Jimenez vs CA : 103883 : November 14, 1996 : J Vitug : First Division
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/103883.htm
[Syllabus]
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 103883. November 14, 1996]
JACQUELINE JIMENEZ VDA. DE GABRIEL, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS and FORTUNE INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY, INC.,
respondents.
DECISION
VITUG, J.:
[1]
The petition for review on certiorari in this case seeks the reversal of the decision of the
Court of Appeals setting aside the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 55,
which has ordered private respondent Fortune Insurance & Surety Company, Inc., to pay
petitioner Jacqueline Jimenez vda. de Gabriel, the surviving spouse and beneficiary in an
accident (group) insurance of her deceased husband, the amount of P100,000.00, plus legal
interest.
Marcelino Gabriel, the insured, was employed by Emerald Construction & Development
Corporation (ECDC) at its construction project in Iraq. He was covered by a personal accident
[2]
insurance in the amount of P100,000.00 under a group policy procured from private
respondent by ECDC for its overseas workers. The insured risk was for (b)odily injury caused by
violent accidental external and visible means which injury (would) solely and independently of
[3]
any other cause result in death or disability.
On 22 May 1982, within the life of the policy, Gabriel died in Iraq. A year later, or on 12 July
[4]
1983, ECDC reported Gabriels death to private respondent by telephone.
Among the
[5]
documents thereafter submitted to private respondent were a copy of the death certificate
issued by the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Iraq which stated
REASON OF DEATH: UNDER EXAMINATION NOW NOT YET KNOWN
[6]
[7]
and an autopsy report of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to the effect that (d)ue to
[8]
advanced state of postmortem decomposition, cause of death (could) not be determined.
Private respondent referred the insurance claim to Mission Adjustment Service, Inc.
Following a series of communications between petitioner and private respondent, the latter,
[9]
on 22 September 1983, ultimately denied the claim of ECDC on the ground of prescription.
Petitioner went to the Regional Trial Court of Manila. In her complaint against ECDC and private
respondent, she averred that her husband died of electrocution while in the performance of his
work and prayed for the recovery of P100,000.00 for insurance indemnification and of various
other sums by way of actual, moral, and exemplary damages, plus attorneys fees and costs of
suit.
Private respondent filed its answer, which was not verified, admitting the genuineness and
1 of 5
1/20/2016 2:03 PM