G.R. No.

L-8151

December 16, 1955

VIRGINIA CALANOC, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., respondents. Lucio Javillonar for petitioner. J. A. Wolfson, Manuel Y. Mecias, Emilio Abello and Anselmo A. Reyes for respondents.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: This suit involves the collection of P2,000 representing the value of a supplemental policy covering accidental death which was secured by one Melencio Basilio from the Philippine American Life Insurance Company. The case originated in the Municipal Court of Manila and judgment being favorable to the plaintiff it was appealed to the court of first instance. The latter court affirmed the judgment but on appeal to the Court of Appeals the judgment was reversed and the case is now before us on a petition for review. Melencio Basilio was a watchman of the Manila Auto Supply located at the corner of Avenida Rizal and Zurbaran. He secured a life insurance policy from the Philippine American Life Insurance Company in the amount of P2,000 to which was attached a supplementary contract covering death by accident. On January 25, 1951, he died of a gunshot wound on the occasion of a robbery committed in the house of Atty. Ojeda at the corner of Oroquieta and Zurbaan streets. Virginia Calanoc, the widow, was paid the sum of P2,000, face value of the policy, but when she demanded the payment of the additional sum of P2,000 representing the value of the supplemental policy, the company refused alleging, as main defense, that the deceased died because he was murdered by a person who took part in the commission of the robbery and while making an arrest as an officer of the law which contingencies were expressly excluded in the contract and have the effect of exempting the company from liability. The pertinent facts which need to be considered for the determination of the questions raised are those reproduced in the decision of the Court of Appeals as follows: The circumstances surrounding the death of Melencio Basilio show that when he was killed at about seven o'clock in the night of January 25, 1951, he was on duty as watchman of the Manila Auto Supply at the corner of Avenida Rizal and Zurbaran; that it turned out that Atty. Antonio Ojeda who had his residence at the corner of Zurbaran and Oroquieta, a block away from Basilio's station, had come home that night and found that his house was well-lighted, but with the windows closed; that getting suspicious that there were culprits in his house, Atty. Ojeda retreated to look for a policeman and finding Basilio in khaki uniform, asked him to accompany him to the house with the latter refusing on the ground that he was not a policeman, but suggesting that Atty. Ojeda should ask the traffic policeman on duty at the corner of Rizal Avenue and Zurbaran; that Atty. Ojeda went to the traffic policeman at said corner and reported the matter, asking the policeman to come along with him, to which the policeman agreed; that on the way to the Ojeda residence, the policeman and Atty. Ojeda passed by Basilio and somehow or other invited the latter to come along; that as the tree approached the Ojeda

residence and stood in front of the main gate which was covered with galvanized iron, the fence itself being partly concrete and partly adobe stone, a shot was fired; that immediately after the shot, Atty. Ojeda and the policeman sought cover; that the policeman, at the request of Atty. Ojeda, left the premises to look for reinforcement; that it turned out afterwards that the special watchman Melencio Basilio was hit in the abdomen, the wound causing his instantaneous death; that the shot must have come from inside the yard of Atty. Ojeda, the bullet passing through a hole waist-high in the galvanized iron gate; that upon inquiry Atty. Ojeda found out that the savings of his children in the amount of P30 in coins kept in his aparador contained in stockings were taken away, the aparador having been ransacked; that a month thereafter the corresponding investigation conducted by the police authorities led to the arrest and prosecution of four persons in Criminal Case No. 15104 of the Court of First Instance of Manila for 'Robbery in an Inhabited House and in Band with Murder'. It is contended in behalf of the company that Basilio was killed which "making an arrest as an officer of the law" or as a result of an "assault or murder" committed in the place and therefore his death was caused by one of the risks excluded by the supplementary contract which exempts the company from liability. This contention was upheld by the Court of Appeals and, in reaching this conclusion, made the following comment: From the foregoing testimonies, we find that the deceased was a watchman of the Manila Auto Supply, and, as such, he was not boud to leave his place and go with Atty. Ojeda and Policeman Magsanoc to see the trouble, or robbery, that occurred in the house of Atty. Ojeda. In fact, according to the finding of the lower court, Atty. Ojeda finding Basilio in uniform asked him to accompany him to his house, but the latter refused on the ground that he was not a policeman and suggested to Atty. Ojeda to ask help from the traffic policeman on duty at the corner of Rizal Avenue and Zurbaran, but after Atty. Ojeda secured the help of the traffic policeman, the deceased went with Ojeda and said traffic policeman to the residence of Ojeda, and while the deceased was standing in front of the main gate of said residence, he was shot and thus died. The death, therefore, of Basilio, although unexpected, was not caused by an accident, being a voluntary and intentional act on the part of the one wh robbed, or one of those who robbed, the house of Atty. Ojeda. Hence, it is out considered opinion that the death of Basilio, though unexpected, cannot be considered accidental, for his death occurred because he left his post and joined policeman Magsanoc and Atty. Ojeda to repair to the latter's residence to see what happened thereat. Certainly, when Basilio joined Patrolman Magsanoc and Atty. Ojeda, he should have realized the danger to which he was exposing himself, yet, instead of remaining in his place, he went with Atty. Ojeda and Patrolman Magsanoc to see what was the trouble in Atty. Ojeda's house and thus he was fatally shot. We dissent from the above findings of the Court of Appeals. For one thing, Basilio was a watchman of the Manila Auto Supply which was a block away from the house of Atty. Ojeda where something suspicious was happening which caused the latter to ask for help. While at first he declied the invitation of Atty. Ojeda to go with him to his residence to inquire into what was going on because he was not a regular policeman, he later agreed to come along when prompted by the traffic policeman, and upon approaching the gate of the residence he was shot and died. The circumstance that he was a mere watchman and had no duty to heed the call of Atty. Ojeda should not be taken as a capricious desire on his part to expose his life to danger considering the fact that the place he was in duty-bound to guard was only a block away. In

volunteering to extend help under the situation, he might have thought, rightly or wrongly, that to know the truth was in the interest of his employer it being a matter that affects the security of the neighborhood. No doubt there was some risk coming to him in pursuing that errand, but that risk always existed it being inherent in the position he was holding. He cannot therefore be blamed solely for doing what he believed was in keeping with his duty as a watchman and as a citizen. And he cannot be considered as making an arrest as an officer of the law, as contended, simply because he went with the traffic policeman, for certainly he did not go there for that purpose nor was he asked to do so by the policeman. Much less can it be pretended that Basilio died in the course of an assault or murder considering the very nature of these crimes. In the first place, there is no proof that the death of Basilio is the result of either crime for the record is barren of any circumstance showing how the fatal shot was fired. Perhaps this may be clarified in the criminal case now pending in court as regards the incident but before that is done anything that might be said on the point would be a mere conjecture. Nor can it be said that the killing was intentional for there is the possibility that the malefactor had fired the shot merely to scare away the people around for his own protection and not necessarily to kill or hit the victim. In any event, while the act may not excempt the triggerman from liability for the damage done, the fact remains that the happening was a pure accident on the part of the victim. The victim could have been either the policeman or Atty. Ojeda for it cannot be pretended that the malefactor aimed at the deceased precisely because he wanted to take his life. We take note that these defenses are included among the risks exluded in the supplementary contract which enumerates the cases which may exempt the company from liability. While as a general rule "the parties may limit the coverage of the policy to certain particular accidents and risks or causes of loss, and may expressly except other risks or causes of loss therefrom" (45 C. J. S. 781-782), however, it is to be desired that the terms and phraseology of the exception clause be clearly expressed so as to be within the easy grasp and understanding of the insured, for if the terms are doubtful or obscure the same must of necessity be interpreted or resolved aganst the one who has caused the obscurity. (Article 1377, new Civil Code) And so it has bene generally held that the "terms in an insurance policy, which are ambiguous, equivacal, or uncertain . . . are to be construed strictly and most strongly against the insurer, and liberally in favor of the insured so as to effect the dominant purpose of indemnity or payment to the insured, especially where a forfeiture is involved" (29 Am. Jur., 181), and the reason for this rule is that he "insured usually has no voice in the selection or arrangement of the words employed and that the language of the contract is selected with great care and deliberation by experts and legal advisers employed by, and acting exclusively in the interest of, the insurance company." (44 C. J. S., p. 1174.) Insurance is, in its nature, complex and difficult for the layman to understand. Policies are prepared by experts who know and can anticipate the bearings and possible complications of every contingency. So long as insurance companies insist upon the use of ambiguous, intricate and technical provisions, which conceal rather than frankly disclose, their own intentions, the courts must, in fairness to those who purchase insurance, construe every ambiguity in favor of the insured. (Algoe vs. Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co., 91 Wash. 324, LRA 1917A, 1237.)lawphi1.net An insurer should not be allowed, by the use of obscure phrases and exceptions, to defeat the very purpose for which the policy was procured. (Moore vs. Aetna Life Insurance Co., LRA 1915D, 264.)

We are therefore persuaded to conclude that the circumstances unfolded in the present case do not warrant the finding that the death of the unfortunate victim comes within the purview of the exception clause of the supplementary policy and, hence, do not exempt the company from liability. Wherefore, reversing the decision appealed from, we hereby order the company to pay petitioner-appellant the amount of P2,000, with legal interest from January 26, 1951 until fully paid, with costs. Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

Calanoc vs. CA (98 PHIL 79) Post under case digests, Commercial Law at Wednesday, February 22, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind Facts: Basilio was a watchman of the Manila Auto Supply located at the corner of Avenida Rizal and Zurbaran. He secured a life insurance policy from the Philippine American Life InsuranceCompany in the amount of P2,000 to which was attached a supplementary contract covering death by accident. On January 25, 1951, he died of a gunshot wound on the occasion of a robbery committed in the house of Atty. Ojeda at the corner of Oroquieta and Zurbaran streets. Calanoc, the widow, was paid the sum of P2,000, face value of the policy, but when she demanded the payment of the additional sum of P2,000 representing the value of the supplemental policy, the company refused alleging, as main defense, that the deceased died because he was murdered by a person who took part in the commission of the robbery and while making an arrest as an officer of the law which contingencies were expressly excluded in the contract and have the effect of exempting the company from liability.

It is contended in behalf of the company that Basilio was killed which "making an arrest as an officer of the law" or as a result of an "assault or murder" committed in the place and therefore his death was caused by one of the risks excluded by the supplementary contract which exempts the company from liability. This contention was upheld by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the death of the victim comes within the purview of the exception clause of the supplementary policy and, hence, exempts the company from liability.

Held: NO. Basilio was a watchman of the Manila Auto Supply which was a block away from the house of Atty. Ojeda where something suspicious was happening which caused the latter to ask for help. While at first he declined the invitation of Atty. Ojeda to go with him to his residence to inquire into what was going on because he was not a regular policeman, he later agreed to come along when prompted by the traffic policeman, and upon approaching the gate of the residence he was shot and died. The circumstance that he was a mere watchman and had no duty to heed the call of Atty. Ojeda should not be taken as a capricious desire on his part to expose his life to danger considering the fact that the place he was in duty-bound to guard was only a block away. In volunteering to extend help under the situation, he might have thought, rightly or wrongly, that to know the truth was in the interest of his employer it being a matter that affects the security of the neighborhood. No doubt there was some risk coming to him in pursuing that errand, but that risk always existed it being inherent in the position he was holding. He cannot therefore be blamed solely for doing what he believed was in keeping with his duty as a watchman and as a citizen. And he cannot be considered as making an arrest as an officer of the law, as contended, simply because he went with the traffic policeman, for certainly he did not go there for that purpose nor was he asked to do so by the policeman.

Much less can it be pretended that Basilio died in the course of an assault or murder considering the very nature of these crimes. In the first place, there is no proof that the death of Basilio is the result of either crime for the record is barren of any circumstance showing how the fatal shot was fired. Perhaps this may be clarified in thecriminal case now pending in court as regards the incident but before that is done anything that might be said on the point would be a mere conjecture. Nor can it be said that the killing was intentional for there is the possibility that the malefactor had fired the shot merely to scare away the people around for his own protection and not necessarily to kill or hit the victim. In any event, while the act may not exempt the triggerman from liability for the damage done, the fact remains that the happening was a pure accident on the part of the victim. The victim could have been either the policeman or Atty. Ojeda for it cannot be pretended that the malefactor aimed at the deceased precisely because he wanted to take his life.

G.R. No. L-25579 March 29, 1972 EMILIA T. BIAGTAN, JUAN T. BIAGTAN, JR., MIGUEL T. BIAGTAN, GIL T. BIAGTAN and GRACIA T. BIAGTAN,plaintiffs-appellees, vs. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., defendant-appellant. Tanopo, Millora, Serafica, and Saez for plaintiff-appellees. Araneta, Mendoza and Papa for defendant-appellant.

MAKALINTAL, J.:p This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in its Civil Case No. D-1700. The facts are stipulated. Juan S. Biagtan was insured with defendant InsularLife Assurance Company under Policy No. 398075 for the sum of P5,000.00 and, under a supplementary contract denominated "Accidental Death Benefit Clause, for an additional sum of P5,000.00 if "the death of the Insured resulted directly from bodily injury effected solely through external and violent means sustained in an accident ... and independently of all other causes." The clause, however,expressly provided that it would not apply where death resulted from an injury"intentionally inflicted by another party." On the night of May 20, 1964, or during the first hours of the following day a band of robbers entered the house of the insured Juan S. Biagtan. What happened then is related in the decision of the trial court as follows: ...; that on the night of May 20, 1964 or the first hours of May 21, 1964, while the said life policy and supplementary contract were in full force and effect, the house of insured Juan S. Biagtan was robbed by a band of robbers who were charged in and convicted by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for robbery with homicide; that in committing the robbery, the robbers, on reaching the staircase landing on the second floor, rushed towards the door of the second floor room, where they suddenly met a person near the door of oneof the rooms who turned out to be the insured Juan S. Biagtan who received thrusts from their sharp-pointed instruments, causing wounds on the body of said Juan S. Biagtan resulting in his death at about 7 a.m. on the same day, May 21, 1964; Plaintiffs, as beneficiaries of the insured, filed a claim under the policy. The insurance company paid the basic amount of P5,000.00 but refused to pay the additional sum of P5,000.00 under the accidental death benefit clause, on the ground that the insured's death resulted from injuries intentionally inflicted by third parties and therefore was not covered. Plaintiffs filed suit to recover, and after due hearing the court a quo rendered judgment in their favor. Hence the present appeal by the insurer. The only issue here is whether under the facts are stipulated and found by the trial court the wounds received by the insured at the hands of the robbers nine in all, five of them mortal

and four non-mortal were inflicted intentionally. The court, in ruling negatively on the issue, stated that since the parties presented no evidence and submitted the case upon stipulation, there was no "proof that the act of receiving thrust (sic) from the sharp-pointed instrument of the robbers was intended to inflict injuries upon the person of the insured or any other person or merely to scare away any person so as to ward off any resistance or obstacle that might be offered in the pursuit of their main objective which was robbery." The trial court committed a plain error in drawing the conclusion it did from the admitted facts. Nine wounds were inflicted upon the deceased, all by means of thrusts with sharp-pointed instruments wielded by the robbers. This is a physical fact as to which there is no dispute. So is the fact that five of those wounds caused the death of the insured. Whether the robbers had the intent to kill or merely to scare the victim or to ward off any defense he might offer, it cannot be denied that the act itself of inflicting the injuries was intentional. It should be noted that the exception in the accidental benefit clause invoked by the appellant does not speak of the purpose whether homicidal or not of a third party in causing the injuries, but only of the fact that such injuries have been "intentionally" inflicted this obviously to distinguish them from injuries which, although received at the hands of a third party, are purely accidental. This construction is the basic idea expressed in the coverage of the clause itself, namely, that "the death of the insured resulted directly from bodily injury effected solely through external and violent means sustained in an accident ... and independently of all other causes." A gun which discharges while being cleaned and kills a bystander; a hunter who shoots at his prey and hits a person instead; an athlete in a competitive game involving physical effort who collides with an opponent and fatally injures him as a result: these are instances where the infliction of the injury is unintentional and therefore would be within the coverage of an accidental death benefit clause such as thatin question in this case. But where a gang of robbers enter a house and coming face to face with the owner, even if unexpectedly, stab him repeatedly, it is contrary to all reason and logic to say that his injuries are not intentionally inflicted, regardless of whether they prove fatal or not. As it was, in the present case they did prove fatal, and the robbers have been accused and convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide. The case of Calanoc vs. Court of Appeals, 98 Phil. 79, is relied upon by the trial court in support of its decision. The facts in that case, however, are different from those obtaining here. The insured there was a watchman in a certain company, who happened to be invited by a policeman to come along as the latter was on his way to investigate a reported robbery going on in a private house. As the two of them, together with the owner of the house, approached and stood in front of the main gate, a shot was fired and it turned out afterwards that the watchman was hit in the abdomen, the wound causing his death. Under those circumstances this Court held that it could not be said that the killing was intentional for there was the possibility that the malefactor had fired the shot to scare people around for his own protection and not necessarrily to kill or hit the victim. A similar possibility is clearly ruled out by the facts in the case now before Us. For while a single shot fired from a distance, and by a person who was not even seen aiming at the victim, could indeed have been fired without intent to kill or injure, nine wounds inflicted with bladed weapons at close range cannot conceivably be considered as innocent insofar as such intent is concerned. The manner of execution of the crime permits no other conclusion. Court decisions in the American jurisdiction, where similar provisions in accidental death benefit clauses in insurance policies have been construed, may shed light on the issue before Us. Thus, it has been held that "intentional" as used in an accident policy excepting intentional injuries inflicted by the insured or any other person, etc., implies the exercise of the reasoning

faculties, consciousness and volition. 1 Where a provision of the policy excludes intentional injury, it is the intention of the person inflicting the injury that is controlling. 2 If the injuries suffered by the insured clearly resulted from the intentional act of a third person the insurer is relieved from liability as stipulated. 3 In the case of Hutchcraft's Ex'r v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 87 Ky. 300, 8 S.W. 570, 12 Am. St. Rep. 484, the insured was waylaid and assassinated for the purpose of robbery. Two (2) defenses were interposed to the action to recover indemnity, namely: (1) that the insured having been killed by intentional means, his death was not accidental, and (2) that the proviso in the policy expressly exempted the insurer from liability in case the insured died from injuries intentionally inflicted by another person. In rendering judgment for the insurance company the Court held that while the assassination of the insured was as to him an unforeseen event and therefore accidental, "the clause of the proviso that excludes the (insurer's) liability, in case death or injury is intentionally inflicted by another person, applies to this case." In Butero v. Travelers' Acc. Ins. Co., 96 Wis. 536, 65 Am. St. Rep. 61, 71 S.W. 811, the insured was shot three times by a person unknown late on a dark and stormy night, while working in the coal shed of a railroad company. The policy did not cover death resulting from "intentional injuries inflicted by the insured or any other person." The inquiry was as to the question whether the shooting that caused the insured's death was accidental or intentional; and the Court found that under the facts, showing that the murderer knew his victim and that he fired with intent to kill, there could be no recovery under the policy which excepted death from intentional injuries inflicted by any person. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed and the complaint dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs. Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando and Villamor, JJ., concur. Makasiar, J., reserves his vote.

BIAGTAN VS. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 44 SCRA 58 (G.R. NO. L-25579) MARCH 29, 1972 Petitioner/Appellant: The Insular Life Assurance Company Ltd. Respondent/Appellee: Emilia T. Biagtan, Juan T. Biagtan, Jr., Miguel T. Biagtan, Gil T. Biagtan and Gracia T. Biagtan J. Makalintal: FACT: Juan S. Biagtan was insured with defendant Insular Life Assurance Company Ltd. for the sum of 5,000.00 and under a supplementary contract denominated Accidental Death Benefit Clause, for an additional sum of 5,000.00 if the death of the insured resulted directly from bodily injury effected solely through external and violent means sustained in an accident and

independently of all other causes. The clause, however, expressly provided that it would not apply where death resulted from an injury intentionally inflicted by another party. On the night of May 20, 1964 or during the first hours of the following day a band of robbers entered the house of the insured Juan Biagtan, and that in committing the robbery, the robbers, on reaching the staircase landing on the second floor, rushed towards the door of the second floor room, where they suddenly met a person who turned to be insured who received nine wounds (five mortal wounds and four non-mortal wounds) from their sharp pointed instruments resulting in Mr. Biagtans death. Beneficiaries of the insured then filed a claim under the policy the insurance company paid the basic amount of 5,000.00 but refused to pay additional sum of 5,000.00 under the accidental benefit clause, on the ground that the insureds death resulted from injuries intentionally inflicted by third parties and therefore was not covered. (Respondent) Beneficiaries then filed suit to recover in the CFI of Pangasinan who rendered a decision in their favor. Hence the present appeal by the petitioner. ISSUE: Whether under the facts stipulated and found by the trial court the wounds received by the insured at the hands of the robbers were inflicted intentionally, hence the benefit clause cannot apply. HELD: Under an Accidental Death Benefit Clause providing for an additional sum of P5,000.00 if the death of the Insured resulted directly from bodily injury effected solely through external and violent means sustained in an accident and independently of all other causes but expressly excepting therefrom a case where death resulted from an injury intentionally inflicted by a third party, the insured who died under the following circumstances is not entitled to the said additional sum, to wit: That on the night while the said life policy and supplementary contract were in full force and effect the house of the insured . . . was robbed by a band of robbers whowere charged in and convicted by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for robbery with homicide; that in committing the robbery, the robbers, on reaching the staircase landing of the second floor, rushed towards the doors of the second floor room, where they suddenly met a person near the door of one of the rooms who turned out to be the insured . . . who received thrusts from their sharp-pointed instruments, causing wounds on the body . . . resulting in his death

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

JEWEL VILLACORTA, assisted by her husband, GUERRERO VILLACORTA, petitioner, vs. THE INSURANCE COMMISSION and EMPIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, respondents.

TEEHANKEE, Acting C.J.: The Court sets aside respondent Insurance Commission's dismissal of petitioner's complaint and holds that where the insured's car is wrongfully taken without the insured's consent from the car service and repair shop to whom it had been entrusted for check-up and repairs (assuming that such taking was for a joy ride, in the course of which it was 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. The undisputed facts of the case as found in the appealed decision of April 14, 1980 of respondent insurance commission are as follows: Complainant [petitioner] was the owner of a Colt Lancer, Model 1976, insured with respondent company under Private Car Policy No. MBI/PC-0704 for P35,000.00 Own Damage; P30,000.00 Theft; and P30,000.00 Third Party Liability, effective May 16, 1977 to May 16, 1978. On May 9, 1978, the vehicle was brought to the Sunday Machine Works, Inc., for general check-up and repairs. On May 11, 1978, while it was in the custody of the Sunday Machine Works, the car was allegedly taken by six (6) persons and driven out to Montalban, Rizal. While travelling along Mabini St., Sitio Palyasan, Barrio Burgos, going North at Montalban, Rizal, the car figured in an accident, hitting and bumping a gravel and sand truck parked at the right side of the road going south. As a consequence, the gravel and sand truck veered to the right side of the pavement going south and the car veered to the right side of the pavement going north. The driver, Benito Mabasa, and one of the passengers died and the other four sustained physical injuries. The car, as well, suffered extensive damage. Complainant, thereafter, filed a claim for total loss with the respondent company but claim was denied. Hence, complainant, was compelled to institute the present action. The comprehensive motor car insurance policy for P35,000.00 issued by respondent Empire Insurance Company admittedly undertook to indemnify the petitioner-insured against loss or damage to the car (a) by accidental collision or overturning, or collision or overturning consequent upon mechanical breakdown or consequent upon wear and tear; (b) by fire, external explosion, self-ignition or lightning or burglary, housebreaking or theft; and (c) by malicious act. Respondent insurance commission, however, dismissed petitioner's complaint for recovery of the total loss of the vehicle against private respondent, sustaining respondent insurer's contention that the accident did not fall within the provisions of the policy either for the Own Damage or Theft coverage, invoking the policy provision on "Authorized Driver" clause. 1 Respondent commission upheld private respondent's contention on the "Authorized Driver" clause in this wise: "It must be observed that under the above-quoted provisions, the policy

limits the use of the insured vehicle to two (2) persons only, namely: the insured himself or any person on his (insured's) permission. Under the second category, it is to be noted that the words "any person' is qualified by the phrase ... on the insured's order or with his permission.' It is therefore clear that if the person driving is other than the insured, he must have been duly authorized by the insured, to drive the vehicle to make the insurance company liable for the driver's negligence. Complainant admitted that she did not know the person who drove her vehicle at the time of the accident, much less consented to the use of the same (par. 5 of the complaint). Her husband likewise admitted that he neither knew this driver Benito Mabasa (Exhibit '4'). With these declarations of complainant and her husband, we hold that the person who drove the vehicle, in the person of Benito Mabasa, is not an authorized driver of the complainant. Apparently, this is a violation of the 'Authorized Driver' clause of the policy. Respondent commission likewise upheld private respondent's assertion that the car was not stolen and therefore not covered by the Theft clause, ruling that "The element of 'taking' in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code means that the act of depriving another of the possession and dominion of a movable thing is coupled ... with the intention. at the time of the 'taking', of withholding it with the character of permanency (People vs. Galang, 7 Appt. Ct. Rep. 13). In other words, there must have been shown a felonious intent upon the part of the taker of the car, and the intent must be an intent permanently to deprive the insured of his car," and that "Such was not the case in this instance. The fact that the car was taken by one of the residents of the Sunday Machine Works, and the withholding of the same, for a joy ride should not be construed to mean 'taking' under Art. 308 of the Revised Penal Code. If at all there was a 'taking', the same was merely temporary in nature. A temporary taking is held not a taking insured against (48 A LR 2d., page 15)." The Court finds respondent commission's dismissal of the complaint to be contrary to the evidence and the law. First, respondent commission's ruling that the person who drove the vehicle in the person of Benito Mabasa, who, according to its finding, was one of the residents of the Sunday Machine Works, Inc. to whom the car had been entrusted for general check-up and repairs was not an "authorized driver" of petitioner-complainant 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. 2 The main purpose of the "authorized driver" clause, as may be seen from its text, supra, 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. A car owner who entrusts his car to an established car service and repair shop necessarily entrusts his car key to the shop owner and employees who are presumed to have the insured's permission to drive the car for legitimate purposes of checking or road-testing the car. 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 driver's license. The situation is no different from the regular or family driver, who instead of carrying out the owner's order to fetch the children from school takes out his girl friend instead for a joy ride and instead wrecks the car. There is no question of his being an "authorized driver" which allows recovery of the loss although his trip was for a personal or illicit purpose without the owner's authorization. Secondly, and independently of the foregoing (since when a car is unlawfully taken, it is the theft clause, not the "authorized driver" clause, that applies), where a car is admittedly as in this case unlawfully and wrongfully taken by some people, be they employees of the car shop or not to whom it had been entrusted, and taken on a long trip to Montalban without the owner's consent or knowledge, such taking constitutes or partakes of the nature of theft as defined in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, viz. "Who are liable for theft. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent," for purposes of recovering the loss under the policy in question. The Court rejects respondent commission's premise that 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." The evidence does not warrant respondent commission's findings that it was a mere "joy ride". From the very investigator's report cited in its comment, 3 the police found from the waist of the car driver Benito Mabasa Bartolome who smashed the car and was found dead right after the incident "one cal. 45 Colt. and one apple type grenade," hardly the materials one would bring along on a "joy ride". Then, again, it is equally evident that the taking proved to be quite permanent rather than temporary, for the car was totally smashed in the fatal accident and was never returned in serviceable and useful condition to petitioner-owner. Assuming, despite the totally inadequate evidence, that the 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 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. Justice Ramon C. Aquino cites in his work Groizard who holds that the use of a thing constitutes gain and Cuello Calon who calls it "hurt de uso. " 4 The insurer must therefore indemnify the petitioner-owner for the total loss of the insured car in the sum of P35,000.00 under the theft clause of the policy, subject to the filing of such claim for reimbursement or payment as it may have as subrogee against the Sunday Machine Works, Inc. ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision is set aside and judgment is hereby rendered sentencing private respondent to pay 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.

