Title
Ang Giok Chip vs. Springfield Fire and Marine Insurance Co.
Case
G.R. No. 33637
Decision Date
Dec 31, 1931
Insured warehouse destroyed by fire; insurer denied claim citing violation of Warranty F, which limited hazardous goods storage. Supreme Court upheld insurer's defense, ruling rider valid and breach proven, reversing trial court's award.
Font Size:

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.