18 Aisporna Vs Court of Appeals G.R. No L-39419
Content
AISPORNA vs COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No L-39419 Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-39419 April 12 19!2 MAPALA" MAPA LA" AISPORNA petitioner, vs. T#E COURT OF APPEALS $%& T#E PEOPLE OF T#E P#ILIPPINES respondents.
"E CASTRO
J.:
In this petition for certiorari, petitioneraccused !isporna see"s the reversal of the decision dated !u#ust $%, $&'% 1 in (!).R. No. $*+%*(R entitled People of the Philippines, plaintiffappellee, vs. Mapalad !isporna, defendantappellant of respondent (ourt of !ppeals affir-in# the ud#-ent of the (it/ (ourt of (abanatuan 2 rendered on !u#ust +, $&'$ 0hich found the petitioner #uilt/ for havin# violated Section $1& of the Insurance !ct 2!ct No. +%+', as a-ended3 and sentenced her to pa/ a fine of P455.55 0ith subsidiar/ i-prison-ent in case of insolvenc/, i nsolvenc/, and to pa/ the costs.
Petitioner !isporna 0as char#ed in the (it/ (ourt of (abanatuan for violation of Section $1& of the Insurance !ct on Nove-ber +$, $&'5 in an infor-ation 3 0hich reads as follo0s6
That on or before the +$st da/ of 7une, $&8&, in the (it/ of (abanatuan, Republic of the Philippines, and 0ithin the urisdiction of this 9onorable (ourt, the abovena-ed accused, did then and there, 0ilfull/, unla0full/ and feloniousl/ act as a#ent in the solicitation solici tation or procure-ent of an application for insurance b/ solicitin# therefor the application of one :u#enio S. Isidro, for and in behalf of Perla (o-pania de Se#uros, Inc., a dul/ or#ani;ed insurance co-pan/, re#istered under the la0s of the Republic of the Philippines, resultin# in the issuance of a <road Personal !ccident Polic/ No. +1PIRS! 555$ in the a-ount not e=ceedin# FIV: T9O>S!ND P:SOS 2P4,555.553 dated 7une +$, $&8&, 0ithout said accused havin# first secured a certificate of authorit/ to act as such a#ent fro- the office of the Insurance (o--issioner, Republic of the Philippines.
(ONTR!R? TO @!A.
The facts, 4 as found b/ the respondent (ourt of !ppeals are Buoted hereunder6
IT R:S>@TIN)6 That there is no debate that since ' March, $&8& and as of +$ 7une, $&8&, appellantCs husband, Rodolfo S. !isporna 0as dul/ licensed b/ Insurance (o--ission as a#ent to Perla (o-pania de Se#uros, 0ith license to e=pire on *5 7une, $&'5, :=h. ( on that date, at (abanatuan (it/, Personal !ccident Polic/, :=h. D 0as issued b/ Perla thru its author author representative, Rodolfo S. !isporna, for a period of t0elve 2$+3 -onths 0ith beneficiar/ as !na M. Isidro, and for P4,555.55 apparentl/, insured died b/ violence durin# lifeti-e of polic/, and for reasons not e=plained in record, present infor-ation 0as filed b/ Fiscal, 0ith assistance of priva te prosecutor, char#in# 0ife of Rodolfo 0ith violation of Sec. $1& of Insurance @a0 for havin#, 0ilfull/, 0ilfull /, unla0full/, unla0full/, and feloniousl/ acted, as a#ent in the solicitation for insurance b/ solicitin# therefore the application of one :u#enio S. Isidro Isi dro for and in behalf of Perla (o-paEa de Se#uros, ... 0ithout said accused havin# first secured a certificate of authorit/ to act as such a#ent fro- the office of the Insurance (o--ission, Republic of the Philippines.
and in the trial, People presented evidence that 0as hardl/ disputed, that afore-entioned polic/ 0as issued 0ith active participation of appellant 0ife of Rodolfo, a#ainst 0hich appellant in her defense sou#ht to sho0 that bein# the 0ife of true a#ent, Rodolfo, she naturall/ helped hi- in his 0or", as cler", and that polic/ 0as -erel/ a rene0al and 0as issued because Isidro had called b/ telephone to rene0, and at that ti-e, her husband, Rodolfo, 0as absent and so she left a note on top of her husbandCs des" to rene0 ...
