DBP POOL OF ACCREDITED INSURANCE COMPANIES v. RADIO MINDANAO 1.
1. The RTC found that the only evidence that traces the fire to the New People’s Army
NETWORK, INC.
January 27, 2006 | Austria-Martinez, J. | Burden of Proof, Burden of Evidence, and
Presumptions
PETITIONER / PLAINTIFF: DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies
RESPONDENT: Radio Mindanao Network, Inc.
SUMMARY: Radio Mindanao Network procured two Fire Insurance Policies for its
transmitter equipment from two insurance companies, one of them being DBP Pool of
Accredited Insurance Companies. One of RMN’s stations did catch fire. RMN tried to
recover from the insurance policies. The insurance companies, hwoever, refused on
the ground that the fire was caused by members of the CPP-NPA. This made the
damage an excepted risk under the insurance policy. RMN filed a civil case against the
insurance companies. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of RMN. DBP appealed to the
SC, arguing that the insurance policy stated that it is actually RMN who has the burden
of proving that the loss or damage is covered by the insurance. However, the SC
disagreed. What the provision contemplated is actually the insured’s burden of
evidence. Notwithstanding the provision in question, it is DBP who has the burden of
proving that the damage was caused by an excepted risk. The burden of evidence
shifts to RMN only when DBP is successful in proving that the damage or loss was
under an excepted risk. Unfortunately, DBP was not able to discharge its burden.
DOCTRINE: The party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative of
the issue has the burden of proof to obtain a favorable judgment.
FACTS:
1. Radio Mindanao Network (RMN) insured its transmitter equipment and generating
sets under two Fire Insurance Policies, one with Provident Insurance Corporation
and one with petitioner DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies.
2. One evening, RMN’s radio station in Bacolod City was razed by fire.
3. RMN sought recovery under the two insurance policies, but both claims were
denied on the ground that the cause of loss was an excepted risk.
4. In their denial, the insurance companies argued that the evidence shows that the
fire was caused by members of the CPP-NPA. In their belief, this particular fact
absolved them of their liability under the insurance policy since their insurance
contract provides for the following exceptions:
a. War, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities, or warlike operations; and
b. Mutiny, riot, military or popular uprising, insurrection, rebellion, revolution,
military, or usurped power.
5. Due the companies’ refusal to pay, RMN filed a Civil Case against them.
6. The RTC and CA both ruled in favor of RMN.
ISSUE/S: WoN the loss was caused by an excepted risk - NO
RATIO:
is the testimony of one Lt. Col. Torres and SPO3 Rochar who are not present when
the fire occurred. Their testimony was limited to the fact that they were informed by
bystanders that heavily armed men shouted “Mabuhay ang NPA” after lighting the
transmitter house on fire. The bystanders themselves were not presented as
witnesses.
2. The CA upheld the RTC’s finding of fact.
3. There are no exceptional circumstances that would compel the Court to depart from
the factual findings of the lower courts.
4. DBP argued that RMN is responsible for proving that the cause of damage/loss is
covered by the insurance policy. This argument was based on a stipulation from the
insurance policy:
“In any action, suit, or proceeding where the Companies allege that by reason of
the provisions of this condition any loss or damage is not covered by this insurance,
the burden of proving that such loss or damage is covered shall be upon the
Insured.”
5. The “burden of proof” contemplated by the aforesaid provision actually refers to
“burden of evidence.”
6. The clause notwithstanding, the burden of proof still rests upon DBP to prove that
the damage or loss was caused by an excepted risk in order to escape liability
under the contract.
7. Burden of proof is the duty of any party to present evidence to establish
his/her claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by the law.
8. The party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the
issue has the burden of proof to obtain a favorable judgment.
9. In insurance cases, an insurer seeking to defeat a claim because of an exception or
limitation in the policy has the burden of proving that the loss comes within the
purview of the exception or limitation set up.
10. Consequently, it is sufficient for RMN to prove the fact of damage or loss. Once it
makes out a prima facie case, the duty or burden of evidence shifts to DBP to
controvert RMN’s prima facie case.
11. In this case, the burden of evidence shifted to DBP to prove that the loss fell within
the excepted risk. It is only when DBP has sufficiently proven that the damage or
loss was caused by an excepted risk that the burden of evidence shifts back to the
RMN.
12. DBP, however, failed to discharge its burden of proving that the damage or loss
was caused by an excepted risk.
DISPOSITION: DBP’s petition was dismissed.