EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16138. April 29, 1961.]

DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FIRST NATIONAL SURETY & ASSURANCE CO, INC.,
defendant-appellee.
[G.R. No. 16139. April 29, 1961.]
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.,
defendant-appellee.
[G.R. No. 16140. April 29, 1961.]
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. UNITED INSURANCE CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
[G.R. No. 16141. April 29, 1961.]
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.,
defendant-appellee.
[G.R. No. 16142. April 29, 1961.]
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.,
defendant-appellee.
[G.R. No. 16143. April 29, 1961.]
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.,
defendant-appellee.
[G.R. No. 16144. April 29, 1961.]
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.,
defendant-appellee.
[G.R. No. 16145. April 29, 1961.]
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.,
defendant-appellee.
V. B. Gesunundo for plaintiff-appellant.
M. Perez Cardenas for defendant-appellee.
DECISION
LABRADOR, J p:
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Fracture, simple, proximal phalanx index finger, left;

Fracture, compound, comminuted, proximal phalanx, middle finger, left
and 2nd phalanx, simple;
Fracture, compound, comminute phalanx, 4th finger, left;
Fracture, simple, middle phalanx, middle finger, left;
Lacerated wound, sutured, volar aspect, small finger, left;
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 above-named 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

"Either hand
xxx

xxx
P650.00

xxx

xxx

". . . The loss of a hand shall means 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 Municipality 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 findings, 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 a 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
fractures 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 plaintiffappellant.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon,
JJ., concur.