ASSOCIATION OF BAPTISTS FOR WORLD EVANGELISM, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This case for “Indemnity for Damages and Attor­ney’s
Fees” was elevated to this Tribunal by the then Court of Appeals on a
question of law.

The Stipulation of Facts submitted by the par­ties before the
Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch I, in Case No. 3789, reads as follows:

“COMES the parties in the above-entitled case, through their
respective counsels and to this Hon­orable Court respectfully submit the
following stipulations of facts:

‘1. That plaintiff is a reli­gious corporation duly
organized and registered under the laws of the Philippines, while defendant is also a domestic corporation duly organized
and existing under the laws of the Philippines;

‘2. That plaintiff, having an insurable interest in
a Chevro­let Carry-all, 1955 Model, with Motor No. 032433272555 and Plate No.
E-73317 covered by Registration Certificate No. 288141 Rizal, issued by the
Davao Motor Vehicles Office Agency No. 20 and owned by Reverend Clinton Bonnel,
insured said vehicle with the defendant under Fieldmen’s Insurance Co.,
Inc. Private Car Comprehensive Policy
No. 22 Jl 1107, attached hereto
as Annex ‘A’ to ‘A-2’ against loss or damage up to the amount of P5,000.00;

‘3. That in the latter part of 1961, through
plaintiff’s representative, Dr. Antonio Lim, the aforementioned Chevrolet
Carry-­all was placed at the
Jones Monument Mobilgas Service Station at Davao City, under the care of said
sta­tion’s operator, Rene Te so that said carry-all could be displayed as being
for sale, with the understanding that
the latter or any of his station
boys would receive a 2% commission
should they sell said vehicle.

‘4. That on the night of January 18, 1962, Romeo
Catiben one of the boys at the aforemen­tioned Jones Monument Service Sta­tion
and a nephew of the wife of Rene Te who is residing with them, took the
aforementioned chevrolet carry-all for a joy ride to Toril, Davao City, without
the prior permission, authority or consent of either the plaintiff or its
representative Dr. Antonio Lim, or of Rene Te, and on its way back to Davao City, said vehicle, due to some
mechanical defect accidentally bumped an electric post causing actual damages
valued at P5,518.61.

‘5. That the issue before the Honorable Court is
whether or not for the damage to the above­mentioned Chevrolet Carry-all to be
compensable under the afore­mentioned Fieldmen’s Private Car Comprehensive
Policy No. 22 JL11107, there must be a
prior criminal conviction of Romeo Catiben for theft.

‘WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court
render judgment on the facts and issues
above stipulated after the parties shall have submitted their respective
memoranda.”

The Trial Court rendered
judgment based on the facts stipulated and ordered defendant insurance company
to pay plaintiff association the amount of P5,000.00 as indemnity for the
damage sustained by the vehicle, P2,000.00
for attorney’s fees, and
costs. Dissatisfied, the insurance
company interposed an appeal to the Appellate Court, docketed as CA-G.R. No.
33543-R, which as above stated, elevated it to this instance.

We affirm. The Comprehensive Policy issued by the
insurance company includes loss of or damage to the motor vehicle by “burglary
x x x or theft.” It is settled that the act of Catiben in taking the
vehicle for a joy ride to Toril, Davao City, consti­tutes theft within the
meaning of the insurance policy and that recovery for damage to the car is not
barred by the illegal use of the car by one of the station boys.

“x x x where a car is admittedly as in this case unlawfully
and wrongfully taken by some people, be they employees of the car shop or not to whom it had been
entrusted, and taken on a long trip to Montalban without the owner’s consent or knowledge, such taking constitutes or
partakes of the nature of theft as defined in Article 308 of the Revised Penal
Code, viz. ‘(W)ho are liable for theft. – Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without
violence against or inti­midation of persons nor force upon things, shall take
personal property
of another without the latter’s consent,’ for purposes of recovering the loss
under the policy in question.”

“x x x the Court sustains as the
better view that which holds that when a person, either with the object of
going to a certain place, or learning how to drive, or enjoying a free ride,
takes possession of a vehicle belonging
to another, without the consent of its owner, he is guilty of theft
because by taking possession of the personal property belonging to another and
using it, his intent to gain is evident since he derives therefrom utility,
satisfaction, enjoyment and pleasure. Justice Ramon C. Aquino cites in his work Groizard who holds that the
use of a thing constitutes gain and Cuello Calon who calls it ‘hurto de uso.’^[1]

There need be no prior
conviction for the crime of theft to make an insurer liable under the
theft clause of the policy. Upon the
facts stipulated by the parties it is admitted that Catiben had taken the
vehicle for a joy ride and while the same was in his possession he bumped it
against an electric post resulting in damages. That act is theft within a policy of insurance. In a civil action for recovery on an
automobile insurance, the question whether a person using a certain automobile
at the time of the accident stole it or not is to be determined by a fair
preponderance of evidence and not by the rule of criminal law requiring proof
of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.^[2] Besides, there is no provision in the policy requiring prior criminal conviction for theft.

ACCORDINGLY, finding no error in the judgment appealed
from, the same is hereby affirmed.

Costs against defendant
Fieldmen’s Insurance Co., Inc.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Plana, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
Villacorta vs. Insurance
Commission, 100 SCRA 467 (1980).

^[2]
Weir vs. Central National Fire
Insurance Co., 189 NW, 794.