Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

PHIL. AMERICAN GEN. INSURANCE CO, INC. vs. CA G.R. No.

116940 June 11, 1997 FACTS: On 6 July 1983 Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., loa e on !oar " MV Asilda," a vessel o#ne an operate !y respon ent $el%an &hippin' (ines, ),*++ cases o, 1-liter Coca-Cola so,t rin!ottles to !e transporte ,ro% .a%!oan'a City to Ce!u City. /he ship%ent #as insure #ith petitioner Philippine A%erican 0eneral Insurance Co., Inc., un er 1arine Open. On ) July 1983, the vessel san- in the #aters o, .a%!oan'a el 2orte !rin'in' o#n her entire car'o #ith her inclu in' the su!3ect ),*++ cases o, 1-liter CocaCola so,t rin- !ottles. on 49 2ove%!er 1983 P5I(A1062 sue the shipo#ner ,or su% o, %oney an a%a'es. On 1* $e!ruary 198* $6(1A2 ,ile a %otion to is%iss !ase on the a,,ir%ative e,ense that $6(1A2 ha a!an one all its ri'hts, interests an o#nership over "MV Asilda" to'ether #ith her ,rei'ht an appurtenances ,or the purpose o, li%itin' an e7tin'uishin' its lia!ility un er Art. *8) o, the Co e o, Co%%erce. ISSUE: 8O2 the li%ite lia!ility un er Art. *8) o, the Co e o, Co%%erce shoul apply ECISION: Art. *8) o, the Co e o, Co%%erce is 2O/ applica!le to the case at !ar. /he ship a'ent is lia!le ,or the ne'li'ent acts o, the captain in the care o, 'oo s loa e on the vessel. /his lia!ility ho#ever can !e li%ite throu'h a!an on%ent o, the vessel, its e9uip%ent an ,rei'hta'e as provi e in Art. *8). 2onetheless, there are e7ceptional circu%stances #herein the ship a'ent coul still !e hel ans#era!le espite the a!an on%ent, as #here the loss or in3ury #as ue to the ,ault o, the shipo#ner an the captain. /he international rule is to the e,,ect that the ri'ht o, a!an on%ent o, vessels, as a le'al li%itation o, a shipo#ner:s lia!ility, oes not apply to cases #here the in3ury or avera'e #as occasione !y the shipo#ner:s o#n ,ault. It %ust !e stresse at this point that Art. *8) spea-s only o, situations #here the ,ault or ne'li'ence is co%%itte solely !y the captain. 8here the shipo#ner is li-e#ise to !e !la%e , Art. *8) #ill not apply. It #as alrea y esta!lishe at the outset that the sin-in' o, " MV Asilda" #as ue to its unsea#orthiness even at the ti%e o, its eparture ,ro% the port o, .a%!oan'a. Closer supervision on the part o, the shipo#ner coul have prevente this ,atal %iscalculation. As such, $6(1A2 #as e9ually ne'li'ent. It cannot there,ore escape lia!ility throu'h the e7pe ient o, ,ilin' a notice o, a!an on%ent o, the vessel !y virtue o, Art. *8) o, the Co e o, Co%%erce. 856;6$O;6, the petition is 0;A2/6<. ;espon ent $6(1A2 &5IPPI20 (I26& is or ere to pay petitioner P5I(IPPI26 A16;ICA2 0626;A( I2&=;A2C6 CO., I2C

