insurance die gest

8/10/2019 Insurance Die Gest

1/10

G.R. No. 184300 July 11, 2012

MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC., Petitioner,vs.PHILIPPINES FIRST INSURANCE CO., INC. !" REPUTA#LE FOR$AR%ER SER&ICES,INC., Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

REYES, J.:

Before the Court is a petitiOn for review on certiorari led ! petitioner "ala!an Insurance Co., lnc.#"ala!an$ assailin% the Decision&dated 'eruar! (), (**+ and Resolution(dated u%ust (+, (**+ ofthe Court of ppeals #C$ in C-.R. C/ No. 0&(*1 which a2r3ed with 3odication the decision of theRe%ional 4rial Court #R4C$, Branch 5+ of "anila.

ntecedent 'acts

Since &)+), 6!eth Philippines, Inc. #6!eth$ and respondent Reputale 'orwarder Services, Inc.#Reputale$ had een annuall! e7ecutin% a contract of carria%e, where! the latter undertoo8 totransport and deliver the for3er9s products to its custo3ers, dealers or sales3en.5

On Nove3er &+, &))5, 6!eth procured "arine Polic! No. "R &50)0 #"arine Polic!$ fro3 respondentPhilippines 'irst Insurance Co., Inc. #Philippines 'irst$ to secure its interest over its own products.Philippines 'irst there! insured 6!eth9s nutritional, phar3aceutical and other products usual orincidental to the insured9s usiness while the sa3e were ein% transported or shipped in thePhilippines. 4he polic! covers all ris8s of direct ph!sical loss or da3a%e fro3 an! e7ternal cause, if !land, and provides a li3it of P:,***,***.** per an! one land vehicle.

On Dece3er &, &))5, 6!eth e7ecuted its annual contract of carria%e with Reputale. It turned out,however, that the contract was not si%ned ! 6!eth9s representative;s.1Nevertheless, it wasad3ittedl! si%ned ! Reputale9s representatives, the ter3s thereof faithfull! oserved ! the partiesand, as previousl! stated, the sa3e contract of carria%e had een annuall! e7ecuted ! the partiesever! !ear since &)+).all ris8s with respect to the %oods and shall eliale to the CO"PN? #6!eth$, for the loss, destruction, or da3a%e of the %oods;products due to an!and all causes whatsoever, includin% theft, roer!, @ood, stor3, earthAua8es, li%htnin%, and otherforce 3aeure while the %oods;products are in transit and until actual deliver! to the custo3ers,sales3en, and dealers of the CO"PN?>.:

4he contract also reAuired Reputale to secure an insurance polic! on 6!eth9s %oods.04hus, on'eruar! &&, &))1, Reputale si%ned a Special Ris8 Insurance Polic! #SR Polic!$ with petitioner "ala!anfor the a3ount of P&,***,***.**.

On Octoer :, &))1, durin% the eectivit! of the "arine Polic! and SR Polic!, Reputale received fro36!eth &,*** o7es of Pro3il infant for3ula worth P(,5


2/10

usiness of a co33on carrier.> In its answer,)Reputale clai3ed that it is a private carrier. It alsoclai3ed that it cannot e 3ade liale under the contract of carria%e with 6!eth since the contract wasnot si%ned ! 6!eth9s representative and that the cause of the loss was force 3aeure, i.e., thehiac8in% incident.

SuseAuentl!, Reputale i3pleaded "ala!an as third-part! defendant in an eort to collect thea3ount covered in the SR Polic!. ccordin% to Reputale, >it was validl! insured with "ala!an for

P&,***,***.** with respect to the lost products under the latter9s Insurance Polic! No. SR-***&-*(


3/10

"ala!an ar%ued that inas3uch as there was alread! a 3arine polic! issued ! Philippines 'irstsecurin% the sa3e suect 3atter a%ainst loss and that since the 3onetar! covera%e;value of the"arine Polic! is 3ore than enou%h to inde3nif! the hiac8ed car%o, Philippines 'irst alone 3ust earthe loss.

