You are on page 1of 10

G.R. No.

L-8151
VIRGINIA CALANOC, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN
LIFE INSURANCE CO., respondents.
This suit involves the collection of P2,000 representing the
vlue of supple!entl polic" covering ccidentl deth #hich
#s secured $" one %elencio &silio fro! the Philippine
'!ericn Life (nsurnce )o!pn". The cse originted in the
%unicipl )ourt of %nil nd *udg!ent $eing fvor$le to the
plintiff it #s ppeled to the court of first instnce. The
ltter court ffir!ed the *udg!ent $ut on ppel to the )ourt
of 'ppels the *udg!ent #s reversed nd the cse is no#
$efore us on petition for revie#.
%elencio &silio #s #tch!n of the %nil 'uto +uppl"
locted t the corner of 'venid Ri,l nd -ur$rn. .e
secured life insurnce polic" fro! the Philippine '!ericn
Life (nsurnce )o!pn" in the !ount of P2,000 to #hich #s
ttched supple!entr" contrct covering deth $" ccident.
/n 0nur" 25, 1151, he died of gunshot #ound on the
occsion of ro$$er" co!!itted in the house of 'tt". /*ed t
the corner of /ro2uiet nd -ur$n streets. 3irgini )lnoc,
the #ido#, #s pid the su! of P2,000, fce vlue of the
polic", $ut #hen she de!nded the p"!ent of the dditionl
su! of P2,000 representing the vlue of the supple!entl
polic", the co!pn" refused lleging, s !in defense, tht
the decesed died $ecuse he #s !urdered $" person #ho
too4 prt in the co!!ission of the ro$$er" nd #hile !4ing
n rrest s n officer of the l# #hich contingencies #ere
e5pressl" e5cluded in the contrct nd hve the effect of
e5e!pting the co!pn" fro! li$ilit".
The pertinent fcts #hich need to $e considered for the
deter!intion of the 2uestions rised re those reproduced in
the decision of the )ourt of 'ppels s follo#s6
The circu!stnces surrounding the deth of %elencio &silio
sho# tht #hen he #s 4illed t $out seven o7cloc4 in the
night of 0nur" 25, 1151, he #s on dut" s #tch!n of the
%nil 'uto +uppl" t the corner of 'venid Ri,l nd
-ur$rn8 tht it turned out tht 'tt". 'ntonio /*ed #ho hd
his residence t the corner of -ur$rn nd /ro2uiet, $loc4
#" fro! &silio7s sttion, hd co!e ho!e tht night nd
found tht his house #s #ell-lighted, $ut #ith the #indo#s
closed8 tht getting suspicious tht there #ere culprits in his
house, 'tt". /*ed retreted to loo4 for police!n nd
finding &silio in 4h4i unifor!, s4ed hi! to cco!pn" hi!
to the house #ith the ltter refusing on the ground tht he #s
not police!n, $ut suggesting tht 'tt". /*ed should s4
the trffic police!n on dut" t the corner of Ri,l 'venue nd
-ur$rn8 tht 'tt". /*ed #ent to the trffic police!n t
sid corner nd reported the !tter, s4ing the police!n to
co!e long #ith hi!, to #hich the police!n greed8 tht on
the #" to the /*ed residence, the police!n nd 'tt". /*ed
pssed $" &silio nd so!eho# or other invited the ltter to
co!e long8 tht s the tree pproched the /*ed residence
nd stood in front of the !in gte #hich #s covered #ith
glvni,ed iron, the fence itself $eing prtl" concrete nd
prtl" do$e stone, shot #s fired8 tht i!!editel" fter
the shot, 'tt". /*ed nd the police!n sought cover8 tht the
police!n, t the re2uest of 'tt". /*ed, left the pre!ises to
loo4 for reinforce!ent8 tht it turned out fter#rds tht the
specil #tch!n %elencio &silio #s hit in the $do!en, the
#ound cusing his instntneous deth8 tht the shot !ust
hve co!e fro! inside the "rd of 'tt". /*ed, the $ullet
pssing through hole #ist-high in the glvni,ed iron gte8
tht upon in2uir" 'tt". /*ed found out tht the svings of his
children in the !ount of P90 in coins 4ept in
his aparador contined in stoc4ings #ere t4en #",
the aparador hving $een rnsc4ed8 tht !onth therefter
the corresponding investigtion conducted $" the police
uthorities led to the rrest nd prosecution of four persons in
)ri!inl )se No. 1510: of the )ourt of ;irst (nstnce of
%nil for <Ro$$er" in n (nh$ited .ouse nd in &nd #ith
%urder7.
