Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 138941 October 8, 2001
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner,
vs.
TANTUCO ENTERPRISES, INC., respondent.
PUNO, J.
efore us is a Petition for Revie! on "ertiorari assailin# the Decision of the "ourt of
$ppeals in "$%&.R. "V No. '((() pro*ul#ated on +anuar, )-, )..., !hich a/r*ed
in toto the Decision of the Re#ional Trial "ourt, ranch '0, 1ucena "it, in "ivil "ase
No. .(%') dated October )2, )..'.
Respondent Tantuco 3nterprises, Inc. is en#a#ed in the coconut oil *illin# and
re4nin# industr,. It o!ns t!o oil *ills. oth are located at factor, co*pound at I,a*,
1ucena "it,. It appears that respondent co**enced its business operations !ith
onl, one oil *ill. In ).55, it started operatin# its second oil *ill. The latter ca*e to
be co**onl, referred to as the ne! oil *ill.
The t!o oil *ills !ere separatel, covered b, 4re insurance policies issued b,
petitioner $*erican 6o*e $ssurance "o., Philippine ranch.
)
The 4rst oil *ill !as
insured for three *illion pesos 7P0,888,888.889 under Polic, No. 082%:-0(0(-%0 for
the period March ), )..) to )..(.
(
The ne! oil *ill !as insured for si; *illion pesos
7P2,888,888.889 under Polic, No. 082%:-0(0()%. for the sa*e ter*.
0
O/cial receipts
indicatin# pa,*ent for the full a*ount of the pre*iu* !ere issued b, the
petitioner<s a#ent.
-
$ 4re that bro=e out in the earl, *ornin# of Septe*ber 08,)..) #utted and
consu*ed the ne! oil *ill. Respondent i**ediatel, noti4ed the petitioner of the
incident. The latter then sent its appraisers !ho inspected the burned pre*ises and
the properties destro,ed. Thereafter, in a letter dated October )', )..), petitioner
re>ected respondent<s clai* for the insurance proceeds on the #round that no polic,
!as issued b, it coverin# the burned oil *ill. It stated that the description of the
insured establish*ent referred to another buildin# thus? @Our polic, nos. 082%
:-0(0()%. 7Ps 2M9 and 082%:-0(0(-%- 7Ps 0M9 e;tend insurance covera#e to ,our
oil *ill under uildin# No. ', !hilst the aAected oil *ill !as under uildin# No. )-. @
'
$ co*plaint for speci4c perfor*ance and da*a#es !as conseBuentl, instituted b,
the respondent !ith the RT", ranch '0 of 1ucena "it,. On October )2, )..', after
trial, the lo!er court rendered a Decision 4ndin# the petitioner liable on the
insurance polic, thus?
@C63R3FOR3, >ud#*ent is rendered in favor of the plaintiA orderin#
defendant to pa, plaintiA?
7a9 P-,-82,'02.-8 representin# da*a#es for loss b, 4re of its insured
propert, !ith interest at the le#al rateD
7b9 P58,888.88 for liti#ation e;pensesD
7c9 P088,888.88 for and as attorne,<s feesD and
7d9 Pa, the costs.
SO ORD3R3D.@
2
Petitioner assailed this >ud#*ent before the "ourt of $ppeals. The appellate court
upheld the sa*e in a Decision pro*ul#ated on +anuar, )-, )..., the pertinent
portion of !hich states?
@C63R3FOR3, the instant appeal is hereb, DISMISS3D for lac= of *erit and
the trial court<s Decision dated October )2, )..' is hereb, $FFIRM3D in
toto.
SO ORD3R3D.@
:
Petitioner *oved for reconsideration. The *otion, ho!ever, !as denied for lac= of
*erit in a Resolution pro*ul#ated on +une )8, )....
6ence, the present course of action, !here petitioner ascribes to the appellate court
the follo!in# errors?
@7)9 The "ourt of $ppeals erred in its conclusion that the issue of non%
pa,*ent of the pre*iu* !as be,ond its >urisdiction because it !as raised
for the 4rst ti*e on appeal.@
5
@7(9 The "ourt of $ppeals erred in its le#al interpretation of <Fire
3;tin#uishin# $ppliances Carrant,< of the polic,.@
.
@709 Cith due respect, the conclusion of the "ourt of $ppeals #ivin# no
re#ard to the parole evidence rule and the principle of estoppel is
erroneous.@
)8
The petition is devoid of *erit.