"ala!an sou%ht the dis3issal of the third-part! co3plaint a%ainst it. In the alternative, it pra!ed that ite held liale for no 3ore than P1:+,0::.0*, its alle%ed pro-rata share of the loss ased on the a3ount

covered ! the polic!, suect to the provision of Section &( of the SR Polic!, which statesG

&(. O4HER INS=RNCE C=SE. If at the ti3e of an! loss or da3a%e happenin% to an! propert! here!insured, there e an! other susistin% insurance or insurances, whether eected ! the insured or !an! other person or persons, coverin% the sa3e propert!, the co3pan! shall not e liale to pa! orcontriute 3ore than its ratale proportion of such loss or da3a%e.

On 'eruar! (), (**+, the C rendered the assailed decision sustainin% the rulin% of the R4C, thedecretal portion of which readsG

6HERE'ORE, in view of the fore%oin%, the assailed Decision dated () Septe3er (***, as 3odied inthe Order dated (& Lul! (**&, is ''IR"ED with "ODI'IC4ION in that the award of attorne!9s fees infavor of Reputale is DEE4ED.

SO ORDERED.&5

4he C ruled, a3on% others, thatG #&$ Reputale is estopped fro3 assailin% the validit! of the contractof carria%e on the %round of lac8 of si%nature of 6!eth9s representative;sK #($ Reputale is liale underthe contract for the value of the %oods even if the sa3e was lost due to fortuitous eventK and #5$Section &( of the SR Polic! prevails over Section statutor! li3itations on theliailit! of co33on carriers> and the >dierence etween an Mother insurance clause9 and an Moverinsurance clause9.>

"ala!an also contends that the C erred when it held that Reputale is a private carrier and should eound ! the contractual stipulations in the contract of carria%e. 4his ar%u3ent is ased on itsassertion that Philippines 'irst udiciall! ad3itted in its co3plaint that Reputale is a co33on carrierand as such, Reputale should not e held liale pursuant to rticle &01


4/10

'inall!, Philippines 'irst contends that the factual ndin% that Reputale is a private carrier should eaccorded the hi%hest de%ree of respect and 3ust e considered conclusive etween the parties, andthat a review of such ndin% ! the Court is not warranted under the circu3stances. s to its alle%edudicial ad3ission that Reputale is a co33on carrier, Philippines 'irst proered the declaration 3ade! Reputale that it is a private carrier. Said declaration was alle%edl! reiterated ! Reputale in itsthird part! co3plaint, which in turn was dul! ad3itted ! "ala!an in its answer to the said third-part!co3plaint. In addition, Reputale even presented evidence to prove that it is a private carrier.

s to the applicailit! of Sections < and &( in the SR Polic!, Philippines 'irst reiterated the rulin% of theC. Philippines 'irst, however, pra!ed for a sli%ht 3odication of the assailed decision, pra!in% thatReputale and "ala!an e rendered solidaril! liale to it in the a3ount of P))+,***.**, whichrepresents the alance fro3 the P&,***.***.** covera%e of the SR Polic! after deductin% P(,***.**under Section &* of the said SR Polic!.&0

Issues

4he liailit! of "ala!an under the SR Polic! hin%es on the followin% issues for resolutionG

&$ 6hether Reputale is a private carrierK

($ 6hether Reputale is strictl! ound ! the stipulations in its contract of carria%e with

6!eth, such that it should e liale for an! ris8 of loss or da3a%e, for an! cause whatsoever,includin% that due to theft or roer! and other force 3aeureK

5$ 6hether the R4C and C erred in renderin% >nu%ator!> Sections < and Section &( of the SRPolic!K and

1$ 6hether Reputale should e held solidaril! liale with "ala!an for the a3ount ofP))+,***.** due to Philippines 'irst.

4he Court9s Rulin%

On the rst issue Reputale is a private carrier.

4he Court a%rees with the R4C and C that Reputale is a private carrier. 6ell-entrenched in

urisprudence is the rule that factual ndin%s of the trial court, especiall! when a2r3ed ! theappellate court, are accorded the hi%hest de%ree of respect and considered conclusive etween theparties, save for certain e7ceptional and 3eritorious circu3stances, none of which are present in thiscase.&+

"ala!an relies on the alle%ed udicial ad3ission of Philippines 'irst in its co3plaint that Reputale is aco33on carrier.&)Invo8in% Section 1, Rule &() of the Rules on Evidence that >an ad3ission veral orwritten, 3ade ! a part! in the course of the proceedin% in the sa3e case, does not reAuire proof,> it is"ala!an9s position that the R4C and C should have ruled that