(t is contended in $ehlf of the co!pn" tht &silio #s 4illed
#hich =!4ing n rrest s n officer of the l#> or s result
of n =ssult or !urder> co!!itted in the plce nd therefore
his deth #s cused $" one of the ris4s e5cluded $" the
supple!entr" contrct #hich e5e!pts the co!pn" fro!
li$ilit". This contention #s upheld $" the )ourt of 'ppels
nd, in reching this conclusion, !de the follo#ing co!!ent6
;ro! the foregoing testi!onies, #e find tht the decesed #s
#tch!n of the %nil 'uto +uppl", nd, s such, he #s
not $oud to leve his plce nd go #ith 'tt". /*ed nd
Police!n %gsnoc to see the trou$le, or ro$$er", tht
occurred in the house of 'tt". /*ed. (n fct, ccording to the
finding of the lo#er court, 'tt". /*ed finding &silio in
unifor! s4ed hi! to cco!pn" hi! to his house, $ut the
ltter refused on the ground tht he #s not police!n nd
suggested to 'tt". /*ed to s4 help fro! the trffic police!n
on dut" t the corner of Ri,l 'venue nd -ur$rn, $ut fter
'tt". /*ed secured the help of the trffic police!n, the
decesed #ent #ith /*ed nd sid trffic police!n to the
residence of /*ed, nd #hile the decesed #s stnding in
front of the !in gte of sid residence, he #s shot nd thus
died. The deth, therefore, of &silio, lthough une5pected,
#s not cused $" n ccident, $eing voluntr" nd
intentionl ct on the prt of the one #ho ro$$ed, or one of
those #ho ro$$ed the house of 'tt". /*ed. .ence, it is out
considered opinion tht the deth of &silio, though
une5pected, cnnot $e considered ccidentl, for his deth
occurred $ecuse he left his post nd *oined police!n
%gsnoc nd 'tt". /*ed to repir to the ltter7s residence to
see #ht hppened theret. )ertinl", #hen &silio *oined
Ptrol!n %gsnoc nd 'tt". /*ed, he should hve reli,ed
the dnger to #hich he #s e5posing hi!self, "et, insted of
re!ining in his plce, he #ent #ith 'tt". /*ed nd
Ptrol!n %gsnoc to see #ht #s the trou$le in 'tt".
/*ed7s house nd thus he #s ftll" shot.
?e dissent fro! the $ove findings of the )ourt of 'ppels.
;or one thing, &silio #s #tch!n of the %nil 'uto
+uppl" #hich #s $loc4 #" fro! the house of 'tt". /*ed
#here so!ething suspicious #s hppening #hich cused the
ltter to s4 for help. ?hile t first he declined the invittion of
'tt". /*ed to go #ith hi! to his residence to in2uire into #ht
#s going on $ecuse he #s not regulr police!n, he lter
greed to co!e long #hen pro!pted $" the trffic police!n,
nd upon pproching the gte of the residence he #s shot
nd died. The circu!stnce tht he #s !ere #tch!n nd
hd no dut" to heed the cll of 'tt". /*ed should not $e t4en
s cpricious desire on his prt to e5pose his life to dnger
considering the fct tht the plce he #s in dut"-$ound to
gurd #s onl" $loc4 #". (n volunteering to e5tend help
under the sitution, he !ight hve thought, rightl" or #rongl",
tht to 4no# the truth #s in the interest of his e!plo"er it
$eing !tter tht ffects the securit" of the neigh$ourhood.
No dou$t there #s so!e ris4 co!ing to hi! in pursuing tht
errnd, $ut tht ris4 l#"s e5isted it $eing inherent in the
position he #s holding. .e cnnot therefore $e $l!ed solel"
for doing #ht he $elieved #s in 4eeping #ith his dut" s
#tch!n nd s citi,en. 'nd he cnnot $e considered s
!4ing n rrest s n officer of the l#, s contended, si!pl"
$ecuse he #ent #ith the trffic police!n, for certinl" he did
not go there for tht purpose nor #s he s4ed to do so $" the
police!n.