The pri*ar, reason advanced b, the petitioner in resistin# the clai* of the
respondent is that the burned oil *ill is not covered b, an, insurance polic,.
$ccordin# to it, the oil *ill insured is speci4call, described in the polic, b, its
boundaries in the follo!in# *anner?
@Front? b, a drive!a, thence at )5 *eters distance b, ld#. No. (.
Ri#ht? b, an open space thence b, ld#. No. -.
1eft? $d>oinin# thence an i*perfect !all b, ld#. No. -.
Rear? b, an open space thence at 5 *eters distance.@
6o!ever, it ar#ues that this speci4c boundar, description clearl, pertains, not to the
burned oil *ill, but to the other *ill. In other !ords, the oil *ill #utted b, 4re !as
not the one described b, the speci4c boundaries in the contested polic,.
Chat e;acerbates respondent<s predica*ent, petitioner posits, is that it did not have
the supposed !ron# description or *ista=e corrected. Despite the fact that the
polic, in Buestion !as issued !a, bac= in ).55, or about three ,ears before the 4re,
and despite the @I*portant Notice@ in the polic, that @Please read and examine the
policy and if incorrect, return it immediately for alteration,@ respondent apparentl,
did not call petitioner<s attention !ith respect to the *isdescription.
, !a, of conclusion, petitioner ar#ues that respondent is @barred b, the parole
evidence rule fro* presentin# evidence 7other than the polic, in Buestion9 of its self%
servin# intention 7sic9 that it intended reall, to insure the burned oil *ill,@ >ust as it is
@barred b, estoppel fro* clai*in# that the description of the insured oil *ill in the
polic, !as !ron#, because it retained the polic, !ithout havin# the sa*e corrected
before the 4re b, an endorse*ent in accordance !ith its "ondition No. (5.@
These contentions can not pass >udicial *uster.
In construin# the !ords used descriptive of a buildin# insured, the #reatest liberalit,
is sho!n b, the courts in #ivin# eAect to the insurance.
))
In vie! of the custo* of
insurance a#ents to e;a*ine buildin#s before !ritin# policies upon the*, and since
a *ista=e as to the identit, and character of the buildin# is e;tre*el, unli=el,, the
courts are inclined to consider that the polic, of insurance covers an, buildin# !hich
the parties *anifestl, intended to insure, ho!ever inaccurate the description *a,
be.
)(
Not!ithstandin#, therefore, the *isdescription in the polic,, it is be,ond dispute, to
our *ind, that !hat the parties *anifestl, intended to insure !as the ne! oil *ill.
This is obvious fro* the cate#orical state*ent e*bodied in the polic,, e;tendin# its
protection?
@On *achineries and eBuip*ent !ith co*plete accessories usual to a
coconut oil *ill includin# stoc=s of copra, copra ca=e and copra *ills !hilst
contained in the new oil mill buildin#, situate 7sic9 at ENNO. $1ON&
N$TION$1 6I&6 C$F, O. IF$M, 1E"3N$ "ITF EN1O"G3D.<<
)0
7emphasis
supplied.9
If the parties reall, intended to protect the 4rst oil *ill, then there is no need to
specify it as new.
Indeed, it !ould be absurd to assu*e that respondent !ould protect its 4rst oil *ill
for diAerent a*ounts and leave uncovered its second one. $s *entioned earlier, the
4rst oil *ill is alread, covered under Polic, No. 082%:-0(0(-%- issued b, the
petitioner. It is unthin=able for respondent to obtain the other polic, fro* the ver,
sa*e co*pan,. The latter ou#ht to =no! that a second a#ree*ent over that sa*e
realt, results in its over insurance.
The i*perfection in the description of the insured oil *ill<s boundaries can be
attributed to a *isunderstandin# bet!een the petitioner<s #eneral a#ent, Mr. $lfredo
or>a, and its polic, issuin# cler=, !ho *ade the error of cop,in# the boundaries of
the 4rst oil *ill !hen t,pin# the polic, to be issued for the ne! one. $s testi4ed to
b, Mr. or>a?
@$tt,. &. "a*ali#an?
H? Chat did ,ou do !hen ,ou received the reportI
$? I told the* as !ill be sho!n b, the *ap the intention reall, of Mr.
