[65] FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION v.

COURT OF APPEALS assailant in killing the former as indicated by the location of the lone stab wound on
G.R. No. 100970 | September 2, 1992 | Nocon, J. the insured. Therefore, said death was committed with deliberate intent which, by the
very nature of a personal accident insurance policy, cannot be indemnified.
TOPIC: Liability of Insurer for Damages and Interests
ISSUE w/ HOLDING:
Is death by murder considered accidental death? YES
SUMMARY: While Surposa was waiting for a ride home after attending a festival, he was stabbed ● The terms ‘accident’ and ‘accidental’, as used in insurance contracts have not acquired
by one of three unidentified men without provocation and warning. He died as a result thereof. His any technical meaning, and are construed by the courts in their ordinary and common
beneficiaries filed a written notice of claim with the Finman, which denied said claim contending acceptation.
that murder and assault are not within the scope of the coverage of the insurance policy. The ● Thus, the terms have been taken to mean that which happen by chance or fortuitously,
Court held that Surposas death was an accidental death, it being an unforeseen event. without intention and design, and which is unexpected, unusual, and unforeseen.
● An accident is an event that takes place without one’s foresight or expectation — an
DOCTRINE: The terms ‘accident’ and ‘accidental’, as used in insurance contracts have not event that proceeds from an unknown cause, or is an unusual effect of a known cause
acquired any technical meaning, and are construed by the courts in their ordinary and common and, therefore, not expected."
acceptation. Thus, the terms have been taken to mean that which happen by chance or ● ". . . The generally accepted rule is that, death or injury does not result from accident
fortuitously, without intention and design, and which is unexpected, unusual, and unforeseen. or accidental means within the terms of an accident-policy if it is, the natural result of
An accident is an event that takes place without one’s foresight or expectation — an event that the insured’s voluntary act, unaccompanied by anything unforeseen except the death
proceeds from an unknown cause, or is an unusual effect of a known cause and, therefore, not or injury.
expected." ". . . The generally accepted rule is that, death or injury does not result from accident ● There is no accident when a deliberate act is performed unless some additional,
or accidental means within the terms of an accident-policy if it is, the natural result of the unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening occurs which produces or brings
insured’s voluntary act, unaccompanied by anything unforeseen except the death or injury. There about the result of injury or death.
is no accident when a deliberate act is performed unless some additional, unexpected, ● In other words, where the death or injury is not the natural or probable result of the
independent, and unforeseen happening occurs which produces or brings about the result of insured’s voluntary act, or if something unforeseen occurs in the doing of the act which
injury or death. In other words, where the death or injury is not the natural or probable result of produces the injury, the resulting death is within the protection of the policies insuring
the insured’s voluntary act, or if something unforeseen occurs in the doing of the act which against death or injury from accident."
produces the injury, the resulting death is within the protection of the policies insuring against ● As correctly pointed out by the respondent appellate court in its decision:
death or injury from accident." ○ "In the case at bar, it cannot be pretended that Carlie Surposa died in the
course of an assault or murder as a result of his voluntary act considering
FACTS: the very nature of these crimes.
● October 22, 1986: deceased Carlie Surposa was insured with petitioner Finman General ○ In the first place, the insured and his companion were on their way home from
Assurance Corporation under Finman General Teachers Protection Plan Master Policy attending a festival. They were confronted by unidentified persons.
No. 2005 and Individual Policy No. 08924 with his parents, spouses Julia and Carlos ○ The record is barren of any circumstance showing how the stab wound was
Surposa, and brothers Christopher, Charles, Chester and Clifton, all surnamed Surposa, inflicted. Nor can it be pretended that the malefactor aimed at the insured
as beneficiaries. precisely because the killer wanted to take his life.
● While Surposa was waiting for a ride home along Rizal-Locsin Streets, Bacolod City after ○ In any event, while the act may not exempt the unknown perpetrator from
attending the celebration of the "Maskarra Annual Festival, he was stabbed by one of criminal liability, the fact remains that the happening was a pure accident on
three unidentified men without provocation and warning. the part of the victim. The insured died from an event that took place without
● He died on October 18, 1988 as a result thereof. his foresight or expectation, an event that proceeded from an unusual effect
● The private respondent and the other beneficiaries of said insurance policy filed a of a known cause and, therefore, not expected.
written notice of claim with the Finman, which denied said claim contending that ○ Neither can it be said that there was a capricious desire on the part of the
murder and assault are not within the scope of the coverage of the insurance policy. accused to expose his life to danger considering that he was just going home
● They then filed a complaint with the Insurance Commission. after attending a festival.
● The IC ruled in favor of the beneficiaries. ● Furthermore, the personal accident insurance policy involved herein specifically
● The CA affirmed said ruling. enumerated only ten (10) circumstances wherein no liability attaches to petitioner
● Thus, this petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the insurance company for any injury, disability or loss suffered by the insured as a result
appellate court in applying the principle of "expresso unius exclusio alterius" in a of any of the stipulated causes. The principle of "expresso unius exclusio alterius" —
personal accident insurance policy since death resulting from murder and/or assault the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another thing — is therefore
are impliedly excluded in said insurance policy considering that the cause of death of applicable in the instant case since murder and assault, not having been expressly
the insured was not accidental but rather a deliberate and intentional act of the included in the enumeration of the circumstances that would negate liability in said
 insurance policy cannot be considered by implication to discharge the petitioner
insurance company from liability for any injury, disability or loss suffered by the
insured.
● Thus, the failure of the petitioner insurance company to include death resulting from
murder or assault among the prohibited risks leads inevitably to the conclusion that it
did not intend to limit or exempt itself from liability for such death.
● Article 1377 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that:
○ "The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not
favor the party who caused the obscurity."
● Moreover,
○ "it is well settled that contracts of insurance are to be construed liberally in
favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer. Thus ambiguity in the
words of an insurance contract should be interpreted in favor of its
beneficiary."

RULING: CA RULING AFFIRMED