G.R. No. 33131, December 13, 1930
EMILIO GONZALES LA O vs. THE YEK TONG LIN FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO., LTD.

FACTS

Emilio Gonzales La O (plaintiff-appellee) insured his leaf tobacco with four insurance companies, including the Yek Tong Lin Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (defendant-appellant), for a total of P290,000. His tobacco, stored in a warehouse at No. 188 Soler Street, Manila, was damaged by fire on January 11, 1928. The plaintiff filed separate actions to recover the insurance proceeds. After the plaintiff presented his evidence in the jointly tried cases, the three other insurance companies settled by agreeing to pay 85% of the plaintiff’s claim, leading to the dismissal of those cases. The defendant Yek Tong Lin, however, refused a similar compromise, prompting the continuation of this case. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay the full insured amount of P100,000 plus interest and costs. The defendant appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in referring to the settlement with the other insurance companies and in framing the sole issue as the value of the damaged tobacco.
2. Whether the plaintiff can recover under the insurance policies.
3. Whether the trial court erred in using the cost price, rather than the market price at the time of the fire, to determine the value of the damaged tobacco.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision.

1. The trial court did not commit reversible error. The reference to the settlement with the other companies was permissible as those cases were jointly tried, and the settlement occurred after the plaintiff’s evidence was presented. Even if there were other incidental matters, the court’s framing of the issue did not constitute a reversible error.

2. The Supreme Court found the trial court’s findings of factthat the plaintiff had more than 6,200 bales of tobacco worth over P300,000 at the time of the fire, exceeding the total insurance coverageto be fully supported by the evidence. The evidence included official revenue records, stock books, invoices, auditor testimony, and the report of the defendant’s own adjuster, which admitted the quantity and value of the tobacco exceeded the insurance amount.

3. The trial court did not err in considering the cost price as evidence of the tobacco’s value. The cost price is competent evidence tending to show an article’s value. The plaintiff’s evidence, including invoices and an auditor’s analysis, established a cost value exceeding P320,000. Furthermore, the defendant’s own adjusters, in their report, appraised the damaged tobacco at P303,052.32, which was more than the total insurance of P290,000. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim was valid and within the policy coverage.