Title
Ty vs. Filipinas Compa
Case
G.R. No. L-21821-22
Decision Date
May 31, 1966
Employee injured in factory fire sought insurance claims for hand disability; Supreme Court ruled policies required amputation, denying compensation for fractures.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192113)

Background of the Case

Diosdado C. Ty was employed as a mechanic-operator at Broadway Cotton Factory in Caloocan City, earning a monthly salary of P185. In 1953, he procured Personal Accident Policies from several insurance companies for a duration of twelve months. On December 24, 1953, while attempting to extinguish a fire at the factory, Ty sustained serious injuries to his left hand when a heavy object fell on it. He was treated for various fractures and a laceration at the National Orthopedic Hospital from December 26, 1953, to February 8, 1954.

Nature of Claims and Responses

Following Ty's treatment, he sought compensation from the insurance companies under the policies he held. However, the companies denied his claims citing the policies' conditions that considered compensation for partial disability only in cases involving the complete amputation of a hand. Consequently, Ty filed several actions in the Municipal Courts of Manila, which initially ruled in his favor. Upon appeal by the insurance companies to the Court of First Instance, the court dismissed the cases based on the same interpretation of the insurance policies.

Legal Provisions at Issue

The insurance policies in question uniformly stated that compensation for partial disability due to the loss of either hand would only be granted if there was an amputation through the bones of the wrist. Ty contended that he should receive compensation for the substantial inability to use his hand, regardless of whether a formal amputation occurred. He argued that the term "loss" in the policy should encompass any substantial disability.

Court's Reasoning and Conclusion

The Court of First Instance affirmed the dismissal of Ty’s claims, emphasizing that the language of the insurance policies was explicit and clear. It underscored the legal principle that the contract's terms are binding and defined; in this instance, partial disability that does not result in amputation does not qualify for compensation. The court referenced prior rulings that had consistently uphel

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.