VIRGINIA CALANOC V. CA, PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.

December 16, 1955 | Bautista-Angelo, J.

Life Insurance > Accidental Death
AKGL

DOCTRINE: The shooting of a security guard that caused his death may be considered an accident; thereby, the
beneficiary is entitled to claim additional benefits from the supplementary contract covering death by accident.
CASE SUMMARY: Melencio Basilio, a watchman, was shot when he was assisting Atty. Ojeda. Prior to his death,
he obtained a life insurance, with supplementary contract covering death by accident. His widow Virginia Calanoc
filed insurance claims for the life insurance and the supplementary contract, but PhilAm Life refused to pay the
amount of the supplementary contract.

FACTS:
 Melencio Basilio was a watchman of the Manila Auto Supply. He secured a life insurance policy from the
Philippine American Life Insurance Company in the amount of P2T to which was attached a supplementary
contract covering death by accident (face value is also P2T).
 (January 25, 1951) Atty. Ojeda, whose house was just 1 block away from Manila Auto Supply, asked Basilio
to accompany him to his house as he was getting suspicions that there were culprits in his house. Initially,
Basilio refused and suggested Atty. Ojeda to seek the help of a traffic policeman. When the policeman and
Atty. Ojeda was walking towards the house, Basilio also came with them. As the 3 approached the
residence, a shot was fired, which hit Basilio in the abdomen, causing his instantaneous death.
 Widow Virginia Calanoc was paid the sum of P2T, but when she demanded the payment of the additional
sum of P2T representing the value of the supplemental policy, the company refused.
 [Defense] Basilio 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.
 [Mun. Court & CFI] Ruled in favor of Calanoc. [CA] Judgment was reversed, because the cause of death is
excluded by the supplementary contract which exempts the company from liability.

ISSUE: W/N Virginia Calanoc may claim the additional P2T as supplementary coverage for death by accident? YES

RULING:
 No doubt there was some risk coming to him in pursuing that errand (i.e., assisting Atty. Ojeda), 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 was in keeping with his duty as a watchman and as a citizen.
 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.
 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. Nor can it be said that the killing was intentional for there
is the possibility that the malef actor had fired the shot merely to scare away the people around for his own
protection and not necessarily to kill or hit the victim.
 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.
 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” however, it is to
be desired that the terms and phraseology of the exception clause be clearly expressed. 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.
 The circumstances unfolded in the present case do not warrant the finding that the death of the unf ortunate
victim comes within the purview of the exception clause of the supplementary policy and, hence, do not
exempt the company from liability.

DISPOSITION: Wherefore, reversing the decision appealed from, we hereby order the company to pay
petitioner-appellant the amount of P2,000.