SO ORDERED. Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Footnotes 1 The "Authorized Driver" clause reads, thus: AUTHORIZED DRIVER: Any of the following: (a) The insured (b) Any person driving on the Insured's Order, or with his permission; Provided, that the person driving is permitted, in accordance with the licensing or other laws or regulations, to drive the Scheduled Vehicle, or has been permitted and is not disqualified by order of a Court of Law or by reason or any enactment or regulation in that behalf."

JEWEL VILLACORTA vs. THE INSURANCE COMMISSION G.R. No. L-54171, 28 October 1980 100 SCRA 467 FACTS: Villacorta had her Colt Lancer car insured with Empire Insurance Company against own damage, theft and 3rd party liability. While the car was in the repair shop, one of the employees of the said repair shop took it out for a joyride after which it figured in a vehicular accident. This resulted to the death of the driver and some of the passengers as well as to extensive damage to the car. Villacorta filed a claim for total loss with the said insurance company. However, it denied the claim on the ground that the accident did not fall within the provisions of the policy either for the Own Damage or Theft coverage, invoking the policy 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: Yes. Where the insureds car is wrongfully taken without the insureds consent from the car service and repair shop to whom it had been entrusted for check-up and repairs (assuming that such taking was for a joy ride, in the course of which it was 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. Assuming, despite the totally inadequate evidence, that the 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 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 there from utility, satisfaction, enjoymet and pleasure. ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision is set aside and judgment is hereby rendered sentencing private respondent to pay petitioner the sum of P35,000.00 with legal interest from thefiling of the complaint until full payment is made and to pay the costs of suit.

G.R. No. 60506 August 6, 1992 FIGURACION VDA. DE MAGLANA, EDITHA M. CRUZ, ERLINDA M. MASESAR, LEONILA M. MALLARI, GILDA ANTONIO and the minors LEAH, LOPE, JR., and ELVIRA, all surnamed MAGLANA, herein represented by their mother, FIGURACION VDA. DE MAGLANA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, Presiding Judge of Davao City, Branch II, and AFISCO INSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents. Jose B. Guyo for petitioners. Angel E. Fernandez for private respondent.

ROMERO, J.: The nature of the liability of an insurer sued together with the insured/operator-owner of a common carrier which figured in an accident causing the death of a third person is sought to be defined in this petition for certiorari. The facts as found by the trial court are as follows: . . . Lope Maglana was an employee of the Bureau of Customs whose work station was at Lasa, here in Davao City. On December 20, 1978, early morning, Lope Maglana was on his way to his work station, driving a motorcycle owned by the Bureau of Customs. At Km. 7, Lanang, he met an accident that resulted in his death. He died on the spot. The PUJ jeep that bumped the deceased was driven by Pepito Into, operated and owned by defendant Destrajo. From the investigation conducted by the traffic investigator, the PUJ jeep was overtaking another passenger jeep that was going towards the city poblacion. While overtaking, the PUJ jeep of defendant Destrajo running abreast with the overtaken jeep, bumped the motorcycle driven by the deceased who was going towards the direction of Lasa, Davao City. The point of impact was on the lane of

the motorcycle and the deceased was thrown from the road and met his untimely death. 1 Consequently, the heirs of Lope Maglana, Sr., here petitioners, filed an action for damages and attorney's fees against operator Patricio Destrajo and the Afisco Insurance Corporation (AFISCO for brevity) before the then Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch II. An information for homicide thru reckless imprudence was also filed against Pepito Into. During the pendency of the civil case, Into was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of one (1) year, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to four (4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as maximum, with all the accessory penalties provided by law, and to indemnify the heirs of Lope Maglana, Sr. in the amount of twelve thousand pesos (P12,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) in the concept of moral and exemplary damages with costs. No appeal was interposed by accused who later applied for probation. 2 On December 14, 1981, the lower court rendered a decision finding that Destrajo had not exercised sufficient diligence as the operator of the jeepney. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, the Court finds judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against defendant Destrajo, ordering him to pay plaintiffs the sum of P28,000.00 for loss of income; to pay plaintiffs the sum of P12,000.00 which amount shall be deducted in the event judgment in Criminal Case No. 3527-D against the driver, accused Into, shall have been enforced; to pay plaintiffs the sum of P5,901.70 representing funeral and burial expenses of the deceased; to pay plaintiffs the sum of P5,000.00 as moral damages which shall be deducted in the event judgment (sic) in Criminal Case No. 3527-D against the driver, accused Into; to pay plaintiffs the sum of P3,000.00 as attorney's fees and to pay the costs of suit. The defendant insurance company is ordered to reimburse defendant Destrajo whatever amounts the latter shall have paid only up to the extent of its insurance coverage. SO ORDERED. 3 Petitioners filed a motion for the reconsideration of the second paragraph of the dispositive portion of the decision contending that AFISCO should not merely be held secondarily liable because the Insurance Code provides that the insurer's liability is "direct and primary and/or jointly and severally with the operator of the vehicle, although only up to the extent of the insurance coverage." 4 Hence, they argued that the P20,000.00 coverage of the insurance policy issued by AFISCO, should have been awarded in their favor. In its comment on the motion for reconsideration, AFISCO argued that since the Insurance Code does not expressly provide for a solidary obligation, the presumption is that the obligation is joint. In its Order of February 9, 1982, the lower court denied the motion for reconsideration ruling that since the insurance contract "is in the nature of suretyship, then the liability of the insurer is secondary only up to the extent of the insurance coverage." 5

Petitioners filed a second motion for reconsideration reiterating that the liability of the insurer is direct, primary and solidary with the jeepney operator because the petitioners became direct beneficiaries under the provision of the policy which, in effect, is a stipulation pour autrui. 6 This motion was likewise denied for lack of merit. Hence, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari which, although it does not seek the reversal of the lower court's decision in its entirety, prays for the setting aside or modification of the second paragraph of the dispositive portion of said decision. Petitioners reassert their position that the insurance company is directly and solidarily liable with the negligent operator up to the extent of its insurance coverage. We grant the petition. The particular provision of the insurance policy on which petitioners base their claim is as follows:

Sec. 1 LIABILITY TO THE PUBLIC 1. The Company will, subject to the Limits of Liability, pay all sums necessary to discharge liability of the insured in respect of (a) death of or bodily injury to any THIRD PARTY (b) . . . . 2. . . . . 3. In the event of the death of any person entitled to indemnity under this Policy, the Company will, in respect of the liability incurred to such person indemnify his personal representatives in terms of, and subject to the terms and conditions hereof. 7 The above-quoted provision leads to no other conclusion but that AFISCO can be held directly liable by petitioners. As this Court ruled in Shafer vs. Judge, RTC of Olongapo City, Br. 75, "[w]here an insurance policy insures directly against liability, the insurer's liability accrues immediately upon the occurrence of the injury or even upon which the liability depends, and does not depend on the recovery of judgment by the injured party against the insured." 8 The underlying reason behind the third party liability (TPL) of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance is "to protect injured persons against the insolvency of the insured who causes such injury, and to give such injured person a certain beneficial interest in the proceeds of the policy . . ." 9 Since petitioners had received from AFISCO the sum of P5,000.00 under the no-fault clause, AFISCO's liability is now limited to P15,000.00. However, we cannot agree that AFISCO is likewise solidarily liable with Destrajo. In Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 10 this Court had the opportunity to resolve the issue as to the nature of the liability of the insurer and the insured vis-a-vis the third party injured in an accident. We categorically ruled thus:

While it is true that where the insurance contract provides for indemnity against liability to third persons, such third persons can directly sue the insurer, however, the direct liability of the insurer under indemnity contracts against third party liability does not mean that the insurer can be held solidarily liable with the insured and/or the other parties found at fault. The liability of the insurer is based on contract; that of the insured is based on tort. In the case at bar, petitioner as insurer of Sio Choy, is liable to respondent Vallejos (the injured third party), but it cannot, as incorrectly held by the trial court, be made "solidarily" liable with the two principal tortfeasors, namely respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. For if petitioner-insurer were solidarily liable with said, two (2) respondents by reason of the indemnity contract against third party liability under which an insurer can be directly sued by a third party this will result in a violation of the principles underlying solidary obligation and insurance contracts. (emphasis supplied) The Court then proceeded to distinguish the extent of the liability and manner of enforcing the same in ordinary contracts from that of insurance contracts. While in solidary obligations, the creditor may enforce the entire obligation against one of the solidary debtors, in an insurance contract, the insurer undertakes for a consideration to indemnify the insured against loss, damage or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event. 11 Thus, petitioner therein, which, under the insurance contract is liable only up to P20,000.00, can not be made solidarily liable with the insured for the entire obligation of P29,013.00 otherwise there would result "an evident breach of the concept of solidary obligation." Similarly, petitioners herein cannot validly claim that AFISCO, whose liability under the insurance policy is also P20,000.00, can be held solidarily liable with Destrajo for the total amount of P53,901.70 in accordance with the decision of the lower court. Since under both the law and the insurance policy, AFISCO's liability is only up to P20,000.00, the second paragraph of the dispositive portion of the decision in question may have unwittingly sown confusion among the petitioners and their counsel. What should have been clearly stressed as to leave no room for doubt was the liability of AFISCO under the explicit terms of the insurance contract. In fine, we conclude that the liability of AFISCO based on the insurance contract is direct, but not solidary with that of Destrajo which is based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. 12 As such, petitioners have the option either to claim the P15,000 from AFISCO and the balance from Destrajo or enforce the entire judgment from Destrajo subject to reimbursement from AFISCO to the extent of the insurance coverage. While the petition seeks a definitive ruling only on the nature of AFISCO's liability, we noticed that the lower court erred in the computation of the probable loss of income. Using the formula: 2/3 of (80-56) x P12,000.00, it awarded P28,800.00. 13 Upon recomputation, the correct amount is P192,000.00. Being a "plain error," we opt to correct the same. 14 Furthermore, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, the death indemnity is hereby increased to P50,000.00. 15 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby GRANTED. The award of P28,800.00 representing loss of income is INCREASED to P192,000.00 and the death indemnity of P12,000.00 to P50,000.00. SO ORDERED.

Vda. De Maglana v. Consolacion212 SCRA 268Romero,J.; FACTS: Lope Maglana met a n a c c i d e n t w h i l e d r i v i n g a m o t o r c y c l e o w n e d b y B u r e a u o f Customs which resulted to his death. The jeep in which his motorcycle collided was operated ando w n e d b y Destrajo. His widow f iled an action for damages against Destrajo and AFISCOInsurance Corporation. The RTC held AFISCO to be secondarily li a b l e f o r t h e a w a r d e d damages. Petitioner asserted the lower courts decision and provided that the Insurance Code expressly provides that the insurers liability is direct and primary and or jointly and severally with the operator of the vehicle. ISSUE: Whether or not the insured is solidarily liable with Destrajo .HELD: No. The liability of the inusred is primary and direct but not solidarily with Destrajo.W h e r e t h e i n s u r e r d i r e c t l y i n s u r e s l i a b i l i t y , t h e l i a b i l i t y a c c r u e s i m m e d i a t e l y u p o n t h e concurrence of the injury or even upon which the liability depends and does not depend on ther e c o v e r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t b y t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e d , T h e r e f o r e , t h e i n s u r e r s liability is direct and primary, but its liability is only up to the extent of the amount insured.

G.R. No. 78860 May 28, 1990 PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC., petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and MILAGROS CAYAS, respondents. Yabut, Arandia & Associates for petitioner. Dolorfino and Dominguez Law Offices for private respondent.

FERNAN, C.J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals 1 affirming in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch XVI, 2 the dispositive portion of which states: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. to pay plaintiff Milagros Cayas the sum of P50,000.00 under its maximum liability as provided for in the insurance policy; and the sum of P5,000.00 as reasonable attorney's fee with costs against said defendant. SO ORDERED. 3

Private respondent Milagros Cayas was the registered owner of a Mazda bus with serial No. TA3H4 P-000445 and plate No. PUB-4G-593. 4 Said passenger vehicle was insured with Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. (PCSI) under policy No. LTO/60CC04241 issued on February 3, 1978. 5 On December 17, 1978, the bus figured in an accident in Naic, Cavite injuring several of its passengers. One of them, 19-year old Edgardo Perea, sued Milagros Cayas for damages in the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Branch 6 docketed as Civil Case No. NC-794; while three others, namely: Rosario del Carmen, Ricardo Magsarili and Charlie Antolin, agreed to a settlement of P4,000.00 each with Milagros Cayas. At the pre-trial of Civil Case No. NC-794, Milagros Cayas failed to appear and hence, she was declared as in default. After trial, the court rendered a decision 7 in favor of Perea with its dispositive portion reading thus: WHEREFORE, under our present imperatives, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Milagros Cayas who is hereby ordered to compensate the plaintiff' Edgar Perea with damages in the sum of Ten Thousand (Pl0,000.00) Pesos for the medical predicament he found himself as damaging consequences of defendant Milagros Cayas complete lack of diligence of a good father of a family' when she secured the driving services of one Oscar Figueroa on December, 17, 1978; the sum of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos for exemplary damages; the sum of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos for moral damages; the sum of Seven Thousand (P7,000.00) Pesos for Attorney's fees, under the imperatives of the monetary power of the peso today; With costs against the defendant. SO ORDERED. When the decision in Civil Case No. NC-794 was about to be executed against her, Milagros Cayas filed a complaint against PCSI in the Office of the Insurance Commissioner praying that PCSI be ordered to pay P40,000.00 for all the claims against her arising from the vehicular accident plus legal and other expenses. 8Realizing her procedural mistake, she later withdrew said complaint. 9 Consequently, on November 11, 1981, Milagros Cayas filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages against PCSI in the Court of First Instance of Cavite (Civil Case No. N-4161). She alleged therein that to satisfy the judgment in Civil Case No. NC-794, her house and lot were levied upon and sold at public auction for P38,200; 10that to avoid numerous suits and the "detention" of the insured vehicle, she paid P4,000 to each of the following injured passengers: Rosario del Carmen, Ricardo Magsarili and Charlie Antolin; that she could not have suffered said financial setback had the counsel for PCSI, who also represented her, appeared at the trial of Civil Case No. NC-794 and attended to the claims of the three other victims; that she sought reimbursement of said amounts from the defendant, which notwithstanding the fact that her claim was within its contractual liability under the insurance policy, refused to make such reimbursement; that she suffered moral damages as a consequence of such refusal, and that she was constrained to secure the services of counsel to protect her rights. She prayed that judgment be rendered directing PCSI to pay her P50,000 for compensation of the injured victims, such sum as the court might approximate as damages, and P6,000 as attorney's fees.

In view of Milagros Cayas' failure to prosecute the case, the court motu propio ordered its dismissal without prejudice. 11 Alleging that she had not received a copy of the answer to the complaint, and that "out of sportsmanship", she did not file a motion to hold PCSI in default, Milagros Cayas moved for the reconsideration of the dismissal order. Said motion for reconsideration was acted upon favorably by the court in its order of March 31, 1982. About two months later, Milagros Cayas filed a motion to declare PCSI in default for its failure to file an answer. The motion was granted and plaintiff was allowed to adduce evidence ex-parte. On July 13, 1982, the court rendered judgment by default ordering PCSI to pay Milagros Cayas P50,000 as compensation for the injured passengers, P5,000 as moral damages and P5,000 as attorney's fees. Said decision was set aside after the PCSI filed a motion therefor. Trial of the case ensued. In due course, the court promulgated a decision in Civil Case No. N-4161, the dispositive portion of which was quoted earlier, finding that: In disavowing its obligation to plaintiff under the insurance policy, defendant advanced the proposition that before it can be made to pay, the liability must first be determined in an appropriate court action. And so plaintiffs liability was determined in that case filed against her by Perea in the Naic CFI. Still, despite this determination of liability, defendant sought escape from its obligation by positing the theory that plaintiff Milagros Cayas lost the Naic case due to her negligence because of which, efforts exerted by defendant's lawyers in protecting Cayas' rights proved futile and rendered nugatory. Blame was laid entirely on plaintiff by defendant for losing the Naic case. Defendant labored under the impression that had Cayas cooperated fully with defendant's lawyers, the latter could have won the suit and thus relieved of any obligation to Perea Defendant's posture is stretching the factual circumstances of the Naic case too far. But even accepting defendant's postulate, it cannot be said, nor was it shown positively and convincingly, that if the Naic case had proceeded on trial on the merits, a decision favorable to Milagros Cayas could have been obtained. Nor was it definitely established that if the pre-trial was undertaken in that case, defendant's lawyers could have mitigated the claim for damages by Perea against Cayas. 12 The court, however, held that inasmuch as Milagros Cayas failed to establish that she underwant moral suffering and mental anguish to justify her prayer for damages, there should be no such award. But, there being proof that she was compelled to engage the services of counsel to protect her rights under the insurance policy, the court allowed attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000. PCSI appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in its decision of May 8, 1987 affirmed in toto the lower court's decision. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by said appellate court, PCSI filed the instant petition charging the Court of Appeals with having erred in affirming in toto the decision of the lower court. At the outset, we hold as factual and therefore undeserving of this Court's attention, petitioner's assertions that private respondent lost Civil Case No. NC-794 because of her negligence and that there is no proof that the decision in said case has been executed. Said contentions, having been raised and threshed out in the Court of Appeals and rejected by it, may no longer be addressed to this Court.

Petitioner's other contentions are primarily concerned with the extent of its liability to private respondent under the insurance policy. This, we consider to be the only issue in this case. Petitioner seeks to limit its liability only to the payment made by private respondent to Perea and only up to the amount of P12,000.00. It altogether denies liability for the payments made by private respondents to the other three (3) injured passengers Rosario del Carmen, Ricardo Magsarili and Charlie Antolin in the amount of P4,000.00 each or a total of P12,000.00. There is merit in petitioner's assertions. The insurance policy involved explicitly limits petitioner's liability to P12,000.00 per person and to P50,000.00 per accident. 13 Pertinent provisions of the policy also state: SECTION I-Liability to the Public xxx xxx xxx 3. The Limit of Liability stated in Schedule A as applicable (a) to THIRD PARTY is the limit of the Company's liability for all damages arising out of death, bodily injury and damage to property combined so sustained as the result of any one accident; (b) "per person" for PASSENGER liability is the limit of the Company's liability for all damages arising out of death or bodily injury sustained by one person as the result of any one accident: (c) "per accident" for PASSENGER liability is, subject to the above provisions respecting per person, the total limit of the Company's liability for all such damages arising out of death or bodily injury sustained by two or more persons as the result of any one accident. Conditions Applicable to All Sections xxx xxx xxx 5. No admission, offer, promise or payment shall be made by or on behalf of the insured without the written consent of the Company which shall be entitled, if it so desires, to take over and conduct in his (sic) name the defense or settlement of any claim, or to prosecute in his (sic) name for its own benefit any claim for indemnity or damages or otherwise, and shall have full discretion in the conduct of any proceedings in the settlement of any claim, and the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the Company may require. If the Company shall make any payment in settlement of any claim, and such payment includes any amount not covered by this Policy, the Insured shall repay the Company the amount not so covered. We have ruled in Stokes vs. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., 14 that the terms of the contract constitute the measure of the insurer's liability and compliance therewith is a condition precedent to the insured's right of recovery from the insurer.

In the case at bar, the insurance policy clearly and categorically placed petitioner's liability for all damages arising out of death or bodily injury sustained by one person as a result of any one accident at P12,000.00. Said amount complied with the minimum fixed by the law then prevailing, Section 377 of Presidential Decree No. 612 (which was retained by P.D. No. 1460, the Insurance Code of 1978), which provided that the liability of land transportation vehicle operators for bodily injuries sustained by a passenger arising out of the use of their vehicles shall not be less than P12,000. In other words, under the law, the minimum liability is P12,000 per passenger. Petitioner's liability under the insurance contract not being less than P12,000.00, and therefore not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, said stipulation must be upheld as effective, valid and binding as between the parties. 15 In like manner, we rule as valid and binding upon private respondent the condition abovequoted requiring her to secure the written permission of petitioner before effecting any payment in settlement of any claim against her. There is nothing unreasonable, arbitrary or objectionable in this stipulation as would warrant its nullification. The same was obviously designed to safeguard the insurer's interest against collusion between the insured and the claimants. In her cross-examination before the trial court, Milagros Cayas admitted, thus: Atty. Yabut: q With respect to the other injured passengers of your bus wherein you made payments you did not secure the consent of defendant (herein petitioner) Perla Compania de Seguros when you made those payments? a I informed them about that q But they did not give you the written authority that you were supposed to pay those claims? a No, sir . l6 It being specifically required that petitioner's written consent be first secured before any payment in settlement of any claim could be made, private respondent is precluded from seeking reimbursement of the payments made to del Carmen, Magsarili and Antolin in view of her failure to comply with the condition contained in the insurance policy. Clearly, the fundamental principle that contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties finds application in the present case. 17 Thus, it was error on the part of the trial and appellate courts to have disregarded the stipulations of the parties and to have substituted their own interpretation of the insurance policy. In Phil. American General Insurance Co., Inc vs. Mutuc, 18 we ruled that contracts which are the private laws of the contracting parties should be fulfilled according to the literal sense of their stipulations, if their terms are clear and leave no room for doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, for contracts are obligatory, no matter what form they may be, whenever the essential requisites for their validity are present. Moreover, we stated in Pacific Oxygen & Acetylene Co. vs. Central Bank," 19 that the first and fundamental duty of the courts is the application of the law according to its express terms, interpretation being called for only when such literal application is impossible.

We observe that although Milagros Cayas was able to prove a total loss of only P44,000.00, petitioner was made liable for the amount of P50,000.00, the maximum liability per accident stipulated in the policy. This is patent error. An insurance indemnity, being merely an assistance or restitution insofar as can be fairly ascertained, cannot be availed of by any accident victim or claimant as an instrument of enrichment by reason of an accident. 20 Finally, we find no reason to disturb the award of attorney's fees. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby modified in that petitioner shall pay Milagros Cayas the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000. 00) plus legal interest from the promulgation of the decision of the lower court until it is fully paid and attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Cortes JJ., concur.

Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. vs Honorable Court of Appeals and Milagros CayasG.R. No. 78860 May 28, 1990 FERNAN, C.J.: FACTS:Milagros Cayas was the registered owner of a Mazda bus. Said passenger vehicle was insuredwith Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. (PCSI) under a policy issued on February 3, 1978. On December 17, 1978, the bus figured in an accident in Naic, Cavite injuring several of its passengers. One of them,19-year old Edgardo Perea, sued Milagros Cayas for damages in the Court of First Instance; while threeothers, namely: Rosario del Carmen, Ricardo Magsarili and Charlie Antolin, agreed to a settlement of P4,000.00 each. At the pre -trial, Milagros Cayas failed to appear and hence, she was declared as indefault. After trial, the court rendered a decision in favor of Perea to compensate the Perea with damagesof Pl0,000.00 for medical fees; P10,000.00 for exemplary damages; P5,000.00 for moral damages;P7,000.00 for Attorney's fees.On November 11, 1981, Milagros Cayas filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages against PCSI in the Court of First Instance. Milagros Cayas filed a motion to declare PCSI in default for its failure to file an answer. The motion was granted and Cayas was allowed to adduce evidence ex-parte .On July 13, 1982, the court rendered judgment by default ordering PCSI to pay Milagros Cayas P50,000as compensation for the injured passengers, P5,000 as moral damages and P5,000 as attorney's fees.S a i d d e c i s i o n w a s s e t a s i d e a f t e r t h e P C S I f i l e d a m o t i o n t h e r e f o r . I n d u e c o u r s e , t h e c o u r t promulgated a decision in favor of Cayas, but removed the award of moral damages.PCSI appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in its decision of May 8, 1987 the lower court'sdecision. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, PCSI filed the instant petition charging theCourt of Appeals with having erred in affirming in toto the decision of the lower court.ISSUE:Whether or not the amount of award of damages was proper. RULING: NO.PCSI seeks to limit its liability only to the payment made by Cayas to Perea and only up to theamount of P12,000.00. It altogether denies liability for the payments made by Cayas to the other three (3)i n j u r e d p a s s e n g e r s R o s a r i o d e l C a r m e n , R i c a r d o M a g s a r i l i a n d C h a r l i e A n t o l i

n i n t h e a m o u n t o f P4,000.00 each or a total of P12,000.00.The insurance policy involved explicitly limits PCSI's liability to P12,000.00 per person and toP50,000.00 per accident.We have ruled in Stokes vs. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., that the terms of the contract constitutethe measure of the insurer's liability and compliance therewith is a condition precedent to the insured'sright of recovery from the insurer.In the case at bar, the insurance policy clearly and categorically placed PCSI's liability for all damages arising out of death or bodily injury sustained by one person as a result of any one accident atP12,000.00. Said amount complied with the minimum fixed by the law then prevailing, Section 377 of Presidential Decree No. 612 (which was retained by P.D. No. 1460, the Insurance Code of 1978), which provided that the liability of land transportation vehicle operators for bodily injuries sustained by a passenger arising out of the use of their vehicles shall not be less than P12,000. In other words, under thelaw, the minimum liability is P12,000 per passenger. PCSI's liability under the insurance contract not being less than P12,000.00, and therefore not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, said stipulation must be upheld as effective, valid and binding as between the parties.In like manner, we rule as valid and binding upon Cayas the condition in the policy in requiringher to secure the written permission of PCSI before effecting any payment in settlement of any claim against her. There is nothing unreasonable, arbitrary or objectionable in this stipulation as would warrantits nullification. The same was obviously designed to safeguard the insurer's interest against collusion between the insured and the claimants.In her cross-examination before the trial court, Milagros Cayas admitted that PCSI did not giveany written authority that Cayas were supposed to pay those claims.It being specifically required that PCSI's written consent be first secured before any payment insettlement of any claim could be made, Cayas is precluded from seeking reimbursement of the paymentsmade to del Carmen, Magsarili and Antolin in view of her failure to comply with the condition containedin the insurance policy.Clearly, the fundamental principle that contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties finds application in the present case. Thus, it was error on the part of the trial and appellate courtsto have disregarded the stipulations of the parties and to have substituted their own interpretation of theinsurance policy.We observe that although Milagros Cayas was able to prove a total loss of only P44,000.00, PCSIwas made liable for the amount of P50,000.00, the maximum liability per accident stipulated in the policy. This is patent error. An insurance indemnity, being merely an assistance or restitution insofar ascan be fairly ascertained, cannot be availed of by any accident victim or claimant as an instrument of enrichment by reason of an accident.WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby modified in that petitioner shall pay Milagros Cayas the amount of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000. 00) plus legal interest from th e promulgation of the decision of the lower court until it is fully paid and attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00. No pronouncement as to costs.

G.R. No. L-39419 April 12, 1982 MAPALAD AISPORNA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

DE CASTRO, J.: In this petition for certiorari, petitioner-accused Aisporna seeks the reversal of the decision dated August 14, 19741 in CA-G.R. No. 13243-CR entitled "People of the Philippines, plaintiffappellee, vs. Mapalad Aisporna, defendant-appellant" of respondent Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the City Court of Cabanatuan 2rendered on August 2, 1971 which found the petitioner guilty for having violated Section 189 of the Insurance Act (Act No. 2427, as amended) and sentenced her to pay a fine of P500.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. Petitioner Aisporna was charged in the City Court of Cabanatuan for violation of Section 189 of the Insurance Act on November 21, 1970 in an information 3 which reads as follows: That on or before the 21st day of June, 1969, in the City of Cabanatuan, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously act as agent in the solicitation or procurement of an application for insurance by soliciting therefor the application of one Eugenio S. Isidro, for and in behalf of Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc., a duly organized insurance company, registered under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in the issuance of a Broad Personal Accident Policy No. 28PI-RSA 0001 in the amount not exceeding FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) dated June 21, 1969, without said accused having first secured a certificate of authority to act as such agent from the office of the Insurance Commissioner, Republic of the Philippines. CONTRARY TO LAW. The facts, 4 as found by the respondent Court of Appeals are quoted hereunder: IT RESULTING: That there is no debate that since 7 March, 1969 and as of 21 June, 1969, appellant's husband, Rodolfo S. Aisporna was duly licensed by Insurance Commission as agent to Perla Compania de Seguros, with license to expire on 30 June, 1970, Exh. C; on that date, at Cabanatuan City, Personal Accident Policy, Exh. D was issued by Perla thru its author representative, Rodolfo S. Aisporna, for a period of twelve (12) months with beneficiary as Ana M. Isidro, and for P5,000.00; apparently, insured died by violence during lifetime of policy, and for reasons not explained in record, present information was filed by Fiscal, with assistance of private prosecutor, charging wife of Rodolfo with violation of Sec. 189 of Insurance Law for having, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously acted, "as agent in the solicitation for insurance by soliciting therefore the application of one Eugenio S. Isidro for and in behalf of Perla Compaa de Seguros, ... without said accused having first secured a certificate of authority to act as such agent from the office of the Insurance Commission, Republic of the Philippines." and in the trial, People presented evidence that was hardly disputed, that aforementioned policy was issued with active participation of appellant wife of Rodolfo, against which appellant in her defense sought to show that being the

wife of true agent, Rodolfo, she naturally helped him in his work, as clerk, and that policy was merely a renewal and was issued because Isidro had called by telephone to renew, and at that time, her husband, Rodolfo, was absent and so she left a note on top of her husband's desk to renew ... Consequently, the trial court found herein petitioner guilty as charged. On appeal, the trial court's decision was affirmed by the respondent appellate court finding the petitioner guilty of a violation of the first paragraph of Section 189 of the Insurance Act. Hence, this present recourse was filed on October 22, 1974. 5 In its resolution of October 28, 1974, 6 this Court resolved, without giving due course to this instant petition, to require the respondent to comment on the aforesaid petition. In the comment 7 filed on December 20, 1974, the respondent, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, submitted that petitioner may not be considered as having violated Section 189 of the Insurance Act. 8 On April 3, 1975, petitioner submitted his Brief 9 while the Solicitor General, on behalf of the respondent, filed a manifestation 10 in lieu of a Brief on May 3, 1975 reiterating his stand that the petitioner has not violated Section 189 of the Insurance Act. In seeking reversal of the judgment of conviction, petitioner assigns the following errors 11 allegedly committed by the appellate court: 1. THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT RECEIPT OF COMPENSATION IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME DEFINED BY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 189 OF THE INSURANCE ACT. 2. THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING DUE WEIGHT TO EXHIBITS F, F-1, TO F-17, INCLUSIVE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH PETITIONER'S GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 3. THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING HEREIN PETITIONER. We find the petition meritorious. The main issue raised is whether or not a person can be convicted of having violated the first paragraph of Section 189 of the Insurance Act without reference to the second paragraph of the same section. In other words, it is necessary to determine whether or not the agent mentioned in the first paragraph of the aforesaid section is governed by the definition of an insurance agent found on its second paragraph. The pertinent provision of Section 189 of the Insurance Act reads as follows: No insurance company doing business within the Philippine Islands, nor any agent thereof, shall pay any commission or other compensation to any person for services in obtaining new insurance, unless such person shall have first procured from the Insurance Commissioner a certificate of authority to act as an agent of such company as hereinafter provided. No person shall act as agent, sub-agent, or broker in the solicitation of procurement of applications for insurance, or receive for services in obtaining new insurance, any commission or other

compensation from any insurance company doing business in the Philippine Islands, or agent thereof, without first procuring a certificate of authority so to act from the Insurance Commissioner, which must be renewed annually on the first day of January, or within six months thereafter. Such certificate shall be issued by the Insurance Commissioner only upon the written application of persons desiring such authority, such application being approved and countersigned by the company such person desires to represent, and shall be upon a form approved by the Insurance Commissioner, giving such information as he may require. The Insurance Commissioner shall have the right to refuse to issue or renew and to revoke any such certificate in his discretion. No such certificate shall be valid, however, in any event after the first day of July of the year following the issuing of such certificate. Renewal certificates may be issued upon the application of the company. Any person who for compensation solicits or obtains insurance on behalf of any insurance company, or transmits for a person other than himself an application for a policy of insurance to or from such company or offers or assumes to act in the negotiating of such insurance, shall be an insurance agent within the intent of this section, and shall thereby become liable to all the duties, requirements, liabilities, and penalties to which an agent of such company is subject. Any person or company violating the provisions of this section shall be fined in the sum of five hundred pesos. On the conviction of any person acting as agent, sub-agent, or broker, of the commission of any offense connected with the business of insurance, the Insurance Commissioner shall immediately revoke the certificate of authority issued to him and no such certificate shall thereafter be issued to such convicted person. A careful perusal of the above-quoted provision shows that the first paragraph thereof prohibits a person from acting as agent, sub-agent or broker in the solicitation or procurement of applications for insurance without first procuring a certificate of authority so to act from the Insurance Commissioner, while its second paragraph defines who is an insurance agent within the intent of this section and, finally, the third paragraph thereof prescribes the penalty to be imposed for its violation. The respondent appellate court ruled that the petitioner is prosecuted not under the second paragraph of Section 189 of the aforesaid Act but under its first paragraph. Thus ... it can no longer be denied that it was appellant's most active endeavors that resulted in issuance of policy to Isidro, she was there and then acting as agent, and received the pay thereof her defense that she was only acting as helper of her husband can no longer be sustained, neither her point that she received no compensation for issuance of the policy because any person who for compensation solicits or obtains insurance on behalf of any insurance company or transmits for a person other than himself an application for a policy of insurance to or from such company or offers or assumes to act in the negotiating of such insurance, shall be an insurance agent within the intent of this section, and shall thereby become liable to all the duties,

requirements, liabilities, and penalties, to which an agent of such company is subject. paragraph 2, Sec. 189, Insurance Law, now it is true that information does not even allege that she had obtained the insurance, for compensation which is the gist of the offense in Section 189 of the Insurance Law in its 2nd paragraph, but what appellant apparently overlooks is that she is prosecuted not under the 2nd but under the 1st paragraph of Sec. 189 wherein it is provided that, No person shall act as agent, sub-agent, or broker, in the solicitation or procurement of applications for insurance, or receive for services in obtaining new insurance any commission or other compensation from any insurance company doing business in the Philippine Island, or agent thereof, without first procuring a certificate of authority to act from the insurance commissioner, which must be renewed annually on the first day of January, or within six months thereafter. therefore, there was no technical defect in the wording of the charge, so that Errors 2 and 4 must be overruled.12 From the above-mentioned ruling, the respondent appellate court seems to imply that the definition of an insurance agent under the second paragraph of Section 189 is not applicable to the insurance agent mentioned in the first paragraph. Parenthetically, the respondent court concludes that under the second paragraph of Section 189, a person is an insurance agent if he solicits and obtains an insurance for compensation, but, in its first paragraph, there is no necessity that a person solicits an insurance for compensation in order to be called an insurance agent. We find this to be a reversible error. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the definition of an insurance agent as found in the second paragraph of Section 189 is intended to define the word "agent" mentioned in the first and second paragraphs of the aforesaid section. More significantly, in its second paragraph, it is explicitly provided that the definition of an insurance agent is within the intent of Section 189. Hence Any person who for compensation ... shall be an insurance agent within the intent of this section, ... Patently, the definition of an insurance agent under the second paragraph holds true with respect to the agent mentioned in the other two paragraphs of the said section. The second paragraph of Section 189 is a definition and interpretative clause intended to qualify the term "agent" mentioned in both the first and third paragraphs of the aforesaid section. Applying the definition of an insurance agent in the second paragraph to the agent mentioned in the first and second paragraphs would give harmony to the aforesaid three paragraphs of Section 189. Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a

whole. The particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce harmonious whole. 13 A statute must be so construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible. 14 The meaning of the law, it must be borne in mind, is not to be extracted from any single part, portion or section or from isolated words and phrases, clauses or sentences but from a general consideration or view of the act as a whole. 15 Every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context. This means that every part of the statute must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment, not separately and independently. 16 More importantly, the doctrine of associated words (Noscitur a Sociis) provides that where a particular word or phrase in a statement is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings, its true meaning may be made clear and specific by considering the company in which it is found or with which it is associated. 17 Considering that the definition of an insurance agent as found in the second paragraph is also applicable to the agent mentioned in the first paragraph, to receive a compensation by the agent is an essential element for a violation of the first paragraph of the aforesaid section. The appellate court has established ultimately that the petitioner-accused did not receive any compensation for the issuance of the insurance policy of Eugenio Isidro. Nevertheless, the accused was convicted by the appellate court for, according to the latter, the receipt of compensation for issuing an insurance policy is not an essential element for a violation of the first paragraph of Section 189 of the Insurance Act. We rule otherwise. Under the Texas Penal Code 1911, Article 689, making it a misdemeanor for any person for direct or indirect compensation to solicit insurance without a certificate of authority to act as an insurance agent, an information, failing to allege that the solicitor was to receive compensation either directly or indirectly, charges no offense. 18 In the case of Bolen vs. Stake, 19 the provision of Section 3750, Snyder's Compiled Laws of Oklahoma 1909 is intended to penalize persons only who acted as insurance solicitors without license, and while acting in such capacity negotiated and concluded insurance contracts for compensation. It must be noted that the information, in the case at bar, does not allege that the negotiation of an insurance contracts by the accused with Eugenio Isidro was one for compensation. This allegation is essential, and having been omitted, a conviction of the accused could not be sustained. It is well-settled in Our jurisprudence that to warrant conviction, every element of the crime must be alleged and proved. 20 After going over the records of this case, We are fully convinced, as the Solicitor General maintains, that accused did not violate Section 189 of the Insurance Act. WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the accused is acquitted of the crime charged, with costs de oficio. SO ORDERED. Teehankee (Acting C.J.,) Makasiar, De Castro, Fernandez, Guerrero and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur. Plana, J., took no part.

Aisporna v. CA [GR L-39419, 12 April 1982 (113 SCRA 459)] Post under case digests, Commercial Law at Wednesday, February 22, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind Facts: Since 7 March and on 21 June 1969, a Personal Accident Policy was issued by Perla Compania de Seguros, through its authorized agent Rodolfo Aisporna, for a period of 12 months with the beneficiary designated as Ana M. Isidro. The insured died by violence during lifetime of policy. Mapalad Aisporna participated actively with the aforementioned policy. For reason unexplained, an information was filed against Mapalad Aisporna, Rodolfos wife, with the City Court of Cabanatuan for violation of Section 189 of the Insurance Act on 21 November 1970, for acting as an agent in the soliciting insurance without securing the certificate of authority from the office of the Insurance Commissioner. Mapalad contends that being the wife of true agent, Rodolfo, she naturally helped him in his work, as clerk, and that policy was merely a renewal and was issued because Isidro had called by telephone to renew, and at that time, her husband, Rodolfo, was absent and so she left a note on top of her husbands desk to renew. On 2 August 1971, the trial court found Mapalad guilty and sentenced here to pay a fine of P500.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. On appeal and on 14 August 1974, the trial courts decision was affirmed by the appellate court (CA-GR 13243-CR). Hence, the present recourse was filed on 22 October 1974. On 20 December 1974, the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the Court of Appeals, submitted that Aisporna may not be considered as having violated Section 189 of the Insurance Act.

Issue: Whether Mapalad Aisporna is an insurance agent within the scope or intent of the Insurance Act

Held: Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole. The particular words, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce harmonious whole. In the present case, the first paragraph of Section 189 prohibits a person from acting as agent, subagent or broker in the solicitation or procurement of applications for insurance without first procuring a certificate of authority so to act from the Insurance Commissioner; while the second paragraph defines who is an insurance agent within the intent of the section; while the third paragraph prescribes the penalty to be imposed for its violation. The appellate courts ruling that the petitioner is

prosecuted not under the second paragraph of Section 189 but under its first paragraph is a reversible error, as the definition of insurance agent in paragraph 2 applies to the paragraph 1 and 2 of Section 189, which is any person who for compensation shall be an insurance agent within the intent of this section. Without proof of compensation, directly or indirectly, received from the insurance policy or contract, Mapalad Aisporna may not be held to have violated Section 189 of the Insurance Act. Under the Texas Penal Code 1911, Article 689, making it a misdemeanor for any person for direct or indirect compensation to solicit insurance without a certificate of authority to act as an insurance agent, an information, failing to allege that the solicitor was to receive compensation either directly or indirectly, charges no offense. In the case of Bolen vs. Stake,19 the provision of Section 3750, Snyder's Compiled Laws of Oklahoma 1909 is intended to penalize persons only who acted as insurance solicitors without license, and while acting in such capacity negotiated and concluded insurance contracts for compensation. It must be noted that the information, in the case at bar, does not allege that the negotiation of an insurance contracts by the accused with Eugenio Isidro was one for compensation. This allegation is essential, and having been omitted, a conviction of the accused could not be sustained. It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that to warrant conviction, every element of the crime must be alleged and proved. After going over the records of this case, we are fully convinced, as the Solicitor General maintains, that accused did not violate Section 189 of the Insurance Act.

G.R. No. L-15895 RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, as administrator of the estate of the late Joaquin Ma. Herrer, plaintiffappellant, vs. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, defendant-appellee. Jose A. Espiritu for appellant. Cohn, Fisher and DeWitt for appellee. Malcolm, J.: This is an action brought by the plaintiff ad administrator of the estate of the late Joaquin Ma. Herrer to recover from the defendant life insurance company the sum of pesos 6,000 paid by the deceased for a life annuity. The trial court gave judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

The undisputed facts are these: On September 24, 1917, Joaquin Herrer made application to the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada through its office in Manila for a life annuity. Two days later he paid the sum of P6,000 to the manager of the companys Manila office and was given a receipt reading as follows: MANILA, I. F., 26 de septiembre, 1917. PROVISIONAL RECEIPT Pesos 6,000 Recibi la suma de seis mil pesos de Don Joaquin Herrer de Manila como prima dela Renta Vitalicia solicitada por dicho Don Joaquin Herrer hoy, sujeta al examen medico y aprobacion de la Oficina Central de la Compaia. The application was immediately forwarded to the head office of the company at Montreal, Canada. On November 26, 1917, the head office gave notice of acceptance by cable to Manila. (Whether on the same day the cable was received notice was sent by the Manila office of Herrer that the application had been accepted, is a disputed point, which will be discussed later.) On December 4, 1917, the policy was issued at Montreal. On December 18, 1917, attorney Aurelio A. Torres wrote to the Manila office of the company stating that Herrer desired to withdraw his application. The following day the local office replied to Mr. Torres, stating that the policy had been issued, and called attention to the notification of November 26, 1917. This letter was received by Mr. Torres on the morning of December 21, 1917. Mr. Herrer died on December 20, 1917. As above suggested, the issue of fact raised by the evidence is whether Herrer received notice of acceptance of his application. To resolve this question, we propose to go directly to the evidence of record. The chief clerk of the Manila office of the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada at the time of the trial testified that he prepared the letter introduced in evidence as Exhibit 3, of date November 26, 1917, and handed it to the local manager, Mr. E. E. White, for signature. The witness admitted on cross-examination that after preparing the letter and giving it to he manager, he new nothing of what became of it. The local manager, Mr. White, testified to having received the cablegram accepting the application of Mr. Herrer from the home office on November 26, 1917. He said that on the same day he signed a letter notifying Mr. Herrer of this acceptance. The witness further said that letters, after being signed, were sent to the chief clerk and placed on the mailing desk for transmission. The witness could not tell if the letter had every actually been placed in the mails. Mr. Tuason, who was the chief clerk, on November 26, 1917, was not called as a witness. For the defense, attorney Manuel Torres testified to having prepared the will of Joaquin Ma. Herrer, that on this occasion, Mr. Herrer mentioned his application for a life annuity, and that he said that the only document relating to the transaction in his possession was the provisional receipt. Rafael Enriquez, the administrator of the estate,

testified that he had gone through the effects of the deceased and had found no letter of notification from the insurance company to Mr. Herrer. Our deduction from the evidence on this issue must be that the letter of November 26, 1917, notifying Mr. Herrer that his application had been accepted, was prepared and signed in the local office of the insurance company, was placed in the ordinary channels for transmission, but as far as we know, was never actually mailed and thus was never received by the applicant. Not forgetting our conclusion of fact, it next becomes necessary to determine the law which should be applied to the facts. In order to reach our legal goal, the obvious signposts along the way must be noticed. Until quite recently, all of the provisions concerning life insurance in the Philippines were found in the Code of Commerce and the Civil Code. In the Code of the Commerce, there formerly existed Title VIII of Book III and Section III of Title III of Book III, which dealt with insurance contracts. In the Civil Code there formerly existed and presumably still exist, Chapters II and IV, entitled insurance contracts and life annuities, respectively, of Title XII of Book IV. On the after July 1, 1915, there was, however, in force the Insurance Act. No. 2427. Chapter IV of this Act concerns life and health insurance. The Act expressly repealed Title VIII of Book II and Section III of Title III of Book III of the code of Commerce. The law of insurance is consequently now found in the Insurance Act and the Civil Code. While, as just noticed, the Insurance Act deals with life insurance, it is silent as to the methods to be followed in order that there may be a contract of insurance. On the other hand, the Civil Code, in article 1802, not only describes a contact of life annuity markedly similar to the one we are considering, but in two other articles, gives strong clues as to the proper disposition of the case. For instance, article 16 of the Civil Code provides that In matters which are governed by special laws, any deficiency of the latter shall be supplied by the provisions of this Code. On the supposition, therefore, which is incontestable, that the special law on the subject of insurance is deficient in enunciating the principles governing acceptance, the subject-matter of the Civil code, if there be any, would be controlling. In the Civil Code is found article 1262 providing that Consent is shown by the concurrence of offer and acceptance with respect to the thing and the consideration which are to constitute the contract. An acceptance made by letter shall not bind the person making the offer except from the time it came to his knowledge. The contract, in such case, is presumed to have been entered into at the place where the offer was made. This latter article is in opposition to the provisions of article 54 of the Code of Commerce. If no mistake has been made in announcing the successive steps by which we reach a conclusion, then the only duty remaining is for the court to apply the law as it is found. The legislature in its wisdom having enacted a new law on insurance, and expressly repealed the provisions in the Code of Commerce on the same subject, and having thus left a void in the

commercial law, it would seem logical to make use of the only pertinent provision of law found in the Civil code, closely related to the chapter concerning life annuities. The Civil Code rule, that an acceptance made by letter shall bind the person making the offer only from the date it came to his knowledge, may not be the best expression of modern commercial usage. Still it must be admitted that its enforcement avoids uncertainty and tends to security. Not only this, but in order that the principle may not be taken too lightly, let it be noticed that it is identical with the principles announced by a considerable number of respectable courts in the United States. The courts who take this view have expressly held that an acceptance of an offer of insurance not actually or constructively communicated to the proposer does not make a contract. Only the mailing of acceptance, it has been said, completes the contract of insurance, as the locus poenitentiae is ended when the acceptance has passed beyond the control of the party. (I Joyce, The Law of Insurance, pp. 235, 244.) In resume, therefore, the law applicable to the case is found to be the second paragraph of article 1262 of the Civil Code providing that an acceptance made by letter shall not bind the person making the offer except from the time it came to his knowledge. The pertinent fact is, that according to the provisional receipt, three things had to be accomplished by the insurance company before there was a contract: (1) There had to be a medical examination of the applicant; (2) there had to be approval of the application by the head office of the company; and (3) this approval had in some way to be communicated by the company to the applicant. The further admitted facts are that the head office in Montreal did accept the application, did cable the Manila office to that effect, did actually issue the policy and did, through its agent in Manila, actually write the letter of notification and place it in the usual channels for transmission to the addressee. The fact as to the letter of notification thus fails to concur with the essential elements of the general rule pertaining to the mailing and delivery of mail matter as announced by the American courts, namely, when a letter or other mail matter is addressed and mailed with postage prepaid there is a rebuttable presumption of fact that it was received by the addressee as soon as it could have been transmitted to him in the ordinary course of the mails. But if any one of these elemental facts fails to appear, it is fatal to the presumption. For instance, a letter will not be presumed to have been received by the addressee unless it is shown that it was deposited in the post-office, properly addressed and stamped. (See 22 C.J., 96, and 49 L. R. A. [N. S.], pp. 458, et seq., notes.) We hold that the contract for a life annuity in the case at bar was not perfected because it has not been proved satisfactorily that the acceptance of the application ever came to the knowledge of the applicant. Judgment is reversed, and the plaintiff shall have and recover from the defendant the sum of P6,000 with legal interest from November 20, 1918, until paid, without special finding as to costs in either instance. So ordered. Mapa, C.J., Araullo, Avancea and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Enriquez vs. Sun Life Assurance Co. [GR No. 15895; November 29, 1920] Post under case digests, Commercial Law at Saturday, March 31, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind Facts: Plaintiff is estate administrator for late Joaquin Herrer. Herrer has

pending application with defendant Sun Life Assurance Co (sun Life) evidenced by a provisional receipt. The provisional receipt reads payment of Php6, 000 for life annuity received 26 September 1917. The application was received by Sun Life head office a month after.

04 December 1917, the policy was issued in Montreal. A petition for withdrawal of application was filed by Herrers lawyer 18 December 1917. Herrer died 20 December. A letter from Sun Life was received 21 December stating policy was issued and reminds the party of a notification of acceptance of the application dated 26 November.

Plaintiff testified that he had found no letter of notification from the Sun Life.