VIII. LATIN MAXIMS | CASSUS OMISSUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS EST | | STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION |
5 f o 5 e g a P
AISPORNA vs COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No L-39419 (onseBuentl/, the the trial court found herein petitioner #uilt/ as char#ed. On appeal, the trial courtCs decision 0as affir-ed b/ the respondent appellate court findin# the petitioner #uilt/ of a violation of the first para#raph of Section $1& of the Insurance !ct. 9ence, this present recourse 0as filed on October ++, $&'%.
'
In its resolution of October +1, $&'%, ( this (ourt resolved, 0ithout #ivin# due course to this instant petition, to reBuire the respondent to co--ent on the aforesaid petition. In the co--ent ) filed on Dece-ber +5, $&'%, the respondent, represented b/ the Office of the Solicitor )eneral, sub-itted that petitioner -a/ not be considered as havin# violated Section $1& of the Insurance !ct. ! On !pril *, $&'4, petitioner sub-itted his <rief 9 0hile the Solicitor )eneral, on behalf of the respondent, filed a -anifestation 1* in lieu of a <rief on Ma/ *, $&'4 reiteratin# his stand that the petitioner has not violated Section $1& of the Insurance !ct.
11
In see"in# reversal of the ud#-ent of conviction, petitioner assi#ns the follo0in# errors alle#edl/ co--itted b/ the appellate court6
$. T9: R:SPOND:NT (O>RT OF !PP:!@S :RR:D IN FINDIN) T9!T R:(:IPT OF (OMP:NS!TION IS NOT !N :SS:NTI!@ :@:M:NT OF T9: (RIM: D:FIN:D <? T9: FIRST P!R!)R!P9 OF S:(TION $1& OF T9: INS>R!N(: !(T.
+. T9: R:SPOND:NT (O>RT OF !PP:!@S :RR:D IN )IVIN) D>: A:I)9T TO :9I<ITS F, F$, TO F$', IN(@>SIV: S>FFI(I:NT TO :ST!<@IS9 P:TITION:RCS )>I@T <:?OND R:!SON!<@: DO><T.
*. T9: R:SPOND:NT (O>RT OF !PP:!@S :RR:D IN NOT !(G>ITTIN) 9:R:IN P:TITION:R.
Ae find the petition -eritorious.
The -ain issue raised is 0hether or not a person can be convicted of havin# violated the first para#raph of Section $1& of the Insurance !ct 0ithout reference to the second para#raph of the sa-e section. In other 0ords, it is necessar/ to deter-ine 0hether or not the a#ent -entioned in the first para#raph of the aforesaid section is #overned b/ the definition of an insurance a#ent found on its second para#raph.
The pertinent provision of Section $1& of the Insurance !ct reads as follo0s6
No insurance co-pan/ doin# business 0ithin the Philippine Islands, nor an/ a#ent thereof, shall pa/ an/ co--ission or other co-pensation to an/ person for services in obtainin# ne0 insurance, unless such person shall have first procured fro- the Insurance (o--issioner a certificate certific ate of authorit/ to act as an a#ent of such co-pan/ as hereinafter provided. No person shall act as a#ent, suba#ent, or bro"er in the solicitation of procure-ent of applications for insurance, or receive for services in obtainin# ne0 insurance, an/ co--ission or other co-pensation fro- an/ insurance co-pan/ doin# business in the Philippine Phil ippine Islands, or a#ent thereof, 0ithout first procurin# a certificate of authorit/ so to act fro- the Insurance (o--issioner, 0hich -ust be rene0ed annuall/ on the first da/ of 7anuar/, or 0ithin si si= = -onths thereafter. Such certificate shall be issued b/ the Insurance (o--issioner onl/ upon the 0ritten application of persons desirin# such authorit/, such application bein# approved and countersi#ned b/ the co-pan/ such person desires to represent, and shall be upon a for- approved b/ the Insurance (o--issioner, #ivin# such infor-ation as he -a/ reBuire. The Insurance (o--issioner shall have the ri#ht to refuse to issue i ssue or rene0 and to revo"e an/ such certificate in his discretion. No such certificate shall be valid, ho0ever, in an/ event after the first da/ of 7ul/ of the /ear follo0in# the issuin# of such certificate. Rene0al certificates -a/ be issued upon the application of the co-pan/.
