VIRGINIA CALANOC, PETITIONER VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., RESPONDENTS.

This suit involves the collection of P2,000 representing the value of a
supplemental policy covering accidental death which was secured by one Melencio
Basilio from the Philippine American Life Insurance Company. The case originated
in the Municipal Court of Manila and judgment being favorable to the plaintiff
it was appealed to the court of first instance. The latter court affirmed the
judgment but on appeal to the Court of Appeals the judgment was reversed and the
case is now before us on a petition for review.

Melencio Basilio was a watchman of the Manila Auto Supply located at the
corner of Avenida Rizal and Zurbaran. He secured a life insurance policy from
the Philippine American Life Insurance Company in the amount of P2,000 to which
was attached a supplementary contract covering death by accident. On January 25,
1951, he died of a gunshot wound on the occasion of a robbery committed in the
house of Atty. Ojeda at the corner of Oroquieta and Zurbaran streets. Virginia
Calanoc, the widow, was paid the sum of P2,000, face value of the policy, but
when she demanded the payment of the additional sum of P2,000 representing the
value of the supplemental policy, the company refused alleging, as main defense,
that the deceased died because he was murdered by a person who took part in the
commission of the robbery and while making an arrest as an officer of the law
which contingencies were expressly excluded in the contract and have the effect
of exempting the company from liability.

The pertinent facts which need to be considered for the determination of the
questions raised are those reproduced in the decision of the Court of Appeals as
follows:

“The circumstances surrounding the death of Melencio Basilio show that when
he was killed at about seven o’clock in the night of January 25, 1951, he was on
duty as watchman of the Manila Auto Supply at the corner of Avenida Rizal and
Zurbaran; that it turned out that Atty. Antonio Ojeda who had his residence at
the corner of Zurbaran and Oroquieta, a block away from Basilio’s station, had
come home that night and found that his house was well-lighted, but with the
windows closed; that getting suspicious that there were culprits in his house,
Atty. Ojeda retreated to look for a policeman and finding Basilio in khaki
uniform, asked him to accompany him to the house, with the latter refusing on
the ground that he was not a policeman, but suggesting that Atty. Ojeda should
ask the traffic policeman on duty at the corner of Rizal Avenue and Zurbaran;
that Atty. Ojeda went to the traffic policeman at said corner and reported the
matter, asking the policeman to come along with him, to which the policeman
agreed; that on the way to the Ojeda residence, the policeman and Atty. Ojeda
passed by Basilio and somehow or other invited the latter to come along; that as
the three approached the Ojeda residence and stood in front of the main gate
which was covered with galvanized iron, the fence itself being partly concrete
and partly, adobe stone, a shot was fired; that immediately after the shot,
Atty. Ojeda and the policeman sought cover; that the policeman, at the .request
of Atty; Ojeda, left the premises, to look for reinforcement; that it turned out
afterwards that the special watchman Melencio Basilio was hit in the abdomen,
the wound causing his instantaneous death; that the shot must have come from
inside the yard of Atty. Ojeda, the bullet passing through a hole waist-high in
the galvanized iron gate; that upon inquiry Atty. Ojeda found out that the
savings of liis children in the amount of P30 in coins kept in his aparador
contajned in stockings were taken away, the aparador having been ransacked; that
a month thereafter the corresponding investigation conducted by the police
authorities led to the arrest and prosecution of four persons in Criminal Case
No. 15104 of the Court of First Instance of Manila for ‘Robbery in an Inhabited
House and in Band with Murder’.”

It is contended in behalf of the company that Basilio was killed which
“making an arrest as an officer of the law” or as a result of an “assault or
murder” committed in the place and therefore his death waa caused by one of the
risks excluded by the supplementary contract which exempts the company from
liability. This contention was upheld by the Court of Appeals and, in reaching
this conclusion, made the following comment:

“From the foregoing testimonies, we find that the deceased was a watchman of
the Manila Auto Supply, and, as such, he was not bound to leave his place and go
with Atty. Ojeda and Policeman Magsanoc.to see the trouble, or robbery, that
occurred in the house of Atty. Ojeda. In fact, according to the finding of the
lower court, Atty. Ojeda finding Basilio in uniform asked him to accompany him
to his house, but the latter refused on the ground that he was not a1 policeman
and suggested to Atty. Ojeda to ask help from the traffic policeman on duty at
the corner of Rizal Avenue arid Zurbaran, but after Atty. Ojeda secured the help
of the traffic policeman, the deceased went with Ojeda and said traffic
policeman to the residence of Ojeda, and while the deceased was standing in
front of the main gate of said residence, he was shot and thus died. The death,
therefore, of Basilio, although .unexpected, was not caused by an accident,
being a voluntary and intentional act on the part of the one who robbed, or one
of those who robbed, the house of Atty. Ojeda. Hence, it is our considered
opinibn ^hat the death of Basilio, though unexpected, cannot be considered
accidental, for his death occurred because he left his post and joined policeman
Magsanoe .and Atty. Ojeda to repair to the latter’s residence to see what
happened thereat. Certainly, when Basilio joined Patrolman Magsanoc and Atty.
Ojeda, he should have realized the danger to which he was exposing himself, yet,
instead of remaining in his place, he went with Atty. Ojeda and Patrolman
Magsanoe to see what was the trouble in Atty. Ojeda’s house and thus he was
fatally shot.” . ‘