%uch less cn it $e pretended tht &silio died in the course of
n ssult or !urder considering the ver" nture of these
cri!es. (n the first plce, there is no proof tht the deth of
&silio is the result of either cri!e for the record is $rren of
n" circu!stnce sho#ing ho# the ftl shot #s fired.
Perhps this !" $e clrified in the cri!inl cse no# pending
in court s regrds the incident $ut $efore tht is done
n"thing tht !ight $e sid on the point #ould $e !ere
con*ecture. Nor cn it $e sid tht the 4illing #s intentionl
for there is the possi$ilit" tht the !lefctor hd fired the
shot !erel" to scre #" the people round for his o#n
protection nd not necessril" to 4ill or hit the victi!. (n n"
event, #hile the ct !" not e5e!pt the trigger!n fro!
li$ilit" for the d!ge done, the fct re!ins tht the
hppening #s pure ccident on the prt of the victi!. The
victi! could hve $een either the police!n or 'tt". /*ed for
it cnnot $e pretended tht the !lefctor i!ed t the
decesed precisel" $ecuse he #nted to t4e his life.
?e t4e note tht these defences re included !ong the ris4s
e5cluded in the supple!entr" contrct #hich enu!ertes the
cses #hich !" e5e!pt the co!pn" fro! li$ilit". 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
(45 C. . !. "#$%"#&', ho(ever, it is to )e desired that the
terms and phraseology of the exception clause )e clearly
expressed so as to )e (ithin the easy grasp and
understanding of the insured, for if the terms are dou)tful or
o)scure the same must of necessity )e interpreted or resolved
against the one (ho has caused the o)scurity. (*rticle $+"",
ne( Civil Code' *nd so it has )een generally held that the
terms in an insurance policy, (hich are am)iguous,
e,uivocal, or uncertain . . . are to )e construed strictly and
most strongly against the insurer, and li)erally in favour of the
insured so as to effect the dominant purpose of indemnity or
payment to the insured, especially (here a forfeiture is
involved (&- *m. ur., $#$', and the reason for this rule is
that he insured usually has no voice in the selection or
arrangement of the (ords employed and that the language of
the contract is selected (ith great care and deli)eration )y
experts and legal advisers employed )y, and acting exclusively
in the interest of, the insurance company. (44 C. . !., p.
$$"4.'
(nsurnce is, in its nture, co!ple5 nd difficult for the l"!n
to understnd. Policies re prepred $" e5perts #ho 4no# nd
cn nticipte the $erings nd possi$le co!plictions of ever"
contingenc". +o long s insurnce co!pnies insist upon the
use of !$iguous, intricte nd technicl provisions, #hich
concel rther thn frn4l" disclose, their o#n intentions, the
courts !ust, in firness to those #ho purchse insurnce,
construe ever" !$iguit" in fvour of the insured. @'lgoe vs.
Pcific %ut. L. (ns. )o., 11 ?sh. 92:, LR' 111A',
129A.BCD)(TEFCD)(TEF
'n insurer should not $e llo#ed, $" the use of o$scure
phrses nd e5ceptions, to defet the ver" purpose for #hich
the polic" #s procured. @%oore vs. 'etn Life (nsurnce )o.,
LR' 1115G, 2H:.B
?e re therefore persuded to conclude tht the
circu!stnces unfolded in the present cse do not #rrnt the
finding tht the deth of the unfortunte victi! co!es #ithin
the purvie# of the e5ception cluse of the supple!entr"
polic" nd, hence, do not e5e!pt the co!pn" fro! li$ilit".
?herefore, reversing the decision ppeled fro!, #e here$"
order the co!pn" to p" petitioner-ppellnt the !ount of
P2,000, #ith legl interest fro! 0nur" 2H, 1151 until full"
pid, #ith costs.
Prs, ).0. &eng,on, Pdill, %onte!"or, Re"es, '., 0ugo,
L$rdor, )oncepcion, nd Re"es, 0. &. L., 00., concur.
G.R. No. L-25579 March 29, 1972
EMILIA T. BIAGTAN, JUAN T. BIAGTAN, JR., MIGUEL T.
BIAGTAN, GIL T. BIAGTAN and GRACIA T.