G.R. No. 121833? /he e,en ants, a ,orei'n corporation !ase in 1alaysia, its local ship a'ent, (iton3ua 1erchant &hippin' A'ency @(iton3ua>, an A!oitiA. A!oitiA ar'u%ent that the sin-in' o, the vessel #as cause !y a force majeure. G.R. No. 130752? ;espon ents Asia /ra ers Insurance Corporation @Asia /ra ers> an Allie 0uarantee Insurance Corporation @Allie > ,ile separate actions ,or a%a'es a'ainst A!oitiA to recover !y #ay o, su!ro'ation the value o, the car'oes insure !y the% an lost in the sin-in' o, the vessel M/V P. Aboitiz. A!oitiA reiterate the e,ense o, force majeure. G.R. No. 137801: On 4) $e!ruary 1981, 69uita!le Insurance Corporation @69uita!le> ,ile an action ,or a%a'es a'ainst A!oitiA to recover !y #ay o, su!ro'ation the value o, the car'oes insure !y 69uita!le that #ere lost in the sin-in' o, M/V P. Aboitiz. A!oitiA invo-e the octrine o, li%ite lia!ility an clai%e that the typhoon #as the pro7i%ate cause o, the loss. ISSUE? 8O2, A!oitiA can avail li%ite lia!ility on the !asis o, the real an hypothecary octrine o, %ariti%e la#. ECISION: 2O. /he instant petitions provi e another occasion ,or the Court to reiterate the #ell-settle octrine o, the real an hypothecary nature o, %ariti%e la#. As a 'eneral rule, a ship o#nerBs lia!ility is %erely co-e7tensive #ith his interest in the vessel, e7cept #here actual ,ault is attri!uta!le to the shipo#ner. /hus, as an e7ception to the li%ite lia!ility octrine, a shipo#ner or ship a'ent %ay !e hel lia!le ,or a%a'es #hen the sin-in' o, the vessel is attri!uta!le to the actual ,ault or ne'li'ence o, the shipo#ner or its ,ailure to ensure the sea#orthiness o, the vessel. /he instant petitions cannot !e spare ,ro% the application o, the e7ception to the octrine o, li%ite lia!ility in vie# o, the unani%ous ,in in's o, the courts !elo# that !oth A!oitiA an the cre# ,aile to ensure the sea#orthiness o, the M/V P. Aboitiz. .HEREFORE, the petitions in are ENIE .

ORIENTAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION /0. CA G.R. No. 940,$ Au1u0( 9, 1991 FACTS: In January 1986, private respon ent Pana%a &a#%ill Co., Inc. hire /ranspaci,ic /o#a'e, Inc., to transport the lo's !y sea to 1anila an insure it a'ainst loss #ith petitioner Oriental Assurance Corporation @Oriental Assurance>. /he lo's #ere loa e on t#o @4> !ar'es? @1> on !ar'e PC/-)+++,61+C an @4> on Bar'e /PAC-1+++. On 48 January 1986, the t#o !ar'es #ere to#e !y one tu'-!oat, urin' the voya'e, rou'h seas an stron' #in s cause a%a'e to Bar'e /PAC-1+++ resultin' in the loss o, D9) pieces o, lo's out o, the *98 pieces loa e thereon. Pana%a e%an e pay%ent ,or the loss !ut #as enie !y Oriental Assurance ISSUE? 8O2, Oriental Assurance can !e hel lia!le un er its %arine insurance policy !ase on a constructive total loss. ECISION: 2O. /he re9uire%ents ,or the application o, &ection 139 o, the Insurance Co e, have not !een %et. /he lo's involve , althou'h place in t#o

A!OITI" vs. CA #G.R. No. 1$1%&& O'(o)e* 17, $00%+ A!OITI" vs. CA. #G.R. No. 1&07,$ O'(o)e* 17, $00%+ A!OITI" vs. E-UITA!LE INSURANCE CORP. #G.R. No. 1&7%01 O'(o)e* 17, $00%> FACTS:

%E-ieF%a'naye-al!uro@insurance?Case<i'est>
1

Pa'e

!ar'es, #ere not separately value !y the policy, nor separately insure . /he lo's havin' !een insure as one insepara!le unit, the correct !asis ,or eter%inin' the e7istence o, constructive total loss is the totality o, the ship%ent o, lo's. &ince the cost o, those D9) pieces oes not e7cee )*G o, the value o, all 1,4+8 pieces o, lo's, the ship%ent cannot !e sai to have sustaine a constructive total loss un er &ection 139@a> o, the Insurance Co e. 856;6$O;6, the 3u '%ent un er revie# is here!y &6/ A&I<6 an petitioner, Oriental Assurance Corporation, is here!y AB&O(H6< ,ro% lia!ility un er its %arine insurance policy. CA&=A(/E? !IAGTAN vs.INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPAN2, LT G.R. No. L3$,,79 M4*'5 $9, 197$ FACTS: Juan &. Bia'tan #as insure #ith e,en ant Insular (i,e Assurance Co%pany, un er a supple%entary contract eno%inate "Acci ental <eath Bene,it Clause, ,or an a itional su% o, P*,+++.++ i, "the eath o, the Insure resulte irectly ,ro% !o ily in3ury e,,ecte solely throu'h e7ternal an violent %eans sustaine in an acci ent an in epen ently o, all other causes. /he clause e7pressly provi e that it #oul not apply #here eath resulte ,ro% an in3ury intentionally in,licte !y another party. On the ni'ht o, 1ay 4+, 196D, or urin' the ,irst hours o, the ,ollo#in' ay a !an o, ro!!ers entere the house o, the insure Juan &. Bia'tan receive thrusts ,ro% their sharp-pointe instru%ents, causin' #oun s on the !o y o, sai Juan &. Bia'tan resultin' in his eath Plainti,,s, as !ene,iciaries, ,ile a clai% un er the policy. /he insurance co%pany pai the !asic !ut re,use to pay the a itional su% o, P*,+++.++ un er the acci ental eath !ene,it clause, on the 'roun that the insure :s eath resulte ,ro% in3uries intentionally in,licte !y thir parties an there,ore #as not covere . ISSUE: 8O2, the #oun s receive at the han s o, the ro!!ers intentionally. !y the insure #ere in,licte

CALANOC /0. CA G.R. No. L3%1,1 e'e6)e* 16, 19,, FACTS: 1elencio Basilio #as a #atch%an #ho secure a li,e insurance policy ,ro% the Philippine A%erican (i,e Insurance Co%pany in the a%ount o, P4,+++ to #hich #as attache a supple%entary contract coverin' eath !y acci ent. On January 4*, 19*1, he ie o, a 'unshot #oun on the occasion o, a ro!!ery co%%itte in the house o, Atty. O3e a. Hir'inia Calanoc, the #i o#, #as pai the su% o, P4,+++, ,ace value o, the policy, !ut #hen she e%an e the pay%ent o, the a itional su% o, P4,+++ representin' the value o, the supple%ental policy, the co%pany re,use alle'in' that the ecease ie !ecause he #as %ur ere !y a person #ho too- part in the co%%ission o, the ro!!ery an #hile %a-in' an arrest as an o,,icer o, the la# #hich contin'encies #ere e7pressly e7clu e in the contract an have the e,,ect o, e7e%ptin' the co%pany ,ro% lia!ility. ISSUE: 8O2, the eath o, the insure #as cause !y one o, the ris-s e7clu e !y the supple%entary contract #hich e7e%pts the co%pany ,ro% lia!ility. ECISION: 2O. =n er those circu%stances this Court hel that it coul not !e sai that the -illin' #as intentional ,or there #as the possi!ility that the %ale,actor ha ,ire the shot to scare people aroun ,or his o#n protection an not necessarily to -ill or hit the victi%. In any event, #hile the act %ay not e7e%pt the tri''er%an ,ro% lia!ility ,or the a%a'e one, the ,act re%ains that the happenin' #as a pure acci ent on the part o, the victi%. /he victi% coul have !een either the police%an or Atty. O3e a ,or it cannot !e preten e that the %ale,actor ai%e at the ecease precisely !ecause he #ante to ta-e his li,e. /here,ore to conclu e that the circu%stances un,ol e in the present case o not #arrant the ,in in' that the eath o, the un,ortunate victi% co%es #ithin the purvie# o, the e7ception clause o, the supple%entary policy an , hence, o not e7e%pt the co%pany ,ro% lia!ility. 8here,ore, the ecision appeale ,ro% is ;6H6;&6<, here!y or er the co%pany to pay petitioner-appellant. FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION /0. CA G.R. No. 100970 Se7(e6)e* $, 199$ FACTS: On Octo!er 44, 1986, Carlie &urposa #as insure #ith petitioner $in%an 0eneral Assurance Corporation./he insure , ie on Octo!er 18, 1988 as a result o, a sta! #oun in,licte !y one o, the three @3> uni enti,ie %en #ithout provocation an #arnin' on the part o, the ,or%er #hile as #aitin' ,or a ri e on their #ay ho%e. /he !ene,iciaries o, sai insurance policy ,ile a #ritten notice o, clai% #ith the petitioner insurance co%pany #hich enie sai clai% conten in' that %ur er an assault are not #ithin the scope o, the covera'e o, the insurance policy. Petitioner alle'in' principle o, "expresso unius exclusio alterius" in a personal acci ent insurance policy since eath resultin' ,ro% %ur er an Ior assault are i%plie ly e7clu e in sai insurance policy consi erin' that the cause o, eath o, the insure #as not acci ental !ut rather a eli!erate an intentional act o, the assailant in -illin' the ,or%er. /hus, eath #as co%%itte #ith eli!erate intent #hich, !y the very nature o, a