Lower Court decides in favor of respondent. Appeal was taken.

Issue: Whether or not the there has been a valid offer and acceptance??

Held: None. The Civil Code provides that the acceptance made by letter binds the person making the offer only from the date it has came to its knowledge. The contract of life annuity was not perfected. There was no satisfactory evidence that the application acceptance came to the knowledge of Herrer.

Article 16 of the civil code provides that any deficiency in the special law shall be supplied by the Code. The Insurance Code does not provide for law on the principle of acceptance, thus the Civil Code shall govern.

Article 1262 provides that consent is shown by concurrence of offer and acceptance with the thing and the consideration to the contract. The acceptance by letter shall not bind the person making the offer except from the time It came to his knowledge.

American Courts held that acceptance of offer not actually communicated does not complete the contract but the mailing of the acceptance. Locus Poenitrntiae is ended when acceptance has passed beyond partys control.

Furthermore, the provisional receipt provides for conditions before a contract is deemed final. 1. Medical examination. 2. Approval by head office of the application. 3. the company communicates approval to the applicant.

In the case, there was no letter of notification. No evidence of knowledge. Judgment reversed. Php6000 with interest is to be returned.

G.R. No. L-109937 March 21, 1994 DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and the ESTATE OF THE LATE JUAN B. DANS, represented by CANDIDA G. DANS, and the DBP MORTGAGE REDEMPTION INSURANCE POOL, respondents. Office of the Legal Counsel for petitioner. Reyes, Santayana, Molo & Alegre for DBP Mortgage Redemption Insurance Pool.

QUIASON, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court to reverse and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R CV No. 26434 and its resolution denying reconsideration thereof. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification. I In May 1987, Juan B. Dans, together with his wife Candida, his son and daughter-in-law, applied for a loan of P500,000.00 with the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), Basilan Branch. As the principal mortgagor, Dans, then 76 years of age, was advised by DBP to obtain a mortgage redemption insurance (MRI) with the DBP Mortgage Redemption Insurance Pool (DBP MRI Pool). A loan, in the reduced amount of P300,000.00, was approved by DBP on August 4, 1987 and released on August 11, 1987. From the proceeds of the loan, DBP deducted the amount of

P1,476.00 as payment for the MRI premium. On August 15, 1987, Dans accomplished and submitted the "MRI Application for Insurance" and the "Health Statement for DBP MRI Pool." On August 20, 1987, the MRI premium of Dans, less the DBP service fee of 10 percent, was credited by DBP to the savings account of the DBP MRI Pool. Accordingly, the DBP MRI Pool was advised of the credit. On September 3, 1987, Dans died of cardiac arrest. The DBP, upon notice, relayed this information to the DBP MRI Pool. On September 23, 1987, the DBP MRI Pool notified DBP that Dans was not eligible for MRI coverage, being over the acceptance age limit of 60 years at the time of application. On October 21, 1987, DBP apprised Candida Dans of the disapproval of her late husband's MRI application. The DBP offered to refund the premium of P1,476.00 which the deceased had paid, but Candida Dans refused to accept the same, demanding payment of the face value of the MRI or an amount equivalent to the loan. She, likewise, refused to accept an ex gratia settlement of P30,000.00, which the DBP later offered. On February 10, 1989, respondent Estate, through Candida Dans as administratrix, filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court, Branch I, Basilan, against DBP and the insurance pool for "Collection of Sum of Money with Damages." Respondent Estate alleged that Dans became insured by the DBP MRI Pool when DBP, with full knowledge of Dans' age at the time of application, required him to apply for MRI, and later collected the insurance premium thereon. Respondent Estate therefore prayed: (1) that the sum of P139,500.00, which it paid under protest for the loan, be reimbursed; (2) that the mortgage debt of the deceased be declared fully paid; and (3) that damages be awarded. The DBP and the DBP MRI Pool separately filed their answers, with the former asserting a crossclaim against the latter. At the pre-trial, DBP and the DBP MRI Pool admitted all the documents and exhibits submitted by respondent Estate. As a result of these admissions, the trial court narrowed down the issues and, without opposition from the parties, found the case ripe for summary judgment. Consequently, the trial court ordered the parties to submit their respective position papers and documentary evidence, which may serve as basis for the judgment. On March 10, 1990, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of respondent Estate and against DBP. The DBP MRI Pool, however, was absolved from liability, after the trial court found no privity of contract between it and the deceased. The trial court declared DBP in estoppel for having led Dans into applying for MRI and actually collecting the premium and the service fee, despite knowledge of his age ineligibility. The dispositive portion of the decision read as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing consideration and in the furtherance of justice and equity, the Court finds judgment for the plaintiff and against Defendant DBP, ordering the latter: 1. To return and reimburse plaintiff the amount of P139,500.00 plus legal rate of interest as amortization payment paid under protest; 2. To consider the mortgage loan of P300,000.00 including all interest accumulated or otherwise to have been settled, satisfied or set-off by virtue of the insurance coverage of the late Juan B. Dans;

3. To pay plaintiff the amount of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees; 4. To pay plaintiff in the amount of P10,000.00 as costs of litigation and other expenses, and other relief just and equitable. The Counterclaims of Defendants DBP and DBP MRI POOL are hereby dismissed. The Cross-claim of Defendant DBP is likewise dismissed (Rollo, p. 79) The DBP appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a decision dated September 7, 1992, the appellate court affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. The DBP's motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution dated April 20, 1993. Hence, this recourse. II When Dans applied for MRI, he filled up and personally signed a "Health Statement for DBP MRI Pool" (Exh. "5-Bank") with the following declaration: I hereby declare and agree that all the statements and answers contained herein are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and form part of my application for insurance. It is understood and agreed that no insurance coverage shall be effected unless and until this application is approved and the full premium is paid during my continued good health (Records, p. 40). Under the aforementioned provisions, the MRI coverage shall take effect: (1) when the application shall be approved by the insurance pool; and (2) when the full premium is paid during the continued good health of the applicant. These two conditions, being joined conjunctively, must concur. Undisputably, the power to approve MRI applications is lodged with the DBP MRI Pool. The pool, however, did not approve the application of Dans. There is also no showing that it accepted the sum of P1,476.00, which DBP credited to its account with full knowledge that it was payment for Dan's premium. There was, as a result, no perfected contract of insurance; hence, the DBP MRI Pool cannot be held liable on a contract that does not exist. The liability of DBP is another matter. It was DBP, as a matter of policy and practice, that required Dans, the borrower, to secure MRI coverage. Instead of allowing Dans to look for his own insurance carrier or some other form of insurance policy, DBP compelled him to apply with the DBP MRI Pool for MRI coverage. When Dan's loan was released on August 11, 1987, DBP already deducted from the proceeds thereof the MRI premium. Four days latter, DBP made Dans fill up and sign his application for MRI, as well as his health statement. The DBP later submitted both the application form and health statement to the DBP MRI Pool at the DBP Main Building, Makati Metro Manila. As service fee, DBP deducted 10 percent of the premium collected by it from Dans. In dealing with Dans, DBP was wearing two legal hats: the first as a lender, and the second as an insurance agent. As an insurance agent, DBP made Dans go through the motion of applying for said insurance, thereby leading him and his family to believe that they had already fulfilled all the requirements for

the MRI and that the issuance of their policy was forthcoming. Apparently, DBP had full knowledge that Dan's application was never going to be approved. The maximum age for MRI acceptance is 60 years as clearly and specifically provided in Article 1 of the Group Mortgage Redemption Insurance Policy signed in 1984 by all the insurance companies concerned (Exh. "1-Pool"). Under Article 1987 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, "the agent who acts as such is not personally liable to the party with whom he contracts, unless he expressly binds himself or exceeds the limits of his authority without giving such party sufficient notice of his powers." The DBP is not authorized to accept applications for MRI when its clients are more than 60 years of age (Exh. "1-Pool"). Knowing all the while that Dans was ineligible for MRI coverage because of his advanced age, DBP exceeded the scope of its authority when it accepted Dan's application for MRI by collecting the insurance premium, and deducting its agent's commission and service fee. The liability of an agent who exceeds the scope of his authority depends upon whether the third person is aware of the limits of the agent's powers. There is no showing that Dans knew of the limitation on DBP's authority to solicit applications for MRI. If the third person dealing with an agent is unaware of the limits of the authority conferred by the principal on the agent and he (third person) has been deceived by the non-disclosure thereof by the agent, then the latter is liable for damages to him (V Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, p. 422 [1992], citing Sentencia [Cuba] of September 25, 1907). The rule that the agent is liable when he acts without authority is founded upon the supposition that there has been some wrong or omission on his part either in misrepresenting, or in affirming, or concealing the authority under which he assumes to act (Francisco, V., Agency 307 [1952], citing Hall v. Lauderdale, 46 N.Y. 70, 75). Inasmuch as the non-disclosure of the limits of the agency carries with it the implication that a deception was perpetrated on the unsuspecting client, the provisions of Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines come into play. Article 19 provides: Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. Article 20 provides: Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. Article 21 provides: Any person, who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. The DBP's liability, however, cannot be for the entire value of the insurance policy. To assume that were it not for DBP's concealment of the limits of its authority, Dans would have secured an MRI from another insurance company, and therefore would have been fully insured by the time he died, is highly speculative. Considering his advanced age, there is no absolute certainty that Dans could obtain an insurance coverage from another company. It must also be noted that Dans died almost immediately, i.e., on the nineteenth day after applying for the MRI, and on the twenty-third day from the date of release of his loan.

One is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 2199). Damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must be actually proved with a reasonable degree of certainty (Refractories Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 176 SCRA 539 [1989]; Choa Tek Hee v. Philippine Publishing Co., 34 Phil. 447 [1916]). Speculative damages are too remote to be included in an accurate estimate of damages (Sun Life Assurance v. Rueda Hermanos, 37 Phil. 844 [1918]). While Dans is not entitled to compensatory damages, he is entitled to moral damages. No proof of pecuniary loss is required in the assessment of said kind of damages (Civil Code of Philippines, Art. 2216). The same may be recovered in acts referred to in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. The assessment of moral damages is left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of each case (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 2216). Considering that DBP had offered to pay P30,000.00 to respondent Estate in ex gratia settlement of its claim and that DBP's non-disclosure of the limits of its authority amounted to a deception to its client, an award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 would be reasonable. The award of attorney's fees is also just and equitable under the circumstances (Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 2208 [11]). WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R.-CV No. 26434 is MODIFIED and petitioner DBP is ORDERED: (1) to REIMBURSE respondent Estate of Juan B. Dans the amount of P1,476.00 with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid; and (2) to PAY said Estate the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages and the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as attorney's fees. With costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Cruz, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Development Bank of the Philippines v CA 231 SCRA 370 March 21, 1994 Facts: Juan B. Dans, together with his family applied for a loan of P500,000 with DBP. As principal mortgagor, Dans, then 76 years of age was advised by DBP to obtain a mortgage redemption insurance (MRI) with DBP MRI pool. A loan in the reduced amount was approved and released by DBP. From the proceeds of the loan, DBP deducted the payment for the MRI premium. The MRI premium of Dans, less the DBP service fee of 10%, was credited by DBP to the savings account of DBP MRIPool. Accordingly, the DBP MRI Pool was advised of the credit. Dans died of cardiac arrest. DBP MRI Pool notified DBP that Dans was not eligible for MRI coverage, being over the acceptance age limit of 60 years at the time of application. DBP apprised Candida Dans of the disapproval of her late husbands

MRI application. DBP offered to refund the premium which the deceased had paid, but Candida Dans refused to accept the same demandingpayment of the face value of the MRI or an amount equivalent of the loan. She, likewise, refused to accept an ex gratia settlement which DBP later offered. Hence the case at bar. Issue: Whether or not the DBP MRI Pool should be held liable on the ground that the contract was already perfected? Held: No, it is not liable. The power to approve MRI application is lodged with the DBP MRI Pool. The pool, however, did not approve the application. There is also no showing that it accepted the sum which DBP credited to its account with full knowledge that it was payment for the premium. There was as a result no perfected contract of insurance hence the DBP MRI Pool cannot be held liable on a contract that does not exist In dealing with Dans, DBP was wearing 2 legal hats: the first as a lender and the second as an insurance agent. As an insurance agent, DBP made Dans go through the motion of applying for said insurance, thereby leading him and his family to believe that they had already fulfilled all the requirements for the MRI and that the issuance of their policy was forthcoming. DBP had full knowledge that the application was never going to be approved. The DBP is not authorized to accept applications for MRI when its clients are more than 60 years of age. Knowing all the while that Dans was ineligible, DBP exceeded the scope of its authority when it accepted the application for MRI by collecting the insurance premium and deducting its agents commission and service fee. Since the third person dealing with an agent is unaware of the limits of the authority conferred by the principal on the agent and he has been deceived by the non-disclosure thereof by the agent, then the latter is liable for damages to him.

[G.R. No. 156167. May 16, 2005]

GULF

RESORTS, INC., petitioner, vs. CORPORATION, respondent.

PHILIPPINE

CHARTER

INSURANCE

DECISION PUNO, J.: Before the Court is the petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court by petitioner GULF RESORTS, INC., against respondent PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION. Petitioner assails the appellate court decision[1] which dismissed its two appeals and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. For review are the warring interpretations of petitioner and respondent on the scope of the insurance companys liability for earthquake damage to petitioners properties. Petitioner avers that, pursuant to its earthquake shock endorsement rider, Insurance Policy No. 31944 covers all damages to the properties within its resort caused by earthquake. Respondent contends that the rider limits its liability for loss to the two swimming pools of petitioner. The facts as established by the court a quo, and affirmed by the appellate court are as follows: [P]laintiff is the owner of the Plaza Resort situated at Agoo, La Union and had its properties in said resort insured originally with the American Home Assurance Company (AHAC-AIU). In the first four insurance policies issued by AHAC-AIU from 1984-85; 1985-86; 1986-1987; and 198788 (Exhs. C, D, E and F; also Exhs. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively), the risk of loss from earthquake shock was extended only to plaintiffs two swimming pools, thus, earthquake shock endt. (Item 5 only) (Exhs. C-1; D-1, and E and two (2) swimming pools only (Exhs. C-1; D-1, E and F-1). Item 5 in those policies referred to the two (2) swimming pools only (Exhs. 1-B, 2-B, 3-B and F-2); that subsequently AHAC(AIU) issued in plaintiffs favor Policy No. 206-4182383-0 covering the period March 14, 1988 to March 14, 1989 (Exhs. G also G-1) and in said policy the earthquake endorsement clause as indicated in Exhibits C-1, D-1, Exhibits E and F-1 was deleted and the entry under Endorsements/W arranties at the time of issue read that plaintiff renewed its policy with AHAC (AIU) for the period of March 14, 1989 to March 14, 1990 under Policy No. 206-4568061-9 (Exh. H) which carried the entry under Endorsement/Warranties at Time of Issue, which read Endorsement to Include Earthquake Shock (Exh. 6-B-1) in the amount of P10,700.00 and paid P42,658.14 (Exhs. 6-A and 6-B) as premium thereof, computed as follows: Item -P7,691,000.00 on the Clubhouse only @ .392%; 1,500,000.00 on the furniture, etc. contained in the building above-mentioned@ .490%; 393,000.00on the two swimming pools, only (against the peril of earthquake shock only) @ 0.100% 116,600.00other buildings include as follows: P19,800.00- 0.551%

a) Tilter House-

b) Power Housec) House ShedP100,000.00

P41,000.00- 0.551% P55,000.00 -0.540% for furniture, fixtures, lines air-con and operating equipment

that plaintiff agreed to insure with defendant the properties covered by AHAC (AIU) Policy No. 206-4568061-9 (Exh. H) provided that the policy wording and rates in said policy be copied in the policy to be issued by defendant; that defendant issued Policy No. 31944 to plaintiff covering the period of March 14, 1990 to March 14, 1991 for P10,700,600.00 for a total premium of P45,159.92 (Exh. I); that in the computation of the premium, defendants Policy No. 31944 (Exh. I), which is the policy in question, contained on the right-hand upper portion of page 7 thereof, the following: Rate-Various Premium P37,420.60 F/L 2,061.52 Typhoon 1,030.76 EC 393.00 ES 3,068.10 776.89 409.05 45,159.92;

Doc. Stamps F.S.T. Prem. Tax TOTAL

that the above break-down of premiums shows that plaintiff paid only P393.00 as premium against earthquake shock (ES); that in all the six insurance policies (Exhs. C, D, E, F, G and H), the premium against the peril of earthquake shock is the same, that is P393.00 (Exhs. C and 1-B; 2-B and 3-B-1 and 3-B-2; F-02 and 4-A-1; G-2 and 5-C-1; 6-C-1; issued by AHAC (Exhs. C, D, E, F, G and H) and in Policy No. 31944 issued by defendant, the shock endorsement provide(sic): In consideration of the payment by the insured to the company of the sum included additional premium the Company agrees, notwithstanding what is stated in the printed conditions of this policy due to the contrary, that this insurance covers loss or damage to shock to any of the property insured by this Policy occasioned by or through or in consequence of earthquake (Exhs. 1-D, 2-D, 3-A, 4-B, 5-A, 6-D and 7-C); that in Exhibit 7-C the word included above the underlined portion was deleted; that on July 16, 1990 an earthquake struck Central Luzon and Northern Luzon and plaintiffs properties covered by Policy No. 31944 issued by defendant, including the two swimming pools in its Agoo Playa Resort were damaged.[2] After the earthquake, petitioner advised respondent that it would be making a claim under its Insurance Policy No. 31944 for damages on its properties. Respondent instructed petitioner to file a formal claim, then assigned the investigation of the claim to an independent claims adjuster, Bayne Adjusters and Surveyors, Inc.[3] On July 30, 1990, respondent, through its adjuster, requested petitioner to submit various documents in support of its claim. On August 7, 1990, Bayne Adjusters and Surveyors, Inc., through its Vice-President A.R. de Leon,[4] rendered a preliminary report[5] finding extensive damage caused by the earthquake to the clubhouse and

to the two swimming pools. Mr. de Leon stated that except for the swimming pools, all affected items have no coverage for earthquake shocks.[6] On August 11, 1990, petitioner filed its formal demand[7] for settlement of the damage to all its properties in the Agoo Playa Resort. On August 23, 1990, respondent denied petitioners claim on the ground that its insurance policy only afforded earthquake shock coverage to the two swimming pools of the resort. [8] Petitioner and respondent failed to arrive at a settlement.[9] Thus, on January 24, 1991, petitioner filed a complaint[10] with the regional trial court of Pasig praying for the payment of the following: 1.) The sum of P5,427,779.00, representing losses sustained by the insured properties, with interest thereon, as computed under par. 29 of the policy (Annex B) until fully paid; The sum of P428,842.00 per month, representing continuing losses sustained by plaintiff on account of defendants refusal to pay the claims; The sum of P500,000.00, by way of exemplary damages; The sum of P500,000.00 by way of attorneys fees and expenses of litigation; Costs.[11]

2.)

3.) 4.) 5.)

Respondent filed its Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses with Compulsory Counterclaims.[12] On February 21, 1994, the lower court after trial ruled in favor of the respondent, viz: The above schedule clearly shows that plaintiff paid only a premium of P393.00 against the peril of earthquake shock, the same premium it paid against earthquake shock only on the two swimming pools in all the policies issued by AHAC(AIU) (Exhibits C, D, E, F and G). From this fact the Court must consequently agree with the position of defendant that the endorsement rider (Exhibit 7-C) means that only the two swimming pools were insured against earthquake shock. Plaintiff correctly points out that a policy of insurance is a contract of adhesion hence, where the language used in an insurance contract or application is such as to create ambiguity the same should be resolved against the party responsible therefor, i.e., the insurance company which prepared the contract. To the mind of [the] Court, the language used in the policy in litigation is clear and unambiguous hence there is no need for interpretation or construction but only application of the provisions therein. From the above observations the Court finds that only the two (2) swimming pools had earthquake shock coverage and were heavily damaged by the earthquake which struck on July 16, 1990. Defendant having admitted that the damage to the swimming pools was appraised by defendants adjuster at P386,000.00, defendant must, by virtue of the contract of insurance, pay plaintiff said amount. Because it is the finding of the Court as stated in the immediately preceding paragraph that defendant is liable only for the damage caused to the two (2) swimming pools and that defendant has made known to plaintiff its willingness and readiness to settle said liability, there is no basis for the grant of the other damages prayed for by plaintiff. As to the counterclaims of

defendant, the Court does not agree that the action filed by plaintiff is baseless and highly speculative since such action is a lawful exercise of the plaintiffs right to come to Court in the honest belief that their Complaint is meritorious. The prayer, therefore, of defendant for damages is likewise denied. WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant is ordered to pay plaintiffs the sum of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P386,000.00) representing damage to the two (2) swimming pools, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the Complaint until defendants obligation to plaintiff is fully paid. No pronouncement as to costs.[13] Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Thus, petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals based on the following assigned errors:[14] A. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT CAN ONLY RECOVER FOR THE DAMAGE TO ITS TWO SWIMMING POOLS UNDER ITS FIRE POLICY NO. 31944, CONSIDERING ITS PROVISIONS, THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE ISSUANCE OF SAID POLICY AND THE ACTUATIONS OF THE PARTIES SUBSEQUENT TO THE EARTHQUAKE OF JULY 16, 1990. B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS RIGHT TO RECOVER UNDER DEFENDANT-APPELLEES POLICY (NO. 31944; EXH I) BY LIMITING ITSELF TO A CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID POLICY ISOLATED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ITS ISSUANCE AND THE ACTUATIONS OF THE PARTIES AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE OF JULY 16, 1990. C. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE DAMAGES CLAIMED, WITH INTEREST COMPUTED AT 24% PER ANNUM ON CLAIMS ON PROCEEDS OF POLICY. On the other hand, respondent filed a partial appeal, assailing the lower courts failure to award it attorneys fees and damages on its compulsory counterclaim. After review, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court and ruled, thus: However, after carefully perusing the documentary evidence of both parties, We are not convinced that the last two (2) insurance contracts (Exhs. G and H), which the plaintiffappellant had with AHAC (AIU) and upon which the subject insurance contract with Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation is said to have been based and copied (Exh. I), covered an extended earthquake shock insurance on all the insured properties. xxx We also find that the Court a quo was correct in not granting the plaintiff-appellants prayer for the imposition of interest 24% on the insurance claim and 6% on loss of income allegedly amounting to P4,280,000.00. Since the defendant-appellant has expressed its willingness to pay the damage caused on the two (2) swimming pools, as the Court a quo and this Court correctly found it to be liable only, it then cannot be said that it was in default and therefore liable for interest.

Coming to the defendant-appellants prayer for an attorneys fees, long-standing is the rule that the award thereof is subject to the sound discretion of the court. Thus, if such discretion is wellexercised, it will not be disturbed on appeal (Castro et al. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 115838, July 18, 2002). Moreover, being the award thereof an exception rather than a rule, it is necessary for the court to make findings of facts and law that would bring the case within the exception and justify the grant of such award (Country Bankers Insurance Corp. v. Lianga Bay and Community Multi-Purpose Coop., Inc., G.R. No. 136914, January 25, 2002). Therefore, holding that the plaintiff-appellants action is not baseless and highly speculative, We find that the Court a quo did not err in granting the same. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, both appeals are hereby DISMISSED and judgment of the Trial Court hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.[15] Petitioner filed the present petition raising the following issues:[16] A. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY HELD THAT UNDER RESPONDENTS INSURANCE POLICY NO. 31944, ONLY THE TWO (2) SWIMMING POOLS, RATHER THAN ALL THE PROPERTIES COVERED THEREUNDER, ARE INSURED AGAINST THE RISK OF EARTHQUAKE SHOCK.

B. WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY DENIED PETITIONERS PRAYER FOR DAMAGES WITH INTEREST THEREON AT THE RATE CLAIMED, ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES OF LITIGATION. Petitioner contends: First, that the policys earthquake shock endorsement clearly covers all of the properties insured and not only the swimming pools. It used the words any property insured by this policy, and it should be interpreted as all inclusive. Second, the unqualified and unrestricted nature of the earthquake shock endorsement is confirmed in the body of the insurance policy itself, which states that it is [s]ubject to: Other Insurance Clause, Typhoon Endorsement, Earthquake Shock Endt., Extended Coverage Endt., FEA Warranty & Annual Payment Agreement On Long Term Policies.[17] Third, that the qualification referring to the two swimming pools had already been deleted in the earthquake shock endorsement. Fourth, it is unbelievable for respondent to claim that it only made an inadvertent omission when it deleted the said qualification. Fifth, that the earthquake shock endorsement rider should be given precedence over the wording of the insurance policy, because the rider is the more deliberate expression of the agreement of the contracting parties. Sixth, that in their previous insurance policies, endorsements/warranties enumerated at the time of issue. limits were placed on the

Seventh, any ambiguity in the earthquake shock endorsement should be resolved in favor of petitioner and against respondent. It was respondent which caused the ambiguity when it made the policy in issue. Eighth, the qualification of the endorsement limiting the earthquake shock endorsement should be interpreted as a caveat on the standard fire insurance policy, such as to remove the

two swimming pools from the coverage for the risk of fire. It should not be used to limit the respondents liability for earthquake shock to the two swimming pools only. Ninth, there is no basis for the appellate court to hold that the additional premium was not paid under the extended coverage. The premium for the earthquake shock coverage was already included in the premium paid for the policy. Tenth, the parties contemporaneous and subsequent acts show that they intended to extend earthquake shock coverage to all insured properties. When it secured an insurance policy from respondent, petitioner told respondent that it wanted an exact replica of its latest insurance policy from American Home Assurance Company (AHAC-AIU), which covered all the resorts properties for earthquake shock damage and respondent agreed. After the July 16, 1990 earthquake, respondent assured petitioner that it was covered for earthquake shock. Respondents insurance adjuster, Bayne Adjusters and Surveyors, Inc., likewise requested petitioner to submit the necessary documents for its building claims and other repair costs. Thus, under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, it cannot deny that the insurance policy it issued to petitioner covered all of the properties within the resort. Eleventh, that it is proper for it to avail of a petition for review by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court as its remedy, and there is no need for calibration of the evidence in order to establish the facts upon which this petition is based. On the other hand, respondent made the following counter arguments:[18] First, none of the previous policies issued by AHAC-AIU from 1983 to 1990 explicitly extended coverage against earthquake shock to petitioners insured properties other than on the two swimming pools. Petitioner admitted that from 1984 to 1988, only the two swimming pools were insured against earthquake shock. From 1988 until 1990, the provisions in its policy were practically identical to its earlier policies, and there was no increase in the premium paid. AHACAIU, in a letter[19] by its representative Manuel C. Quijano, categorically stated that its previous policy, from which respondents policy was copied, covered only earthquake shock for the two swimming pools. Second, petitioners payment of additional premium in the amount of P393.00 shows that the policy only covered earthquake shock damage on the two swimming pools. The amount was the same amount paid by petitioner for earthquake shock coverage on the two swimming pools from 1990-1991. No additional premium was paid to warrant coverage of the other properties in the resort. Third, the deletion of the phrase pertaining to the limitation of the earthquake shock endorsement to the two swimming pools in the policy schedule did not expand the earthquake shock coverage to all of petitioners properties. As per its agreement with petitioner, respondent copied its policy from the AHAC-AIU policy provided by petitioner. Although the first five policies contained the said qualification in their riders title, in the last two policies, this qualification in the title was deleted. AHAC-AIU, through Mr. J. Baranda III, stated that such deletion was a mere inadvertence. This inadvertence did not make the policy incomplete, nor did it broaden the scope of the endorsement whose descriptive title was merely enumerated. Any ambiguity in the policy can be easily resolved by looking at the other provisions, specially the enumeration of the items insured, where only the two swimming pools were noted as covered for earthquake shock damage. Fourth, in its Complaint, petitioner alleged that in its policies from 1984 through 1988, the phrase Item 5 P393,000.00 on the two swimming pools only (against the peril of earthquake shock only) meant that only the swimming pools were insured for earthquake damage. The

same phrase is used in toto in the policies from 1989 to 1990, the only difference being the designation of the two swimming pools as Item 3. Fifth, in order for the earthquake shock endorsement to be effective, premiums must be paid for all the properties covered. In all of its seven insurance policies, petitioner only paid P393.00 as premium for coverage of the swimming pools against earthquake shock. No other premium was paid for earthquake shock coverage on the other properties. In addition, the use of the qualifier ANY instead of ALL to describe the property covered was done deliberately to enable the parties to specify the properties included for earthquake coverage. Sixth, petitioner did not inform respondent of its requirement that all of its properties must be included in the earthquake shock coverage. Petitioners own evidence shows that it only required respondent to follow the exact provisions of its previous policy from AHAC-AIU. Respondent complied with this requirement. Respondents only deviation from the agreement was when it modified the provisions regarding the replacement cost endorsement. With regard to the issue under litigation, the riders of the old policy and the policy in issue are identical. Seventh, respondent did not do any act or give any assurance to petitioner as would estop it from maintaining that only the two swimming pools were covered for earthquake shock. The adjusters letter notifying petitioner to present certain documents for its building claims and repair costs was given to petitioner before the adjuster knew the full coverage of its policy. Petitioner anchors its claims on AHAC-AIUs inadvertent deletion of the phrase Item 5 Only after the descriptive name or title of the Earthquake Shock Endorsement. However, the words of the policy reflect the parties clear intention to limit earthquake shock coverage to the two swimming pools. Before petitioner accepted the policy, it had the opportunity to read its conditions. It did not object to any deficiency nor did it institute any action to reform the policy. The policy binds the petitioner. Eighth, there is no basis for petitioner to claim damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses. Since respondent was willing and able to pay for the damage caused on the two swimming pools, it cannot be considered to be in default, and therefore, it is not liable for interest. We hold that the petition is devoid of merit. In Insurance Policy No. 31944, four key items are important in the resolution of the case at bar. First, in the designation of location of risk, only the two swimming pools were specified as included, viz: ITEM 3 393,000.00 On the two (2) swimming pools only (against the peril of earthquake shock only)[20] Second, under the breakdown for premium payments,[21] it was stated that: PREMIUM RECAPITULATION ITEM NOS. xxx AMOUNT RATES PREMIUM

393,000.00

0.100%-E/S

393.00[22]

Third, Policy Condition No. 6 stated: 6. This insurance does not cover any loss or damage occasioned by or through or in consequence, directly or indirectly of any of the following occurrences, namely:-(a) Earthquake, volcanic eruption or other convulsion of nature. [23]

Fourth, the rider attached to the policy, titled Extended Coverage Endorsement (To Include the Perils of Explosion, Aircraft, Vehicle and Smoke), stated, viz: ANNUAL PAYMENT AGREEMENT ON LONG TERM POLICIES THE INSURED UNDER THIS POLICY HAVING ESTABLISHED AGGREGATE SUMS INSURED IN EXCESS OF FIVE MILLION PESOS, IN CONSIDERATION OF A DISCOUNT OF 5% OR 7 % OF THE NET PREMIUM x x x POLICY HEREBY UNDERTAKES TO CONTINUE THE INSURANCE UNDER THE ABOVE NAMED x x x AND TO PAY THE PREMIUM. Earthquake Endorsement In consideration of the payment by the Insured to the Company of the sum of P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . additional premium the Company agrees, notwithstanding what is stated in the printed conditions of this Policy to the contrary, that this insurance covers loss or damage (including loss or damage by fire) to any of the property insured by this Policy occasioned by or through or in consequence of Earthquake. Provided always that all the conditions of this Policy shall apply (except in so far as they may be hereby expressly varied) and that any reference therein to loss or damage by fire should be deemed to apply also to loss or damage occasioned by or through or in consequence of Earthquake.[24] Petitioner contends that pursuant to this rider, no qualifications were placed on the scope of the earthquake shock coverage. Thus, the policy extended earthquake shock coverage to all of the insured properties. It is basic that all the provisions of the insurance policy should be examined and interpreted in consonance with each other.[25] All its parts are reflective of the true intent of the parties. The policy cannot be construed piecemeal. Certain stipulations cannot be segregated and then made to control; neither do particular words or phrases necessarily determine its character. Petitioner cannot focus on the earthquake shock endorsement to the exclusion of the other provisions. All the provisions and riders, taken and interpreted together, indubitably show the intention of the parties to extend earthquake shock coverage to the two swimming pools only. A careful examination of the premium recapitulation will show that it is the clear intent of the parties to extend earthquake shock coverage only to the two swimming pools. Section 2(1) of the Insurance Code defines a contract of insurance as an agreement whereby one undertakes for a consideration to indemnify another against loss, damage or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event. Thus, an insurance contract exists where the following elements concur:

1. The insured has an insurable interest; 2. The insured is subject to a risk of loss by the happening of the designated peril; 3. The insurer assumes the risk; 4. Such assumption of risk is part of a general scheme to distribute actual losses among a large group of persons bearing a similar risk; and 5. In consideration of the insurer's promise, the insured pays a premium.[26] (Emphasis ours) An insurance premium is the consideration paid an insurer for undertaking to indemnify the insured against a specified peril.[27] In fire, casualty, and marine insurance, the premium payable becomes a debt as soon as the risk attaches.[28] In the subject policy, no premium payments were made with regard to earthquake shock coverage, except on the two swimming pools. There is no mention of any premium payable for the other resort properties with regard to earthquake shock. This is consistent with the history of petitioners previous insurance policies from AHAC-AIU. As borne out by petitioners witnesses: CROSS EXAMINATION OF LEOPOLDO MANTOHAC TSN, November 25, 1991 pp. 12-13 Q. Now Mr. Mantohac, will it be correct to state also that insofar as your insurance policy during the period from March 4, 1984 to March 4, 1985 the coverage on earthquake shock was limited to the two swimming pools only? A. Yes, sir. It is limited to the two swimming pools, specifically shown in the warranty, there is a provision here that it was only for item 5. Q. More specifically Item 5 states the amount of P393,000.00 corresponding to the two swimming pools only? A. Yes, sir.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF LEOPOLDO MANTOHAC TSN, November 25, 1991 pp. 23-26 Q. For the period from March 14, 1988 up to March 14, 1989, did you personally arrange for the procurement of this policy? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you also do this through your insurance agency? A. If you are referring to Forte Insurance Agency, yes.

Q. Is Forte Insurance Agency a department or division of your company? A. No, sir. They are our insurance agency.

Q. And they are independent of your company insofar as operations are concerned? A. Yes, sir, they are separate entity.

Q. But insofar as the procurement of the insurance policy is concerned they are of course subject to your instruction, is that not correct? A. Yes, sir. The final action is still with us although they can recommend what insurance to take.

Q. In the procurement of the insurance police (sic) from March 14, 1988 to March 14, 1989, did you give written instruction to Forte Insurance Agency advising it that the earthquake shock coverage must extend to all properties of Agoo Playa Resort in La Union? A. No, sir. We did not make any written instruction, although we made an oral instruction to that effect of extending the coverage on (sic) the other properties of the company.

Q. And that instruction, according to you, was very important because in April 1987 there was an earthquake tremor in La Union? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you wanted to protect all your properties against similar tremors in the [future], is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, after this policy was delivered to you did you bother to check the provisions with respect to your instructions that all properties must be covered again by earthquake shock endorsement? A. Are you referring to the insurance policy issued by American Home Assurance Company marked Exhibit G?

Atty. Mejia: Yes. Witness: A. I examined the policy and seeing that the warranty on the earthquake shock endorsement has no more limitation referring to the two swimming pools only, I was contented already that the previous limitation pertaining to the two swimming pools was already removed.

Petitioner also cited and relies on the attachment of the phrase Subject to: Other Insurance Clause, Typhoon Endorsement, Earthquake Shock Endorsement, Extended Coverage Endorsement, FEA Warranty & Annual Payment Agreement on Long Term Policies[29] to the insurance policy as proof of the intent of the parties to extend the coverage for earthquake shock. However, this phrase is merely an enumeration of the descriptive titles of the riders, clauses, warranties or endorsements to which the policy is subject, as required under Section 50, paragraph 2 of the Insurance Code. We also hold that no significance can be placed on the deletion of the qualification limiting the coverage to the two swimming pools. The earthquake shock endorsement cannot stand alone. As explained by the testimony of Juan Baranda III, underwriter for AHAC-AIU: DIRECT EXAMINATION OF JUAN BARANDA III[30] TSN, August 11, 1992 pp. 9-12

Atty. Mejia: We respectfully manifest that the same exhibits C to H inclusive have been previously marked by counsel for defendant as Exhibit[s] 1-6 inclusive. Did you have occasion to review of (sic) these six (6) policies issued by your company [in favor] of Agoo Playa Resort? WITNESS: Yes[,] I remember having gone over these policies at one point of time, sir. Q. Now, wach (sic) of these six (6) policies marked in evidence as Exhibits C to H respectively carries an earthquake shock endorsement[?] My question to you is, on the basis on (sic) the wordings indicated in Exhibits C to H respectively what was the extent of the coverage [against] the peril of earthquake shock as provided for in each of the six (6) policies? xxx WITNESS: The extent of the coverage is only up to the two (2) swimming pools, sir. Q. Is that for each of the six (6) policies namely: Exhibits C, D, E, F, G and H? A. Yes, sir.

ATTY. MEJIA: What is your basis for stating that the coverage against earthquake shock as provided for in each of the six (6) policies extend to the two (2) swimming pools only? WITNESS: Because it says here in the policies, in the enumeration Earthquake Shock Endorsement, in the Clauses and Warranties: Item 5 only (Earthquake Shock Endorsement), sir. ATTY. MEJIA: Witness referring to Exhibit C-1, your Honor. WITNESS: We do not normally cover earthquake shock endorsement on stand alone basis. For swimming pools we do cover earthquake shock. For building we covered it for full earthquake coverage which includes earthquake shock COURT: As far as earthquake shock endorsement you do not have a specific coverage for other things other than swimming pool? You are covering building? They are covered by a general insurance? WITNESS: Earthquake shock coverage could not stand alone. If we are covering building or another we can issue earthquake shock solely but that the moment I see this, the

thing that comes to my mind is either insuring a swimming pool, foundations, they are normally affected by earthquake but not by fire, sir. DIRECT EXAMINATION OF JUAN BARANDA III TSN, August 11, 1992 pp. 23-25 Q. Plaintiffs witness, Mr. Mantohac testified and he alleged that only Exhibits C, D, E and F inclusive [remained] its coverage against earthquake shock to two (2) swimming pools only but that Exhibits G and H respectively entend the coverage against earthquake shock to all the properties indicated in the respective schedules attached to said policies, what can you say about that testimony of plaintiffs witness? WITNESS: As I have mentioned earlier, earthquake shock cannot stand alone without the other half of it. I assure you that this one covers the two swimming pools with respect to earthquake shock endorsement. Based on it, if we are going to look at the premium there has been no change with respect to the rates. Everytime (sic) there is a renewal if the intention of the insurer was to include the earthquake shock, I think there is a substantial increase in the premium. We are not only going to consider the two (2) swimming pools of the other as stated in the policy. As I see, there is no increase in the amount of the premium. I must say that the coverage was not broaden (sic) to include the other items. COURT: They are the same, the premium rates? WITNESS: They are the same in the sence (sic), in the amount of the coverage. If you are going to do some computation based on the rates you will arrive at the same premiums, your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JUAN BARANDA III TSN, September 7, 1992 pp. 4-6 ATTY. ANDRES: Would you as a matter of practice [insure] swimming pools for fire insurance? WITNESS: No, we dont, sir. Q. That is why the phrase earthquake shock to the two (2) swimming pools only was placed, is it not? A. Yes, sir.

ATTY. ANDRES:

Will you not also agree with me that these exhibits, Exhibits G and H which you have pointed to during your direct-examination, the phrase Item no. 5 only meaning to (sic) the two (2) swimming pools was deleted from the policies issued by AIU, is it not? xxx ATTY. ANDRES: As an insurance executive will you not attach any significance to the deletion of the qualifying phrase for the policies? WITNESS: My answer to that would be, the deletion of that particular phrase is inadvertent. Being a company underwriter, we do not cover. . it was inadvertent because of the previous policies that we have issued with no specific attachments, premium rates and so on. It was inadvertent, sir. The Court also rejects petitioners contention that respondents contemporaneous and subsequent acts to the issuance of the insurance policy falsely gave the petitioner assurance that the coverage of the earthquake shock endorsement included all its properties in the resort. Respondent only insured the properties as intended by the petitioner. Petitioners own witness testified to this agreement, viz: CROSS EXAMINATION OF LEOPOLDO MANTOHAC TSN, January 14, 1992 pp. 4-5 Q. Just to be clear about this particular answer of yours Mr. Witness, what exactly did you tell Atty. Omlas (sic) to copy from Exhibit H for purposes of procuring the policy from Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation? A. I told him that the insurance that they will have to get will have the same provisions as this American Home Insurance Policy No. 206-4568061-9. Yes, sir, to Exhibit H.

Q. You are referring to Exhibit H of course? A.

Q. So, all the provisions here will be the same except that of the premium rates? A. Yes, sir. He assured me that with regards to the insurance premium rates that they will be charging will be limited to this one. I (sic) can even be lesser.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF LEOPOLDO MANTOHAC TSN, January 14, 1992 pp. 12-14 Atty. Mejia: Q. Will it be correct to state[,] Mr. Witness, that you made a comparison of the provisions and scope of coverage of Exhibits I and H sometime in the third week of March, 1990 or thereabout?

A.

Yes, sir, about that time.

Q. And at that time did you notice any discrepancy or difference between the policy wordings as well as scope of coverage of Exhibits I and H respectively? A. No, sir, I did not discover any difference inasmuch (sic) as I was assured already that the policy wordings and rates were copied from the insurance policy I sent them but it was only when this case erupted that we discovered some discrepancies.

Q. With respect to the items declared for insurance coverage did you notice any discrepancy at any time between those indicated in Exhibit I and those indicated in Exhibit H respectively? A. With regard to the wordings I did not notice any difference because it was exactly the same P393,000.00 on the two (2) swimming pools only against the peril of earthquake shock which I understood before that this provision will have to be placed here because this particular provision under the peril of earthquake shock only is requested because this is an insurance policy and therefore cannot be insured against fire, so this has to be placed.

The verbal assurances allegedly given by respondents representative Atty. Umlas were not proved. Atty. Umlas categorically denied having given such assurances. Finally, petitioner puts much stress on the letter of respondents independent claims adjuster, Bayne Adjusters and Surveyors, Inc. But as testified to by the representative of Bayne Adjusters and Surveyors, Inc., respondent never meant to lead petitioner to believe that the endorsement for earthquake shock covered properties other than the two swimming pools, viz: DIRECT EXAMINATION OF ALBERTO DE LEON (Bayne Adjusters and Surveyors, Inc.) TSN, January 26, 1993 pp. 22-26 Q. Do you recall the circumstances that led to your discussion regarding the extent of coverage of the policy issued by Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation? A. I remember that when I returned to the office after the inspection, I got a photocopy of the insurance coverage policy and it was indicated under Item 3 specifically that the coverage is only for earthquake shock. Then, I remember I had a talk with Atty. Umlas (sic), and I relayed to him what I had found out in the policy and he confirmed to me indeed only Item 3 which were the two swimming pools have coverage for earthquake shock. xxx Q. Now, may we know from you Engr. de Leon your basis, if any, for stating that except for the swimming pools all affected items have no coverage for earthquake shock? xxx

A.

I based my statement on my findings, because upon my examination of the policy I found out that under Item 3 it was specific on the wordings that on the two swimming pools only, then enclosed in parenthesis (against the peril[s] of earthquake shock only), and secondly, when I examined the summary of premium payment only Item 3 which refers to the swimming pools have a computation for premium payment for earthquake shock and all the other items have no computation for payment of premiums.

In sum, there is no ambiguity in the terms of the contract and its riders. Petitioner cannot rely on the general rule that insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion which should be liberally construed in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer company which usually prepares it.[31] A contract of adhesion is one wherein a party, usually a corporation, prepares the stipulations in the contract, while the other party merely affixes his signature or his "adhesion" thereto. Through the years, the courts have held that in these type of contracts, the parties do not bargain on equal footing, the weaker party's participation being reduced to the alternative to take it or leave it. Thus, these contracts are viewed as traps for the weaker party whom the courts of justice must protect.[32] Consequently, any ambiguity therein is resolved against the insurer, or construed liberally in favor of the insured.[33] The case law will show that this Court will only rule out blind adherence to terms where facts and circumstances will show that they are basically one-sided.[34] Thus, we have called on lower courts to remain careful in scrutinizing the factual circumstances behind each case to determine the efficacy of the claims of contending parties. In Development Bank of the Philippines v. National Merchandising Corporation, et al.,[35] the parties, who were acute businessmen of experience, were presumed to have assented to the assailed documents with full knowledge. We cannot apply the general rule on contracts of adhesion to the case at bar. Petitioner cannot claim it did not know the provisions of the policy. From the inception of the policy, petitioner had required the respondent to copy verbatim the provisions and terms of its latest insurance policy from AHAC-AIU. The testimony of Mr. Leopoldo Mantohac, a direct participant in securing the insurance policy of petitioner, is reflective of petitioners knowledge, viz: DIRECT EXAMINATION OF LEOPOLDO MANTOHAC[36] TSN, September 23, 1991 pp. 20-21 Q. Did you indicate to Atty. Omlas (sic) what kind of policy you would want for those facilities in Agoo Playa? A. Yes, sir. I told him that I will agree to that renewal of this policy under Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation as long as it will follow the same or exact provisions of the previous insurance policy we had with American Home Assurance Corporation.

Q. Did you take any step Mr. Witness to ensure that the provisions which you wanted in the American Home Insurance policy are to be incorporated in the PCIC policy? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What steps did you take?

A.

When I examined the policy of the Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation I specifically told him that the policy and wordings shall be copied from the AIU Policy No. 206-4568061-9.

Respondent, in compliance with the condition set by the petitioner, copied AIU Policy No. 206-4568061-9 in drafting its Insurance Policy No. 31944. It is true that there was variance in some terms, specifically in the replacement cost endorsement, but the principal provisions of the policy remained essentially similar to AHAC-AIUs policy. Consequently, we cannot apply the "fine print" or "contract of adhesion" rule in this case as the parties intent to limit the coverage of the policy to the two swimming pools only is not ambiguous.[37] IN VIEW WHEREOF, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The petition for certiorari is dismissed. No costs. SO ORDERED. Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Gulf Resorts Inc. vs. Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation [G.R. No. 156167 May 16, 2005] Post under case digests, Commercial Law at Saturday, March 03, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind Facts: Gulf Resorts is the owner of the Plaza Resort situated at Agoo, La Union and had its properties in said resort insuredoriginally with the American Home Assurance Company (AHAC). In the first 4 policies issued, the risks of loss from earthquake shock was extended only to petitioners two swimming pools. Gulf Resortsagreed to insure with Phil Charter the properties covered by the AHAC policy provided that the policy wording and rates in said policy be copied in the policy to be issued by Phil Charter. Phil Charterissued Policy No. 31944 to Gulf Resorts covering the period of March 14, 1990 to March 14, 1991 for P10,700,600.00 for a total premium of P45,159.92. the break-down of premiums shows that Gulf Resorts paid only P393.00 as premium against earthquake shock (ES). In Policy No. 31944 issued by defendant, the shock endorsement provided that In consideration of the payment by theinsured to the company of the sum included additional premium the Company agrees, notwithstanding what is stated in the printed conditions of this policy due to the contrary, that this insurance covers loss or damage to shock to any of the property insured by this Policy occasioned by or through or in consequence of earthquake (Exhs. "1-D", "2-D", "3-A", "4-B", "5-A", "6-D" and "7-C"). In Exhibit "7-C" the word "included" above the underlined portion was deleted. On July 16, 1990 an earthquake struck Central Luzon and Northern Luzon and plaintiffs properties covered by Policy No. 31944 issued by defendant, including the two swimming pools in its Agoo Playa Resort were damaged.

Petitioner advised respondent that it would be making a claim under its Insurance Policy 31944 for damages on its properties. Respondent denied petitioners claim on the ground that its insurance policy only afforded earthquake shock coverage to the twoswimming pools of the resort. The trial court ruled in favor of respondent. In its ruling, the schedule clearly shows that petitioner paid only a premium of P393.00 against the peril of earthquake shock, the same premium it had paid against earthquake shock only on the two swimming pools in all the policies issued by AHAC.

Issue: Whether

or

not

the

policy

covers

only

the

two swimming

pools owned

by

Gulf Resorts and does not extend to all properties damaged therein

Held: YES. All the provisions and riders taken and interpreted together, indubitably show the intention of the parties to extend earthquake shock coverage to the two swimming pools only. An insurance premium is the consideration paid an insurer for undertaking to indemnify the insured against a specified peril. In fire, casualty and marine insurance, the premium becomes a debt as soon as the risk attaches. In the subject policy, no premium payments were made with regard to earthquake shock coverage except on the two swimming pools. There is no mention of any premium payable for the other resort properties with regard to earthquake shock. This is consistent with the history of petitioners insurance policies with AHAC.

G.R. No. L-36413 September 26, 1988 MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION) MARTIN C. VALLEJOS, SIO CHOY, SAN LEON RICE MILL, INC. and PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., respondents. Freqillana Jr. for petitioner. B.F. Estrella & Associates for respondent Martin Vallejos. Vicente Erfe Law Office for respondent Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. Nemesio Callanta for respondent Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc.

PADILLA, J.: Review on certiorari of the judgment * of the respondent appellate court in CA-G.R. No. 47319R, dated 22 February 1973, which affirmed, with some modifications, the decision, ** dated 27 April 1970, rendered in Civil Case No. U-2021 of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The antecedent facts of the case are as follows: On 29 March 1967, herein petitioner, Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., issued in favor of private respondent Sio Choy Private Car Comprehensive Policy No. MRO/PV-15753, effective from 18 April 1967 to 18 April 1968, covering a Willys jeep with Motor No. ET-03023 Serial No. 351672, and Plate No. J-21536, Quezon City, 1967. The insurance coverage was for "own damage" not to exceed P600.00 and "third-party liability" in the amount of P20,000.00. During the effectivity of said insurance policy, and more particularly on 19 December 1967, at about 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon, the insured jeep, while being driven by one Juan P. Campollo an employee of the respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc., collided with a passenger bus belonging to the respondent Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. (PANTRANCO, for short) at the national highway in Barrio San Pedro, Rosales, Pangasinan, causing damage to the insured vehicle and injuries to the driver, Juan P. Campollo, and the respondent Martin C. Vallejos, who was riding in the ill-fated jeep. As a result, Martin C. Vallejos filed an action for damages against Sio Choy, Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. and the PANTRANCO before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, which was docketed as Civil Case No. U-2021. He prayed therein that the defendants be ordered to pay him, jointly and severally, the amount of P15,000.00, as reimbursement for medical and hospital expenses; P6,000.00, for lost income; P51,000.00 as actual, moral and compensatory damages; and P5,000.00, for attorney's fees. Answering, PANTRANCO claimed that the jeep of Sio Choy was then operated at an excessive speed and bumped the PANTRANCO bus which had moved to, and stopped at, the shoulder of the highway in order to avoid the jeep; and that it had observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage, especially in the selection and supervision of its employees and in the maintenance of its motor vehicles. It prayed that it be absolved from any and all liability. Defendant Sio Choy and the petitioner insurance company, in their answer, also denied liability to the plaintiff, claiming that the fault in the accident was solely imputable to the PANTRANCO. Sio Choy, however, later filed a separate answer with a cross-claim against the herein petitioner wherein he alleged that he had actually paid the plaintiff, Martin C. Vallejos, the amount of P5,000.00 for hospitalization and other expenses, and, in his cross-claim against the herein petitioner, he alleged that the petitioner had issued in his favor a private car comprehensive policy wherein the insurance company obligated itself to indemnify Sio Choy, as insured, for the damage to his motor vehicle, as well as for any liability to third persons arising out of any accident during the effectivity of such insurance contract, which policy was in full force and effect when the vehicular accident complained of occurred. He prayed that he be reimbursed by the insurance company for the amount that he may be ordered to pay.

