G.R.No.
100970
SECONDDIVISION
[G.R.No.100970,September02,1992]
FINMANGENERALASSURANCECORPORATION,PETITIONER,
VS.THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSANDJULIA
SURPOSA,RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
NOCON,J.:
This is a petition for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a restraining
orderandpreliminarymandatoryinjunctiontoannulandsetasidethedecision
of the Court of Appeals dated July 11, 1991[1] affirming the decision dated
March 20, 1990 of the Insurance Commission[2] in ordering petitioner Finman
General Assurance Corporation to pay private respondent Julia Surposa the
proceedsofthepersonalaccidentinsurancepolicywithinterest.
It appears on record that on October 22, 1986, deceased Carlie Surposa was
insured with petitioner Finman General Assurance Corporation under Finman
General Teachers Protection Plan Master Policy No. 2005 and Individual Policy
No. 08924 with his parents, spouses Julia and Carlos Surposa and brothers
Christopher, Charles, Chester and Clifton, all surnamed Surposa, as
beneficiaries.[3]
While said insurance policy was in full force and effect, the insured Carlie
Surposa,diedonOctober18,1988asaresultofastabwoundinflictedbyone
ofthethree(3)unidentifiedmenwithoutprovocationandwarningonthepart
oftheformerasheandhiscousin,WinstonSurposa,werewaitingforarideon
their way home along RizalLocsin Streets, Bacolod City after attending the
celebrationofthe"MaskarraAnnualFestival."
Thereafter, private respondent and the other beneficiaries of said insurance
policy filed a written notice of claim with the petitioner insurance company
whichdeniedsaidclaimcontendingthatmurderandassaultarenotwithinthe
scopeofthecoverageoftheinsurancepolicy.
OnFebruary24,1989,privaterespondentfiledacomplaintwiththeInsurance
Commission which subsequently rendered a decision, the pertinent portion of
whichreads:
"In the light of the foregoing, we find respondent liable to pay
complainantthesumofP15,000.00representingtheproceedsofthe
policy with interest. As no evidence was submitted to prove the
claimformortuaryaidinthesumofP1,000.00,thesamecannotbe
entertained.
"WHEREFORE,judgementisherebyrenderedorderingrespondentto
paycomplainantthesumofP15,000.00withlegalinterestfromthe
dateofthefilingofthecomplaintuntilfullysatisfied.Withcosts.[4]
OnJuly11,1991,theappellatecourtaffirmedsaiddecision.
Hence, petitioner filed this petition alleging grave abuse of discretion on the
partoftheappellatecourtinapplyingtheprincipleof"expressouniusexclusion
alterius" in a personal accident insurance policy since death resulting from
murder and/or assault are impliedly excluded in said insurance policy
consideringthatthecauseofdeathoftheinsuredwasnotaccidentalbutrather
adeliberateandintentionalactoftheassailantinkillingtheformerasindicated
by the location of the lone stab wound on the insured. Therefore, said death
was committed with deliberate intent which, by the very nature of a personal
accidentinsurancepolicy,cannotbeindemnified.
Wedonotagree.
"Thetermsaccident'and'accidental',asusedininsurancecontracts
havenotacquiredanytechnicalmeaning,andareconstruedbythe
courts in their ordinary and common acceptation. Thus, the terms
have been taken to mean that which happen by chance or
fortuitously,withoutintentionanddesign,andwhichisunexpected,
unusual, and unforeseen. An accident is an event that 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,notexpected."
"xxx.Thegenerallyacceptedruleisthat,deathorinjurydoesnot
result from accident or accidental means within the terms of an
accidentpolicy if it is the natural result of the insured's voluntary
act, unaccompanied by anything unforeseen except the death or
injury. There is no accident when a deliberate act is performed
unless some additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen
happeningoccurswhichproducesorbringsabouttheresultofinjury
ordeath.Inotherwords,wherethedeathorinjuryisnotthenatural
or probable result of the insured's voluntary act, or if something
unforeseenoccursinthedoingoftheactwhichproducestheinjury,
the resulting death is within the protection of the policies insuring
againstdeathorinjuryfromaccident."[5]
Ascorrectlypointedoutbytherespondentappellatecourtinitsdecision:
"Inthecaseatbar,itcannot,bepretendedthatCarlieSurposadied
inthecourseofanassaultormurderasaresultofhisvoluntaryact
considering the very nature of these crimes. In the first place, the
insuredandhiscompanionwereontheirwayhomefromattendinga
festival.Theywereconfrontedbyunidentifiedpersons.Therecordis
barren of any circumstance showing how the stab wound was
inflicted. Nor can it be pretended that the malefactor aimed at the
insured precisely because the killer wanted to take his life. In any
event,whiletheactmaynotexempttheunknownperpetratorfrom
criminal liability, the fact remains that the happening was a pure
accident on the part of the victim. The insured died from an event
that took place without his foresight or expectation, an event that
proceeded from an unusual effect of a known cause and therefore,
not expected. Neither can it be said that there was a capricious
desire on the part of the accused to expose his life to danger
consideringthat,hewasjustgoinghomeafterattendingafestival."
[6]
Furthermore,thepersonalaccidentinsurancepolicy,involvedhereinspecifically
enumerated only ten (10) circumstances wherein no liability attaches to
petitioner insurance company for any injury, disability or loss suffered by the
insured as a result of any of the stipulated causes. The principle of "expresso
unius exclusio alterius" the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of
another thing is therefore applicable in the instant case since murder and
assault, not having been expressly included in the enumeration of the
circumstances that would negate liability in said insurance policy cannot be
considered by implication to discharge the petitioner insurance company from
liability for any injury, disability Or loss suffered by the insured. Thus, the
failure of the petitioner insurance company to include death resulting from
murderorassaultamongtheprohibitedrisksleadsinevitablytotheconclusion
thatitdidnotintendtolimitorexemptitselffromliabilityforsuchdeath.
Article1377oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippinesprovidesthat:
"The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract
shallnotfavorthepartywhocausedtheobscurity."
Moreover,
"it is well settled that contracts of insurance are to be construed
liberallyinfavoroftheinsuredandstrictlyagainsttheinsurer.Thus
ambiguity in the words of an insurance contract should be
interpretedinfavorofitsbeneficiary."[7]
WHEREFORE, finding no irreversible error in the decision of the respondent
Court of Appeals, the petition for certiorari with restraining order and
preliminaryinjunctionisherebyDENIEDforlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,C.J.,(Chairman),Padilla,Regalado,andMelo,JJ.,concur.
Rollo, pp. 1217. Ponente: Justice Luis L. Victor with the concurrence of
[1]
JusticeSantiagoM.KapunanandJusticeSegundinoG.Chua.
Original Record, pp. 5054. Penned by Insurance Commissioner Adelita A.
[2]
VergeldeDios.
Id.,atpp.25.
[3]
Id.,atp.50.
[4]
DelaCruzvs.CapitalInsurance&SuretyCo.,Inc.,17SCRA559[1966].
[5]
Rollo,pp.1516.
[6]
NationalPowerCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals,145SCRA533[1986].
[7]
Source:SupremeCourtELibrary
Thispagewasdynamicallygenerated
bytheELibraryContentManagementSystem(ELibCMS)