!n/ person 0ho for compensation solicits compensation solicits or obtains insurance on behalf of an/ insurance co-pan/, or trans-its for a person other than hi-self an application for a polic/ polic / of insurance to or fro- such co-pan/ or offers or assu-es to act in the ne#otiatin# of such insurance, shall be an insurance agent within the intent of this section, and shall thereb/ beco-e liable to all the duties, reBuire-ents, liabilities, liabili ties, and penalties to 0hich an a#ent of such co-pan/ is subect.
!n/ person or co-pan/ violatin# the provisions of this section shall be fined in the su- of of five hundred pesos. On the conviction of an/ person actin# as a#ent, suba#ent, or bro"er, of the co--ission of an/
VIII. LATIN MAXIMS | CASSUS OMISSUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS EST | | STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION |
5 f o 5 e g a P
AISPORNA vs COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No L-39419 offense connected 0ith the business of insurance, the Insurance (o--issioner shall i--ediatel/ revo"e the certificate of authorit/ issued to hi- and no such certificate certifi cate shall thereafter be issued to such convicted person.
! careful perusal of the aboveBuoted aboveBuoted provision sho0s that the first para#raph the thereof reof prohibits a person fro- actin# as a#ent, suba#ent or bro"er in the solicitation or procure-ent of applications for insurance 0ithout first procurin# a certificate of authorit/ so to act fro- the Insurance (o--issioner, 0hile its second para#raph defines 0ho is an insurance a#ent 0ithin the intent of this section and, finall/, the third para#raph thereof prescribes the penalt/ to be i-posed for its violation.
The respondent appellate court ruled that the petitioner is prosecuted not under the second para#raph of Section $1& of the aforesaid !ct but under its first para#raph. Thus H
... it can no lon#er be denied that it 0as appellantCs -ost active endeavors that resulted in issuance of polic/ to Isidro, she 0as there and then actin# as a#ent, and received the pa/ thereof H her defense that she 0as onl/ actin# as helper of her husband can no lon#er be sustained, neither her point that she received no co-pensation for issuance of the polic/ because
an/ person 0ho for co-pensation solicits or obtains insurance on behalf of an/ insurance co-pan/ or trans-its for a person other than hi-self an application for a polic/ of insurance to or fro- such co-pan/ or offers or assu-es to act in the ne#otiatin# of such insurance, shall be an insurance a#ent 0ithin the intent of this section, and shall thereb/ beco-e liable to all the duties, reBuire-ents, liabilities, liabili ties, and penalties, to 0hich an a#ent of such co-pan/ is subect. para#raph +, Sec. $1&, Insurance @a0,
no0 it is true that infor-ation does not even alle#e that she had obtained the insurance,
for co-pensation
0hich is the #ist of the offense in Section $1& of the Insurance @a0 in its +nd para#raph, but 0hat appellant apparentl/ overloo"s is that she is prosecuted not under the +nd but under the $st para#raph of Sec. $1& 0herein it is provided that,
No person shall act as a#ent, suba#ent, or bro"er, in the solicitation or procure-ent of applications for insurance, or receive for services in obtainin# ne0 insurance an/ co--ission or other co-pensation fro- an/ insurance co-pan/ doin# business in the Philippine Island, or a#ent thereof, 0ithout first procurin# a certificate of authorit/ to act fro- the insurance co--issioner, 0hich -ust be rene0ed annuall/ on the first da/ of 7anuar/, or 0ithin si= -onths thereafter. therefore, there 0as no technical defect in the 0ordin# of the char#e, so that :rrors + and % -ust be overruled.
