VIRGINIA CALANOC vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. G.R. No.

L-8151, December 16, 1955 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 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. CA considered the death of Basilio, though unexpected, cannot be accidental, for his death occurred because he left his post and joined policeman Magsanoc and Atty. Ojeda to see what was the trouble in Atty. Ojedas house. SC dissent from the above findings of the CA. 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. It cannot 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. 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. 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, 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. 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

EMILIA T. BIAGTAN, JUAN T. BIAGTAN, JR., MIGUEL T. BIAGTAN, GIL T. BIAGTAN and GRACIA T. BIAGTAN vs. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. G.R. No. L-25579 March 29, 1972 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 May 20, 1964, the house of insured Juan S. Biagtan was robbed by a band of robbers. 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 Juan S. Biagtan who received thrusts from their sharp-pointed instruments, causing wounds on the body resulting in his death. 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. 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. 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. 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 that in 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. 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.

FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and JULIA SURPOSA
G.R. No. 100970 September 2, 1992 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. While said insurance policy was in full force and effect, Carlie Surposa, died on October 18, 1988 as a result of a stab wound inflicted by one of the three (3) unidentified men without provocation and warning on the part of the former as he and his cousin, Winston Surposa, were waiting for a ride on their way home along Rizal-Locsin Streets, Bacolod City after attending the celebration of the "Maskarra Annual Festival." Beneficiaries of said insurance policy filed a written notice of claim with the insurance company which denied said claim contending that murder and assault are not within the scope of the coverage of the insurance policy since death resulting from murder and/or assault are impliedly excluded in said insurance policy considering that the cause of death of the insured was not accidental but rather a deliberate and intentional act of the assailant in killing the former as indicated by the location of the lone stab wound on the insured. The terms "accident" and "accidental" as used in insurance contracts have not acquired any technical meaning, and are construed by the courts in their ordinary and common acceptation. Thus, the terms have been taken to mean that which happen by chance or fortuitously, without intention and design, and which is unexpected, 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, not expected. . . . The generally accepted rule is that, death or injury does not result from accident or accidental means within the terms of an accident-policy 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 happening occurs which produces or brings about the result of injury or death. In other words, where the death or injury is not the natural or probable result of the insured's voluntary act, or if something unforeseen occurs in the doing of the act which produces the injury, the resulting death is within the protection of the policies insuring against death or injury from accident. It cannot be pretended that Carlie Surposa died in the course of an assault or murder as a result of his voluntary act considering the very nature of these crimes. In the first place, the insured and his companion were on their way home from attending a festival. They were confronted by unidentified persons. The record is 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, while the act may not exempt the unknown perpetrator from 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 where was a capricious desire on the part of the accused to expose his life to danger considering that he was just going home after attending a festival.

ZENITH INSURANCE CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS and LAWRENCE FERNANDEZ G.R. No. 85296 May 14, 1990 Lawrence Fernandez insured his car for "own damage" with petitioner Zenith Insurance Corporation. On July 6, 1983, the car figured in an accident and suffered actual damages in the amount of P3,640.00. After allegedly being given a run around by Zenith for two (2) months, Fernandez filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu for sum of money and damages resulting from the refusal of Zenith to pay the amount claimed. Aside from actual damages and interests, Fernandez also prayed for moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00, exemplary damages of P5,000.00, attorney's fees of P3,000.00 and litigation expenses of P3,000.00. On June 4, 1986, a decision was rendered by the trial court in favor of private respondent Fernandez. On June 10, 1986, petitioner filed a notice of appeal before the trial court. The notice of appeal was granted in the same order granting private respondent's motion for execution pending appeal. The appeal to respondent court assigned the following errors: I. The lower court erred in denying defendant appellant to adduce evidence in its behalf. II. The lower court erred in ordering Zenith Insurance Corporation to pay the amount of P3,640.00 in its decision. III. The lower court erred in awarding moral damages, attorneys fees and exemplary damages, the worst is that, the court awarded damages more than what are prayed for in the complaint. It is clear that under the Insurance Code, in case of unreasonable delay in the payment of the proceeds of an insurance policy, the damages that may be awarded are: 1) attorney's fees; 2) other expenses incurred by the insured person by reason of such unreasonable denial or withholding of payment; 3) interest at twice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board of the amount of the claim due the injured; and 4) the amount of the claim. As regards the award of moral and exemplary damages, the rules under the Civil Code of the Philippines shall govern. "The purpose of moral damages is essentially indemnity or reparation, not punishment or correction. Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of a defendant, they are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by reason of the defendant's culpable action." On the other hand, exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. As regards the actual damages incurred by private respondent, the amount of P3,640.00 had been established before the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. Respondent appellate court correctly ruled that the deductions of P250.00 and P274.00 as deductible franchise and 20% depreciation on parts, respectively claimed by petitioners as agreed upon in the contract, had no basis. Therefore, the award of moral damages is reduced to P10,000.00 and the award of exemplary damages is hereby deleted.

SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD. vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and NERISSA LIM G.R. No. 92383 July 17, 1992 Felix Lim was in a happy mood (but not drunk) and was playing with his handgun, from which he had previously removed the magazine. As she watched television, he stood in front of her and pointed the gun at her. She pushed it aside and said it might he loaded. He assured her it was not and then pointed it to his temple. The next moment there was an explosion and Lim slumped to the floor. He was dead before he fell. As beneficiary, his wife Nerissa Lim sought payment on the policy but her claim was rejected. The petitioner agreed that there was no suicide. It argued, however that there was no accident either. The words "accident" and "accidental" have never acquired any technical signification in law, and when used in an insurance contract are to be construed and considered according to the ordinary understanding and common usage and speech of people generally. In-substance, the courts are practically agreed that the words "accident" and "accidental" mean that which happens by chance or fortuitously, without intention or design, and which is unexpected, unusual, and unforeseen. The definition that has usually been adopted by the courts is that 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 case, and therefore not expected. The petitioner contends that the insured willfully exposed himself to needless peril and thus removed himself from the coverage of the insurance policy. Accident insurance policies were never intended to reward the insured for his tendency to show off or for his miscalculations. They were intended to provide for contingencies. Hence, when I miscalculate and jump from the Quezon Bridge into the Pasig River in the belief that I can overcome the current, I have wilfully exposed myself to peril and must accept the consequences of my act. If I drown I cannot go to the insurance company to ask them to compensate me for my failure to swim as well as I thought I could. The insured in the case at bar deliberately put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger. He wilfully exposed himself to peril. The private respondent maintains that Lim did not. That is where she says the analogy fails. The petitioner's hypothetical swimmer knew when he dived off the Quezon Bridge that the currents below were dangerous. By contrast, Lim did not know that the gun he put to his head was loaded. Lim was unquestionably negligent and that negligence cost him his own life. But it should not prevent his widow from recovering from the insurance policy he obtained precisely against accident. There is nothing in the policy that relieves the insurer of the responsibility to pay the indemnity agreed upon if the insured is shown to have contributed to his own accident. Indeed, most accidents are caused by negligence. On the second assigned error, however, the Court must rule in favor of the petitioner. The basic issue raised in this case is, as the petitioner correctly observed, one of first impression. It is evident that the petitioner was acting in good faith then it resisted the private respondent's claim on the ground that the death of the insured was covered by the exception. The issue was indeed debatable and was clearly not raised only for the purpose of evading a legitimate obligation. We hold therefore that the award of moral and exemplary damages and of attorney's fees is unjust and so must be disapproved. In order that a person may be made liable to the payment of moral damages, the law requires that his act be wrongful. The adverse result of an action does not per se make the act wrongful and subject the act or to the payment of moral damages.

JEWEL VILLACORTA, assisted by her husband, GUERRERO VILLACORTA vs. THE INSURANCE COMMISSION and EMPIRE INSURANCE COMPANY G.R. No. L-54171 October 28, 1980 Villacorta was the owner of a Colt Lancer, Model 1976, insured with Empire Insurance for P35,000.00 Own Damage; P30,000.00 Theft; and P30,000.00 Third Party Liability. On May 9, 1978, the vehicle was brought to the Sunday Machine Works, Inc., for general check-up and repairs. 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. The driver 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. 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. 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. Secondly, since when a car is unlawfully taken, it is the theft clause, not the "authorized driver" clause, that applies, 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". 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. "

