Case Digest (G.R. No. 33131)
Facts:
Emilio Gonzalez La O v. The Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 33131, December 13, 1930, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villamor, J., writing for the Court. Plaintiff-appellee Emilio Gonzalez La O sued defendant-appellant The Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. to recover P100,000 under two fire insurance policies covering leaf tobacco stored in the warehouse at No. 188 Soler Street, Manila, which was destroyed by fire on January 11, 1928. The defendant denied the allegations and raised special defenses, including breaches of warranty clauses (A and G) barring other lessees or the deposit of other goods without consent, and alleged the existence of other insurance policies on the same subject matter.The actions involving other insurers (cases Nos. 33458, 33868, and 33480) were jointly tried with this case. After plaintiff had presented evidence, the three other insurers offered and effected compromises with plaintiff — paying 85% of his claims — and those three cases were dismissed. The present defendant made a similar compromise offer which plaintiff refused and elected to proceed to judgment in this suit alone.
At the trial before Judge Anacleto Diaz (Court of First Instance, Manila), plaintiff introduced the Official Register Book and Official Guide from the Bureau of Internal Revenue, a Stock Book, invoices for purchases of tobacco, the report of an Internal Revenue inspector (Exhibit N), and the audit work and exhibits prepared by accountant Clemente Uson; these were used to prove that at the time of the fire there were about 6,200–6,264 bales of tobacco worth over P300,000. The defendant presented only one witness, Rowlands, whose estimate based on post-fire photographs the trial court found unpersuasive. The trial court held that plaintiff proved liability and value and rendered judgment for P100,000 plus legal interest from June 27, 1928 and costs.
The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing (1) improper reference by the trial court to the settlement with other insurers, (2) plaintiff could not recover because the policy was made payable to the Bank of the Philippine Islands, (3) plaintiff violated the policy condition (Article 3) by failing to declare other insuranc...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: May the defendant rely on a supposed defect of parties (the policy being payable to the Bank of the Philippine Islands) as a bar to plaintiff's recovery when it was not pleaded as such?
- Substantive: Did plaintiff violate Article 3 of the policy (failure to declare other insurances) so as to render the policies void?
- Substantive (fact review): Are the trial court’s findings on the quantity and value of the tobacco at the time of the fire supported by the evidence?
- Substantive: Is the cost price an admissible and proper basis for determining the value of the tobacco for purposes o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)