Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

GARCIA v.

HONG KONG FIRE Insurance: Property Insuranca


71
G.R. No. 20341 Sept. 1, 1923 De Castro, J. Tensuan c/o Javier
Petitioners: Respondents:
Domingo Garcia and the Philippine National Bank The Hong Kong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., LTD.
Recit Ready Summary

Garcia executed a mortgage to the Philippine National Bank on the merchandise allegedly insured by Hongkong
Fire & Marine Insurance Co. and with the consent of the latter endorsed the policy to PNB . PNB informed Hongkong
Fire through exchange of letters. Hongkong failed to notify PNB or Garcia that it was for the building and not the
merchandise. Fire took place and destroyed the merchandise so Garcia filed a claim which was refused.

Issue: W/N HK Fire should be held liable for the loss of the building? Yes.

It is possible that when the Bank wrote the letter, it know of the error in the issuance of the policy. But that appearance
of the letter itself, there is no evidence that the bank had any knowledge of the error. The presumption of knowledge
if any, on the part of the Bank would be that the policy was on the merchandise. Be that as it may, when the defendant
received the letter from the Bank, it knew from its own records that the policy was issued on the building and, as a
matter of fair dealing, it should have notified the Bank that the policy was on te building. It will be noted that the
letters in question were all written several months before the fire.

The trial court analyzed the evidence and made findings of fact upon which it rendered judgment for the petitioners.
It is claimed that the letters and copy of the telegram introduced in evidence where hearsay and not competent. If
for other purpose, they were competent to show that Garcia wanted insurance on his merchandise and the reason
why he wanted it.

Facts

1. Domingo Garcia, then a merchant and owner of a bazaar known as “Las Novedades” in Legaspi, Albay,
entered into a contract with Hong Kong Fire and Marine Insurance (HK Fire) whereby it insured his
merchandise for P15,000.
2. In consideration of such premium, HK Fire issued its fire insurance policy not on the merchandise in the
building, but on the building which contained the merchanside; that for such reason, the policy does
not contain the true agreement intent of the parties; that Garcia was not the owner of, and did not have any
interest in, the building; and that the policy was so issued through error, carelessness and negligence of
HK Fire.
3. On August 30, 1919, Garcia executed a mortgage to Philippine National Bank (PNB) on the merchandise
insured by HK Fire, and with the consent of HK Fire as well, Garcia endorsed the policy to the Bank.
4. While the policy was in effect, a fire took place which destroyed the merchandise in the building of te value
P20,000, together with the building itself
5. Demand was made upon HK Fire for the payment of P15K but payment was refused.

Procedural History

1. Lower court rendered judgment in favor of Garcia.

Points of Contention

HK Fire’s contentions:
 When the letter was written, the Bank, which then had the possession of the policy, knew that it covered
the building and did not insure the merchandise. That having such knowledge, it was the duty of the Bank
to notify HK Fire, and having failed to do so, it cannot now contend that the policy was issued through a
mistake.

Issues Ruling
1. W/N HK Fire should be held liable for the loss of the building? 1. Yes
Rationale
1. HK Fire should be liable.

ALS B2021 1
It appears that the policy was in the English language, of which Garcia is ignorant. When he received it he
noticed that the amount of P15,000 is correct and never personally made any further investigation. He was
the exclusive owner of the merchandise in the building which, at the time of the fire, was of the probable
value of P20,000. He did not own or claim any interst in the building.

In the letters sent by the Bank to HK Fire, it clearly appears that where the word “merchandise” was written
in the letter, some other word had been previously written and erased, and the word “merchandise” was
then written.

As a response to HK Fire’s contention, it is possible that when the Bank wrote the letter, it know of the error
in the issuance of the policy. But that appearance of the letter itself, there is no evidence that the bank had
any knowledge of the error. The presumption of knowledge if any, on the part of the Bank would be that the
policy was on the merchandise. Be that as it may, when the defendant received the letter from the Bank, it
knew from its own records that the policy was issued on the building and, as a matter of fair dealing, it
should have notified the Bank that the policy was on te building. It will be noted that the letters in question
were all written several months before the fire.

The trial court analyzed the evidence and made findings of fact upon which it rendered judgment for the
petitioners. It is claimed that the letters and copy of the telegram introduced in evidence where hearsay and
not competent. If for other purpose, they were competent to show that Garcia wanted insurance on his
merchandise and the reason why he wanted it.

The opinion of the trial court further points out that, under the pleadings and proof, there is ground for the
contention that the plaintif wwould be entitled to recover on the policy for the loss of the building.

Disposition

HK Fire should be held liable for the loss. .

ALS B2021 2

Вам также может понравиться