G.R. No. 84628 Case Digest

G.R. No. 84628 November 16, 1989

Heirs of Ildefonso Coscolluela, Sr., INC., petitioner

vs Rico General Insurance Corporation, Court of Appeals, etc., respondents

Ponente: Gutierrez, Jr.

Facts:

Heirs, is a domestic corporation and registered owner of an Isuzu pick-up truck which was insured with Rico General Insurance for a consideration P100,000 excluding 3rd party liability. The premiums and other expenses for insurance paid covered the period from October 1, 1986 to 1987.

On August 28, 1987, the insured vehicle was severely damaged when fired upon by unidentified armed persons in Negros Occidental. In the same incident, four persons died.

Heirs then filed its claim for the repair of the vehicle but Rico refused t grant it. So heirs filed it with the RTC Bacolod City to recover claim, plus interest and attorney's fees. Rico filed a motion to dismiss alleging that it lacks cause of action because firing by armed men is a risk excepted in the insurance policy.

Heirs alleged that the firing was an indirect consequence of rebellion and opposed the motion to dismiss saying that the provision does not apply in the absence of an official proclamation of the conditions. RTC dismissed the complaint of Heirs fo lack of cause of action for the damage arose from a civil commotion or was a direct result thereof.

Heirs filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied by RTC noting that they cannot take cognizance of the general civil disturbance in the country without any executive proclamation.

Petitioner then filed a notice of appeal which was given due course but stated that the proper remedy is a petition for review by way of certiorari. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. CA denied the petition and affirmed the RTC's dismissal order. Hence this petition.

Issue: Whether CA  erred in (1) affirming the dismissal by the trial court of the complaint for damages in the ground of lack of cause of action and in (2) denying due course to a petition for certiorari on the ground that the remedy of the petitioner to assail said order is appeal.

Held:

(1) There is cause of action. The elements were met.

The facts as alleged clearly define the existence of a right of the petitioner to a just claim against the insurer for the payment of the indemnity for a loss due to an event against which the petitioner's vehicle was insured. The insurance contract mentioned therein manifests a right to pursue a claim and a duty on the part of the insurer or private respondent to compensate the insured in case of a risk insured against. The refusal of the insurer to satisfy the claim and the consequent loss to the petitioner in incurring the cost of acquiring legal assistance on the matter constitutes a violation or an injury brought to the petitioner.

(2) The Court is very much cognizant of the principle that a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action stated in the complaint hypothetically admits the truth of the facts therein.

." It is clear that the complaint does no more and no less than state simply that the van was damaged due to the firing by unidentified armed men. Since the complaint does not explicitly state nor intimate civil strife which private respondent insists to be the cause of the damage, the motion to dismiss cannot go beyond the admission of the facts stated and inferences reasonably deducible from them. Any other assertion by the private respondent is subject to proof. Meanwhile, the sufficiency of the petitioner's cause of action has been shown since, admitting the facts alleged, a valid judgment can be rendered.

(3) The private respondent's invocation of the exceptions clause in the insurance policy as the basis for its non-liability and the consequent dismissal of the complaint is without merit. We also reiterate the established rule that when the terms of an insurance contract contain limitations on liability, the court "should construe them in such a way as to preclude the insurer from non-compliance with his obligations."

(4) Contrary to what the respondent appellate court says, this case does not present a pure question of law but demands a factual determination of whether the incident was a result of events falling under the exceptions to the liability of private respondent contained in the policy of insurance.

Petition granted.