Fieldman Insurance Co. Inc. vs Vda de Songco Case Digest
Fact: Federico Songco of Floridablanca. Pampanga. a adult male of light instruction being merely a first grader … . owned a private jeepney for the twelvemonth 1960. On September 15. 1960. he was induced by Fieldmen’s Insurance Company Pampanga agent Benjamin Sambat to use for a Common Carrier’s Liability Insurance Policy covering his motor vehicle … Upon paying an one-year premium of P16. 50. defendant Fieldmen’s Insurance Company. Inc. issued on September 19. 1960. Common Carriers Accident Insurance Policy… the continuance of which will be for one ( 1 ) twelvemonth. effectual September 15. 1960 to September 15. 1961. On September 22. 1961. upon payment of the corresponding premium. the company renewed the policy by widening the coverage from October 15. 1961 to October 15. 1962. This clip Federico Songco’s private jeepney carried Plate No. J-68136-Pampanga-1961.
On October 29. 1961. during the effectiveness of the renewed policy. the insured vehicle while being driven by Rodolfo Songco. a duly licensed driver and boy of Federico ( the vehicle proprietor ) collided with a auto in the municipality of Calumpit. state of Bulacan. as a consequence of which bad luck Federico Songco ( male parent ) and Rodolfo Songco ( boy ) died. Carlos Songco ( another boy ) . the latter’s married woman. Angelita Songco. and a household friend by the name of Jose Manuel sustained physical hurts of changing grade. ” 1 Amor Songco. boy of asleep Federico Songco. declared that when insurance agent Benjamin Sambat was bring oning his male parent to see his vehicle. he butted in stating: ‘That can non be. Mr. Sambat. because our vehicle is an “owner” private vehicle and non for riders. ’ to which agent Sambat replied: ‘whether our vehicle was an “owner” type or for riders it could be insured because their company is non owned by the Government and the Government has nil to make with their company. So they could make what they please whenever they believe a vehicle is insurable Issue:
Whether or non the Songcos’ can claim the insurance returns despite the fact that the vehicle concerned was an proprietor and non a common bearer. HELD: YES Opinion: The footing for the favourable judgement is the philosophy announced in Qua Chee Gan v. Law Union and Rock Insurance Co. . where unjust behavior is shown by an insurance house. it is “estopped from implementing forfeitures in its favour. in order to prevent fraud or infliction on the insured. ” This is a instance where the philosophy of estoppel undeniably calls for application. After suppliant Fieldmen’s Insurance Co. . Inc. had led the insured Federico Songco to believe that he could measure up under the common bearer liability insurance policy. and to come in into contract of insurance paying the premiums due. it could non. be permitted to alter its base to the hurt of the inheritors of the insured. lt would now trust on the fact that the insured owned a private vehicle. non a common bearer. something which it knew wholly along when non one time but twice its agent. no uncertainty without any expostulation in its portion. exerted the extreme force per unit area on the insured. a adult male of light instruction. to come in into such a contract.
This was clearly a misrepresentation on the portion of the company. Article 1377: the reading of vague words or judicial admissions in a contract shall non prefer the party who caused the obscureness. In the instance at saloon. even if it be assumed that there was an ambiguity. taking into history the good known regulation that ambiguities or obscurenesss must be purely interpreted against the party that caused them ( fieldman in the present instance ) . This stiff application of the regulation on ambiguities has become necessary in position of current concern patterns.
The tribunals can non disregard that nowadays monopolies. trusts and concentration of capital. endowed with overpowering economic power. manage to enforce upon parties covering with them cutely prepared ‘agreements’ that the weaker party may non alter one shred. his engagement in the ‘agreement’ being reduced to the option to ‘take it or go forth it’ labelled since Raymond Saleilles ‘contracts by adherence’ ( contrats d’adhesion ) . in contrast to those entered into by parties dickering on an equal terms. such contracts ( of which policies of insurance and international measures of ladling are premier illustrations ) evidently call for greater stringency and watchfulness on the portion of tribunals of justness with a position to protecting the weaker party from maltreatments and infliction. and prevent their going traps for the unwary “The contract of insurance is one of perfect good religion ( uberima fides ) non for the insured entirely. but every bit so for the insurance company ; in fact. it is more so for the latter. since its dominant bargaining place carries with it stricter duty. ”
9 This is simply to emphasize that while the morality of the concern universe is non the morality of establishments of uprightness like the dais and the academia. it can non fall so low as to be another name for craft or misrepresentation. Furthermore. should it go on therefore. no tribunal of justness should let itself to impart its blessing and support. 1awphil. net We have no pick but to acknowledge the pecuniary duty of suppliant Fieldmen’s Insurance Co. . Inc. It did non win in its relentless attempt to avoid following with its duty in the lower tribunal and the Court of Appeals. Much less should it happen any receptiveness from us for its indefensible and undue supplication to get away from its liability.