3dison Tantuco is to cover the ne! oil *ill that is !h, !hen I presented the
e;istin# polic, of the old polic,, the polic, issuin# cler= >ust *erel, 7sic9
copied the !ordin# fro* the old polic, and !hat she t,ped is that t!e
"e#cr$%t$o& o' t!e bo(&")r$e# 'ro* t!e o+" %o+$c, -)# co%$e" b(t
#!e $&#erte" co.er$&/ t!e &e- o$+ *$++ )&" to me at that time the
important thing is that it covered the new oil mill bec)(#e $t $# 0(#t
-$t!$& o&e co*%o(&" )&" t!ere )re o&+, t-o o$+ *$++1#2 and so >ust
enou#h, I had the polic, prepared. In fact, t!o policies !ere prepared
havin# the sa*e date one for the old one and the other for the ne! oil *ill
and e;actl, the sa*e polic, period, sir.@
)-
7emphasis supplied9
It is thus clear that the source of the discrepanc, happened durin# the preparation
of the !ritten contract.
These facts lead us to hold that the present case falls !ithin one of the reco#niJed
e;ceptions to the parole evidence rule. Ender the Rules of "ourt, a part, *a,
present evidence to *odif,, e;plain or add to the ter*s of the !ritten a#ree*ent if
he puts in issue in his pleadin#, a*on# others, its failure to e;press the true intent
and a#ree*ent of the parties thereto.
)'
6ere, the contractual intention of the parties
cannot be understood fro* a *ere readin# of the instru*ent. Thus, !hile the
contract e;plicitl, stipulated that it !as for the insurance of the ne! oil *ill, the
boundar, description !ritten on the polic, concededl, pertains to the 4rst oil *ill.
This irreconcilable diAerence can onl, be clari4ed b, ad*ittin# evidence aliunde,
!hich !ill e;plain the i*perfection and clarif, the intent of the parties.
$nent petitioner<s ar#u*ent that the respondent is barred b, estoppel fro* clai*in#
that the description of the insured oil *ill in the polic, !as !ron#, !e 4nd that the
sa*e proceeds fro* a !ron# assu*ption. 3vidence on record reveals that
respondent<s operatin# *ana#er, Mr. 3dison Tantuco, noti4ed Mr. or>a 7the
petitioner<s a#ent !ith !ho* respondent ne#otiated for the contract9 about the
inaccurate description in the polic,. 6o!ever, Mr. or>a assured Mr. Tantuco that the
use of the ad>ective new !ill distin#uish the insured propert,. The assurance
convinced respondent, despite the i*preciseness in the speci4cation of the
boundaries, the insurance !ill cover the ne! oil *ill. This can be seen fro* the
testi*on, on cross of Mr. Tantuco?
@$TTF. S$1ON&$?
H? Fou *entioned, sir, that at least in so far as 3;hibit $ is concern ,ou
have read !hat the polic, contents. 7sic9
Gindl, ta=e a loo= in the pa#e of 3;hibit $ !hich !as *ar=ed as 3;hibit $%(
particularl, the boundaries of the propert, insured b, the insurance polic,
3;hibit $, !ill ,ou tell us as the *ana#er of the co*pan, !hether the
boundaries stated in 3;hibit $%( are the boundaries of the old 7sic9 *ill that
!as burned or not.
$? It !as not, I called up Mr. Borja regarding this matter and he told
me that what is important is the word new oil mill. Mr. or>a said, as a
*atter of fact, ,ou can never insured 7sic9 one propert, !ith t!o 7(9
policies, ,ou !ill onl, do that if ,ou !ill *a=e to increase the a*ount and it
is b, indorse*ent not b, another polic,, sir.,
)2
Ce a#ain stress that the ob>ect of the court in construin# a contract is to ascertain
the intent of the parties to the contract and to enforce the a#ree*ent !hich the
parties have entered into. In deter*inin# !hat the parties intended, the courts !ill
read and construe the polic, as a !hole and if possible, #ive eAect to all the parts of
the contract, =eepin# in *ind al!a,s, ho!ever, the pri*e rule that in the event of
doubt, this doubt is to be resolved a#ainst the insurer. In deter*inin# the intent of
the parties to the contract, the courts !ill consider the purpose and ob>ect of the
contract.
):
In a further atte*pt to avoid liabilit,, petitioner clai*s that respondent forfeited the
rene!al polic, for its failure to pa, the full a*ount of the pre*iu* and breach of the
Fire 3;tin#uishin# $ppliances Carrant,.