Reputale is a co33on carrier. ConseAuentl!, pursuant to rticle &014he court, for the proper decision of the case, 3a!and should consider, without the introduction of evidence, the facts ad3itted ! the parties.>(*4herule on udicial ad3ission, however, also states that such alle%ation, state3ent, or ad3ission isconclusive as a%ainst the pleader,(&and that the facts alle%ed in the co3plaint are dee3ed ad3issionsof the plainti and indin% upon hi3.((In this case, the pleader or the plainti who alle%ed thatReputale is a co33on carrier was Philippines 'irst. It cannot, ! an! stretch of i3a%ination, e 3adeconclusive as a%ainst Reputale whose nature of usiness is in Auestion.

It should e stressed that Philippines 'irst is not priv! to the SR Polic! etween 6!eth and ReputaleKrather, it is a 3ere suro%ee to the ri%ht of 6!eth to collect fro3 Reputale under the ter3s of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jul2012/gr_184300_2012.html#fnt22


5/10


6/10

as Reputale was not priv! thereto, and therefore did not stand to enet fro3 the polic! issued !plainti-appellee in favor of 6!eth, then "ala!an9s stand should e reected.

4o rule that Sec. &( operates even in the asence of doule insurance would wor8 inustice toReputale which, despite pa!in% pre3iu3s for a P&,***,***.** insurance covera%e, would not eentitled to recover said a3ount for the si3ple reason that the sa3e propert! is covered ! anotherinsurance polic!, a polic! to which it was not a part! to and 3uch less, fro3 which it did not stand to

enet. Plainl!, this unfair situation could not have een the intention of oth Reputale and "ala!anin si%nin% the insurance contract in Auestion.55

In Auestionin% said rulin%, "ala!an posits that Sections < and &( are separate provisions applicaleunder distinct circu3stances. "ala!an ar%ues that >it will not e co3pletel! asolved under Section (-D>, >5->, >1-B>, >, >:-D> and >0-C>$. In E7hiit >0-C> the word >included> aove the underlined portion was deleted. On Lul! &:, &))* anearthAua8e struc8 Central uFon and Northern uFon and plainti9s properties covered ! Polic! No.5&)11 issued ! defendant, includin% the two swi33in% pools in its %oo Pla!a Resort were da3a%ed.

Petitioner advised respondent that it would e 3a8in% a clai3 under its Insurance Polic! 5&)11 forda3a%es on its properties. Respondent denied petitioner9s clai3 on the %round that its insurancepolic! onl! aorded earthAua8e shoc8 covera%e to the twoswi33in% pools of the resort. 4he trial courtruled in favor of respondent. In its rulin%, the schedule clearl! shows that petitioner paid onl! apre3iu3 of P5)5.** a%ainst the peril of earthAua8e shoc8, the sa3e pre3iu3 it had paid a%ainstearthAua8e shoc8 onl! on the two swi33in% pools in all the policies issued ! HC.

I))u(66hether or not the polic! covers onl! the two swi33in% pools owned ! ulf Resorts and doesnot e7tend to all properties da3a%ed therein

H(l"6?ES. ll the provisions and riders ta8en and interpreted to%ether, induital! show the intentionof the parties to e7tend earthAua8e shoc8 covera%e to the two swi33in% pools onl!. n insurancepre3iu3 is the consideration paid an insurer for underta8in% to inde3nif! the insured a%ainst aspecied peril. In re, casualt! and 3arine insurance, the pre3iu3 eco3es a det as soon as the ris8attaches. In the suect polic!, no pre3iu3 pa!3ents were 3ade with re%ard to earthAua8e shoc8covera%e e7cept on the two swi33in% pools. 4here is no 3ention of an! pre3iu3 pa!ale for theother resort properties with re%ard to earthAua8e shoc8. 4his is consistent with the histor! ofpetitioner9s insurance policies with HC.
http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/gulf-resorts-inc-vs-philippine-charter.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/gulf-resorts-inc-vs-philippine-charter.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/gulf-resorts-inc-vs-philippine-charter.htmlhttp://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/03/gulf-resorts-inc-vs-philippine-charter.html


9/10

%#P POOL OF ACCRE%ITE% INSURANCE &S RA%IO MIN%ANAO NET$OR7 2009

'actsG

In the evenin% of Lul! (0, &)++, the radio station of Radio "indanao Networ8 located at the SSSBuildin% in Bacolod Cit! was urned down causin% da3a%e in the a3ount of over one 3illion pesos.Respondent sou%ht to recover under two insurance policies ut the clai3s were denied on the asisthat the case of the loss was an e7cepted ris8 under condition no. : #c$ and #d$, to witG

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 consequences, namely:

(c !ar, invasion, act of foreign enemies, hostilities, or warli"e operations (whether war be declared ornot, civic war.

