G.R. No. 92383 July 17, 1992
SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD., petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and NERISSA LIM, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. issued Personal Accident Policy No. 05687 to Felix Lim, Jr. with a face value of P200,000.00. Two months later, Lim died from a bullet wound in his head. His wife and beneficiary, Nerissa Lim, sought payment on the policy, but the claim was rejected. The petitioner agreed Lim did not commit suicide but argued his death was not an accident either. The only eyewitness, Pilar Nalagon (Lim’s secretary), testified that on the night of October 6, 1982, after a birthday party, Lim was in a happy mood and playing with his handgun from which he had previously removed the magazine. He pointed the unloaded gun at her and, after she pushed it aside, he pointed it at his own temple, assured her it was not loaded, and then the gun fired, killing him instantly. The Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City ruled in favor of the widow, ordering the petitioner to pay the policy value, damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the death of Felix Lim, Jr. was an “accident” covered by the insurance policy.
2. Whether the death was barred by the policy exception for “wilfully exposing himself to needless peril.”
3. Whether the awards for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees were proper.

RULING

1. Yes, the death was an accident. The Court defined “accident” as an event that happens by chance, fortuitously, without intention or design, and is unexpected, unusual, and unforeseen. The firing of the gun was an additional, unexpected, independent, and unforeseen happening that produced the insured’s death. The Court distinguished this case from De la Cruz v. Capital Insurance, noting the presence of such an unexpected occurrence.
2. No, the death was not barred by the exception for “wilfully exposing himself to needless peril.” The Court held that suicide and willful exposure to needless peril both signify a disregard for one’s life, with the latter indicating a reckless risking of it. However, the evidence showed Lim had removed the magazine and believed the gun was not loaded. Therefore, he did not willfully expose himself to a known peril. His act was intended to demonstrate the gun was harmless. The Court agreed that while Lim was negligent, negligence does not preclude recovery under the policy, as most accidents are caused by negligence, and none of the four express exceptions in the contract applied.
3. No, the awards for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees were not proper. The Court held the petitioner acted in good faith in resisting the claim, as the issue was one of first impression and debatable. The act of litigating is not wrongful merely because the result is adverse; the right to litigate should not be penalized. Attorney’s fees are not recoverable merely because a party wins, as the award of costs is deemed sufficient. The Court modified the challenged decision, deleting all awards for damages and attorney’s fees, except the costs of the suit.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals was AFFIRMED insofar as it holds the petitioner liable for P200,000.00 with legal interest, but MODIFIED with the deletion of all awards for damages and attorney’s fees.