Case Digest (G.R. No. 33637)
Facts:
The case Ang Giok Chip, doing business under the name and style of Hua Bee Kong Si, as the plaintiff and appellee, versus Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company, as the defendant and appellant, was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on December 31, 1931. The dispute arose from a fire that destroyed a warehouse owned by Ang Giok Chip, located at No. 643 Calle Reina Regente, City of Manila, on January 11, 1928. The warehouse's contents were insured for a total of P60,000 with three different insurance companies, including a policy worth P10,000 from Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company. Following the fire, Ang Giok Chip filed a claim to recover P8,170.59, which represented a proportional part of the loss under the insurance policy. The insurance company raised four special defenses, one of which claimed a violation of warranty F, which limited the amount of hazardous goods that could be stored in the insured building to no more than 3% of th...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 33637)
Facts:
Parties Involved
- Plaintiff and Appellee: Ang Giok Chip, doing business under the name and style of Hua Bee Kong Si.
- Defendant and Appellant: Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
Property and Insurance
- Ang Giok Chip owned a warehouse located at No. 643 Calle Reina Regente, City of Manila.
- The contents of the warehouse were insured with three insurance companies for a total sum of P60,000.
- One of the insurance policies, in the amount of P10,000, was issued by the Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
Fire Incident
- The warehouse was destroyed by fire on January 11, 1928, while the policy issued by Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company was in force.
Legal Action
- The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the defendant to recover a proportional part of the loss amounting to P8,170.59.
- The insurance company raised four special defenses, one of which was based on a violation of Warranty F, which limited the amount of hazardous goods that could be stored in the insured building.
Trial Court Decision
- The trial judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding P8,188.74.
- The insurance company appealed the decision, focusing on the first and fourth errors assigned.
Warranty F
- Warranty F, attached as a rider to the insurance policy, stipulated that no hazardous goods could be stored in the insured building, except for a small quantity not exceeding 3% of the total value of the goods stored.
- The insurance company argued that more than 3% of the goods stored were hazardous, potentially reaching as high as 39%.
Issue:
- Validity of Warranty F: Whether Warranty F, attached as a rider to the insurance policy, is null and void for not complying with Section 65 of the Philippine Insurance Act.
- Violation of Warranty F: Whether the insured violated Warranty F by storing hazardous goods exceeding the 3% limit.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Dissenting Opinions
- Justice Villa-Real and Justice Imperial dissented, arguing that Warranty F, being a rider not signed by the insured, did not comply with Section 65 of the Insurance Act.
- They contended that the law requires express warranties to be either in the policy itself or in another instrument signed by the insured, and a rider does not meet this requirement.
- They also argued that the evidence did not conclusively prove that the insured violated Warranty F.