GR L 21821 22; (May, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21821-22 and L-21824-27, May 31, 1966
Diosdado C. Ty, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Filipinas Compañia de Seguros, et al., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiff-appellant Diosdado C. Ty, an employee of Broadway Cotton Factory, secured several Personal Accident Policies from different insurance companies (the defendants-appellees) in the latter part of 1953. During the policies’ effectivity, on December 24, 1953, a fire broke out at his workplace. While attempting to extinguish the fire, a heavy object fell on his left hand, causing multiple fractures and lacerated wounds to his fingers, as certified by the attending surgeon, resulting in the temporary total disability of his left hand. The insurance companies refused his claim for compensation. Ty filed separate complaints in the Municipal Court of Manila, which decided in his favor. On appeal by the insurance companies, the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed all six complaints. The court held that under the uniform terms of the insurance policies, for partial disability due to the loss of a hand to be compensable, the loss must result from the amputation of that hand. Ty appealed this consolidated decision.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to indemnity under the insurance policies for the temporary total disability of his left hand, despite the absence of amputation, based on the policy provision defining “loss of a hand” as “the loss, by amputation through the bones of the wrist.”
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, dismissing the complaints. The Court held that the insurance policy provision was clear, express, and specific: indemnity for the “Loss of Either Hand” is payable only if there is a “loss, by amputation through the bones of the wrist.” The plaintiff’s injury, which caused a temporary total disability but did not involve amputation, was not covered by the policy terms. The contract is the law between the parties, and its unambiguous terms cannot be interpreted to include mere fractures or temporary disability. The Court cited its prior ruling in a similar case involving the same appellant (Ty v. First National Surety & Ins. Co., G.R. Nos. L-16133-16145, April 29, 1961) and found no reason to depart from it. The decision was affirmed without costs.