ANDREW PALERMO vs. PYRAMID INSURANCE CO., INC. G.R. No. L-36480 May 31, 1988 On October 12,1968, after having purchased a brand new Nissan Cedric de Luxe Sedan car from the Ng Sam Bok Motors Co. in Bacolod City. Palermo insured the same with Pyramid Insurance against any loss or damage for P 20,000.00 and against third party liability for P 10,000.00. The automobile was, however, mortgaged by the plaintiff with the vendor, Ng Sam Bok Motors Co., to secure the payment of the balance of the purchase price. On April 17, 1968, while driving the automobile, the plaintiff met a violent accident. Palermo sustained physical injuries, his father, Cesar Palermo, who was with him in the car was likewise seriously injured and died shortly thereafter, and the car was totally wrecked. Pyramid Insurance was immediately notified of the occurrence. The insurance policy grants an option unto the defendant, in case of accident either to indemnify the plaintiff for loss or damage to the car in cash or to replace the damaged car. Pyramid, however, refused to take either of the above-mentioned alternatives for the reason as alleged, that the insured himself had violated the terms of the policy when he drove the car in question with an expired driver's license. There is no merit in the appellant's allegation that the plaintiff was not authorized to drive the insured motor vehicle because his driver's license had expired. The driver of the insured motor vehicle at the time of the accident was, the insured himself, hence an "authorized driver" under the policy. While the Motor Vehicle Law prohibits a person from operating a motor vehicle on the highway without a license or with an expired license, an infraction of the Motor Vehicle Law on the part of the insured, is not a bar to recovery under the insurance contract. It however renders him subject to the penal sanctions of the Motor Vehicle Law. The requirement that the driver be "permitted in accordance with the licensing or other laws or regulations to drive the Motor Vehicle and is not disqualified from driving such motor vehicle by order of a Court of Law or by reason of any enactment or regulation in that behalf," applies only when the driver" is driving on the insured's order or with his permission." It does not apply when the person driving is the insured himself.

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 vs. HONORABLE FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, Presiding Judge of Davao City, Branch II, and AFISCO INSURANCE CORPORATION G.R. No. 60506 August 6, 1992 Lope Maglana was on his way to his work station, driving a motorcycle owned by the Bureau of Customs. 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. Consequently, the heirs of Lope Maglana, Sr., filed an action for damages and attorney's fees against operator Patricio Destrajo and AFISCObefore the then Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch II. 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 court ordered Destrajo to pay plaintiffs

damages. 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. 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." Hence, they argued that the P20,000.00 coverage of the insurance policy issued by AFISCO, should have been awarded in their favor. 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. Petition was granted, However, we cannot agree that AFISCO is likewise solidarily liable with Destrajo. In Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the 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. 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."

PERLA COMPANIA DE SEGUROS, INC. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HERMINIO LIM and EVELYN LIM G.R. No. 96452 May 7, 1992 FCP CREDIT CORPORATION vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, Special Third Division, HERMINIO LIM and EVELYN LIM G.R. No. 96493 May 7, 1992 On December 24, 1981, spouses Herminio and Evelyn Lim executed a promissory note in favor Supercars, Inc. and secured by a chattel mortgage over a brand new red Ford Laser 1300 5DR Hatchback 1981 model, which is registered under the name Herminio Lim and insured with the petitioner Perla Compania de Seguros, Inc. for comprehensive coverage. On the same date, Supercars, Inc., with notice to private respondents spouses, assigned to petitioner FCP Credit Corporation its rights, title and interest on said promissory note and chattel mortgage as shown by the Deed of Assignment. On November 9, 1982, said vehicle was carnapped while parked at the back of Broadway Centrum along N. Domingo Street, Quezon City. Private respondent Evelyn Lim, who was driving said car before it was carnapped.

