G.R. No.

L-16138             April 29, 1961

DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant, 
vs.
FIRST NATIONAL SURETY & ASSURANCE CO., INC., defendant-appellee.

LABRADOR, J.:

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.

The facts found by the trial court, which are not disputed in this appeal, are as follows:

At different times within a period of two months prior to December 24, 1953, the plaintiff herein
Diosdado C. Ty, employed as operator mechanic foreman in the Broadway Cotton Factory, in Grace Park,
Caloocan, Rizal, at a monthly salary of P185.00, insured himself in 18 local insurance companies, among
which being the eight above named defendants, which issued to him personal accident policies, upon
payment of the premium of P8.12 for each policy. Plaintiff's beneficiary was his employer, Broadway
Cotton Factory, which paid the insurance premiums.

On December 24, 1953, a fire broke out which totally destroyed the Broadway Cotton Factory. Fighting his
way out of the factory, plaintiff was injured on the left hand by a heavy object. He was brought to the
Manila Central University hospital, and after receiving first aid there, he went to the National Orthopedic
Hospital for treatment of his injuries which were as follows:

1. Fracture, simple, proximal phalanx index finger, left; 

2. Fracture, compound, comminuted, proximal phalanx, middle finger, left and 2nd phalanx, simple;

3. Fracture, compound, comminute phalanx, 4th finger, left;

4. Fracture, simple, middle phalanx, middle finger, left; 

5. Lacerated wound, sutured, volar aspect, small finger, left;

6. Fracture, simple, chip, head, 1st phalanx, 5th digit, left. He underwent medical treatment in the
Orthopedic Hospital from December 26, 1953 to February 8, 1954. The above-described physical injuries
have caused temporary total disability of plaintiff's left hand. Plaintiff filed the corresponding notice of
accident and notice of claim with all of the abovenamed defendants to recover indemnity under Part II of
the policy, which is similarly worded in all of the policies, and which reads pertinently as follows:

INDEMNITY FOR TOTAL OR PARTIAL DISABILITY

If the Insured sustains any Bodily Injury which is effected solely through violent, external, visible and
accidental means, and which shall not prove fatal but shall result, independently of all other causes and
within sixty (60) days from the occurrence thereof, in Total or Partial Disability of the Insured, the
Company shall pay, subject to the exceptions as provided for hereinafter, the amount set opposite such
injury:

PARTIAL DISABILITY
 LOSS OF:

xxx     xxx     xxx

Either hand ............................................................................ P650.00

xxx     xxx     xxx

... The loss of a hand shall mean the loss by amputation through the bones of the wrist....

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.