G.R. No. 126124 - People vs. Padilla

Petitioner Multi-Ware Manufacturing Corporation (Multi-Ware) is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of various plastic products.
Respondents are insurance companies: Cibeles Insurance Corporation, Western Guaranty Corporation, and Ernesto Sy doing business as "Pan Oceanic Insurance Services."

On December 14, 1999, Multi-Ware took out Fire Policy Insurance No. 50-118320 from Western Guaranty for ₱10,000,000.00 covering machinery, equipment, tools, spare parts, and accessories stored at Buildings 1 and 2, PTA Compound, Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
On February 20, 2000, Multi-Ware secured another fire insurance policy from Cibeles Insurance (Policy No. 80-43032) for ₱7,000,000.00 covering machinery, equipment, tools, spare parts, excluding moulds, stocks of manufactured goods, goods in process, raw materials, and supplies located at PTA Central Warehouse Compound, Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
Subsequently, Multi-Ware obtained additional fire insurance policies from Prudential Guarantee Corporation covering the same machinery and equipment at Building 1, PTA Compound.

On April 21, 2000, a fire occurred at the PTA Compound damaging the insured properties.
Multi-Ware filed claims with Cibeles Insurance and Western Guaranty, which were denied on grounds of violation of Policy Conditions Nos. 3 (non-disclosure of co-insurance), 15 (fraudulent claims), and 21 (arson).

Multi-Ware filed separate civil actions against Cibeles Insurance and Western Guaranty, which were consolidated for trial before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.
On August 26, 2015, the RTC rendered a Joint Decision dismissing the complaints for lack of merit due to violation of Policy Condition No. 3; counter-claims were also dismissed.
The RTC denied Multi-Ware's motion for reconsideration on January 8, 2016.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision and order on November 29, 2016, and denied the motion for reconsideration of Multi-Ware on March 9, 2017.
Multi-Ware filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court contesting the findings.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner violated Policy Condition No. 3 ("other insurance clause") despite alleged lack of competent evidence.
Whether Policy Condition No. 3 applies to the machinery, equipment, and tools covered by the fire insurance policies.
Whether petitioner’s failure to disclose the existence of other fire insurance policies covering the same machinery and equipment resulted in forfeiture of benefits under the policies.