On November 11, 1982, private respondent filed a claim for loss with the petitioner Perla but said claim was denied on November 18, 1982 on the ground that Evelyn Lim, who was using the vehicle before it was carnapped, was in possession of an expired driver's license at the time of the loss of said vehicle which is in violation of the authorized driver clause of the insurance policy. Where a car is admittedly, as in this case, unlawfully and wrongfully taken without the owner's consent or knowledge, such taking constitutes theft, and, therefore, it is the "THEFT"' clause, and not the "AUTHORIZED DRIVER" clause that should apply. As correctly stated by the respondent court in its decision: . . . Theft is an entirely different legal concept from that of accident. Theft is committed by a person with the intent to gain or, to put it in another way, with the concurrence of the doer's will. On the other hand, accident, although it may proceed or result from negligence, is the happening of an event without the concurrence of the will of the person by whose agency it was caused. (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Vol. I, 1914 ed., p. 101). Clearly, the risk against accident is distinct from the risk against theft. The "authorized driver clause" in a typical insurance policy is in contemplation or anticipation of accident in the legal sense in which it should be understood, and not in contemplation or anticipation of an event such as theft. The distinction often seized upon by insurance companies in resisting claims from their assureds between death occurring as a result of accident and death occurring as a result of intent may, by analogy, apply to the case at bar. Thus, if the insured vehicle had figured in an accident at the time she drove it with an expired license, then, appellee Perla Compania could properly resist appellants' claim for indemnification for the loss or destruction of the vehicle resulting from the accident. But in the present case. The loss of the insured vehicle did not result from an accident where intent was involved; the loss in the present case was caused by theft, the commission of which was attended by intent. 15 It is worthy to note that there is no causal connection between the possession of a valid driver's license and the loss of a vehicle. To rule otherwise would render car insurance practically a sham since an insurance company can easily escape liability by citing restrictions which are not applicable or germane to the claim, thereby reducing indemnity to a shadow. The court however find the petition of FCP meritorious. The Court agrees with petitioner FCP that private respondents are not relieved of their obligation to pay the former the installments due on the promissory note on account of the loss of the automobile. The chattel mortgage constituted over the automobile is merely an accessory contract to the promissory note. Being the principal contract, the promissory note is unaffected by whatever befalls the subject matter of the accessory contract. Therefore, the unpaid balance on the promissory note should be paid, and not just the installments due and payable before the automobile was carnapped, as erronously held by the Court of Appeals. Because petitioner Perla had unreasonably denied their valid claim, private respondents should not be made to pay the interest, liquidated damages and attorney's fees as stipulated in the promissory note. As mentioned above, the contract of indemnity was procured to insure the return of the money loaned from petitioner FCP, and the unjustified refusal of petitioner Perla to recognize the valid claim of the private respondents should not in any way prejudice the latter. Private respondents can not be said to have unduly enriched themselves at the expense of petitioner FCP since they will be required to pay the latter the unpaid balance of its obligation under the promissory note.

ARMANDO GEAGONIA vs. COURT OF APPEALS and COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION G.R. No. 114427 February 6, 1995 Geagonia is the owner of Norman's Mart in the public market of San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. On 22 December 1989, he obtained from Country Bankers Insurance fire insurance policy for P100,000.00 and covered the following: "Stock-in-trade consisting principally of dry goods such as RTW's for men and women wear and other usual to assured's business." Geagonia declared in the policy under the subheading entitled CO-INSURANCE that Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. was the co-insurer for P50,000.00. The policy contained the condition (3) that the insured shall give notice to the Company of any insurance or insurances already affected, or which may subsequently be effected, covering any of the property or properties consisting of stocks in trade, goods in process and/or inventories only hereby insured. Failure of notice shall deem all benefits under this policy forfeited. On 27 May 1990, fire of accidental origin broke out at the public market of San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. The petitioner's insured stock-in-trade were completely destroyed prompting him to file with the private respondent a claim under the policy. The private respondent denied the claim because it found that at the time of the loss the petitioner's stocks-in-trade were likewise covered by fire insurance policies issued by the Cebu Branch of the Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc. These policies indicate a mortgage clause of co-insurance of P100,000. The Insurance Commission found that the petitioner had no knowledge of the previous two policies. The Court of Appeals disagreed and found otherwise in view of the explicit admission by the petitioner in his letter to the private respondent of 18 January 1991. SC agrees with the Court of Appeals that the petitioner knew of the prior policies issued by the PFIC. His letter of 18 January 1991 to the private respondent conclusively proves this knowledge. Condition 3 of the private respondent's Policy is a condition which is not proscribed by law. Its incorporation in the policy is allowed by Section 75 of the Insurance Code 15 which is commonly known as the additional or "other insurance" clause and has been upheld as valid and as a warranty that no other insurance exists. Its violation would thus avoid the policy. However, in order to constitute a violation, the other insurance must be upon same subject matter, the same interest therein, and the same risk. As to a mortgaged property, the mortgagor and the mortgagee have each an independent insurable interest therein and both interests may be one policy, or each may take out a separate policy covering his interest, either at the same or at separate times. The mortgagor's insurable interest covers the full value of the mortgaged property, even though the mortgage debt is equivalent to the full value of the property. The mortgagee's insurable interest is to the extent of the debt, since the property is relied upon as security thereof, and in insuring he is not insuring the property but his interest or lien thereon. His insurable interest is prima facie the value mortgaged and extends only to the amount of the debt, not exceeding the value of the mortgaged property. Thus, separate insurances covering different insurable interests may be obtained by the mortgagor and the mortgagee. A mortgagor may, however, take out insurance for the benefit of the mortgagee, which is the usual practice. The mortgagee may be made the beneficial payee in several ways. He may become the assignee of the policy with the consent of the insurer; or the mere pledgee without such consent; or the original policy may contain a mortgage clause; or a rider making the policy payable to the mortgagee "as his interest may appear" may be attached; or a "standard mortgage clause," containing a collateral independent contract between the

