Fortune
Insurance and Surety Co. Inc. vs. Court of Appeals GR 115278, 23 May 1995
Facts: Producers Bank of the Philippines was
insured by the Fortune Insurance and Surety Co Inc and an insurance policy was
issued. An armored car of Producers was robbed while in the process of
transferring cash in the sum of P725k under the custody of its teller, Alampay.
The said armored car was driven by Magalong, escorted by Security Guard Atiga.
After
an investigation conducted by the Pasay police authorities the driver Magalong
and guard Atiga were charged with violation of PD 532 (Anti-Highway Robbery
Law)
Demands
were made by Producers upon Fortune to pay the amount of the loss of P725k, but
the latter refused to pay as the loss is excluded from the coverage of the
insurance policy, under the policy, the insurance company shall not be liable in
respect of any loss caused by any dishonest, fraudulent or criminal act of the
insured or any officer, employee, partner, director, trustee or authorized
representative of the Insured whether acting alone or in conjunction with
others.
Producers
opposed the contention of Fortune and contended that Atiga and Magalong are not
its "officer, employee, trustee or authorized representative at the time
of the robbery.
Trial
court ordered Fortune to pay Producers.
Issue: Whether Fortune is liable under the
Money, Security, and Payroll Robbery policy it issued
Held: No. A contract of insurance is a
contract of adhesion thus any ambiguity therein should be resolved against the
insurer, or it should be construed liberally in favor of the insured and
strictly against the insurer. That if the terms of the contract are clear and
unambiguous, there is no room construction and such terms cannot be enlarged or
diminished by judicial construction.
It
is settled that the terms of the policy constitute the measure of the insurer's
liability. In the absence of statutory prohibition to the contrary, insurance
companies have the same rights as individuals to limit their liability and to
impose whatever conditions they deem best upon their obligations not
inconsistent with public policy.
Insofar
as Fortune is concerned it was its intention to exclude and exempt from
protection and coverage losses arising from dishonest fraudulent or criminal
acts of persons granted or having unrestricted access to Producers' money or
payroll. When it used then the term “employee " it must have had in mind
any person who qualifies es such as
generally and universally understood or jurisprudentially established in the
light of the four standards in the
determination of the employer-employee relationship or as statutorily declared
even in a limited sense which considers
the employees under a "labor-only" contract as employees of the party
employing them and not of the party who supplied them to the employer. Still, Producers entrusted the
three with the specific duty to safely transfer the money to its head office with Alampay to be
responsible for its custody in transit Magaring to dove the armored vehicle which would carry the money
and Atiga to provide the needed security for the money the vehicle and his two other companions. In
short for these particular tasks the three acted as agents of Producers. A
"representative- is defined as one who represents or stands in the place
of another one who represents others or another in a special capacity as an
agent and is interchangeable with “agent”.
Fortune
is exempt from liability under the general exceptions clause of the insurance
policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment