IN a victory for car owners, the Supreme Court has ruled that the recovery of a carnapped vehicle does not prevent the owner from getting full payment on an insurance claim.
In a decision promulgated on April 23, 2025, the SC’s Third Division, through Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, ordered UPCB General Insurance Co. to pay Wilfrido Wijangco for the loss of his stolen Jaguar car.
Wijangco’s vehicle was carjacked by armed men in a parking lot in Sucat, Paranaque City, on August 24, 2006.
The theft was reported to the police and Wijangco filed an insurance claim with UPCB, submitting all the required documents.
The insurance company later informed Wijangco that his vehicle was recovered by operatives of the police Traffic Management Group.
With the recovery of the Jaguar, UPCB put on hold Wijangco’s insurance claim and said it would close it unless he submitted an investigation clearance from the TMG.
With no progress on his claim, Wijangco filed a case against the insurance company before the Makati Regional Trial Court.
Wijangco’s insurance claim was upheld by the RTC, which ruled that the theft triggered UPCB’s liability even though the vehicle was recovered.
The insurance company appealed the case to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC ruling.
The case was then elevated to the SC, with the magistrates ruling in favor of Wijangco.
Concurring with the decision were Associate Justices Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Japar Dimaampao, and Samuel Gaerlan.
In reinstating the RTC decision, the SC emphasized that theft is complete once the vehicle is unlawfully taken, and in Wijangco’s case, once it was carjacked.
The high court stressed that recovery of the stolen vehicle does not erase the fact of theft.
Under Section 249 of the Insurance Code, insurers must pay claims within specific periods after receiving proof of loss. Once this period lapses and before the insured vehicle is recovered, the insurer’s payment for the loss becomes final, and the insured cannot be compelled to accept the recovered vehicle.
Insurance would lose its purpose if the insured had to wait indefinitely for recovery or was forced to buy a replacement only to have the original vehicle returned later.
The SC said Wijangco filed his proof of loss on October 10, 2006 but UPCB informed him of the recovery of his vehicle 162 days later, well beyond the 90-day legal limit.
Likewise, even when recovered, the Jaguar was unserviceable, missing several parts and showing heavy damage, making the loss effectively permanent.
“Upon scrutiny of the records, the Court agrees with the RTC and holds that UPCB Insurance is liable to Wilfrido under the Insurance Policy,” the SC’s 38-page ruling stated, adding that theft is a “covered risk” under the Insurance Policy.
“Upon a judicious review of the records, the Court holds that Wilfrido was able to prove the fact of the subject vehicle’s theft with a preponderance of evidence,” the SC added.
With this, the SC ordered UPCB to pay Wijangco P1.8 million in insurance proceeds, plus double interest on the amount.
UPCB was also ordered to pay P180,000 in attorney’s fees and P200,000 in damages.