ECISION: E6&. It cannot !e enie that the act itsel, o, in,lictin' the in3uries #as intentional. It shoul !e note that the e7ception in the acci ental !ene,it clause invo-e !y the appellant oes not spea- o, the purpose o, a thir party in causin' the in3uries, !ut only o, the ,act that such in3uries have !een "intentionally". /his construction is the !asic i ea e7presse in the covera'e o, the clause itsel,, na%ely, that "the eath o, the insure resulte irectly ,ro% !o ily in3ury e,,ecte solely throu'h e7ternal an violent %eans sustaine in an acci ent ... an in epen ently o, all other causes In the present case they i prove ,atal, an the ro!!ers have !een accuse an convicte o, the cri%e o, ro!!ery #ith ho%ici e. 8here a provision o, the policy e7clu es intentional in3ury, it is the intention o, the person in,lictin' the in3ury that is controllin'. I, the in3uries su,,ere !y the insure clearly resulte ,ro% the intentional act o, a thir person the insurer is relieve ,ro% lia!ility as stipulate . 856;6$O;6, the ecision appeale ,ro% is reverse an the co%plaint is%isse , #ithout pronounce%ent as to costs.

%E-ieF%a'naye-al!uro@insurance?Case<i'est>
4

Pa'e

personal acci ent insurance policy, cannot !e in e%ni,ie . ISSUE: 8O2, the contention o, the petitioner is correct. ECISION: 2O. /he 'enerally accepte rule is that, #here the eath or in3ury is not the natural or pro!a!le result o, the insure :s voluntary act, or i, so%ethin' un,oreseen occurs in the oin' o, the act #hich pro uces the in3ury, the resultin' eath is #ithin the protection o, the policies insurin' a'ainst eath or in3ury ,ro% acci ent. /he insure ie ,ro% an event that too- place #ithout his ,oresi'ht or e7pectation, an event that procee e ,ro% an unusual e,,ect o, a -no#n cause an , there,ore, not e7pecte . 2either can it !e sai that #here #as a capricious esire on the part o, the accuse to e7pose his li,e to an'er consi erin' that he #as 3ust 'oin' ho%e a,ter atten in' a ,estival. /he principle o, " expresso unius exclusio alterius" is there,ore applica!le in the instant case since %ur er an assault, not havin' !een e7pressly inclu e in the enu%eration o, the circu%stances that #oul ne'ate lia!ility in sai insurance policy cannot !e consi ere !y i%plication to ischar'e the petitioner insurance co%pany ,ro% lia!ility ,or, any in3ury, isa!ility or loss su,,ere !y the insure . /hus, the ,ailure o, the petitioner insurance co%pany to inclu e eath resultin' ,ro% %ur er or assault a%on' the prohi!ite ris-s lea s inevita!ly to the conclusion that it i not inten to li%it or e7e%pt itsel, ,ro% lia!ility ,or such eath. 856;6$O;6, the petition is <62I6<

%E-ieF%a'naye-al!uro@insurance?Case<i'est>
3

Pa'e