The a*ount of the pre*iu* stated on the face of the polic, !as P5.,::8.(8. Fro*
the ad*ission of respondent<s o!n !itness, Mr. or>a, !hich the petitioner cited, the
for*er onl, paid it P:',)-:.88, leavin# a diAerence of P)-,2(0.(8. The de4cienc,,
petitioner ar#ues, su/ces to invalidate the polic,, in accordance !ith Section :: of
the Insurance "ode.
)5
The "ourt of $ppeals refused to consider this contention of the petitioner. It held
that this issue !as raised for the 4rst ti*e on appeal, hence, be,ond its >urisdiction
to resolve, pursuant to Rule -2, Section )5 of the Rules of "ourt.
).
Petitioner, ho!ever, contests this 4ndin# of the appellate court. It insists that the
issue !as raised in para#raph (- of its $ns!er, viJ.?
@(-. PlaintiA has not co*plied !ith the condition of the polic, and rene!al
certi4cate that the rene!al pre*iu* should be paid on or before rene!al
date.@
Petitioner adds that the issue !as the sub>ect of the cross%e;a*ination of Mr. or>a,
!ho ac=no!led#ed that the paid a*ount !as lac=in# b, P)-,2(0.(8 b, reason of a
discount or rebate, !hich rebate under Sec. 02) of the Insurance "ode is ille#al.
The ar#u*ent fails to i*press. It is true that the asseverations petitioner *ade in
para#raph (- of its $ns!er ostensibl, spo=e of the polic,<s condition for pa,*ent of
the rene!al pre*iu* on ti*e and respondent<s non%co*pliance !ith it. Fet, it did
not contain an, speci4c and de4nite alle#ation that respondent did not pa, the
pre*iu*, or that it did not pa, the full a*ount, or that it did not pa, the a*ount on
ti*e.
1i=e!ise, !hen the issues to be resolved in the trial court !ere for*ulated at the
pre%trial proceedin#s, the Buestion of the supposed inadeBuate pa,*ent !as never
raised. Most si#ni4cant to point, petitioner fatall, ne#lected to present, durin# the
!hole course of the trial, an, !itness to testif, that respondent indeed failed to pa,
the full a*ount of the pre*iu*. The thrust of the cross%e;a*ination of Mr. or>a, on
the other hand, !as not for the purpose of provin# this fact. Thou#h it brieK,
touched on the alle#ed de4cienc,, such !as *ade in the course of discussin# a
discount or rebate, !hich the a#ent apparentl, #ave the respondent. "ertainl,, the
!hole tenor of Mr. or>a<s testi*on,, both durin# direct and cross e;a*inations,
i*plicitl, assu*ed a valid and subsistin# insurance polic,. It *ust be re*e*bered
that he !as called to the stand basicall, to de*onstrate that an e;istin# polic,
issued b, the petitioner covers the burned buildin#.
Finall,, petitioner contends that respondent violated the e;press ter*s of the Fire
3;tin#uishin# $ppliances Carrant,. The said !arrant, provides?
@C$RR$NT3D that durin# the currenc, of this Polic,, Fire 3;tin#uishin# $ppliances as
*entioned belo! shall be *aintained in e/cient !or=in# order on the pre*ises to
!hich insurance applies?
% PORT$13 3LTIN&EIS63RS
% INT3RN$1 6FDR$NTS
% 3LT3RN$1 6FDR$NTS
% FIR3 PEMP
% (-%6OER S3"ERITF S3RVI"3S
R3$"6 of this !arrant, shall render this polic, null and void and the "o*pan, shall
no lon#er be liable for an, loss !hich *a, occur.@
(8
Petitioner ar#ues that the !arrant, clearl, obli#ates the insured to *aintain all the
appliances speci4ed therein. The breach occurred !hen the respondent failed to
install internal 4re h,drants inside the burned buildin# as !arranted. This fact !as
ad*itted b, the oil *ill<s e;peller operator, &erardo Marsuela.
$#ain, the ar#u*ent lac=s *erit. Ce a#ree !ith the appellate court<s conclusion that
the afore*entioned !arrant, did not reBuire respondent to provide for all the 4re
e;tin#uishin# appliances enu*erated therein. $dditionall,, !e 4nd that neither did it
reBuire that the appliances are restricted to those *entioned in the !arrant,. In
other !ords, !hat the !arrant, *andates is that respondent should *aintain in
e/cient !or=in# condition !ithin the pre*ises of the insured propert,, 4re 4#htin#
eBuip*ents such as, but not li*ited to, those identi4ed in the list, !hich !ill serve
as the oil *ill<s 4rst line of defense in case an, part of it bursts into Ka*e.
