaint until full payment is made and to pay the costs of suit.