Also later, the herein petitioner sought, and was granted, leave to file a third-party complaint against the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. for the reason that the person driving the jeep of Sio Choy, at the time of the accident, was an employee of the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. performing his duties within the scope of his assigned task, and not an employee of Sio Choy; and that, as the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. is the employer of the deceased driver, Juan P. Campollo, it should be liable for the acts of its employee, pursuant to Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. The herein petitioner prayed that judgment be rendered against the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc., making it liable for the amounts claimed by the plaintiff and/or ordering said San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. to reimburse and indemnify the petitioner for any sum that it may be ordered to pay the plaintiff. After trial, judgment was rendered as follows: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing findings of this Court judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against Sio Choy and Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., and third-party defendant San Leon Rice Mill, Inc., as follows: (a) P4,103 as actual damages; (b) P18,000.00 representing the unearned income of plaintiff Martin C. Vallejos for the period of three (3) years; (c) P5,000.00 as moral damages; (d) P2,000.00 as attomey's fees or the total of P29,103.00, plus costs. The above-named parties against whom this judgment is rendered are hereby held jointly and severally liable. With respect, however, to Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., its liability will be up to only P20,000.00. As no satisfactory proof of cost of damage to its bus was presented by defendant Pantranco, no award should be made in its favor. Its counter-claim for attorney's fees is also dismissed for not being proved. 1 On appeal, the respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court that Sio Choy, the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. and the Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. are jointly and severally liable for the damages awarded to the plaintiff Martin C. Vallejos. It ruled, however, that the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. has no obligation to indemnify or reimburse the petitioner insurance company for whatever amount it has been ordered to pay on its policy, since the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. is not a privy to the contract of insurance between Sio Choy and the insurance company. 2 Hence, the present recourse by petitioner insurance company. The petitioner prays for the reversal of the appellate court's judgment, or, in the alternative, to order the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. to reimburse petitioner any amount, in excess of one-half (1/2) of the entire amount of damages, petitioner may be ordered to pay jointly and severally with Sio Choy.

The Court, acting upon the petition, gave due course to the same, but "only insofar as it concerns the alleged liability of respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. to petitioner, it being understood that no other aspect of the decision of the Court of Appeals shall be reviewed, hence, execution may already issue in favor of respondent Martin C. Vallejos against the respondents, without prejudice to the determination of whether or not petitioner shall be entitled to reimbursement by respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. for the whole or part of whatever the former may pay on the P20,000.00 it has been adjudged to pay respondent Vallejos." 3 However, in order to determine the alleged liability of respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. to petitioner, it is important to determine first the nature or basis of the liability of petitioner to respondent Vallejos, as compared to that of respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. Therefore, the two (2) principal issues to be resolved are (1) whether the trial court, as upheld by the Court of Appeals, was correct in holding petitioner and respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. "solidarily liable" to respondent Vallejos; and (2) whether petitioner is entitled to be reimbursed by respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. for whatever amount petitioner has been adjudged to pay respondent Vallejos on its insurance policy. As to the first issue, it is noted that the trial court found, as affirmed by the appellate court, that petitioner and respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. are jointly and severally liable to respondent Vallejos. We do not agree with the aforesaid ruling. We hold instead that it is only respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc, (to the exclusion of the petitioner) that are solidarily liable to respondent Vallejos for the damages awarded to Vallejos. It must be observed that respondent Sio Choy is made liable to said plaintiff as owner of the illfated Willys jeep, pursuant to Article 2184 of the Civil Code which provides: Art. 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver, if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of due diligence, prevented the misfortune it is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months. If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of article 2180 are applicable. On the other hand, it is noted that the basis of liability of respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. to plaintiff Vallejos, the former being the employer of the driver of the Willys jeep at the time of the motor vehicle mishap, is Article 2180 of the Civil Code which reads: Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. xxx xxx xxx

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged ill any business or industry. xxx xxx xxx The responsibility treated in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned proved that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. It thus appears that respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. are the principal tortfeasors who are primarily liable to respondent Vallejos. The law states that the responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidarily. 4 On the other hand, the basis of petitioner's liability is its insurance contract with respondent Sio Choy. If petitioner is adjudged to pay respondent Vallejos in the amount of not more than P20,000.00, this is on account of its being the insurer of respondent Sio Choy under the third party liability clause included in the private car comprehensive policy existing between petitioner and respondent Sio Choy at the time of the complained vehicular accident. In Guingon vs. Del Monte, 5 a passenger of a jeepney had just alighted therefrom, when he was bumped by another passenger jeepney. He died as a result thereof. In the damage suit filed by the heirs of said passenger against the driver and owner of the jeepney at fault as well as against the insurance company which insured the latter jeepney against third party liability, the trial court, affirmed by this Court, adjudged the owner and the driver of the jeepney at fault jointly and severally liable to the heirs of the victim in the total amount of P9,572.95 as damages and attorney's fees; while the insurance company was sentenced to pay the heirs the amount of P5,500.00 which was to be applied as partial satisfaction of the judgment rendered against said owner and driver of the jeepney. Thus, in said Guingon case, it was only the owner and the driver of the jeepney at fault, not including the insurance company, who were held solidarily liable to the heirs of the victim. While it is true that where the insurance contract provides for indemnity against liability to third persons, such third persons can directly sue the insurer, 6 however, the direct liability of the insurer under indemnity contracts against third party liability does not mean that the insurer can be held solidarily liable with the insured and/or the other parties found at fault. The liability of the insurer is based on contract; that of the insured is based on tort. In the case at bar, petitioner as insurer of Sio Choy, is liable to respondent Vallejos, but it cannot, as incorrectly held by the trial court, be made "solidarily" liable with the two principal tortfeasors namely respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. For if petitioner-insurer were solidarily liable with said two (2) respondents by reason of the indemnity contract against third party liability-under which an insurer can be directly sued by a third party this will result in a violation of the principles underlying solidary obligation and insurance contracts. In solidary obligation, the creditor may enforce the entire obligation against one of the solidary debtors. 7 On the other hand, insurance is defined as "a contract whereby one undertakes for a consideration to indemnify another against loss, damage, or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event." 8

In the case at bar, the trial court held petitioner together with respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mills Inc. solidarily liable to respondent Vallejos for a total amount of P29,103.00, with the qualification that petitioner's liability is only up to P20,000.00. In the context of a solidary obligation, petitioner may be compelled by respondent Vallejos to pay the entire obligation of P29,013.00, notwithstanding the qualification made by the trial court. But, how can petitioner be obliged to pay the entire obligation when the amount stated in its insurance policy with respondent Sio Choy for indemnity against third party liability is only P20,000.00? Moreover, the qualification made in the decision of the trial court to the effect that petitioner is sentenced to pay up to P20,000.00 only when the obligation to pay P29,103.00 is made solidary, is an evident breach of the concept of a solidary obligation. Thus, We hold that the trial court, as upheld by the Court of Appeals, erred in holding petitioner, solidarily liable with respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. to respondent Vallejos. As to the second issue, the Court of Appeals, in affirming the decision of the trial court, ruled that petitioner is not entitled to be reimbursed by respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. on the ground that said respondent is not privy to the contract of insurance existing between petitioner and respondent Sio Choy. We disagree. The appellate court overlooked the principle of subrogation in insurance contracts. Thus ... Subrogation is a normal incident of indemnity insurance (Aetna L. Ins. Co. vs. Moses, 287 U.S. 530, 77 L. ed. 477). Upon payment of the loss, the insurer is entitled to be subrogated pro tanto to any right of action which the insured may have against the third person whose negligence or wrongful act caused the loss (44 Am. Jur. 2nd 745, citing Standard Marine Ins. Co. vs. Scottish Metropolitan Assurance Co., 283 U.S. 284, 75 L. ed. 1037). The right of subrogation is of the highest equity. The loss in the first instance is that of the insured but after reimbursement or compensation, it becomes the loss of the insurer (44 Am. Jur. 2d, 746, note 16, citing Newcomb vs. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 22 Ohio St. 382). Although many policies including policies in the standard form, now provide for subrogation, and thus determine the rights of the insurer in this respect, the equitable right of subrogation as the legal effect of payment inures to the insurer without any formal assignment or any express stipulation to that effect in the policy" (44 Am. Jur. 2nd 746). Stated otherwise, when the insurance company pays for the loss, such payment operates as an equitable assignment to the insurer of the property and all remedies which the insured may have for the recovery thereof. That right is not dependent upon , nor does it grow out of any privity of contract (emphasis supplied) or upon written assignment of claim, and payment to the insured makes the insurer assignee in equity (Shambley v. JobeBlackley Plumbing and Heating Co., 264 N.C. 456, 142 SE 2d 18). 9 It follows, therefore, that petitioner, upon paying respondent Vallejos the amount of riot exceeding P20,000.00, shall become the subrogee of the insured, the respondent Sio Choy; as such, it is subrogated to whatever rights the latter has against respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. Article 1217 of the Civil Code gives to a solidary debtor who has paid the entire obligation the right to be reimbursed by his co-debtors for the share which corresponds to each.

Art. 1217. Payment made by one of the solidary debtors extinguishes the obligation. If two or more solidary debtors offer to pay, the creditor may choose which offer to accept. He who made the payment may claim from his co-debtors only the share which corresponds to each, with the interest for the payment already made. If the payment is made before the debt is due, no interest for the intervening period may be demanded. xxx xxx xxx In accordance with Article 1217, petitioner, upon payment to respondent Vallejos and thereby becoming the subrogee of solidary debtor Sio Choy, is entitled to reimbursement from respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. To recapitulate then: We hold that only respondents Sio Choy and San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. are solidarily liable to the respondent Martin C. Vallejos for the amount of P29,103.00. Vallejos may enforce the entire obligation on only one of said solidary debtors. If Sio Choy as solidary debtor is made to pay for the entire obligation (P29,103.00) and petitioner, as insurer of Sio Choy, is compelled to pay P20,000.00 of said entire obligation, petitioner would be entitled, as subrogee of Sio Choy as against San Leon Rice Mills, Inc., to be reimbursed by the latter in the amount of P14,551.50 (which is 1/2 of P29,103.00 ) WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification above-mentioned. Without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Paras, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. vs. CA [G.R. No. L-36413, 26 September 1988] Post under case digests, Commercial Law at Tuesday, February 21, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind Facts: Malayan Insurance Co. Inc. (MALAYAN) issued a Private Car Comprehensive Policy covering a Willys jeep. The insurance coverage was for "own damage" not to exceed P600.00 and "third-party liability" in the amount of P20,000.00.

During the effectivity of the insurance policy, , the insured jeep, while being driven by one Juan P. Campollo an employee of the respondent San Leon Rice Mill, Inc., (SAN LEON) collided with a passenger bus belonging to the respondent Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. (PANTRANCO) at the national highway in Barrio San Pedro, Rosales, Pangasinan,

causing damage to the insured vehicle and injuries to the driver, Juan P. Campollo, and the respondent Martin C. Vallejos, who was riding in the ill-fated jeep.

Martin C. Vallejos filed an action for damages against Sio Choy, Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. and the PANTRANCO before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The trial court rendered judgment holding Sio Choy, SAN LEON, and MALAYAN jointly and severally liable. However, MALAYANs liability will only be up to P20,000.

On appeal, CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. However, it ruled that SAN LEON has no obligation to indemnify or reimburse the petitioner insurance company for whatever amount it has been ordered to pay on its policy, since the San Leon Rice Mill, Inc. is not a privy to the contract of insurance between Sio Choy and the insurance company.

MALAYAN appealed to the SC by way of review on certiorari.

Issues: (1) Whether or not MALAYAN is solidarily liable to Vallejos, along with Sio Choy and SAN LEON

(2) Whether or not MALAYAN is entitled to be reimbursed by SAN LEON for whatever amount petitioner has been adjudged to pay respondent Vallejos on its insurance policy.

Held: (1) Only Sio Choy and SAN LEON are solidarily liable to Vallejos for the award of damages. Sio Choy is liable as owner of the jeep pursuant to Article 2184, while SAN LEON is liable as the employer of the driver of the jeep at the time of the accident pursuant to Art 2180. MALAYANs liability, however, arose only out of the insurance policy with Sio Choy. Petitioner as insurer of Sio Choy, is liable to respondent Vallejos, but it cannot, as incorrectly held by the trial court, be made "solidarily" liable with the two principal tortfeasors namely respondents Sio Choy and SAN LEON.

(2) MALAYAN is entitled to be reimbursed. Upon payment of the loss, the insurer is entitled to be subrogated pro tanto to any right of action which the insured may have against the third person whose negligence or wrongful act caused the loss. When the insurance company pays for the loss, such payment operates as an equitable assignment to the insurer of the property and all remedies which theinsured may have for the recovery thereof. That right is not dependent upon , nor does it grow out of any privity of contract or upon written assignment of claim, and payment to the insured makes the insurer assignee in equity.

G.R. No. 81026 April 3, 1990 PAN MALAYAN INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ERLINDA FABIE AND HER UNKNOWN DRIVER, respondents. Regulus E. Cabote & Associates for petitioner. Benito P. Fabie for private respondents. CORTES, J.: Petitioner Pan Malayan Insurance Company (PANMALAY) seeks the reversal of a decision of the Court of Appeals which upheld an order of the trial court dismissing for no cause of action PANMALAY's complaint for damages against private respondents Erlinda Fabie and her driver. The principal issue presented for resolution before this Court is whether or not the insurer PANMALAY may institute an action to recover the amount it had paid its assured in settlement of an insurance claim against private respondents as the parties allegedly responsible for the damage caused to the insured vehicle. On December 10, 1985, PANMALAY filed a complaint for damages with the RTC of Makati against private respondents Erlinda Fabie and her driver. PANMALAY averred the following: that it insured a Mitsubishi Colt Lancer car with plate No. DDZ-431 and registered in the name of Canlubang Automotive Resources Corporation [CANLUBANG]; that on May 26, 1985, due to the "carelessness, recklessness, and imprudence" of the unknown driver of a pick-up with plate no. PCR-220, the insured car was hit and suffered damages in the amount of P42,052.00; that PANMALAY defrayed the cost of repair of the insured car and, therefore, was subrogated to the rights of CANLUBANG against the driver of the pick-up and his employer,

Erlinda Fabie; and that, despite repeated demands, defendants, failed and refused to pay the claim of PANMALAY. Private respondents, thereafter, filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars and a supplemental motion thereto. In compliance therewith, PANMALAY clarified, among others, that the damage caused to the insured car was settled under the "own damage", coverage of the insurance policy, and that the driver of the insured car was, at the time of the accident, an authorized driver duly licensed to drive the vehicle. PANMALAY also submitted a copy of the insurance policy and the Release of Claim and Subrogation Receipt executed by CANLUBANG in favor of PANMALAY. On February 12, 1986, private respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that PANMALAY had no cause of action against them. They argued that payment under the "own damage" clause of the insurance policy precluded subrogation under Article 2207 of the Civil Code, since indemnification thereunder was made on the assumption that there was no wrongdoer or no third party at fault. After hearings conducted on the motion, opposition thereto, reply and rejoinder, the RTC issued an order dated June 16, 1986 dismissing PANMALAY's complaint for no cause of action. On August 19, 1986, the RTC denied PANMALAY's motion for reconsideration. On appeal taken by PANMALAY, these orders were upheld by the Court of Appeals on November 27, 1987. Consequently, PANMALAY filed the present petition for review. After private respondents filed its comment to the petition, and petitioner filed its reply, the Court considered the issues joined and the case submitted for decision. Deliberating on the various arguments adduced in the pleadings, the Court finds merit in the petition. PANMALAY alleged in its complaint that, pursuant to a motor vehicle insurance policy, it had indemnified CANLUBANG for the damage to the insured car resulting from a traffic accident allegedly caused by the negligence of the driver of private respondent, Erlinda Fabie. PANMALAY contended, therefore, that its cause of action against private respondents was anchored upon Article 2207 of the Civil Code, which reads: If the plaintiffs property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of

the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. . . . PANMALAY is correct. Article 2207 of the Civil Code is founded on the well-settled principle of subrogation. If the insured property is destroyed or damaged through the fault or negligence of a party other than the assured, then the insurer, upon payment to the assured, will be subrogated to the rights of the assured to recover from the wrongdoer to the extent that the insurer has been obligated to pay. Payment by the insurer to the assured operates as an equitable assignment to the former of all remedies which the latter may have against the third party whose negligence or wrongful act caused the loss. The right of subrogation is not dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any privity of contract or upon written assignment of claim. It accrues simply upon payment of the insurance claim by the insurer [Compania Maritima v. Insurance Company of North America, G.R. No. L18965, October 30, 1964, 12 SCRA 213; Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Jamilla & Company, Inc., G.R. No. L-27427, April 7, 1976, 70 SCRA 323]. There are a few recognized exceptions to this rule. For instance, if the assured by his own act releases the wrongdoer or third party liable for the loss or damage, from liability, the insurer's right of subrogation is defeated [Phoenix Ins. Co. of Brooklyn v. Erie & Western Transport, Co., 117 US 312, 29 L. Ed. 873 (1886); Insurance Company of North America v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co., 229 F 2d 705 (1956)]. Similarly, where the insurer pays the assured the value of the lost goods without notifying the carrier who has in good faith settled the assured's claim for loss, the settlement is binding on both the assured and the insurer, and the latter cannot bring an action against the carrier on his right of subrogation [McCarthy v. Barber Steamship Lines, Inc., 45 Phil. 488 (1923)]. And where the insurer pays the assured for a loss which is not a risk covered by the policy, thereby effecting "voluntary payment", the former has no right of subrogation against the third party liable for the loss [Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening v. Qua Chee Gan, G. R. No. L-22146, September 5, 1967, 21 SCRA 12]. None of the exceptions are availing in the present case. The lower court and Court of Appeals, however, were of the opinion that PANMALAY was not legally subrogated under Article 2207 of the Civil Code to the rights of CANLUBANG, and therefore did not have any cause of action against private respondents. On the one hand, the trial court held that payment by PANMALAY of CANLUBANG's claim under the "own damage" clause of the insurance policy was an admission by the insurer that the damage was caused by the assured and/or its representatives. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals in applying the ejusdem

generis rule held that Section III-1 of the policy, which was the basis for settlement of CANLUBANG's claim, did not cover damage arising from collision or overturning due to the negligence of third parties as one of the insurable risks. Both tribunals concluded that PANMALAY could not now invoke Article 2207 and claim reimbursement from private respondents as alleged wrongdoers or parties responsible for the damage. The above conclusion is without merit. It must be emphasized that the lower court's ruling that the "own damage" coverage under the policy implies damage to the insured car caused by the assured itself, instead of third parties, proceeds from an incorrect comprehension of the phrase "own damage" as used by the insurer. When PANMALAY utilized the phrase "own damage" a phrase which, incidentally, is not found in the insurance policy to define the basis for its settlement of CANLUBANG's claim under the policy, it simply meant that it had assumed to reimburse the costs for repairing the damage to the insured vehicle [See PANMALAY's Compliance with Supplementary Motion for Bill of Particulars, p. 1; Record, p. 31]. It is in this sense that the so-called "own damage" coverage under Section III of the insurance policy is differentiated from Sections I and IV-1 which refer to "Third Party Liability" coverage (liabilities arising from the death of, or bodily injuries suffered by, third parties) and from Section IV-2 which refer to "Property Damage" coverage (liabilities arising from damage caused by the insured vehicle to the properties of third parties). Neither is there merit in the Court of Appeals' ruling that the coverage of insured risks under Section III-1 of the policy does not include to the insured vehicle arising from collision or overturning due to the negligent acts of the third party. Not only does it stem from an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the section, but it also violates a fundamental rule on the interpretation of property insurance contracts. It is a basic rule in the interpretation of contracts that the terms of a contract are to be construed according to the sense and meaning of the terms which the parties thereto have used. In the case of property insurance policies, the evident intention of the contracting parties, i.e., the insurer and the assured, determine the import of the various terms and provisions embodied in the policy. It is only when the terms of the policy are ambiguous, equivocal or uncertain, such that the parties themselves disagree about the meaning of particular provisions, that the courts will intervene. In such an event, the policy will be construed by the courts liberally in favor of the assured and strictly against the insurer [Union Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc., G.R., No. L-27932, October 30, 1972, 47 SCRA 271; National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-43706, November 14, 1986,

145 SCRA 533; Pacific Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41014, November 28, 1988, 168 SCRA 1. Also Articles 1370-1378 of the Civil Code]. Section III-1 of the insurance policy which refers to the conditions under which the insurer PANMALAY is liable to indemnify the assured CANLUBANG against damage to or loss of the insured vehicle, reads as follows: SECTION III LOSS OR DAMAGE 1. The Company will, subject to the Limits of Liability, indemnify the Insured against loss of or damage to the Scheduled Vehicle and its accessories and spare parts whilst thereon: (a) by accidental collision or overturning, or collision or overturning consequent upon mechanical breakdown or consequent upon wear and tear; (b) by fire, external explosion, self ignition or lightning or burglary, housebreaking or theft; (c) by malicious act; (d) whilst in transit (including the processes of loading and unloading) incidental to such transit by road, rail, inland, waterway, lift or elevator. xxx xxx xxx [Annex "A-1" of PANMALAY's Compliance with Supplementary Motion for Bill of Particulars; Record, p. 34; Emphasis supplied]. PANMALAY contends that the coverage of insured risks under the above section, specifically Section III-1(a), is comprehensive enough to include damage to the insured vehicle arising from collision or overturning due to the fault or negligence of a third party. CANLUBANG is apparently of the same understanding. Based on a police report wherein the driver of the insured car reported that after the vehicle was sideswiped by a pick-up, the driver thereof fled the scene [Record, p. 20], CANLUBANG filed its claim with PANMALAY for indemnification of the damage caused to its car. It then accepted payment from PANMALAY, and executed a Release of Claim and Subrogation Receipt in favor of latter. Considering that the very parties to the policy were not shown to be in disagreement regarding the meaning and coverage of Section III-1, specifically sub-paragraph (a) thereof, it was improper for the appellate court to indulge in contract construction, to apply the ejusdem generis rule, and to ascribe meaning contrary to the clear intention and understanding of these parties.

It cannot be said that the meaning given by PANMALAY and CANLUBANG to the phrase "by accidental collision or overturning" found in the first paint of sub-paragraph (a) is untenable. Although the terms "accident" or "accidental" as used in insurance contracts have not acquired a technical meaning, the Court has on several occasions defined these terms to mean that which takes place "without one's foresight or expectation, an event that proceeds from an unknown cause, or is an unusual effect of a known cause and, therefore, not expected" [De la Cruz v. The Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-21574, June 30, 1966, 17 SCRA 559; Filipino Merchants Insurance Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85141, November 28, 1989]. Certainly, it cannot be inferred from jurisprudence that these terms, without qualification, exclude events resulting in damage or loss due to the fault, recklessness or negligence of third parties. The concept "accident" is not necessarily synonymous with the concept of "no fault". It may be utilized simply to distinguish intentional or malicious acts from negligent or careless acts of man. Moreover, a perusal of the provisions of the insurance policy reveals that damage to, or loss of, the insured vehicle due to negligent or careless acts of third parties is not listed under the general and specific exceptions to the coverage of insured risks which are enumerated in detail in the insurance policy itself [See Annex "A-1" of PANMALAY's Compliance with Supplementary Motion for Bill of Particulars, supra.] The Court, furthermore. finds it noteworthy that the meaning advanced by PANMALAY regarding the coverage of Section III-1(a) of the policy is undeniably more beneficial to CANLUBANG than that insisted upon by respondents herein. By arguing that this section covers losses or damages due not only to malicious, but also to negligent acts of third parties, PANMALAY in effect advocates for a more comprehensive coverage of insured risks. And this, in the final analysis, is more in keeping with the rationale behind the various rules on the interpretation of insurance contracts favoring the assured or beneficiary so as to effect the dominant purpose of indemnity or payment [See Calanoc v. Court of Appeals, 98 Phil. 79 (1955); Del Rosario v. The Equitable Insurance and Casualty Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-16215, June 29, 1963, 8 SCRA 343; Serrano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-35529, July 16, 1984, 130 SCRA 327]. Parenthetically, even assuming for the sake of argument that Section III-1(a) of the insurance policy does not cover damage to the insured vehicle caused by negligent acts of third parties, and that PANMALAY's settlement of CANLUBANG's claim for damages allegedly arising from a collision due to private respondents' negligence would amount to unwarranted or "voluntary payment", dismissal of PANMALAY's complaint against private respondents for no cause of action would still be a grave error of law.

For even if under the above circumstances PANMALAY could not be deemed subrogated to the rights of its assured under Article 2207 of the Civil Code, PANMALAY would still have a cause of action against private respondents. In the pertinent case of Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening v. Qua Chee Gan, supra., the Court ruled that the insurer who may have no rights of subrogation due to "voluntary" payment may nevertheless recover from the third party responsible for the damage to the insured property under Article 1236 of the Civil Code. In conclusion, it must be reiterated that in this present case, the insurer PANMALAY as subrogee merely prays that it be allowed to institute an action to recover from third parties who allegedly caused damage to the insured vehicle, the amount which it had paid its assured under the insurance policy. Having thus shown from the above discussion that PANMALAY has a cause of action against third parties whose negligence may have caused damage to CANLUBANG's car, the Court holds that there is no legal obstacle to the filing by PANMALAY of a complaint for damages against private respondents as the third parties allegedly responsible for the damage. Respondent Court of Appeals therefore committed reversible error in sustaining the lower court's order which dismissed PANMALAY's complaint against private respondents for no cause of action. Hence, it is now for the trial court to determine if in fact the damage caused to the insured vehicle was due to the "carelessness, recklessness and imprudence" of the driver of private respondent Erlinda Fabie. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the present petition is GRANTED. Petitioner's complaint for damages against private respondents is hereby REINSTATED. Let the case be remanded to the lower court for trial on the merits. SO ORDERED. Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano and Bidin, JJ., concur.

