This case has been cited 3 times or more.
2008-04-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
Indemnity and liability insurance policies are construed in accordance with the general rule of resolving any ambiguity therein in favor of the insured, where the contract or policy is prepared by the insurer. A contract of insurance, being a contract of adhesion, par excellence, any ambiguity therein should be resolved against the insurer; in other words, it should be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer. Limitations of liability should be regarded with extreme jealousy and must be construed in such a way as to preclude the insurer from noncompliance with its obligations.[19] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
2006-01-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
In any action, suit or other proceeding where the Companies allege that by reason of the provisions of this condition any loss or damage is not covered by this insurance, the burden of proving that such loss or damage is covered shall be upon the Insured.[12] An insurance contract, being a contract of adhesion, should be so interpreted as to carry out the purpose for which the parties entered into the contract which is to insure against risks of loss or damage to the goods. Limitations of liability should be regarded with extreme jealousy and must be construed in such a way as to preclude the insurer from noncompliance with its obligations.[13] | |||||
2000-11-27 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
Finally, it must be observed that neither the method of computing for interest and bank charges or the treatment of marginal deposits are provided for in the subject trust receipt or in the application for a domestic letter of credit. This fact was categorically admitted by Lina Gobencion in her testimony.[14] The only stipulation appearing in the aforesaid documents on this matter is the rate of interest, stipulated at 12%,[15] and the percentage requirement for marginal deposits, pegged at 30%.[16] Since the foregoing contracts are contracts of adhesion, Article 1377 of the Civil Code[17] dictates that this ambiguity must be held strictly against the one who caused the contract to be prepared and liberally in favor of the other party.[18] As such, private respondents' claim of a net of marginal deposit computation must prevail due to the ambiguity created by the contract formulated by petitioner. |