BIAGTAN,plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
THE INSULAR LIE ASSURANCE C!M"AN#, LT$.,

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan in its Civil Case No. D-17.
The facts are stipulated. !uan ". #iagtan $as insured $ith
defendant Insular%ife &ssurance Compan' under Polic' No.
()*7+ for the sum of P+,. and, under a supplementar'
contract denominated ,&ccidental Death #enefit Clause, for
an additional sum of P+,. if ,the death of the Insured
resulted directl' from -odil' in.ur' effected solel' through
e/ternal and violent means sustained in an accident ... and
independentl' of all other causes., The clause,
ho$ever,e/pressl' provided that it $ould not appl' $here
death resulted from an in.ur',intentionall' inflicted -' another
part'.,
0n the night of 1a' 2, 1)34, or during the first hours of the
follo$ing da' a -and of ro--ers entered the house of the
insured !uan ". #iagtan. 5hat happened then is related in the
decision of the trial court as follo$s6
...7 that on the night of 1a' 2, 1)34 or the first
hours of 1a' 21, 1)34, $hile the said life polic'
and supplementar' contract $ere in full force and
effect, the house of insured !uan ". #iagtan $as
ro--ed -' a -and of ro--ers $ho $ere charged in
and convicted -' the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan for ro--er' $ith homicide7 that in
committing the ro--er', the ro--ers, on reaching
the staircase landing on the second floor, rushed
to$ards the door of the second floor room, $here
the' suddenl' met a person near the door of oneof
the rooms $ho turned out to -e the insured !uan ".
#iagtan $ho received thrusts from their sharp-
pointed instruments, causing $ounds on the -od'
of said !uan ". #iagtan resulting in his death at
a-out 7 a.m. on the same da', 1a' 21, 1)347
Plaintiffs, as -eneficiaries of the insured, filed a claim under
the polic'. The insurance compan' paid the -asic amount of
P+,. -ut refused to pa' the additional sum of P+,.
under the accidental death -enefit clause, on the ground that
the insured8s death resulted from in.uries intentionall' inflicted
-' third parties and therefore $as not covered. Plaintiffs filed
suit to recover, and after due hearing the court a quo rendered
.udgment in their favor. 9ence the present appeal -' the
insurer.
The onl' issue here is $hether under the facts are stipulated
and found -' the trial court the $ounds received -' the
insured at the hands of the ro--ers : nine in all, five of them
mortal and four non-mortal : $ere inflicted intentionall'. The
court, in ruling negativel' on the issue, stated that since the
parties presented no evidence and su-mitted the case upon
stipulation, there $as no ,proof that the act of receiving thrust
;sic< from the sharp-pointed instrument of the ro--ers $as
intended to inflict in.uries upon the person of the insured or
an' other person or merel' to scare a$a' an' person so as to
$ard off an' resistance or o-stacle that might -e offered in the
pursuit of their main o-.ective $hich $as ro--er'.,
The trial court committed a plain error in dra$ing the
conclusion it did from the admitted facts. Nine $ounds $ere
inflicted upon the deceased, all -' means of thrusts $ith
sharp-pointed instruments $ielded -' the ro--ers. This is a
ph'sical fact as to $hich there is no dispute. "o is the fact that
five of those $ounds caused the death of the insured.
5hether the ro--ers had the intent to =ill or merel' to scare
the victim or to $ard off an' defense he might offer, it cannot
-e denied that the act itself of inflicting the in.uries $as
intentional. It should -e noted that the e/ception in the
accidental -enefit clause invo=ed -' the appellant does not
spea= of the purpose : $hether homicidal or not : of a third
part' in causing the in.uries, -ut onl' of the fact that such
in.uries have -een ,intentionall', inflicted : this o-viousl' to
distinguish them from in.uries $hich, although received at the
hands of a third part', are purel' accidental. This construction
is the -asic idea e/pressed in the coverage of the clause
itself, namel', that ,the death of the insured resulted directl'
from -odil' in.ur' effected solel' through e/ternal and violent
means sustained in an accident ... and independentl' of all
other causes., & gun $hich discharges $hile -eing cleaned
and =ills a -'stander7 a hunter $ho shoots at his pre' and hits
a person instead7 an athlete in a competitive game involving
ph'sical effort $ho collides $ith an opponent and fatall'
in.ures him as a result6 these are instances $here the infliction
of the in.ur' is unintentional and therefore $ould -e $ithin the
coverage of an accidental death -enefit clause such as thatin
>uestion in this case. #ut $here a gang of ro--ers enter a
house and coming face to face $ith the o$ner, even if
une/pectedl', sta- him repeatedl', it is contrar' to all reason
and logic to sa' that his in.uries are not intentionall' inflicted,
regardless of $hether the' prove fatal or not. &s it $as, in the
present case the' did prove fatal, and the ro--ers have -een
accused and convicted of the crime of ro--er' $ith homicide.
