MANILA — The Supreme Court has ruled that the recovery of a carnapped vehicle does not prevent the insured owner from receiving full payment under an insurance policy.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the Court’s Third Division ordered UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. (UCPB) to pay Wilfrido C. Wijangco PHP 1.8 million for the loss of his stolen Jaguar. The insurer was also directed to pay double interest on the amount, PHP 180,000 in attorney’s fees, and PHP 200,000 in damages.

The case stemmed from an incident where Wilfrido’s son, Andrew, was held at gunpoint in a parking lot by armed men who stole the car. Wilfrido filed a claim with UCPB after submitting the necessary documents. The insurer, however, put the claim on hold after the Traffic Management Group (TMG) recovered the vehicle and required an investigation clearance before proceeding.

With no action taken, Wilfrido sued the company. The Regional Trial Court granted the insurance claim, ruling that the theft triggered UCPB’s liability regardless of recovery. The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, but the Supreme Court reinstated the RTC’s decision.

The high court stressed that theft is deemed complete once a vehicle is unlawfully taken and that recovery does not negate the loss. It noted that under Section 249 of the Insurance Code, insurers must pay claims within specific periods after receiving proof of loss.

Wilfrido filed his proof of loss on October 10, 2006, but UCPB informed him of the vehicle’s recovery 162 days later, well beyond the 90-day period mandated by law. By then, the Jaguar was no longer in usable condition, missing several parts and heavily damaged.

The Court said insurance would lose its purpose if an insured person had to wait indefinitely for recovery or accept a damaged vehicle after having already suffered a loss.