PAN MALAYAN INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ERLINDA FABIE AND HER UNKNOWN DRIVER, G.R. No. 81026. AN INSURANCE LAW CASE. C Y Below this digest is the full case.

FACTS.

1. Petitioner Panmalay was an insurer of the car of CANLUBANG AUTOMOTIVE RESOURCE

CORP. which was bumpt and damaged by the private respondent through its negligent driver. 2. Petitioner PANMALAy paid the amount of insurance to the insured. 3. Subrogated on the rights of the insured, petitioner demand payment from the private respondent who refused to pay the claim of the petitioner. 4. Petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent before the RTC.

5. Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that payment under the "own damage" clause of the insurance policy precluded subrogation under Article 2207 of the Civil Code, since indemnification thereunder was made on the assumption that there was no wrongdoer or no third party at fault.

6. The RTC dismissed the complaint aswell as the motion for reconsideration and this was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE.

WHETHER OR NOT, THE PETITIONER IS ALLOWED TO RECOVERED THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE IT HAD PAID TO THE INSURED FROM PRIVATE RESPONDENT.

According to the Supreme Court, Art. 2207 of the civil code states that If the plaintiffs property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. This was founded on the well-settled principle of subrogation. If the insured property is destroyed or damaged through the fault or negligence of a party other than the assured, the insurer, upon payment to the assured, will be subrogated to the rights of the assured to recover from the wrongdoer to the extent that the insurer has been obligated to pay. Payment by the insurer to the assured operates as an equitable assignment to the former of all remedies which the latter may have against the third party whose negligence or wrongful act caused the loss.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the present petition is GRANTED. Petitioner's

complaint for damages against private respondents is reinstated. So the case was remanded to the Trial Court for the trial of the merit.

[G.R. No. 127897. November 15, 2001]

DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents. DECISION DE LEON, JR., J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 39836 promulgated on June 17, 1996, reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 137, ordering petitioner to pay private respondent the sum of Five Million Ninety-Six Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Five Pesos and Fifty-Seven Centavos (P5,096,635.57) and costs and the Resolution[2] dated January 21, 1997 which denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration. The facts show that Caltex Philippines (Caltex for brevity) entered into a contract of affreightment with the petitioner, Delsan Transport Lines, Inc., for a period of one year whereby the said common carrier agreed to transport Caltexs industrial fuel oil from the BatangasBataan Refinery to different parts of the country. Under the contract, petitioner took on board its vessel, MT Maysun, 2,277.314 kiloliters of industrial fuel oil of Caltex to be delivered to the Caltex Oil Terminal in Zamboanga City. The shipment was insured with the private respondent, American Home Assurance Corporation. On August 14, 1986, MT Maysun set sail from Batangas for Zamboanga City. Unfortunately, the vessel sank in the early morning of August 16, 1986 near Panay Gulf in the Visayas taking with it the entire cargo of fuel oil. Subsequently, private respondent paid Caltex the sum of Five Million Ninety-Six Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Five Pesos and Fifty-Seven Centavos (P5,096,635.57) representing the insured value of the lost cargo. Exercising its right of subrogation under Article 2207 of the New Civil Code, the private respondent demanded of the petitioner the same amount it paid to Caltex. Due to its failure to collect from the petitioner despite prior demand, private respondent filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 137, for collection of a sum of money. After the trial and upon analyzing the evidence adduced, the trial court rendered a decision on November 29, 1990 dismissing the complaint against herein petitioner without pronouncement as to cost. The trial court found that the vessel, MT Maysun, was seaworthy to undertake the voyage as determined by the Philippine Coast Guard per Survey Certificate Report No. M5-016-MH upon inspection during its annual dry-docking and that the incident was

caused by unexpected inclement weather condition or force majeure, thus exempting the common carrier (herein petitioner) from liability for the loss of its cargo. [3] The decision of the trial court, however, was reversed, on appeal, by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court gave credence to the weather report issued by the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA for brevity) which showed that from 2:00 oclock to 8:00 oclock in the morning on August 16, 1986, the wind speed remained at 10 to 20 knots per hour while the waves measured from .7 to two (2) meters in height only in the vicinity of the Panay Gulf where the subject vessel sank, in contrast to herein petitioners allegation that the waves were twenty (20) feet high. In the absence of any explanation as to what may have caused the sinking of the vessel coupled with the finding that the same was improperly manned, the appellate court ruled that the petitioner is liable on its obligation as common carrier[4] to herein private respondent insurance company as subrogee of Caltex. The subsequent motion for reconsideration of herein petitioner was denied by the appellate court. Petitioner raised the following assignments of error in support of the instant petition,[5] to wit: I THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. II THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REBUTTING THE LEGAL PRESUMPTION THAT THE VESSEL MT MAYSUN WAS SEAWORTHY. III THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HOME INSURANCE CORPORATION V. COURT OF APPEALS. Petitioner Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. invokes the provision of Section 113 of the Insurance Code of the Philippines, which states that in every marine insurance upon a ship or freight, or freightage, or upon any thing which is the subject of marine insurance there is an implied warranty by the shipper that the ship is seaworthy. Consequently, the insurer will not be liable to the assured for any loss under the policy in case the vessel would later on be found as not seaworthy at the inception of the insurance. It theorized that when private respondent paid Caltex the value of its lost cargo, the act of the private respondent is equivalent to a tacit recognition that the ill-fated vessel was seaworthy; otherwise, private respondent was not legally liable to Caltex due to the latters breach of implied warranty under the marine insurance policy that the vessel was seaworthy. The petitioner also alleges that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that MT Maysun was not seaworthy on the ground that the marine officer who served as the chief mate of the vessel, Francisco Berina, was allegedly not qualified. Under Section 116 of the Insurance Code of the Philippines, the implied warranty of seaworthiness of the vessel, which the private respondent admitted as having been fulfilled by its payment of the insurance proceeds to Caltex of its lost cargo, extends to the vessels complement. Besides, petitioner avers that although Berina had merely a 2nd officers license, he was qualified to act as the vessels chief officer under Chapter IV(403), Category III(a)(3)(ii)(aa) of the Philippine Merchant Marine Rules and Regulations. In

fact, all the crew and officers of MT Maysun were exonerated in the administrative investigation conducted by the Board of Marine Inquiry after the subject accident.[6] In any event, petitioner further avers that private respondent failed, for unknown reason, to present in evidence during the trial of the instant case the subject marine cargo insurance policy it entered into with Caltex. By virtue of the doctrine laid down in the case of Home Insurance Corporation vs. CA,[7] the failure of the private respondent to present the insurance policy in evidence is allegedly fatal to its claim inasmuch as there is no way to determine the rights of the parties thereto. Hence, the legal issues posed before the Court are: I Whether or not the payment made by the private respondent to Caltex for the insured value of the lost cargo amounted to an admission that the vessel was seaworthy, thus precluding any action for recovery against the petitioner. II Whether or not the non-presentation of the marine insurance policy bars the complaint for recovery of sum of money for lack of cause of action. We rule in the negative on both issues. The payment made by the private respondent for the insured value of the lost cargo operates as waiver of its (private respondent) right to enforce the term of the implied warranty against Caltex under the marine insurance policy. However, the same cannot be validly interpreted as an automatic admission of the vessels seaworthiness by the private respondent as to foreclose recourse against the petitioner for any liability under its contractual obligation as a common carrier. The fact of payment grants the private respondent subrogatory right which enables it to exercise legal remedies that would otherwise be available to Caltex as owner of the lost cargo against the petitioner common carrier.[8] Article 2207 of the New Civil Code provides that: Art. 2207. If the plaintiffs property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury. The right of subrogation has its roots in equity. It is designed to promote and to accomplish justice and is the mode which equity adopts to compel the ultimate payment of a debt by one who in justice and good conscience ought to pay.[9] It is not dependent upon, nor does it grow out of, any privity of contract or upon written assignment of claim. It accrues simply upon payment by the insurance company of the insurance claim.[10]Consequently, the payment made by the private respondent (insurer) to Caltex (assured) operates as an equitable assignment to the former of all the remedies which the latter may have against the petitioner. From the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, common carriers are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of

passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case. [11] In the event of loss, destruction or deterioration of the insured goods, common carriers shall be responsible unless the same is brought about, among others, by flood, storm, earthquake, lightning or other natural disaster or calamity.[12] In all other cases, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence.[13] In order to escape liability for the loss of its cargo of industrial fuel oil belonging to Caltex, petitioner attributes the sinking of MT Maysun to fortuitous event or force majeure. From the testimonies of Jaime Jarabe and Francisco Berina, captain and chief mate, respectively of the ill-fated vessel, it appears that a sudden and unexpected change of weather condition occurred in the early morning of August 16, 1986; that at around 3:15 oclock in the morning a squall (unos) carrying strong winds with an approximate velocity of 30 knots per hour and big waves averaging eighteen (18) to twenty (20) feet high, repeatedly buffeted MT Maysun causing it to tilt, take in water and eventually sink with its cargo.[14] This tale of strong winds and big waves by the said officers of the petitioner however, was effectively rebutted and belied by the weather report[15] from the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA), the independent government agency charged with monitoring weather and sea conditions, showing that from 2:00 oclock to 8:00 oclock in the morning on August 16, 1986, the wind speed remained at ten (10) to twenty (20) knots per hour while the height of the waves ranged from .7 to two (2) meters in the vicinity of Cuyo East Pass and Panay Gulf where the subject vessel sank. Thus, as the appellate court correctly ruled, petitioners vessel, MT Maysun, sank with its entire cargo for the reason that it was not seaworthy. There was no squall or bad weather or extremely poor sea condition in the vicinity when the said vessel sank. The appellate court also correctly opined that the petitioners witnesses, Jaime Jarabe and Francisco Berina, ship captain and chief mate, respectively, of the said vessel, could not be expected to testify against the interest of their employer, the herein petitioner common carrier. Neither may petitioner escape liability by presenting in evidence certificates[16] that tend to show that at the time of dry-docking and inspection by the Philippine Coast Guard, the vessel MT Maysun, was fit for voyage. These pieces of evidence do not necessarily take into account the actual condition of the vessel at the time of the commencement of the voyage. As correctly observed by the Court of appeals: At the time of dry-docking and inspection, the ship may have appeared fit. The certificates issued, however, do not negate the presumption of unseaworthiness triggered by an unexplained sinking. Of certificates issued in this regard, authorities are likewise clear as to their probative value, (thus): Seaworthiness relates to a vessels actual condition. Neither the granting of classification or the issuance of certificates establishes seaworthiness. (2-A Benedict on Admiralty, 7-3, Sec. 62) And also: Authorities are clear that diligence in securing certificates of seaworthiness does not satisfy the vessel owners obligation. Also securing the approval of the shipper of the cargo, or his surveyor, of the condition of the vessel or her stowage does not establish due diligence if the vessel was in fact unseaworthy, for the cargo owner has no obligation in relation to seaworthiness. (Ibid.)[17]

Additionally, the exoneration of MT Maysuns officers and crew by the B oard of Marine Inquiry merely concerns their respective administrative liabilities. It does not in any way operate to absolve the petitioner common carrier from its civil liability arising from its failure to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods it was transporting and for the negligent acts or omissions of its employees, the determination of which properly belongs to the courts.[18] In the case at bar, petitioner is liable for the insured value of the lost cargo of industrial fuel oil belonging to Caltex for its failure to rebut the presumption of fault or negligence as common carrier[19] occasioned by the unexplained sinking of its vessel, MT Maysun, while in transit. Anent the second issue, it is our view and so hold that the presentation in evidence of the marine insurance policy is not indispensable in this case before the insurer may recover from the common carrier the insured value of the lost cargo in the exercise of its subrogatory right. The subrogation receipt, by itself, is sufficient to establish not only the relationship of herein private respondent as insurer and Caltex, as the assured shipper of the lost cargo of industrial fuel oil, but also the amount paid to settle the insurance claim. The right of subrogation accrues simply upon payment by the insurance company of the insurance claim.[20] The presentation of the insurance policy was necessary in the case of Home Insurance Corporation v. CA[21] (a case cited by petitioner) because the shipment therein (hydraulic engines) passed through several stages with different parties involved in each stage. First, from the shipper to the port of departure; second, from the port of departure to the M/S Oriental Statesman; third, from the M/S Oriental Statesman to the M/S Pacific Conveyor; fourth, from the M/S Pacific Conveyor to the port of arrival; fifth, from the port of arrival to the arrastre operator; sixth, from the arrastre operator to the hauler, Mabuhay Brokerage Co., Inc. (private respondent therein); and lastly, from the hauler to the consignee. We emphasized in that case that in the absence of proof of stipulations to the contrary, the hauler can be liable only for any damage that occurred from the time it received the cargo until it finally delivered it to the consignee. Ordinarily, it cannot be held responsible for the handling of the cargo before it actually received it. The insurance contract, which was not presented in evidence in that case would have indicated the scope of the insurers liability, if any, since no evidence was adduced indicating at what stage in the handling process the damage to the cargo was sustained. Hence, our ruling on the presentation of the insurance policy in the said case of Home Insurance Corporation is not applicable to the case at bar. In contrast, there is no doubt that the cargo of industrial fuel oil belonging to Caltex, in the case at bar, was lost while on board petitioners vessel, MT Maysun, which sank while in transit in the vicinity of Panay Gulf and Cuyo East Pass in the early morning of August 16, 1986. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 17, 1996 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 39836 is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.

DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC. VS. CA ET.AL. G.R. No.127897, November 15, 2001 Facts: Caltex Phil. entered into a contract of affreightment with the petitioner, Delsan Transport

Lines, Inc. for a period of one year whereby the petitioner agreed to transport Caltex industrial fuel oil from Batangas refinery to different parts of the country. On August 14, 1986, MT Maysun set sail for Zamboanga City but unfortunately the vessel sank in the early morning of August 16, 1986 near Panay Gulf. The shipment was insured with the private respondent, American Home Assurance Corporation. Subsequently, private respondent paid Caltex the sum of Php.5,096,635.57. Exercising its right of subrogation under Art. 2207, NCC, the private respondent demanded from the petitioner the same amount paid to Caltex. Due to its failure to collect from the petitioner, private respondent filed a complaint with the RTC of Makati City but the trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the vessel to be seaworthy and that the incident was due to a force majeure, thus exempting the petitioner from liability. However, the decision of the trial court was reversed by the CA, giving credence to the report of PAGASA that the weather was normal and that it was impossible for the vessel to sink. Issue: Whether or not the payment made by private respondent for the insured value of the lost cargo amounted to an admission that the vessel was seaworthy, thus precluding any action for recovery against the petitioner. Held: The payment by the private respondent for the insured value of the lost cargo operates as waiver of its right to enforce the term of the implied warranty against Caltex under the marine insurance policy. However, the same cannot be validly interpreted as an automatic admission of the vessels seaworthiness by the private respondent as to foreclose recourse against the petitioner for any liability under its contractual obligation as common carrier. The fact of payment grants the private respondent subrogatory right which enables it to exercise legal remedies that otherwise be available to Caltex as owner of the lost cargo against the petitioner common carrier.

[G.R. No. 150094. August 18, 2004]

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY and PHILAM INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,respondents. DECISION PANGANIBAN, J.: Basic is the requirement that before suing to recover loss of or damage to transported goods, the plaintiff must give the carrier notice of the loss or damage, within the period prescribed by the Warsaw Convention and/or the airway bill.

The Case Before us is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the June 4, 2001 Decision[2] and the September 21, 2001 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 58208. The assailed Decision disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The appealed Decision of Branch 149 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City in Civil Case No. 95-1219, entitledAmerican Home Assurance Co. and PHILAM Insurance Co., Inc. v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION and/or CARGOHAUS, INC. (formerly U-WAREHOUSE, INC.), is hereby AFFIRMED andREITERATED. Costs against the [petitioner and Cargohaus, Inc.].[4] The assailed Resolution denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.

The Facts The antecedent facts are summarized by the appellate court as follows: On January 26, 1994, SMITHKLINE Beecham (SMITHKLINE for brevity) of Nebraska, USA delivered to Burlington Air Express (BURLINGTON), an agent of [Petitioner] Federal Express Corporation, a shipment of 109 cartons of veterinary biologicals for delivery to consignee SMITHKLINE and French Overseas Company in Makati City, Metro Manila. The shipment was covered by Burlington Airway Bill No. 11263825 with the words, REFRIGERATE WHEN NOT IN TRANSIT and PERISHABLE stamp marked on its face. That same day, Burlington insured the cargoes in the amount of $39,339.00 with American Home Assurance Company (AHAC). The following day, Burlington turned over the custody of said cargoes to Federal Express which transported the same to Manila. The first shipment, consisting of 92 cartons arrived in Manila on January 29, 1994 in Flight No. 0071-28NRT and was immediately stored at [Cargohaus Inc.s] warehouse. While the second, consisting of 17 cartons, came in two (2) days later, or on January 31, 1994, in Flight No. 0071-30NRT which was likewise immediately stored at Cargohaus warehouse. Prior to the arrival of the cargoes, Federal Express informed GETC Cargo International Corporation, the customs broker hired by the consignee to facilitate the release of its cargoes from the Bureau of Customs, of the impending arrival of its clients cargoes. On February 10, 1994, DARIO C. DIONEDA (DIONEDA), twelve (12) days after the cargoes arrived in Manila, a non-licensed customs broker who was assigned by GETC to facilitate the release of the subject cargoes, found out, while he was about to cause the release of the said cargoes, that the same [were] stored only in a room with two (2) air conditioners running, to cool the place instead of a refrigerator. When he asked an employee of Cargohaus why the cargoes were stored in the cool room only, the latter told him that the cartons where the vaccines were contained specifically indicated therein that it should not be subjected to hot or cold temperature. Thereafter, DIONEDA, upon instructions from GETC, did not proceed with the withdrawal of the vaccines and instead, samples of the same were taken and brought to the Bureau of Animal Industry of the Department of Agriculture in the Philippines by SMITHKLINE

for examination wherein it was discovered that the ELISA reading of vaccinates sera are below the positive reference serum. As a consequence of the foregoing result of the veterinary biologics test, SMITHKLINE abandoned the shipment and, declaring total loss for the unusable shipment, filed a claim with AHAC through its representative in the Philippines, the Philam Insurance Co., Inc. (PHILAM) which recompensed SMITHKLINE for the whole insured amount of THIRTY NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY NINE DOLLARS ($39,339.00). Thereafter, [respondents] filed an action for damages against the [petitioner] imputing negligence on either or both of them in the handling of the cargo. Trial ensued and ultimately concluded on March 18, 1997 with the [petitioner] being held solidarily liable for the loss as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [respondents] and [petitioner and its Co-Defendant Cargohaus] are directed to pay [respondents], jointly and severally, the following: 1. Actual damages in the amount of the peso equivalent of US$39,339.00 with interest from the time of the filing of the complaint to the time the same is fully paid. 2. 3. Attorneys fees in the amount of P50,000.00 and Costs of suit.

SO ORDERED. Aggrieved, [petitioner] appealed to [the CA].[5]

Ruling of the Court of Appeals The Test Report issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) was found by the CA to be inadmissible in evidence. Despite this ruling, the appellate court held that the shipping Receipts were a prima facie proof that the goods had indeed been delivered to the carrier in good condition. We quote from the ruling as follows: Where the plaintiff introduces evidence which shows prima facie that the goods were delivered to the carrier in good condition [i.e., the shipping receipts], and that the carrier delivered the goods in a damaged condition, a presumption is raised that the damage occurred through the fault or negligence of the carrier, and this casts upon the carrier the burden of showing that the goods were not in good condition when delivered to the carrier, or that the damage was occasioned by some cause excepting the carrier from absolute liability. This the [petitioner] failed to discharge. x x x.[6] Found devoid of merit was petitioners claim that respondents had no personalit y to sue. This argument was supposedly not raised in the Answer or during trial. Hence, this Petition.[7]

The Issues In its Memorandum, petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration: I. Are the decision and resolution of the Honorable Court of Appeals proper subject for review by the Honorable Court under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure? II. Is the conclusion of the Honorable Court of Appeals petitioners claim that respondents have no personality to sue because the payment was made by the respondents to Smithkline when the insured under the policy is Burlington Air Express is devoid of merit correct or not? III. Is the conclusion of the Honorable Court of Appeals that the goods were received in good condition, correct or not? IV. Are Exhibits F and G hearsay evidence, and therefore, not admissible? V. Is the Honorable Court of Appeals correct in ignoring and disregarding respondents own admission that petitioner is not liable? and VI. Is the Honorable Court of Appeals correct in ignoring the Warsaw Convention?[8] Simply stated, the issues are as follows: (1) Is the Petition proper for review by the Supreme Court? (2) Is Federal Express liable for damage to or loss of the insured goods?

This Courts Ruling The Petition has merit.

Preliminary Issue: Propriety of Review The correctness of legal conclusions drawn by the Court of Appeals from undisputed facts is a question of law cognizable by the Supreme Court.[9]

In the present case, the facts are undisputed. As will be shown shortly, petitioner is questioning the conclusions drawn from such facts. Hence, this case is a proper subject for review by this Court.

Main Issue: Liability for Damages Petitioner contends that respondents have no personality to sue -- thus, no cause of action against it -- because the payment made to Smithkline was erroneous. Pertinent to this issue is the Certificate of Insurance[10] (Certificate) that both opposing parties cite in support of their respective positions. They differ only in their interpretation of what their rights are under its terms. The determination of those rights involves a question of law, not a question of fact. As distinguished from a question of law which exists when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts -- there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts; or when the query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstance, their relation to each other and to the whole and the probabilities of the situation.[11]

Proper Payee The Certificate specifies that loss of or damage to the insured cargo is payable to order x x x upon surrender of this Certificate. Such wording conveys the right of collecting on any such damage or loss, as fully as if the property were covered by a special policy in the name of the holder itself. At the back of the Certificate appears the signature of the representative of Burlington. This document has thus been duly indorsed in blank and is deemed a bearer instrument. Since the Certificate was in the possession of Smithkline, the latter had the right of collecting or of being indemnified for loss of or damage to the insured shipment, as fully as if the property were covered by a special policy in the name of the holder. Hence, being the holder of the Certificate and having an insurable interest in the goods, Smithkline was the proper payee of the insurance proceeds.

Subrogation Upon receipt of the insurance proceeds, the consignee (Smithkline) executed a subrogation Receipt[12] in favor of respondents. The latter were thus authorized to file claims and begin suit against any such carrier, vessel, person, corporation or government. Undeniably, the consignee had a legal right to receive the goods in the same condition it was delivered for transport to petitioner. If that right was violated, the consignee would have a cause of action against the person responsible therefor. Upon payment to the consignee of an indemnity for the loss of or damage to the insured goods, the insurers entitlement to subrogation pro tanto -- being of the highest equity -- equips

it with a cause of action in case of a contractual breach or negligence. [13] Further, the insurers subrogatory right to sue for recovery under the bill of lading in case of loss of or damage to the cargo is jurisprudentially upheld.[14] In the exercise of its subrogatory right, an insurer may proceed against an erring carrier. To all intents and purposes, it stands in the place and in substitution of the consignee. A fortiori, both the insurer and the consignee are bound by the contractual stipulations under the bill of lading.[15]

Prescription of Claim From the initial proceedings in the trial court up to the present, petitioner has tirelessly pointed out that respondents claim and right of action are already barred. The latter, and even the consignee, never filed with the carrier any written notice or complaint regarding its claim for damage of or loss to the subject cargo within the period required by the Warsaw Convention and/or in the airway bill. Indeed, this fact has never been denied by respondents and is plainly evident from the records. Airway Bill No. 11263825, issued by Burlington as agent of petitioner, states: 6. No action shall be maintained in the case of damage to or partial loss of the shipment unless a written notice, sufficiently describing the goods concerned, the approximate date of the damage or loss, and the details of the claim, is presented by shipper or consignee to an office of Burlington within (14) days from the date the goods are placed at the disposal of the person entitled to delivery, or in the case of total loss (including non-delivery) unless presented within (120) days from the date of issue of the [Airway Bill].[16] Relevantly, petitioners airway bill states: 12./12.1 The person entitled to delivery must make a complaint to the carrier in writing in the case: 12.1.1 of visible damage to the goods, immediately after discovery of the damage and at the latest within fourteen (14) days from receipt of the goods; 12.1.2 of other damage to the goods, within fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of the goods; 12.1.3 delay, within twenty-one (21) days of the date the goods are placed at his disposal; and 12.1.4 of non-delivery of the goods, within one hundred and twenty (120) days from the date of the issue of the air waybill. 12.2 For the purpose of 12.1 complaint in writing may be made to the carrier whose air waybill was used, or to the first carrier or to the last carrier or to the carrier who performed the transportation during which the loss, damage or delay took place.[17] Article 26 of the Warsaw Convention, on the other hand, provides: ART. 26. (1) Receipt by the person entitled to the delivery of baggage or goods without complaint shall be prima facie evidence that the same have been delivered in good condition and in accordance with the document of transportation.

