Case Digest (G.R. No. 136914)
Facts:
Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Lianga Bay and Community Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 136914, January 25, 2002, Supreme Court Second Division, De Leon, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner is Country Bankers Insurance Corporation (insurer) and the respondent is Lianga Bay and Community Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (insured cooperative), the latter judicially declared insolvent and represented by its elected assignee, Cornelio Jamero. Sometime in 1989 the parties executed Fire Insurance Policy No. F-1397, which insured the respondent’s stocks-in-trade for P200,000 from June 20, 1989 (4:00 p.m.) to June 20, 1990 (4:00 p.m.).
On July 1, 1989 at about 12:40 a.m., the respondent’s building in Barangay Diatagon, Lianga, Surigao del Sur, was gutted by fire, resulting in total loss of stocks-in-trade, furniture, equipment and records. The respondent submitted a claim supported by (a) the Spot Report of Pfc. Arturo V. Juarbal dated July 1, 1989; (b) the Sworn Statement of Jose Lomocso; and (c) the Sworn Statement of Ernesto Urbiztondo. The petitioner denied the claim, asserting the fire was set by two NPA rebels to obtain provisions, and thus fell within the policy’s excepted risks (paragraph No. 6(d) excluding mutiny, riot, insurrection, rebellion, etc.).
The respondent filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lianga, Surigao del Sur, Branch 28 (Civil Case No. L-518). The RTC, in a Decision dated December 26, 1991 (Judge Bernardo V. Saludares, penned), found the insurer’s defenses incredible and unreliable, held the petitioner liable to pay the P200,000 policy amount with 12% interest from filing, and awarded P50,000 as actual damages, P50,000 as exemplary damages, P5,000 litigation expenses, P10,000 attorneys’ fees, and costs. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (Fourth Division), which affirmed the RTC in a Decision dated December 29, 1998 (penned by Associate Justice Jesus M. Elbinias, concurred in by Associate Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Marina L. Buzon).
The petitioner brought a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court (Rule 45), assigning three errors: (1) the CA erred in not giving credence to the spot report and sworn statements that the loss was caused by NPA rebels (an exce...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the petitioner prove that the loss fell within the policy’s excepted risk (NPA rebellion), thereby relieving it of liability?
- Was the imposition of 12% per annum interest from filing on the adjudged principal proper?
- Were the awards of P50,000 actual damages, P50,000 exemplary damages, litigation expenses (P5,000) and attorneys’ fees...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)