G.R. No.

L-16141

Contract of adhesion

Republic
SUPREME
Manila

of

the

Philippines
COURT

G.R. No. L-16142

April 29, 1961

DIOSDADO
C.
vs.
FIRST
NATIONAL
SURETY
INC., defendant-appellee.

TY, plaintiff-appellant,
&

ASSURANCE

CO.,

x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. L-16139

April 29, 1961.

DIOSDADO
C.
TY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., defendantappellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. L-16140

DIOSDADO
C.
TY. plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
PHILIPPINE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., defendantappellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x

EN BANC
G.R. No. L-16138

April 29, 1961.

April 29, 1961

DIOSDADO
C.
TY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
UNITED INSURANCE CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x

April 29, 1961.

DIOSDADO
C.
TY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., defendantappellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. L-16143

April 29, 1961

DIOSDADO
C.
TY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., defendantappellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. L-16144

April 29, 1961

DIOSDADO
C.
TY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., defendantappellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x

G.R. No. L-16145

April 29, 1961

went to the National Orthopedic Hospital for treatment of

his injuries which were as follows:

DIOSDADO
C.
TY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., defendantappellee.
V.
B.
Gesunundo
for
M. Perez Cardenas for defendant-appellee.

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

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

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

LABRADOR, J.:
4. Fracture, simple, middle phalanx, middle finger, left;
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

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

person who caused the obscurity, and the ones which caused the
obscurity in the cases at bar are the defendant insurance
companies.

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).

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.

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

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed,

with costs against the plaintiff-appellant.

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

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes,

J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.