mortgagee and insurer, may be attached; or the policy, though by its terms payable absolutely to the mortgagor, may have been procured by a mortgagor under a contract duty to insure for the mortgagee's benefit, in which case the mortgagee acquires an equitable lien upon the proceeds. In the policy obtained by the mortgagor with loss payable clause in favor of the mortgagee as his interest may appear, the mortgagee is only a beneficiary under the contract, and recognized as such by the insurer but not made a party to the contract himself. Hence, any act of the mortgagor which defeats his right will also defeat the right of the mortgagee. This kind of policy covers only such interest as the mortgagee has at the issuing of the policy. On the other hand, a mortgagee may also procure a policy as a contracting party in accordance with the terms of an agreement by which the mortgagor is to pay the premiums upon such insurance. It has been noted, however, that although the mortgagee is himself the insured, as where he applies for a policy, fully informs the authorized agent of his interest, pays the premiums, and obtains on the assurance that it insures him, the policy is in fact in the form used to insure a mortgagor with loss payable clause. It is a cardinal rule on insurance that a policy or insurance contract is to be interpreted liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the company, the reason being, undoubtedly, to afford the greatest protection which the insured was endeavoring to secure when he applied for insurance. It is also a cardinal principle of law that forfeitures are not favored and that any construction which would result in the forfeiture of the policy benefits for the person claiming thereunder, will be avoided, if it is possible to construe the policy in a manner which would permit recovery. With these principles in mind, we are of the opinion that Condition 3 of the subject policy is not totally free from ambiguity and must, perforce, be meticulously analyzed. Such analysis leads us to conclude that (a) the prohibition applies only to double insurance, and (b) the nullity of the policy shall only be to the extent exceeding P200,000.00 of the total policies obtained. A double insurance exists where the same person is insured by several insurers separately in respect of the same subject and interest. As earlier stated, the insurable interests of a mortgagor and a mortgagee on the mortgaged property are distinct and separate. Since the two policies of the PFIC do not cover the same interest as that covered by the policy of the private respondent, no double insurance exists. The non-disclosure then of the former policies was not fatal to the petitioner's right to recover on the private respondent's policy. Furthermore, by stating within Condition 3 itself that such condition shall not apply if the total insurance in force at the time of loss does not exceed P200,000.00, the private respondent was amenable to assume a co-insurer's liability up to a loss not exceeding P200,000.00. What it had in mind was to discourage over-insurance. Indeed, the rationale behind the incorporation of "other insurance" clause in fire policies is to prevent over-insurance and thus avert the perpetration of fraud. When a property owner obtains insurance policies from two or more insurers in a total amount that exceeds the property's value, the insured may have an inducement to destroy the property for the purpose of collecting the insurance. The public as well as the insurer is interested in preventing a situation in which a fire would be profitable to the insured. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 31916 is SET ASIDE and the decision of the Insurance Commission in Case No. 3340 is REINSTATED.