(d #utiny, riot, military or popular uprising, insurrection, rebellion, revolution, military or usurpedpower.

4he insurers 3aintained that ased on witnesses and evidence %athered at the site, the re wascaused ! the 3e3ers of the Co33unist Part! of the Philippines;New People9s r3!. Hence therefusal to honor their oli%ations.

4he trial court and the C found in favor of the respondent. In its ndin%s, oth courts 3entioned thefact that there was no credile evidence presented that the CCP;NP did in fact cause the re that%utted the radio station in Bacolod.

IssueG

6ON the insurance co3panies are liale to pa! Radio "indanao Networ8 under the insurance policies

HeldG ?es.

4he Court will not distur the factual ndin%s of the appellant and trial courts asent co3pellin%reason. =nder this 3ode of review, the urisdiction of the court is li3ited to reviewin% onl! errors oflaw.

- Particularl! in cases of insurance disputes with re%ard to e7cepted ris8s, it is the insurance co3panieswhich have the urden to prove that the loss co3es within the purview of the e7ception or li3itationset up. It is su2cient for the insured to prove the fact of da3a%e or loss. Once the insured 3a8es out apri3a facie case in its favor, the dut! or urden of evidence shifts to the insurer to controvert saidpri3a facie case.

DispositionPetition dis3issed. Decision of the C is a2r3ed.

T! -) CA

nsurance Law Representation Concealment Rescission of an Insurance Contract

In September 1973, Tan Lee Siong applied for a life insurance under Philippine American

Life Insurance Compan! "e stated in the application form that he has no health issues #hatsoe$er

and so in %o$ember 1973 he #as issued a life insurance polic in the amount of P&','''!''! "e

listed his sons as beneficiaries! In April 197(, Tan Lee Siong died due to hepatoma! "is sons filed an

insurance claim but P"ILA)LI*+ denied the same as it alleged that Tan Lee Siong concealed the


10/10

fact that he #as hpertensi$e, diabetic, and #as suffering from hepatoma at the time of his

application for the insurance!

The beneficiaries a$erred that P"ILA)LI*+ can no longer rescind the insurance contract because

the insured is alread dead! The in$oe Section -& of the Insurance Code #hich the interpreted to

mean that an insurer can onl rescind an insurance contract during the lifetime of the insured. and

that such rescission should be done #ithin t#o ears prior to the filing of a suit in$ol$ing theinsurance!

ISSUE: /hether or not the interpretation of the Tan brothers is correct!

HELD: %o! The pertinent section in the Insurance Code pro$ides0

Section -&! /hene$er a right to rescind a contract of insurance is gi$en to the insurer b an

pro$ision of this chapter, such right must be eercised pre$ious to the commencement of an action

on the contract!

After a polic of life insurance made paable on the death of the insured shall ha$e been in force

during the lifetime of the insured for a period of t#o ears from the date of its issue or of its last

reinstatement, the insurer cannot pro$e that the polic is $oid ab initioor is rescindable b reason of

the fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of the insured or his agent!

The so2called incontestabilit clause4 precludes the insurer from raising the defenses of false

representations or concealment of material facts insofar as health and pre$ious diseases are

concerned if the insurance has been in force for at least t#o ears during the insured5s lifetime! The

phrase during the lifetime4 found in Section -& simpl means that the polic is no longer considered

in force after the insured has died! The e phrase in the second paragraph of Section -& is for a

period of t#o ears!4

%ote that the polic #as in force for onl one ear and ( months #hen Tan Lee Siong died! This

means that P"ILA)LI*+ can still contest and rescind the polic issued b reason of the

misrepresentation made b Tan Lee Siong!

*urther, because of Tan Lee Siong5s statement that he does not ha$e an health issues,

theinsurance compan #as misled into belie$ing that he #as health and so it did not deem a

medical checup to be necessar and that ultimatel led to the issuance of the life insurance polic!

insurance die gest

Documents