Professional Documents
Culture Documents
06 Biagtan v. Insular Life
06 Biagtan v. Insular Life
Basil Maguigad
BIAGTAN vs. INSULAR LIFE Whether the robbers had the intent to kill or merely to scare
G.R. No. L-25579, March 29, 1972|MAKALINTAL J., the victim or to ward off any defense he might offer, it
cannot be denied that the act itself of inflicting the injuries
FACTS was intentional.
Juan S. Biagtan was insured with defendant InsularLife It should be noted that the exception in the accidental
Assurance Company under Policy No. 398075 for the sum benefit clause invoked by the appellant does not speak
of P5,000.00 and, under a supplementary contract of the purpose whether homicidal or not of a third
denominated "Accidental Death Benefit Clause, for an party in causing the injuries, but only of the fact that
additional sum of P5,000.00 if "the death of the Insured such injuries have been "intentionally" inflicted this
resulted directly from bodily injury effected solely obviously to distinguish them from injuries which,
through external and violent means sustained in an although received at the hands of a third party, are
accident ... and independently of all other causes." purely accidental.
The clause, however, expressly provided that it
would not apply where death resulted from an This construction is the basic idea expressed in the coverage
injury "intentionally inflicted by another party." of the clause itself, namely, that "the death of the insured
resulted directly from bodily injury effected solely through
on the night of May 20, 1964 or the first hours of May 21, external and violent means sustained in an accident ... and
1964, while the said life policy and supplementary independently of all other causes." A gun which discharges
contract were in full force and effect, the house of while being cleaned and kills a bystander; a hunter who
insured Juan S. Biagtan was robbed by a band of robbers shoots at his prey and hits a person instead; an athlete in a
who were charged in and convicted by the Court of First competitive game involving physical effort who collides with
Instance of Pangasinan for robbery with homicide; that an opponent and fatally injures him as a result: these are
in committing the robbery, the robbers, on reaching the instances where the infliction of the injury is unintentional
staircase landing on the second floor, rushed towards and therefore would be within the coverage of an accidental
the door of the second floor room, where they suddenly death benefit clause such as thatin question in this case.
met a person near the door of one of the rooms who
turned out to be the insured Juan S. Biagtan who But where a gang of robbers enter a house and coming
received thrusts from their sharp-pointed instruments, face to face with the owner, even if unexpectedly, stab
causing wounds on the body of said Juan S. Biagtan him repeatedly, it is contrary to all reason and logic to
resulting in his death at about 7 a.m. on the same say that his injuries are not intentionally inflicted,
day, May 21, 1964; regardless of whether they prove fatal or not. As it was,
in the present case they did prove fatal, and the robbers
Plaintiffs, as beneficiaries of the insured, filed a claim have been accused and convicted of the crime of
under the policy. The insurance company paid the basic robbery with homicide.
amount of P5,000.00 but refused to pay the additional sum
of P5,000.00 under the accidental death benefit clause, on Under the circumstances, the insurance company was
the ground that the insured's death resulted from correct in refusing to pay the additional sum of P2,000
injuries intentionally inflicted by third parties and under the accidental death benefit clause which
therefore was not covered. expressly provided that it would not apply where death
resulted from an injury Intentionally inflicted by a
Plaintiffs filed suit to recover, and after due hearing the third party.
court a quo rendered judgment in their favor. Hence the
present appeal by the insurer.
ISSUE(S)
RULING