You are on page 1of 2

Noda vs. Cruz-Arnaldo [No. L-57322. June 22, 1987] 6.

However Noda asked for consideration from the IC decision
Petitioner: Norman Noda ; Respondent: Insurance Commissioner alleging that there are 2 items under Policy 2 and that the
Honorable Gregoria Cruz-Arnaldo, Zenith Insurance Corporation P60k covering his stocks in trade still remained unsolved
despite payment to him of P15k
Doctrine: Admissions Adjuster’s report should have been 7. Petitioner now claims grave abuse of discretion on the part
given equal weight and credence, having been offered by of the IC because it rejected the claim on the ground that
the insurance company itself, which constitutes an petitioner relied only on the report of Zenith’s adjuster
admission of its liability up to the amount recommended; without producing other supporting documents which would
Adjuster’s report is in the nature of an admission against indicate he made purchases and suffered loss due to the fire
interest. ISSUE: Was it right for the Insurance Commissioner to discharge
Zenith from liability on the ground that there was insufficient proof
Facts: from Noda? NO.
1. Norman Noda obtained from Zenith Insurance Corporation
(ZIC) thru its general agent, Alico General Insurance Agency HELD:
2 fire insurance policies  Noda offered his testimony, that of his wife and other
documentary exhibits. It showed the presence of around
1. No. F-03724 (Policy 1) P590k worth of goods in the retail store during the fire.
 has face value of P30k ; covers goods & stocks in trade in While the insurer, and the Insurance Commissioner for that
his business establishment at market site in Mangagoy. matter, have the right to reject proofs of loss if they are
Bislig, Surigao del Sur unsatisfactory, they may not set up for themselves an
 from March 3, 1977 - March 3, 1978 arbitrary standard of satisfaction. Substantial compliance
with the requirements will always be deemed sufficient.
2. No. F-03734 (Policy 2)
 face value in aggregate amount of P100k ; from May 10,  Zenith also introduced in evidence the final report on
1977 - May 10, 1978 Policy 2 submitted by its own adjuster, Dela Merced
 For Item 1 - 40k on household furniture & other personal Adjustment Corporation. But the IC IGNORED the report on
effects the ground that the claim for loss as to the stocks in trade
 For Item 2 - 60k on stocks in trade usual to Noda’s retail was not sufficiently proven because of Noda’s failure to
business located in a two-storey building at Surigao, the present evidence. The IC further concluded that the
ground floor is being used as store and 2nd floor as family adjuster’s report shouldn’t be considered since the
quarters allegation weren’t substantiated and report didn’t even had
a recommendation for payment. The Court disagreed on
2. While the policies were in force, fire destroyed petitioner’s this. Scrutiny of the adjuster’s report reveals that together
insured properties. Sep 5 1977 at the market site & Nov 9 with the formal demand for full indemnity, Noda submitted
1977 at Barreda St his income tax return, purchase invoice, & other supporting
3. Noda failed to obtain indemnity on his claims from Zenith. papers.
So Noda filed a complaint with the Insurance Commissioner  The report even took into account the appraisals of other
(IC) praying that Zenith should pay him representing the adjuster and concluded that the loss by Noda in his
value of the 2 policies w/ interest of 12%/annum household AND stocks in trade reached P379k. But after
4. Pending the case before the IC, Zenith settled the fire loss apportioning the amount among Noda’s 6 different insurers
under Policy 2, item 1 amounting to P15k+ [the co-insurance known to Zenith], the liability of Zenith
5. IC held that as for Noda’s claim under Policy 2, the payment was only at P60k. So the recommendation was that Zenith
of P15k to Noda fully discharged Zenith of its liability under should pay around P60k
the policy w/c covered furniture and other personal

The document was offered as evidence in dispute. In here. Noda had every reason to expect that the IC would  Since it is in the nature of an admission against interest. The Court ordered Zenith to as its evidence if it didn’t agree with the findings and pay Noda the sum of P60. The IC shouldn’t have dismissed that particular by Zenith and this was considered as an ADMISSION evidence (adjuster’s report) as worthless piece of paper. 592 w/ legal interest from filing complaint proposals. of its liability up to the amount recommended. It would have been pointless for Zenith to introduce the report Noda established his claim under Policy 2. it is give equal weight to the adjuster report as she had done w/ the best evidence w/c affords greatest certainty of the facts the other policy. until full payment but deducting the P15k which was earlier paid to Noda .