Case Digest (G.R. No. 115278) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Fortune Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Producers Bank of the Philippines (G.R. No. 115278, May 23, 1995), the private respondent Producers Bank of the Philippines (“Producers”) insured under Money, Security, and Payroll Robbery Policy No. 0207 issued by petitioner Fortune Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. (“Fortune”) the transit of P725,000.00 in cash from its Pasay Branch to its Makati head office on June 29, 1987. The cash was under the custody of teller Maribeth Alampay, transported in an armored car driven by Benjamin Magalong (assigned by PRC Management Systems under an August 7, 1983 agreement) and escorted by Security Guard Saturnino Atiga (assigned by Unicorn Security Services under an October 25, 1982 contract). While traversing Taft Avenue, Pasay City, the vehicle was robbed of the entire amount. Magalong and Atiga, along with others, were charged under P.D. No. 532 (Anti-Highway Robbery Law) before the Pasay City RTC. Producers demanded recover Case Digest (G.R. No. 115278) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Insurance Policy
- Fortune Insurance and Surety Co., Inc. (Fortune) issued a Money, Security, and Payroll Robbery policy (Policy No. 0207) to Producers Bank of the Philippines (Producers).
- The policy covered losses of cash in transit, subject to the General Exceptions clause, including exclusion (b): any loss caused by dishonest, fraudulent or criminal act of the insured’s officer, employee, partner, director, trustee or authorized representative.
- Robbery Incident and Stipulated Facts
- On June 29, 1987, an armored car carrying ₱725,000 in cash from Producers’ Pasay City Branch to its Makati Head Office was robbed along Taft Avenue, Pasay City.
- The cash was under the custody of teller Maribeth Alampay; the armored car was driven by Benjamin Magalong y de Vera, supplied by PRC Management Systems; security escort was provided by Saturnino Atiga y Rosete, supplied by Unicorn Security Services.
- After police investigation, Magalong and Atiga were charged with violation of P.D. 532 (Anti-Highway Robbery Law) along with other suspects; the criminal case remained pending.
- Producers demanded payment under the policy; Fortune refused, invoking General Exception (b) for losses caused by acts of insured’s employees or authorized representatives.
- Procedural History
- Civil Case No. 1817 before RTC Makati: parties stipulated the foregoing facts and submitted to judgment on the record.
- RTC Decision (April 26, 1990): Found Magalong and Atiga were not Producers’ employees or authorized representatives, ordered Fortune to pay net ₱540,000 plus interest, attorney’s fees and costs.
- Appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 32946): Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, emphasizing liberal construction of insurance contracts in favor of the insured and plain meaning of “employee.”
- Fortune’s Petition (G.R. No. 115278): Contended Magalong and Atiga were Producers’ authorized representatives or, alternatively, employees under four-factor control test and as “labor-only” contractor employees per Labor Code Art. 106.
Issues:
- Whether Fortune is liable under the Money, Security, and Payroll Robbery policy for the ₱725,000 loss, or whether recovery is precluded by General Exception (b) excluding losses caused by acts of the insured’s employee or authorized representative.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)