12
Fro- the above-entioned rulin#, the respondent appellate court see-s to i-pl/ that the definition of an insurance a#ent under the second para#raph of Section $1& is not applicable to the insurance a#ent -entioned in the first para#raph. Parentheticall/, the respondent court concludes that under the second para#raph of Section $1&, a person is an insurance a#ent if he solicits and obtains an insurance for co-pensation, but, in its first para#raph, there is no necessit/ that a person solicits an insurance for co-pensation in order to be called an insurance a#ent.
Ae find this to be a reversible error. !s correctl/ pointed out b/ the Solicitor )eneral, the definition o f an insurance a#ent as found in the second para#raph of Section $1& is intended to define the 0ord a#ent -entioned in the first and second para#raphs of the aforesaid section. More si#nificantl/, in its second para#raph, it is e=plicitl/ provided that the definition of an insurance a#ent is 0ithin the intent of Section $1&. 9ence H
!n/ person 0ho for co-pensation ... shall be an insurance agent within the intent of this section, ...
VIII. LATIN MAXIMS | CASSUS OMISSUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS EST | | STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION |
5 f o 5 e g a P
AISPORNA vs COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No L-39419 Patentl/, the definition of an insurance a#ent under the second para#raph holds true 0ith respect to the a#ent -entioned in the other t0o para#raphs of the said section. The second para#raph of Section $1& is a definition and interpretative i nterpretative clause intended to Bualif/ the ter- a#ent -entioned in both the first and third para#raphs of the aforesaid section.
!ppl/in# the definition of an insurance a#ent in the second second para#raph to the a#ent -entioned -entioned in the first and second para#raphs 0ould #ive har-on/ to the aforesaid three para#raphs of Section $1&. @e#islative intent -ust be ascertained fro- a consideration of the statute as a 0hole. The particular 0ords, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated e=pressions, but the 0hole and ever/ part of the statute -ust be considered in fi=in# the -eanin# of an/ of its parts and in order to produce har-onious 0hole.
13
! statute -ust be so construed as to har-oni;e and #ive effect to all its
14
provisions 0henever possible. The -eanin# of the la0, it -ust be borne in -ind, is not to be e=tracted fro- an/ sin#le part, portion or section or fro- isolated 0ords and phrases, clauses o r sentences but fro- a #eneral consideration or vie0 of the act 1'
as a 0hole. :ver/ part of the statute -ust be interpreted 0ith reference to the conte=t. This -eans that ever/ p art of the statute -ust be considered to#ether 0ith the other parts, and "ept subservient to the #eneral intent of the 0hole enact-ent, not separatel/ and independentl/. 1( More i-portantl/, the doctrine of associated 0ords 2Noscitur a Sociis3 provides that 0here a particular 0ord or phrase in a state-ent is a-bi#uous in itself i tself or is eBuall/ susceptible of various v arious -eanin#s, its true -eanin# -a/ be -ade clear and specific b/ considerin# the co-pan/ in 0hich it is found or 0ith 0hich it is associated.
1)
(onsiderin# that the definition of an insurance a#ent as found in the second para#raph is also applicable to the a#ent -entioned in the first para#raph, to receive a co-pensation b/ the a#ent is an essential ele-ent for a violation of the first para#raph of the aforesaid section. The appellate court has established ulti-atel/ that the petitioneraccused did not receive an/ co-pensation for the issuance of the insurance polic/ of :u#enio Isidro. Isi dro. Nevertheless, the accused 0as convicted b/ the appellate court for, accordin# to the latter, the receipt of co-pensation for issuin# an insurance polic/ is not an essential ele-ent for a violation of the first para#raph of Section $1& of the Insurance !ct.
Ae rule other0ise. >nder the Te=as Penal (ode $&$$, !rticle 81&, -a"in# it a -isde-eanor for an/ person for direct or indirect co-pensation to solicit insurance 0ithout a certificate of authorit/ to act as an insurance a#ent, an infor-ation, failin# to alle#e that the solicitor 0as to receive co-pensation either directl/ or indirectl/, char#es no offense. 1! In the case of <olen vs. Sta"e, 19 the provision of Section *'45, Sn/derCs (o-piled @a0s of O"laho-a $&5& is intended to penali;e persons onl/ 0ho acted as insurance solicitors 0ithout license, and 0hile actin# in such capacit/ ne#otiated and concluded insurance contracts for co-pensation. It -ust be noted that the infor-ation, in the case at bar, does not alle#e that the ne#otiation of an insurance contracts b/ the accused 0ith :u#enio Isidro 0as one for co-pensation. This alle#ation is essential, and havin# been o-itted, a conviction of the accused could not be sustained. It is 0ellsettled in Our urisprudence that to 0arrant conviction, ever/ ele-ent of the cri-e -ust be alle#ed and proved.