We dissent from the above findings of the Court of Appeals. For one thing,
Basilio was a watchman of the Manila Auto Supply which was a block away from the
house of Atty. Ojeda where something auspicious was happening which caused the
latter to ask for help. While at first he declined the invitation of Atty.
.Ojeda to go with him to his residence to’ inquire into What was going. on
because he was not a regular policeman he later agreed to come along when
prompted by the traffic policeman, and upon approaching the gate of the
residence he was shot and died. The circumstance that he was a mere watchman and
had no duty to heed the call of Atty. Ojeda should not be taken as a capricious
desire on his part to expose his life to danger considering the fact that the
place he was in duty-bound to guard was Only a block away. In volunteering to
extend help under the situation, he might have thought, rightly or wrongly, that
to know the truth was in the interest of his employer it being a matter that
affects the security of the neighborhood. No doubt there was some risk coming to
him in pursuing that errand, but that risk always existed it being inherent in
the position he was holding. He cannot therefore be blamed solely for doing what
he believed wa3i;|n keeping with his duty as a watchman and as a citizen. And he
cannot be considered as making an arrest as an officer of the law, as contended,
simply because he went with the traffic policeman, for certainly he did not go
there for that purpose nor was he asked to do so by the policeman.

Much less can it be pretended that Basilio died in the course.of an assault
or murder considering the very nature of these crimes. In the first place, there
is no proof that the death of Basilio is the result of either crime for the
record is barren of any circumstance showing how the fatal shot was fired.
Perhaps this may be clarified in the criminal case now pending in court as
regards the incident but before that is done anything that might be said on the
point would be a mere conjecture. Nor can it be said that the killing was
intentional for there is the possibility that the malefactor had fired the shot
merely to scare away the people around for his own protection and not
necessarily to kill or hit the victim. In any event, while the act may not
exempt the triggerman from liability for the damage done, the fact remains that
the happening was a pure accident on the part of the victim. The victim could
have been, either the policeman: or Atty. Ojeda for it cannot be pretended that
the malefactor aimed’ at the deceased precisely because he wanted to take his
life.

We take note that these defenses are included among the risks excluded in the
supplementary contract which enumerates the cases which may exempt the company
from liability. While as a general rule “the parties may limit the coverage of
the policy to certain particular accidents and risks or causes of loss, and may
expressly except other risks or causes of loss therefrom” (45 C.J.S. 781-782),
however, it is to be desired that the terms and phraseology of the exception
clause be clearly expressed so as to be within the easy grasp and understanding
of the insured, for if the terms are doubtful or obscure the same, must of
necessity be interpreted or resolved against the one who has caused the
obscurity. (Article 1377, new Civil Code) And so it has been generally held that
the “terms in an insurance policy, which are ambiguous, equivocal, or uncertain
* * * are to be construed, strictly and most strongly against the insurer,
and liberally in favor of the insured so as to effect the dominant purpose of
indemnity or payment to the insured, especially where a forfeiture is
involved” (29 Am. Jur., 181), and the reason for this rule is that the “insured
usually has no voice in the selection or arrangement of the words employed and
that the language of the contract is selected with great care and deliberation
by experts and legal advisers employed by, and acting exclusively in the
interest of, the insurance company.” (44 C. J. S., p. 1174.)

“Insurance is, in its nature, complex and difficult for the layman to
understand. Policies are prepared by experts who know and can anticipate the
bearing and possible complications of every contingency. So long as insurance
companies insist upon the use of ambiguous, intricate and technical provisions,
which conceal rather than frankly disclose, their own intentions, the courts
must, in fairness to those who purchase insurance, construe every ambiguity in
favor of the insured.” (Algoe vs. Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co., 91 Wash.
324, LRA 1917A, 1237.)

“An insurer should not be allowed, by the use of obscure, phrases and
exceptions, to defeat the very purpose for which the policy was procured.”
(Moore vs. Aetna Life Insurance Co., LRA 1915D, 264.)

We are therefore persuaded to conclude that the circumstances unfolded in the
present case do not warrant the finding that the death of the unfortunate victim
comes within the purview of the exception clause of the supplementary policy
and, hence, do not exempt the company from liability.

Wherefore, reversing the decision appealed from, we hereby order the company
to pay petitioner-appellant the amount of P2,000, with legal interest from
January 26, 1951 until fully paid, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Labrador,
.Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.