(2) In case of damage, the person entitled to delivery must complain to the carrier forthwith after the discovery of the damage, and, at the latest, within 3 days from the date of receipt in the case of baggage and 7 days from the date of receipt in the case of goods. In case of delay the complaint must be made at the latest within 14 days from the date on which the baggage or goods have been placed at his disposal. (3) Every complaint must be made in writing upon the document of transportation or by separate notice in writing dispatched within the times aforesaid. (4) Failing complaint within the times aforesaid, no action shall lie against the carrier, save in the case of fraud on his part.[18]

Condition Precedent In this jurisdiction, the filing of a claim with the carrier within the time limitation therefor actually constitutes a condition precedent to the accrual of a right of action against a carrier for loss of or damage to the goods.[19] The shipper or consignee must allege and prove the fulfillment of the condition. If it fails to do so, no right of action against the carrier can accrue in favor of the former. The aforementioned requirement is a reasonable condition precedent; it does not constitute a limitation of action.[20] The requirement of giving notice of loss of or injury to the goods is not an empty formalism. The fundamental reasons for such a stipulation are (1) to inform the carrier that the cargo has been damaged, and that it is being charged with liability therefor; and (2) to give it an opportunity to examine the nature and extent of the injury. This protects the carrier by affording it an opportunity to make an investigation of a claim while the matter is fresh and easily investigated so as to safeguard itself from false and fraudulent claims.[21] When an airway bill -- or any contract of carriage for that matter -- has a stipulation that requires a notice of claim for loss of or damage to goods shipped and the stipulation is not complied with, its enforcement can be prevented and the liability cannot be imposed on the carrier. To stress, notice is a condition precedent, and the carrier is not liable if notice is not given in accordance with the stipulation.[22] Failure to comply with such a stipulation bars recovery for the loss or damage suffered.[23] Being a condition precedent, the notice must precede a suit for enforcement. [24] In the present case, there is neither an allegation nor a showing of respondents compliance with this requirement within the prescribed period. While respondents may have had a cause of action then, they cannot now enforce it for their failure to comply with the aforesaid condition precedent. In view of the foregoing, we find no more necessity to pass upon the other issues raised by petitioner. We note that respondents are not without recourse. Cargohaus, Inc. -- petitioners codefendant in respondents Complaint below -- has been adjudged by the trial court as liable for, inter alia, actual damages in the amount of the peso equivalent of US $39,339. [25] This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and is already final and executory. [26] WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED, and the assailed Decision REVERSED insofar as it pertains to Petitioner Federal Express Corporation. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur. Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., on leave.

[G.R. No. 124520. August 18, 1997]

Spouses NILO CHA and STELLA INC., petitioners, vs. COURT CORPORATION, respondents.

UY CHA, and UNITED INSURANCE CO., OF APPEALS and CKS DEVELOPMENT

DECISION PADILLA, J.: This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to set aside a decision of respondent Court of Appeals. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows: 1. Petitioner-spouses Nilo Cha and Stella Uy-Cha, as lessees, entered into a lease contract with private respondent CKS Development Corporation (hereinafter CKS), as lessor, on 5 October 1988. 2. One of the stipulations of the one (1) year lease contract states:

18. x x x. The LESSEE shall not insure against fire the chattels, merchandise, textiles, goods and effects placed at any stall or store or space in the leased premises without first obtaining the written consent and approval of the LESSOR. If the LESSEE obtain(s) the insurance thereof without the consent of the LESSOR then the policy is deemed assigned and transferred to the LESSOR for its own benefit; x x x[1] 3. Notwithstanding the above stipulation in the lease contract, the Cha spouses insured against loss by fire their merchandise inside the leased premises for Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) with the United Insurance Co., Inc. (hereinafter United) without the written consent of private respondents CKS. 4. On the day that the lease contract was to expire, fire broke out inside the leased premises. 5. When CKS learned of the insurance earlier procured by the Cha spouses (without its consent), it wrote the insurer (United) a demand letter asking that the proceeds of the insurance

contract (between the Cha spouses and United) be paid directly to CKS, based on its lease contract with Cha spouses. 6. United refused to pay CKS. Hence, the latter filed a complaint against the Cha spouses and United. 7. On 2 June 1992, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Manila, rendered a decision* ordering therein defendant United to pay CKS the amount of P335,063.11 and defendant Cha spouses to pay P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, P20,000.00 as attorneys fees and costs of suit. 8. On appeal, respondent Court of Appeals in CA GR CV No. 39328 rendered a decision** dated 11 January 1996, affirming the trial court decision, deleting however the awards for exemplary damages and attorneys fees. A motion for reconsideration by United was denied on 29 March 1996. In the present petition, the following errors are assigned by petitioners to the Court of Appeals: I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO DECLARE THAT THE STIPULATION IN THE CONTRACT OF LEASE TRANSFERRING THE PROCEEDS OF THE INSURANCE TO RESPONDENT IS NULL AND VOID FOR BEING CONTRARY TO LAW, MORALS AND PUBLIC POLICY II THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO DECLARE THE CONTRACT OF LEASE ENTERED INTO AS A CONTRACT OF ADHESION AND THEREFORE THE QUESTIONABLE PROVISION THEREIN TRANSFERRING THE PROCEEDS OF THE INSURANCE TO RESPONDENT MUST BE RULED OUT IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER III THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING PROCEEDS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY TO APPELLEE WHICH IS NOT PRIVY TO THE SAID POLICY IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE INSURANCE LAW IV THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AWARDING PROCEEDS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY ON THE BASIS OF A STIPULATION WHICH IS VOID FOR BEING WITHOUT CONSIDERATION AND FOR BEING TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE WILL OF THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION.[2] The core issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the aforequoted paragraph 18 of the lease contract entered into between CKS and the Cha spouses is valid insofar as it provides that any fire insurance policy obtained by the lessee (Cha spouses) over their

merchandise inside the leased premises is deemed assigned or transferred to the lessor (CKS) if said policy is obtained without the prior written of the latter. It is, of course, basic in the law on contracts that the stipulations contained in a contract cannot be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.[3] Sec. 18 of the Insurance Code provides: Sec. 18. No contract or policy of insurance on property shall be enforceable except for the benefit of some person having an insurable interest in the property insured. A non-life insurance policy such as the fire insurance policy taken by petitioner-spouses over their merchandise is primarily a contract of indemnity. Insurable interest in the property insured must exist at the time the insurance takes effect and at the time the loss occurs. [4] The basis of such requirement of insurable interest in property insured is based on sound public policy: to prevent a person from taking out an insurance policy on property upon which he has no insurable interest and collecting the proceeds of said policy in case of loss of the property. In such a case, the contract of insurance is a mere wager which is void under Section 25 of the Insurance Code, which provides: SECTION 25. Every stipulation in a policy of Insurance for the payment of loss, whether the person insured has or has not any interest in the property insured, or that the policy shall be received as proof of such interest, and every policy executed by way of gaming or wagering, is void. In the present case, it cannot be denied that CKS has no insurable interest in the goods and merchandise inside the leased premises under the provisions of Section 17 of the Insurance Code which provide. Section 17. The measure of an insurable interest in property is the extent to which the insured might be damnified by loss of injury thereof." Therefore, respondent CKS cannot, under the Insurance Code a special law be validly a beneficiary of the fire insurance policy taken by the petitioner-spouses over their merchandise. This insurable interest over said merchandise remains with the insured, the Cha spouses. The automatic assignment of the policy to CKS under the provision of the lease contract previously quoted is void for being contrary to law and/or public policy. The proceeds of the fire insurance policy thus rightfully belong to the spouses Nilo Cha and Stella Uy-Cha (herein co-petitioners). The insurer (United) cannot be compelled to pay the proceeds of the fire insurance policy to a person (CKS) who has no insurable interest in the property insured. The liability of the Cha spouses to CKS for violating their lease contract in that Cha spouses obtained a fire insurance policy over their own merchandise, without the consent of CKS, is a separate and distinct issue which we do not resolve in this case. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 39328 is SET ASIDE and a new decision is hereby entered, awarding the proceeds of the fire insurance policy to petitioners Nilo Cha and Stella Uy-Cha. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo, Vitug, Kapunan, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

Facts: Petitioner spouses Nilo Cha and Stella Uy-Cha, as lessees entered into a lease contract with private respondent CKS Development Corporation as lessor. A stipulation of the lease contract provides that the Lessee is not allowed to insure against fire the chattels, merchandise, textiles, goods and effects placed at any stall or store or space in the leased premises without first obtaining the written consent and approval of the Lessor. If the Lessee violates this the policy is deemed assigned and transferred to the Lessor for his own benefit. Petitioner took out a policy of fire insurance over the merchandise inside the leased premises with United Insurance without consent of CKS. On the day the lease contract was to expire a fire broke out inside the leased premises. CKS, wrote a letter to United asking that the proceeds of the fire insurance be paid directly to CKS. United refused. Hence, the latter filed a complaint against the Cha spouses and United. RTC ruled in favor of CKS. CA affirmed, hence the petition. Issue: Whether or not CKS can recover from the insurance policy. Held: No. Section 18 of the Insurance Code provides that: No contract or policy of insurance on property shall be enforceable except for the benefit of some person having an insurable interest in the property insured. In the present case, it cannot be denied that CKS has no insurable interest in the goods and merchandise inside the leased premises under the provisions of Section 17 of the Insurance Code: The measure of an insurable interest in property is the extent to which the insured might be damnified by loss or injury thereof. Therefore, CKS cannot be validly a beneficiary of the fire insurance policy taken by petitioner-spouses. The insurable interest remains with the Cha spouses. The stipulation in the lease contract is void for being contrary to law and public policy. This is in keeping with the provision under Sec. 25 of the Insurance Code that: Every stipulation in a policy of Insurance for the payment of loss, whether the person insured has or has not any interest in the property insured or that the policy shall be received as proof of such interest and every policy executed by way of gaming or wagering is void.

[G.R. No. 113899. October 13, 1999]

GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORP., petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND MEDARDA V. LEUTERIO, respondents. DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:

This petition for review, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assails the Decision[1] dated May 17, 1993, of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution[2] dated January 4, 1994 in CA-G.R. CV No. 18341. The appellate court affirmed in toto the judgment of the Misamis Oriental Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, in an insurance claim filed by private respondent against Great Pacific Life Assurance Co. The dispositive portion of the trial courts decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered adjudging the defendant GREAT PACIFIC LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION as insurer under its Group policy No. G-1907, in relation to Certification B-18558 liable and ordered to pay to the DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES as creditor of the insured Dr. Wilfredo Leuterio, the amount of EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P86,200.00); dismissing the claims for damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses in the complaint and counterclaim, with costs against the defendant and dismissing the complaint in respect to the plaintiffs, other than the widow-beneficiary, for lack of cause of action.[3]
The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are as follows: A contract of group life insurance was executed between petitioner Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation (hereinafter Grepalife) and Development Bank of the Philippines (hereinafter DBP). Grepalife agreed to insure the lives of eligible housing loan mortgagors of DBP. On November 11, 1983, Dr. Wilfredo Leuterio, a physician and a housing debtor of DBP applied for membership in the group life insurance plan. In an application form, Dr. Leuterio answered questions concerning his health condition as follows:
7. Have you ever had, or consulted, a physician for a heart condition, high blood pressure, cancer, diabetes, lung, kidney or stomach disorder or any other physical impairment? Answer: No. If so give details ___________. 8. Are you now, to the best of your knowledge, in good health? Answer: [ x ] Yes [ ] No.[4]

On November 15, 1983, Grepalife issued Certificate No. B-18558, as insurance coverage of Dr. Leuterio, to the extent of his DBP mortgage indebtedness amounting to eighty-six thousand, two hundred (P86,200.00) pesos. On August 6, 1984, Dr. Leuterio died due to massive cerebral hemorrhage. Consequently, DBP submitted a death claim to Grepalife. Grepalife denied the claim alleging that Dr. Leuterio was not physically healthy when he applied for an insurance coverage on November 15, 1983. Grepalife insisted that Dr. Leuterio did not disclose he had been suffering from hypertension, which caused his death. Allegedly, such non-disclosure constituted concealment that justified the denial of the claim. On October 20, 1986, the widow of the late Dr. Leuterio, respondent Medarda V. Leuterio, filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 18, against Grepalife for Specific Performance with Damages.[5] During the trial, Dr. Hernando Mejia, who issued the death certificate, was called to testify. Dr. Mejias findings, based partly from the information given by the respondent widow, stated that Dr. Leuterio complained of headaches presumably due to high blood pressure. The inference was not conclusive because Dr. Leuterio was not autopsied, hence, other causes were not ruled out. On February 22, 1988, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of respondent widow and against Grepalife. On May 17, 1993, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial courts decision. Hence, the present petition. Petitioners interposed the following assigned errors:
"1. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT LIABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (DBP) WHICH IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE FOR PAYMENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF A MORTGAGE REDEMPTION INSURANCE ON THE LIFE OF PLAINTIFFS HUSBAND WILFREDO LEUTERIO ONE OF ITS LOAN BORROWERS, INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE CASE AGAINST DEFENDANT-APPELLANT [Petitioner Grepalife] FOR LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION. 2. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE CASE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT OR NATURE OF THE ACTION AND OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT. 3. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TO PAY TO DBP THE AMOUNT OF P86,200.00 IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW HOW MUCH WAS THE ACTUAL AMOUNT PAYABLE TO DBP IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS GROUP INSURANCE CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANTAPPELLANT. 4. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN - HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL INFORMATION ON THE PART OF WILFREDO LEUTERIO IN HIS APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE GROUP LIFE INSURANCE PLAN BETWEEN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT OF THE INSURANCE CLAIM ARISING FROM THE DEATH OF WILFREDO LEUTERIO.[6]

Synthesized below are the assigned errors for our resolution:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioner liable to DBP as beneficiary in a group life insurance contract from a complaint filed by the widow of the decedent/mortgagor?

2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that Dr. Leuterio concealed that he had hypertension, which would vitiate the insurance contract? 3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding Grepalife liable in the amount of eighty six thousand, two hundred (P86,200.00) pesos without proof of the actual outstanding mortgage payable by the mortgagor to DBP.

Petitioner alleges that the complaint was instituted by the widow of Dr. Leuterio, not the real party in interest, hence the trial court acquired no jurisdiction over the case. It argues that when the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts judgment, Grepalife was held liable to pay the proceeds of insurance contract in favor of DBP, the indispensable party who was not joined in the suit. To resolve the issue, we must consider the insurable interest in mortgaged properties and the parties to this type of contract. The rationale of a group insurance policy of mortgagors, otherwise known as the mortgage redemption insurance, is a device for the protection of both the mortgagee and the mortgagor. On the part of the mortgagee, it has to enter into such form of contract so that in the event of the unexpected demise of the mortgagor during the subsistence of the mortgage contract, the proceeds from such insurance will be applied to the payment of the mortgage debt, thereby relieving the heirs of the mortgagor from paying the obligation. [7] In a similar vein, ample protection is given to the mortgagor under such a concept so that in the event of death; the mortgage obligation will be extinguished by the application of the insurance proceeds to the mortgage indebtedness.[8] Consequently, where the mortgagor pays the insurance premium under the group insurance policy, making the loss payable to the mortgagee, the insurance is on the mortgagors interest, and the mortgagor continues to be a party to the contract. In this type of policy insurance, the mortgagee is simply an appointee of the insurance fund, such loss-payable clause does not make the mortgagee a party to the contract.[9] Section 8 of the Insurance Code provides:

Unless the policy provides, where a mortgagor of property effects insurance in his own name providing that the loss shall be payable to the mortgagee, or assigns a policy of insurance to a mortgagee, the insurance is deemed to be upon the interest of the mortgagor, who does not cease to be a party to the original contract, and any act of his, prior to the loss, which would otherwise avoid the insurance, will have the same effect, although the property is in the hands of the mortgagee, but any act which, under the contract of insurance, is to be performed by the mortgagor, may be performed by the mortgagee therein named, with the same effect as if it had been performed by the mortgagor.
The insured private respondent did not cede to the mortgagee all his rights or interests in the insurance, the policy stating that: In the event of the debtors death before his indebtedness with the Creditor [DBP] shall have been fully paid, an amount to pay the outstanding indebtedness shall first be paid to the creditor and the balance of sum assured, if there is any, shall then be paid to the beneficiary/ies designated by the debtor.[10]When DBP submitted the insurance claim against petitioner, the latter denied payment thereof, interposing the defense of concealment committed by the insured. Thereafter, DBP collected the debt from the mortgagor

and took the necessary action of foreclosure on the residential lot of private respondent.[11] In Gonzales La O vs. Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Ins. Co.[12] we held:

Insured, being the person with whom the contract was made, is primarily the proper person to bring suit thereon. * * * Subject to some exceptions, insured may thus sue, although the policy is taken wholly or in part for the benefit of another person named or unnamed, and although it is expressly made payable to another as his interest may appear or otherwise. * * * Although a policy issued to a mortgagor is taken out for the benefit of the mortgagee and is made payable to him, yet the mortgagor may sue thereon in his own name, especially where the mortgagees interest is less than the full amount recoverable under the policy, * * *. And in volume 33, page 82, of the same work, we read the following: Insured may be regarded as the real party in interest, although he has assigned the policy for the purpose of collection, or has assigned as collateral security any judgment he may obtain.[13]
And since a policy of insurance upon life or health may pass by transfer, will or succession to any person, whether he has an insurable interest or not, and such person may recover it whatever the insured might have recovered,[14] the widow of the decedent Dr. Leuterio may file the suit against the insurer, Grepalife. The second assigned error refers to an alleged concealment that the petitioner interposed as its defense to annul the insurance contract. Petitioner contends that Dr. Leuterio failed to disclose that he had hypertension, which might have caused his death. Concealment exists where the assured had knowledge of a fact material to the risk, and honesty, good faith, and fair dealing requires that he should communicate it to the assured, but he designedly and intentionally withholds the same.[15] Petitioner merely relied on the testimony of the attending physician, Dr. Hernando Mejia, as supported by the information given by the widow of the decedent. Grepalife asserts that Dr. Mejias technical diagnosis of the cause of death of Dr. Leuterio was a duly documented hospital record, and that the widows declaration that her husband had possible hypertension several years ago should not be considered as hearsay, but as part of res gestae. On the contrary the medical findings were not conclusive because Dr. Mejia did not conduct an autopsy on the body of the decedent. As the attending physician, Dr. Mejia stated that he had no knowledge of Dr. Leuterios any previous hospital confinement.[16] Dr. Leuterios death certificate stated that hypertension was only the possible cause of death. The p rivate respondents statement, as to the medical history of her husband, was due to her unreliable recollection of events. Hence, the statement of the physician was properly considered by the trial court as hearsay. The question of whether there was concealment was aptly answered by the appellate court, thus:

The insured, Dr. Leuterio, had answered in his insurance application that he was in good health and that he had not consulted a doctor or any of the enumerated ailments, including hypertension; when he died the attending physician had certified in the death certificate that the former died of cerebral hemorrhage, probably secondary to hypertension. From this report, the appellant insurance company refused to pay the insurance claim. Appellant alleged that the insured had concealed the fact that he had hypertension. Contrary to appellants allegations, there was no sufficient proof that the insured had suffered from hypertension. Aside from the statement of the insureds widow who was not even sure if the medicines taken by Dr. Leuterio were for hypertension, the appellant had not proven nor produced any witness who could attest to Dr. Leuterios medical history...
xxx

Appellant insurance company had failed to establish that there was concealment made by the insured, hence, it cannot refuse payment of the claim.[17]
The fraudulent intent on the part of the insured must be established to entitle the insurer to rescind the contract.[18] Misrepresentation as a defense of the insurer to avoid liability is an affirmative defense and the duty to establish such defense by satisfactory and convincing evidence rests upon the insurer.[19] In the case at bar, the petitioner failed to clearly and satisfactorily establish its defense, and is therefore liable to pay the proceeds of the insurance. And that brings us to the last point in the review of the case at bar. Petitioner claims that there was no evidence as to the amount of Dr. Leuterios outstanding indebtedness to DBP at the time of the mortgagors death. Hence, for private respondents failure to establish the same, the action for specific performance should be dismissed. Petitioners claim is without merit. A life insurance policy is a valued policy.[20] Unless the interest of a person insured is susceptible of exact pecuniary measurement, the measure of indemnity under a policy of insurance upon life or health is the sum fixed in the policy.[21] The mortgagor paid the premium according to the coverage of his insurance, which states that:

The policy states that upon receipt of due proof of the Debtors death during the terms of this insurance, a death benefit in the amount of P86,200.00 shall be paid. In the event of the debtors death before his indebtedness with the creditor shall have been fully paid, an amount to pay the outstanding indebtedness shall first be paid to the Creditor and the balance of the Sum Assured, if there is any shall then be paid to the beneficiary/ies designated by the debtor.[22] (Emphasis omitted)
However, we noted that the Court of Appeals decision was promulgated on May 17, 1993. In private respondents memorandum, she states that DBP foreclosed in 1995 their

residential lot, in satisfaction of mortgagors outstanding loan. Considering this supervening event, the insurance proceeds shall inure to the benefit of the heirs of the deceased person or his beneficiaries. Equity dictates that DBP should not unjustly enrich itself at the expense of another (Nemo cum alterius detrimenio protest). Hence, it cannot collect the insurance proceeds, after it already foreclosed on the mortgage. The proceeds now rightly belong to Dr. Leuterios heirs represented by his widow, herein private respondent Medarda Leuterio. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 18341 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the petitioner is ORDERED to pay the insurance proceeds amounting to Eighty-six thousand, two hundred (P86,200.00) pesos to the heirs of the insured, Dr. Wilfredo Leuterio (deceased), upon presentation of proof of prior settlement of mortgagors indebtedness to Development Bank of the Philippines. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon Jr., JJ., concur. Bellosillo, (Chairman), J., on official leave.

Facts: There was an existing group life insurance executed between Great Pacific Life Assurance (Grepalife) and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). Grepalife agreed to insure the lives of eligible housing loan mortgagors of DBP. In November 1983, Wilfredo Leuterio, mortgagor of DBP applied to be a member of the group life insurance. He filled out a form where he indicated he never consulted any physician regarding any illness (heart condition etc) and that he is in good health. He was eventually included in the group life insurance and he was covered for the amount of his indebtedness (P86,200.00). In August 1984, Wilfredo died. DBP submitted a death claim but it was denied by Grepalife as it insisted that Wilfredoactually concealed that he was suffering from hypertension at the time of his insurance application. Grepalife relied on the statement made by the doctor who issued Wilfredos death certificate wherein it was stated that Wilfredos immediate cause of death was massive cerebral hemorrhage secondary to hypertension or hypertension as a possible cause of death. Since Grepalife refused to pay the insurance claim filed by DBP, Medarda Leuterio (widow) sued Grepalife. Grepalife assailed the suit and insisted that Medarda is not a proper party in interest. The lower court ruled in favor of Medarda and the court ordered Grepalife to pay the amount of the insurance to DBP. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in 1993. Grepalife appealed to the Supreme Court. In 1995, pending resolution of the case in the SC, DBP foreclosed the property of Medarda. ISSUE: Whether or not Grepalife is liable to pay the insurance claim.

HELD: Yes. Grepalife is liable to pay the insurance claim. Medarda is a proper party in interest (note that it was Wilfredo who has been paying the premium, as the insured, he is the real party in interest and this status was transferred to his widow). The group life insurance or mortgage redemption insurance provides that DBP as the mortgagee is merely an assignee of Wilfredo; and that in the event of Wilfredos death before his indebtedness to DBP is paid, proceeds from the insurance shall first be applied to the sum of the balance insured. But this does not cease Wilfredo to be a party to the insurance contract. Grepalife failed to prove that Wilfredo concealed that he was suffering from hypertension at the time of his application. The doctors finding as to the cause of death is not conclusive because no autopsy was conducted. The doctor who issued the death certificate has no knowledge of Wilfredos hospital confinement [if there are any]. The fraudulent intent on the part of the insured must be established to entitle the insurer to rescind the contract. Misrepresentation as a defense of the insurer to avoid liability is an affirmative defense and the duty to establish such defense by satisfactory and convincing evidence rests upon the insurer. Grepalife must however pay the claim to Medarda considering that DBP already foreclosed the property.

Harvardian Colleges v. Country Bankers Insurance Corp. 1 CARA 2

Facts: > Harvardian is a family corporation, the stockholders of which are Ildefonso Yap, Virginia King Yap and their children. > Prior to Aug. 9, 1979, an agent of Country Bankers proposed to Harvardian to insure its school building. Although at first reluctant, Harvardian agreed. > Country Banks sent an inspector to inspect the school building and agreed to insure the same for P500,000 for which Harvardian paid an annual premium of P2,500.

> On Aug. 9, 1979, Country Bankers issued to Harvardian a fire insurance policy. On March 12, 1980, (39 days before I was born hehehehe )during the effectivity of said insurance policy, the insured property was totally burned rendering it a total loss. > A claim was made by plaintiff upon defendant but defendant denied it contending that plaintiff had no insurable interest over the building constructed on the piece of land in the name of the late Ildefonso Yap as owner. > It was contended that both the lot and the building were owned by Ildefonso Yap and NOT by the Harvardian Colleges.

Issue: Whether or not Harvardian colleges has a right to the proceeds.

Held: Harvardian has a right to the proceeds. Regardless of the nature of the title of the insured or even if he did not have title to the property insured, the contract of fire insurance should still be upheld if his interest in or his relation to the property is such that he will be benefited in its continued existence or suffer a direct pecuniary loss from its destruction or injury. The test in determining insurable interest in property is whether one will derive pecuniary benefit or advantage from its preservation, or will suffer pecuniary loss or damage from its destruction, termination or injury by the happening of the event insured against.

Here Harvardian was not only in possession of the building but was in fact using the same for several years with the knowledge and consent of Ildefonso Yap. It is reasonably fair to assume that had the building not been burned, Harvardian would have been allowed the continued use of the same as the site of its operation as an educational institution. Harvardian therefore would have been directly benefited by the preservation of the property, and certainly suffered a pecuniary loss by its being burned.