G.R. No.

L-16138 April 29, 1961

DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
FIRST NATIONAL SURETY & ASSURANCE CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. L-16139 April 29, 1961.
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. L-161! April 29, 1961
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
UNITED INSURANCE CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. L-1611 April 29, 1961.
DIOSDADO C. TY. plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
"#ILI""INE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. L-1612 April 29, 1961.
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
RELIANCE SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. L-1613 April 29, 1961
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
FAR EASTERN SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. L-161 April 29, 1961
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
CA"ITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. L-161$ April 29, 1961
DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
CA"ITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., defendant-appellee.
V. B. Gesunundo for plaintiff-appellant.
M. Perez Cardenas for defendant-appellee.
LA%RADOR, J.&
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Gregorio . !arvasa,
presiding, dismissing the actions filed in the a"ove-entitled cases.
#he facts found "$ the trial court, %hich are not disputed in this appeal, are as follo%s&
At different times %ithin a period of t%o months prior to 'ecem"er (), *+,-, the
plaintiff herein 'iosdado C. #$, emplo$ed as operator mechanic foreman in the
.road%a$ Cotton Factor$, in Grace /ar0, Caloocan, 1i2al, at a monthl$ salar$ of
/*3,.44, insured himself in *3 local insurance companies, among %hich "eing the
eight a"ove named defendants, %hich issued to him personal accident policies, upon
pa$ment of the premium of /3.*( for each polic$. /laintiff5s "eneficiar$ %as his
emplo$er, .road%a$ Cotton Factor$, %hich paid the insurance premiums.
6n 'ecem"er (), *+,-, a fire "ro0e out %hich totall$ destro$ed the .road%a$
Cotton Factor$. Fighting his %a$ out of the factor$, plaintiff %as injured on the left
hand "$ a heav$ o"ject. He %as "rought to the Manila Central 7niversit$ hospital,
and after receiving first aid there, he %ent to the !ational 6rthopedic Hospital for
treatment of his injuries %hich %ere as follo%s&
*. Fracture, simple, proximal phalanx index finger, left8
(. Fracture, compound, comminuted, proximal phalanx, middle finger, left and (nd
phalanx, simple8
-. Fracture, compound, comminute phalanx, )th finger, left8
). Fracture, simple, middle phalanx, middle finger, left8
,. 9acerated %ound, sutured, volar aspect, small finger, left8
:. Fracture, simple, chip, head, *st phalanx, ,th digit, left. He under%ent medical
treatment in the 6rthopedic Hospital from 'ecem"er (:, *+,- to Fe"ruar$ 3, *+,).
#he a"ove-descri"ed ph$sical injuries have caused temporar$ total disa"ilit$ of
plaintiff5s left hand. /laintiff filed the corresponding notice of accident and notice of
claim %ith all of the a"ovenamed defendants to recover indemnit$ under /art II of the
polic$, %hich is similarl$ %orded in all of the policies, and %hich reads pertinentl$ as
follo%s&
I!';M!I#< F61 #6#A9 61 /A1#IA9 'IA.I9I#<
If the Insured sustains an$ .odil$ Injur$ %hich is effected solel$ through violent,
external, visi"le and accidental means, and %hich shall not prove fatal "ut shall
result, independentl$ of all other causes and %ithin sixt$ =:4> da$s from the
occurrence thereof, in #otal or /artial 'isa"ilit$ of the Insured, the Compan$ shall
pa$, su"ject to the exceptions as provided for hereinafter, the amount set opposite
such injur$&
/A1#IA9 'IA.I9I#<
96 6F&
x x x x x x x x x
;ither hand ............................................................................ /:,4.44
x x x x x x x x x
... #he loss of a hand shall mean the loss "$ amputation through the "ones of the
%rist....
'efendants rejected plaintiff5s claim for indemnit$ for the reason that there "eing no
severance of amputation of the left hand, the disa"ilit$ suffered "$ him %as not
covered "$ his polic$. Hence, plaintiff sued the defendants in the Municipal Court of
this Cit$, and from the decision of said Court dismissing his complaints, plaintiff
appealed to this Court. ='ecision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, pp. ((--
((:, 1ecords>.
In vie% of its finding, the court a"solved the defendants from the complaints. Hence this
appeal.
#he main contention of appellant in these cases is that in order that he ma$ recover on the
insurance policies issued him for the loss of his left hand, it is not necessar$ that there
should "e an amputation thereof, "ut that it is sufficient if the injuries prevent him from
performing his %or0 or la"or necessar$ in the pursuance of his occupation or "usiness.
Authorities are cited to the effect that ?total disa"ilit$? in relation to one5s occupation means
that the condition of the insurance is such that common prudence re@uires him to desist
from transacting his "usiness or renders him incapa"le of %or0ing. =): C.A.., +B4>. It is
also argued that o"scure %ords or stipulations should "e interpreted against the person %ho
caused the o"scurit$, and the ones %hich caused the o"scurit$ in the cases at "ar are the
defendant insurance companies.
Chile %e s$mpathi2e %ith the plaintiff or his emplo$er, for %hose "enefit the policies %ere
issued, %e can not go "e$ond the clear and express conditions of the insurance policies, all
of %hich define partial disa"ilit$ as loss of either hand "$ amputation through the "ones of
the %rist.? #here %as no such amputation in the case at "ar. All that %as found "$ the trial
court, %hich is not disputed on appeal, %as that the ph$sical injuries ?caused temporar$
total disa"ilit$ of plaintiff5s left hand.? !ote that the disa"ilit$ of plaintiff5s hand %as merel$
temporar$, having "een caused "$ fracture of the index, the middle and the fourth fingers of
the left hand.
Ce might add that the agreement contained in the insurance policies is the la% "et%een the
parties. As the terms of the policies are clear, express and specific that onl$ amputation of
the left hand should "e considered as a loss thereof, an interpretation that %ould include the
mere fracture or other temporar$ disa"ilit$ not covered "$ the policies %ould certainl$ "e
un%arranted.
CH;1;F61;, the decision appealed from is here"$ affirmed, %ith costs against the
plaintiff-appellant.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.., Barrera, Paredes and
!izon, JJ., concur.