The case of Calanoc vs. Court of Appeals, )* Phil. 7), is
relied upon -' the trial court in support of its decision. The
facts in that case, ho$ever, are different from those o-taining
here. The insured there $as a $atchman in a certain
compan', $ho happened to -e invited -' a policeman to come
along as the latter $as on his $a' to investigate a reported
ro--er' going on in a private house. &s the t$o of them,
together $ith the o$ner of the house, approached and stood
in front of the main gate, a shot $as fired and it turned out
after$ards that the $atchman $as hit in the a-domen, the
$ound causing his death. ?nder those circumstances this
Court held that it could not -e said that the =illing $as
intentional for there $as the possi-ilit' that the malefactor had
fired the shot to scare people around for his o$n protection
and not necessarrily to kill or hit the victim. & similar possi-ilit'
is clearl' ruled out -' the facts in the case no$ -efore ?s. For
$hile a single shot fired from a distance, and -' a person $ho
$as not even seen aiming at the victim, could indeed have
-een fired $ithout intent to =ill or in.ure, nine $ounds inflicted
$ith -laded $eapons at close range cannot conceiva-l' -e
considered as innocent insofar as such intent is concerned.
The manner of e/ecution of the crime permits no other
conclusion.
Court decisions in the &merican .urisdiction, $here similar
provisions in accidental death -enefit clauses in insurance
policies have -een construed, ma' shed light on the issue
-efore ?s. Thus, it has -een held that ,intentional, as used in
an accident polic' e/cepting intentional in.uries inflicted -' the
insured or an' other person, etc., implies the e/ercise of the
reasoning faculties, consciousness and volition.
1
5here a
provision of the polic' e/cludes intentional in.ur', it is the
intention of the person inflicting the in.ur' that is controlling.
2
If
the in.uries suffered -' the insured clearl' resulted from the
intentional act of a third person the insurer is relieved from
lia-ilit' as stipulated.
%
In the case of Hutchcraft's Ex'r v. Travelers' Ins. Co., *7 @'.
(, * ".5. +7, 12 &m. "t. Aep. 4*4, the insured $as
$a'laid and assassinated for the purpose of ro--er'. T$o ;2<
defenses $ere interposed to the action to recover indemnit',
namel'6 ;1< that the insured having -een =illed -' intentional
means, his death $as not accidental, and ;2< that the proviso
in the polic' e/pressl' e/empted the insurer from lia-ilit' in
case the insured died from in.uries intentionall' inflicted -'
another person. In rendering .udgment for the insurance
compan' the Court held that $hile the assassination of the
insured $as as to him an unforeseen event and therefore
accidental, ,the clause of the proviso that e/cludes the
;insurer8s< lia-ilit', in case death or in.ur' is intentionall'
inflicted -' another person, applies to this case.,
In Butero v. Travelers' Acc. Ins. Co., )3 5is. +(3, 3+ &m. "t.
Aep. 31, 71 ".5. *11, the insured $as shot three times -' a
person un=no$n late on a dar= and storm' night, $hile
$or=ing in the coal shed of a railroad compan'. The polic' did
not cover death resulting from ,intentional in.uries inflicted -'
the insured or an' other person., The in>uir' $as as to the
>uestion $hether the shooting that caused the insured8s death
$as accidental or intentional7 and the Court found that under
the facts, sho$ing that the murderer =ne$ his victim and that
he fired $ith intent to =ill, there could -e no recover' under the
polic' $hich e/cepted death from intentional in.uries inflicted
-' an' person.
59BABF0AB, the decision appealed from is reversed and
the complaint dismissed, $ithout pronouncement as to costs.
aldivar! Castro! "ernando and #illamor! $$.! concur.

You might also like