To be sure, respondent !as able to co*pl, !ith the !arrant,. Cithin the vicinit, of
the ne! oil *ill can be found the follo!in# devices? nu*erous portable 4re
e;tin#uishers, t!o 4re hoses,
()
4re h,drant,
((
and an e*er#enc, 4re en#ine.
(0
$ll of
these eBuip*ents !ere in e/cient !or=in# order !hen the 4re occurred.
It ou#ht to be re*e*bered that not onl, are !arranties strictl, construed a#ainst
the insurer, but the, should, li=e!ise, b, the*selves be reasonabl,
interpreted.
(-
That reasonableness is to be ascertained in li#ht of the factual
conditions prevailin# in each case. 6ere, !e 4nd that there is no *ore need for an
internal h,drant considerin# that inside the burned buildin# !ere? 7)9 nu*erous
portable 4re e;tin#uishers, 7(9 an e*er#enc, 4re en#ine, and 709 a 4re hose !hich
has a connection to one of the e;ternal h,drants.
IN VI3C C63R3OF, 4ndin# no reversible error in the i*pu#ned Decision, the instant
petition is hereb, DISMISS3D.
SO ORD3R3D.
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY .#. TANTUCO ENTERPRISES, INC.
&.R. No. )05.-)
October 5, (88)
F$"TS? Respondent Tantuco 3nterprises, Inc. is en#a#ed in the coconut oil *illin#
and re4nin# industr,. It o!ns t!o oil *ills !hich !ere separatel, covered b, 4re
insurance policies issued b, petitioner $*erican 6o*e $ssurance "o., Philippine
ranch.
The 4rst oil *ill !as insured for P0,888,888.88 under Polic, No. 082%
:-0(0(-%0 for the period March ), )..) to )..(. The ne! oil *ill !as insured for
P2,888,888.88 under Polic, No. 082%:-0(0()%. for the sa*e ter*. O/cial receipts
indicatin# pa,*ent for the full a*ount of the pre*iu* !ere issued b, the
petitioner<s a#ent.
$ 4re that bro=e out in the earl, *ornin# of Septe*ber 08,)..) #utted and
consu*ed the ne! oil *ill. Respondent i**ediatel, noti4ed the petitioner of the
incident but petitioner re>ected respondent<s clai* for the insurance proceeds on the
#round that no polic, !as issued b, it coverin# the burned oil *ill. It stated that the
description of the insured establish*ent referred to another buildin# thus? @Our
polic, nos. 082%:-0(0()%. 7Ps 2M9 and 082%:-0(0(-%- 7Ps 0M9 e;tend insurance
covera#e to ,our oil *ill under uildin# No. ', !hilst the aAected oil *ill !as under
uildin# No. )-. @
ISSE3? Chether or not the "ourt of $ppeals erred in its le#al interpretation of <Fire
3;tin#uishin# $ppliances Carrant,< of the polic,.
631D? In construin# the !ords used descriptive of a buildin# insured, the #reatest
liberalit, is sho!n b, the courts in #ivin# eAect to the insurance. In vie! of the
custo* of insurance a#ents to e;a*ine buildin#s before !ritin# policies upon the*,
and since a *ista=e as to the identit, and character of the buildin# is e;tre*el,
unli=el,, the courts are inclined to consider that the polic, of insurance covers an,
buildin# !hich the parties *anifestl, intended to insure, ho!ever inaccurate the
description *a, be.
Not!ithstandin#, therefore, the *isdescription in the polic,, it is be,ond dispute, to
our *ind, that !hat the parties *anifestl, intended to insure !as the ne! oil *ill. If
the parties reall, intended to protect the 4rst oil *ill, then there is no need to
specify it as new.
In deter*inin# !hat the parties intended, the courts !ill read and construe the
polic, as a !hole and if possible, #ive eAect to all the parts of the contract, =eepin#
in *ind al!a,s, ho!ever, the pri*e rule that in the event of doubt, this doubt is to
be resolved a#ainst the insurer. In deter*inin# the intent of the parties to the
contract, the courts !ill consider the purpose and ob>ect of the contract.