G.R. No. 253716 . July 10, 2023.
PLATINUM GROUP METALS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO., INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Platinum Group Metals Corporation (PGMC), a mining company, obtained Special Risks Policy No. EF-04010/11 from respondent The Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. (Mercantile) effective August 8, 2011, to August 8, 2012, covering 100 brand new trucks for ₱208,410,988.00 against “all risk[s] of physical loss or damage due to external causes.” On October 3, 2011, armed persons identifying as members of the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army/Nationalist Democratic Front (CNN) raided PGMC’s plant site in Claver, Surigao del Norte, held employees hostage, and burned facilities and vehicles, destroying 89 insured trucks. PGMC filed a claim with Mercantile through its broker. Mercantile denied the claim, asserting the loss was caused by “riot,” “civil commotion,” “insurrection,” or “rebellion,” which are excluded perils under paragraphs 21(g) and (h) of the Insurance Policy. PGMC filed a complaint for breach of obligation and recovery under the insurance policy. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of PGMC, ordering Mercantile to pay ₱183,260,779.32. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, dismissing the complaint, finding the loss was due to excluded perils. PGMC elevated the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the loss or damage to the insured trucks is covered by the insurance policy or is excluded under the provisions for riot, civil commotion, insurrection, or rebellion.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision. The loss was caused by excepted perils under the insurance policy. The Court held that the acts of the CNN members constituted “riot,” “civil commotion,” “insurrection,” and “rebellion,” which are explicitly excluded under paragraphs 21(g) and (h) of the policy. The terms, though not defined in the policy, are to be given their ordinary meaning. The evidence established that the armed group’s coordinated attack, involving hostage-taking, shooting, and burning to air political grievances and denounce the government and mining operations, fell within these excluded categories. The principle of construing ambiguous provisions against the insurer does not apply as the exclusion clauses are clear and unambiguous. Furthermore, PGMC failed to provide sufficient proof of the actual loss, such as the specific identities and details of the destroyed trucks, to substantiate its claim for the total insured amount.