Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

WHERE THERE IS NO VISION, THE PEOPLE PERISH. TY v.

FIRST NATIONAL SURETY Insurance/Interpretation


Page |1
Republic of the Philippines At different times within a period of two months prior to December 24, 1953, the plaintiff herein Diosdado
SUPREME COURT C. Ty, employed as operator mechanic foreman in the Broadway Cotton Factory, in Grace Park,
Manila Caloocan, Rizal, at a monthly salary of P185.00, insured himself in 18 local insurance companies, among
EN BANC which being the eight above named defendants, which issued to him personal accident policies, upon
G.R. No. L-16138 April 29, 1961 payment of the premium of P8.12 for each policy. Plaintiff's beneficiary was his employer, Broadway
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant, Cotton Factory, which paid the insurance premiums.
vs.
FIRST NATIONAL SURETY & ASSURANCE CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
On December 24, 1953, a fire broke out which totally destroyed the Broadway Cotton Factory. Fighting
x---------------------------------------------------------x
his way out of the factory, plaintiff was injured on the left hand by a heavy object. He was brought to the
G.R. No. L-16139 April 29, 1961.
Manila Central University hospital, and after receiving first aid there, he went to the National Orthopedic
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant,
Hospital for treatment of his injuries which were as follows:
vs.
ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x 1. Fracture, simple, proximal phalanx index finger, left;
G.R. No. L-16140 April 29, 1961
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant,
2. Fracture, compound, comminuted, proximal phalanx, middle finger, left and 2nd phalanx, simple;
vs.
UNITED INSURANCE CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x 3. Fracture, compound, comminute phalanx, 4th finger, left;
G.R. No. L-16141 April 29, 1961.
DIOSDADO C. TY. plaintiff-appellant,
vs. 4. Fracture, simple, middle phalanx, middle finger, left;
PHILIPPINE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x 5. Lacerated wound, sutured, volar aspect, small finger, left;
G.R. No. L-16142 April 29, 1961.
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs. 6. Fracture, simple, chip, head, 1st phalanx, 5th digit, left. He underwent medical treatment in the
RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., defendant-appellee. Orthopedic Hospital from December 26, 1953 to February 8, 1954. The above-described physical injuries
x---------------------------------------------------------x have caused temporary total disability of plaintiff's left hand. Plaintiff filed the corresponding notice of
G.R. No. L-16143 April 29, 1961 accident and notice of claim with all of the abovenamed defendants to recover indemnity under Part II of
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant, the policy, which is similarly worded in all of the policies, and which reads pertinently as follows:
vs.
FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., defendant-appellee. INDEMNITY FOR TOTAL OR PARTIAL DISABILITY
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. L-16144 April 29, 1961
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant, If the Insured sustains any Bodily Injury which is effected solely through violent, external, visible and
vs. accidental means, and which shall not prove fatal but shall result, independently of all other causes and
CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., defendant-appellee. within sixty (60) days from the occurrence thereof, in Total or Partial Disability of the Insured, the
x---------------------------------------------------------x Company shall pay, subject to the exceptions as provided for hereinafter, the amount set opposite such
G.R. No. L-16145 April 29, 1961 injury:
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs. PARTIAL DISABILITY
CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., defendant-appellee.

V. B. Gesunundo for plaintiff-appellant. LOSS OF:


M. Perez Cardenas for defendant-appellee.
xxx xxx xxx
LABRADOR, J .:
Either hand ............................................................................ P650.00
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Gregorio S. Narvasa, presiding, dismissing the
actions filed in the above-entitled cases. xxx xxx xxx

The facts found by the trial court, which are not disputed in this appeal, are as follows: ... The loss of a hand shall mean the loss by amputation through the bones of the wrist....
WHERE THERE IS NO VISION, THE PEOPLE PERISH. TY v. FIRST NATIONAL SURETY Insurance/Interpretation
Page |2
Defendants rejected plaintiff's claim for indemnity for the reason that there being no severance of
amputation of the left hand, the disability suffered by him was not covered by his policy. Hence, plaintiff
sued the defendants in the Municipal Court of this City, and from the decision of said Court dismissing his
complaints, plaintiff appealed to this Court. (Decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, pp. 223-
226, Records).

In view of its finding, the court absolved the defendants from the complaints. Hence this appeal.

The main contention of appellant in these cases is that in order that he may recover on the insurance policies issued
him for the loss of his left hand, it is not necessary that there should be an amputation thereof, but that it is sufficient if
the injuries prevent him from performing his work or labor necessary in the pursuance of his occupation or business.
Authorities are cited to the effect that "total disability" in relation to one's occupation means that the condition of the
insurance is such that common prudence requires him to desist from transacting his business or renders him
incapable of working. (46 C.J.S., 970). It is also argued that obscure words or stipulations should be interpreted
against the person who caused the obscurity, and the ones which caused the obscurity in the cases at bar are the
defendant insurance companies.

While we sympathize with the plaintiff or his employer, for whose benefit the policies were issued, we can not go
beyond the clear and express conditions of the insurance policies, all of which define partial disability as loss of either
hand by amputation through the bones of the wrist." There was no such amputation in the case at bar. All that was
found by the trial court, which is not disputed on appeal, was that the physical injuries "caused temporary total
disability of plaintiff's left hand." Note that the disability of plaintiff's hand was merely temporary, having been caused
by fracture of the index, the middle and the fourth fingers of the left hand.

We might add that the agreement contained in the insurance policies is the law between the parties. As the terms of
the policies are clear, express and specific that only amputation of the left hand should be considered as a loss
thereof, an interpretation that would include the mere fracture or other temporary disability not covered by the policies
would certainly be unwarranted.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the plaintiff-appellant.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Вам также может понравиться