Calanoc v. Court of Appeals, 98 Phil. 79. (1955) )

Calanoc v. Court of Appeals, 98 Phil. 79.
[1955])
DOCTRINE: The terms in an insurance policy, which are ambiguous, equivocal, or uncertain, are to be construed strictly
and most strongly against the insurer, and liberally in favor of the insured so as to effect the dominant purpose of
indemnity or payment to the insured, especially where a forfeiture is involved.
SYNOPSIS: A widow is seeking to collect the value of a supplemental insurance policy after her husband is killed
during a robbery, leading to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the need to interpret insurance policies in favor of
the insured.
FACTS:
Petitioner, Virginia Calanoc, was the widow of the insured Melencio Basilio, who was killed during a robbery.
Melencio Basilio, watchman of the Manila Auto Supply located at the Corner of Avenida Rizal and Zurbaran, secured a
life insurance policy from the Philippine American Life Insurance Company in the amount of P2,000 to which was
attached a supplementary contract covering death by accident.
He died of a gunshot wound on the occasion of a robbery committed in the house of Atty. Ojeda at the corner of
Oroquieta and Zurbaran streets.
Virginia Calanoc, the widow, was paid the sum of P2,000, face value of the policy, but when she demanded the
payment of the additional sum of P2,000 representing the value of the supplemental policy, the company refused.
PHILAM’S DEFENSE:
 alleging that Basilio was killed which "making an arrest as an officer of the law" or as a result of an "assault or
murder" committed in the place.
 Therefore, the proximate cause of petitioner’s husband’s death (murder in the commission of the robbery
and while making an arrest as an officer of the law) was expressly excluded in the contract and cannot make
the company liable.
MTC & RTC: ruled in favor of the petitioner.
CA: held that the death of Basilio, although unexpected, was not caused by an accident, being voluntary and
intentional act on the part of the one who robbed, or one of those who robbed the house of Atty. Ojeda. It cannot be
considered accidental because he left his post and joined the policeman and Atty. Ojeda, and went to the latter’s
residence.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the act of Basilio of risking his life warrants the exemption of the Insurance Company from liability?
2. Is the Philippine American Life Insurance Co. liable to the petitioner for the amount covered by the supplemental
contract?
RULING:
1. NO. The killing of the victim was a pure accident on his part since it is possible that the malefactor had fired the shot
merely to scare away the people around for his own protection and not necessarily to kill or hit the victim.
The circumstance that he was a mere watchman and had no duty to heed the call of Atty. Ojeda should not be taken as
a capricious desire on his part to expose his life to danger considering the fact that the place he was in duty-bound to
guard was only a block away.
In volunteering to extend help under the situation, Basilio might have thought, rightly or wrongly, that to know the
truth was in the interest of his employer it being a matter that affects the security of the neighborhood. No doubt
there was some risk coming to him that errand, but that risk always existed it being inherent in the position he was
holding.
He cannot therefore be blamed solely for doing what he believed was in keeping with his duty as a watchman and as
a citizen. And he cannot be considered as making an arrest as an officer of the law, as contended, simply because he
went with the traffic policeman, for certainly he did not go there for that purpose nor was he asked to do so by the
policeman.
2. YES. 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. However, it is to be desired
that the terms and phraseology of the exception clause be clearly expressed so as to be within the easy grasp and
understanding of the insured, for if the terms are doubtful or obscure the same must of necessity be interpreted or
resolved against the one who has caused the obscurity.
And so it has been generally held that the terms in an insurance policy, which are ambiguous, equivocal, or uncertain
are to be construed strictly and most strongly against the insurer, and liberally in favor of the insured so as to effect
the dominant purpose of indemnity or payment to the insured, especially where a forfeiture is involved.
The reason for this rule is that the "insured usually has no voice in the selection or arrangement of the words
employed and that the language of the contract is selected with great care and deliberation by experts and legal
advisers employed by, and acting exclusively in the interest of, the insurance company."
The Supreme Court are therefore persuaded to conclude that the circumstances unfolded in the present case do not
warrant the finding that the death of the unfortunate victim comes within the purview of the exception clause of the
supplementary policy and, hence, do not exempt the company from liability

Calanoc v. Court of Appeals, 98 Phil. 79. (1955) )

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calanoc v. Court of Appeals, 98 Phil. 79. (1955) )

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calanoc v. Court of Appeals, 98 Phil. 79. (1955) )

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calanoc v. Court of Appeals, 98 Phil. 79.

MTC & RTC: ruled in favor of the petitioner.

You might also like