EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16138. April 29, 1961.]

DIOSDADO C. TY , plaintiff-appellant, vs. FIRST NATIONAL SURETY &

ASSURANCE CO, INC. , defendant-appellee.

[G.R. No. 16139. April 29, 1961.]

DIOSDADO C. TY , plaintiff-appellant, vs. ASSOCIATED INSURANCE &

SURETY CO., INC. , defendant-appellee.

[G.R. No. 16140. April 29, 1961.]

DIOSDADO C. TY, plaintiff-appellant, vs. UNITED INSURANCE CO., INC.,

defendant-appellee.

[G.R. No. 16141. April 29, 1961.]

DIOSDADO C. TY , plaintiff-appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE SURETY &

INSURANCE CO., INC. , defendant-appellee.

[G.R. No. 16142. April 29, 1961.]

DIOSDADO C. TY , plaintiff-appellant, vs. RELIANCE SURETY &

INSURANCE CO., INC. , defendant-appellee.

[G.R. No. 16143. April 29, 1961.]

DIOSDADO C. TY , plaintiff-appellant, vs. FAR EASTERN SURETY &

INSURANCE CO., INC. , defendant-appellee.

[G.R. No. 16144. April 29, 1961.]

DIOSDADO C. TY , plaintiff-appellant, vs. CAPITAL INSURANCE &

SURETY CO., INC. , defendant-appellee.

[G.R. No. 16145. April 29, 1961.]

DIOSDADO C. TY , plaintiff-appellant, vs. CAPITAL INSURANCE &

SURETY CO., INC. , defendant-appellee.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 V. B. Gesunundo for plaintiff-appellant.
M. Perez Cardenas for defendant-appellee.

DECISION

LABRADOR , J : p

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Gregorio S. Narvasa,
presiding, dismissing the actions filed in the above-entitled cases.
The facts found by the trial court, which are not disputed in this appeal, are as follows:
"At different times within a period of two months prior to December 24, 1953, the
plaintiff herein Diosdado C. Ty, employed as operator mechanic foreman in the
Broadway Cotton Factory, in Grace Park, Caloocan, Rizal, at a monthly salary of
P185.00, insured himself in 18 local insurance companies, among which being
the eight above- named defendants, which issued to him personal accident
policies, upon payment of the premium of P8.12 for each policy. Plaintiff's
beneficiary was his employer, Broadway Cotton Factory, which paid the insurance
premiums.

"On December 24, 1953, a fire broke out which totally destroyed the Broadway
Cotton Factory. Fighting his way out of the factory, plaintiff was injured on the
left hand by a heavy object. He was brought to the Manila Central University
hospital, and after receiving first aid there, he went to the National Orthopedic
Hospital for treatment of his injuries which were as follows:

1. Fracture, simple, proximal phalanx index finger, left;

2. Fracture, compound, comminuted, proximal phalanx, middle finger, left and

2nd phalanx, simple;

3. Fracture, compound, comminute phalanx, 4th finger, left;

4. Fracture, simple, middle phalanx, middle finger, left;

5. Lacerated wound, sutured, volar aspect, small finger, left;

6. Fracture, simple, chip, head, 1st phalanx, 5th digit, left.

He underwent medical treatment in the Orthopedic Hospital from December 26,

1953 to February 8, 1954. The above-described physical injuries have caused
temporary total disability of plaintiff's left hand. Plaintiff filed the corresponding
notice of accident and notice of claim with all of the above-named defendants to
recover indemnity under Part II of the policy, which is similarly worded in all of the
policies, and which reads pertinently as follows:

"INDEMNITY FOR TOTAL OR PARTIAL DISABILITY

"If the Insured sustains any Bodily Injury which is effected solely through violent,
external, visible and accidental means, and which shall not prove fatal but shall
result, independently of all other causes and within sixty (60) days from the
occurrence thereof, in Total or Partial Disability of the Insured, the Company shall
pay, subject to the exceptions as provided for hereinafter, the amount set opposite
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 such injury:

"PARTIAL DISABILITY
"LOSS OF:

xxx xxx xxx

"Either hand P650.00

xxx xxx xxx

". . . The loss of a hand shall means the loss by amputation through the bones of
the wrist. . . .."

Defendants rejected plaintiff's claim for indemnity for the reason that there being
no severance of amputation of the left hand, the disability suffered by him was
not covered by his policy. Hence, plaintiff sued the defendants in the Municipality
Court of this City, and from the decision of said Court dismissing his complaints,
plaintiff appealed to this Court." (Decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
pp. 223-226, Records).

In view of its findings, the court absolved the defendants from the complaints. Hence this
appeal.
The main contention of appellant in these cases is that in order that he may recover on the
insurance policies issued him for the loss of his left hand, it is not necessary that there
should be an amputation thereof, but that it is sufficient if the injuries prevent him from
performing his work or labor necessary in the pursuance of his occupation or business.
Authorities are cited to the effect that "total disability" in relation to one's occupation
means that the condition of the insurance is such that common prudence requires him to
desist from transacting his business or renders him incapable of working. (46 C.J.S., 970).
It is also argued that obscure words or stipulations should be interpreted against the
person who caused the obscurity, and the ones which caused the obscurity in the cases at
bar are the defendant insurance companies.
While we sympathize with the plaintiff or his employer, for whose benefit the policies were
issued, we can not go beyond the clear and express conditions of the insurance policies, all
of which define partial disability as loss of either hand by a amputation through the bones
of the wrist." There was no such amputation in the case at bar. All that was found by the
trial court, which is not disputed on appeal, was that the physical injuries "caused
temporary total disability of plaintiff's left hand." Note that the disability of plaintiff's hand
was merely temporary, having been caused by fractures of the index, the middle and the
fourth fingers of the left hand.
We might add that the agreement contained in the insurance policies is the law between
the parties. As the terms of the policies are clear, express and specific that only
amputation of the left hand should be considered as a loss thereof, an interpretation that
would include the mere fracture or other temporary disability not covered by the policies
would certainly be unwarranted.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the
plaintiff-appellant.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and
Dizon, JJ., concur.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com