2*
!fter #oin# over the records of this case, Ae are full/ convinced, as the Solicitor )eneral -aintains, that accused did not violate Section $1& of the Insurance !ct.
A9:R:FOR:, the ud#-ent appealed fro- is reversed and the accused is acBuitted of the cri-e c ri-e char#ed, 0ith costs de oficio. oficio. SO ORD:R:D. Teehankee Teehankee (Acting C.J.,) Makasiar, De Castro, Fernandez, uerrero and Me!encio"#errera, JJ., concur. $!ana, J., took no part. Foo+%o+,s 1 p. 21, Rollo. 2 p. 11, CA Rollo. 3 p. 10, CA Rollo. 4 pp. 2122, Rollo. ! p. ", Rollo. # p. 3#, Rollo. " p. !1, Rollo. $ p. !$, Rollo. % p. #%, Rollo. 10 p. "1, Rollo. 11 p. #%, Rollo& p. #, '()ef fo( *+e Pe*)*)oe(.
12 pp. 2! a- 2#, Rollo. 13 A(ae*a /. Coep)o, %% P+)l. "0%& Taao /. /ell, 3! P+)l. %!3& Lope /. 5l 6oga( 7)l)p)o 7)l)p)o,, 4" P+)l. 24%& C+a(*e(e- 'a8 /. Ipe()al, 4$ P+)l. %31. 14 People /. Polo $# P+)l. 3!0. 1! $2 C.9.S., Se*)o 34!, pp. #%%"00. 1# Taao /. /ell, 3! P+)l. %!3. 1" Co :) C+a /. Val-e Ta :e+ ; <)o, "! P+)l. 3"1. 1$ 9a/pe( /. S*a*e, "3 Te=. C(. R 1%"& 1#4 S.>. $!1. 1% 14% p. 10"4, 11 O8la. C(). !%4. 20 People /. S e/)og, #0 P+)l. #14.
!isporna v. (! of People, $$ $$*S(R!%4& *S(R!%4&
VIII. LATIN MAXIMS | CASSUS OMISSUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS EST | | STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION |
5 f o 5 e g a P
AISPORNA vs COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No L-39419 !ISPORN! VS (! Facts Mapalad !isporna 0as accused of actin# as an a#ent in solicitin# insurance 0ithout securin# the certifi certificate cate of authorit/ fro- the Insurance (o--ission in violation of section $1& of the Insurance !ct. Mapalad contended that bein# the 0ife of a true a#ent, Rodolfo, she naturall/ helped hi- in his 0or". She said the polic/ issued to Isidro, a cient, 0as -erel/ a rene0al at the ti-e 0hen her husband 0as absent. Issue Aas Mapalad an insurance a#ent 0ithin the scope or intent of the Insurance !ct 9eld No. The first para#raph of section $1& prohibits a person fro- actin# as a#ent, suba#ent or bro"er in the solicitation or procure-ent of applications for insurance 0ithout first procurin# a certificate of authorit/ so to act fro- the Insurance (o--issioner the second para#raph defines 0ho is an insurance a#ent 0ithin the intent of the section and the third para#raph prescribes the penalt/ to be i-posed for its violation. @e#islative intent -ust be ascertained fro- a consideration of the statute as a 0hole. The particular 0ords, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated e=pressions, but the 0hole and ever/ part of the statute -ust be considered in fi=in# the -eanin# of an/ of its parts and in order to produce har-onious 0hole.
5 f o 5 e g a P
VIII. LATIN MAXIMS | CASSUS OMISSUS PRO OMISSO HABENDUS EST | | STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION |
