9 - Aisporna v. CA (GR L-39419, 12 April 1982)

Published on 2 weeks ago | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 1 | Comments: 0 | Views: 67
of x
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

 

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. L-39419 April 12, 1982 MAPALAD AISPORNA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT O APPEALS !"# THE PEOPLE O THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. 

DE CASTRO,

J.:

In this petition for certiorari, petitioneraccused !isporna see"s the reversal of the decision dated  !u#ust $%, $&'% 1 in (!).R. No. $*+%*(R entitled People of the Philippines, plaintiffappellee, vs. Mapalad !isporna, defendantappellant 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/, 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, $&8&, in the (it/ of (abanatuan, Republic of the Philippines, and 0ithin the urisdiction of this 9onorable (ourt, the abovena-ed accused, did then and there, 0ilfull/, unla0full/ and feloniousl/ act as a#ent in the solicitation or procure-ent of an application for insurance b/ solicitin# therefor the application of one :u#enio S. Isidro, for and in behalf of Perla (o-pania de Se#uros, Inc., a dul/ or#ani;ed insurance co-pan/, re#istered under the la0s of the Republic of the Philippines, resultin# in the issuance of a <road Personal !ccident Polic/ No. +1PIRS! 555$ 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, $&'5, :=h. ( on that date, at (abanatuan (it/, Personal !ccident Polic/, :=h. D 0as issued b/ Perla thru its author representative, Rodolfo S. !isporna, for a period of t0elve 2$+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 private prosecutor, char#in# 0ife of Rodolfo 0ith violation of Sec. $1& of Insurance @a0 for

 

havin#, 0ilfull/, unla0full/, and feloniousl/ acted, as a#ent in the solicitation for insurance b/ solicitin# therefore the application of one :u#enio S. Isidro 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 ... (onseBuentl/, 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. 8 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. In see"in# reversal of the ud#-ent of conviction, petitioner assi#ns the follo0in# errors 11 alle#edl/ co--itted b/ the appellate court6 $. T9: R:SPOND:NT (O>RT OF !PP:[email protected] :RR:D IN FINDIN) T9!T R:(:IPT OF (OMP:NS!TION IS NOT !N :SS:[email protected] :@:M:NT OF T9: (RIM: D:FIN:D <? T9: FIRST P!R!)R!P9 OF S:(TION $1& OF O F T9: INS>R!N(:  !(T. +. T9: R:SPOND:NT (O>RT OF !PP:[email protected] :RR:D IN )IVIN) D>: A:I)9T TO :9I<ITS F, F$, TO F$', IN(@>SIV: S>FFI(I:NT TO :ST!<@IS9 P:TITION:RCS )>[email protected] <:?OND R:!SON!<@: DO><T. *. T9: R:SPOND:NT (O>RT OF !PP:[email protected] :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 of authorit/ to act as an a#ent of such co-pan/ as hereinafter provided. No person shall act as a#ent, suba#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 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= -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 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/ 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, and penalties to 0hich an a#ent of such co-pan/ is subect.  !n/ person or co-pan/ violatin# the the provisions of this section section shall be fined in the su- of five hundred pesos. On the conviction of an/ person actin# as a#ent, sub a#ent, or bro"er, of the co--ission of an/ 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 shall thereafter be issued to such convicted person.  ! careful perusal of the the aboveBuoted provision sho0s that the the first para#raph thereof prohibits prohibits a person fro- actin# as a#ent, suba#ent or bro"er in the solicitation or procure-ent of applications for insurance 0ithout first procurin# a certificate authorit/ a#ent so to act froInsurance 0hile its second para#raph defines 0ho is anofinsurance 0ithin thethe intent of this (o--issioner, 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 ofanan/ insurance trans-its for a person other than hi-self application forco-pan/ a polic/ or 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, and penalties, to 0hich an a#ent of such co-pan/ is subect. 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, suba#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 of 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 co-pensation ... shall be an insurance agent within the intent of   this section, ... 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 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 insurance a#ent in the second para#raph to the a#ent -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 provisions 0henever possible. 14 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 or sentences but fro- a #eneral consideration or vie0 of the act as a 0hole.  1$ :ver/ part of the statute -ust be interpreted 0ith reference to the conte=t. This -eans that ever/ part 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 or is eBuall/ susceptible of various -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 petitioneraccused did not receive an/ co-pensation for the issuance of the insurance polic/ of :u#enio Isidro. 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# to18alle#e that the solicitor 0as to receive co-pensation either directl/ or indirectl/, char#es no offense.  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 0ellsettled 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 records of this case, Ae are full/ convinced, as the Solicitor 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 char#ed, 0ith costs de oficio. oficio. SO ORD:R:D. Teehankee (Acting C.J.,) Makasiar, De Castro, Fernandez, uerrero and Me!encio"#errera, JJ., concur. $!ana, J., took no part.

oo("o()*

$ p. +$, Rollo.

 

+ p. $$, (! Rollo. * p. $5, (! Rollo. % pp. +$++, Rollo. 4 p. ', Rollo. 8 p. *8, Rollo. ' p. 4$, Rollo. 1 p. 41, Rollo. & p. 8&, Rollo. $5 p. '$, Rollo. $$ p. 8&, Rollo p. 8, <rief for the Petitioner. $+ pp. +4 and +8, Rollo. $* !raneta vs. (oncepcion, && Phil. '5& Ta-a/o vs. )sell, *4 Phil. &4* @ope; vs. :l 9o#ar Filipino, %' Phil. +%& (hartered <an" vs. I-perial, %1 Phil. &*$. $% People vs. Pol-on 18 Phil. *45. $4 1+ (.7.S., Section *%4, pp. 8&&'55. $8 Ta-a/o vs. )sell, *4 Phil. &4*. $' (o i- (ha- vs. Valde; Tan eh J Di;on, '4 Phil. *'$. $1 7asper vs. State, '* Te=. (r. R $&' $8% S.A. 14$. $& $%& p. $5'%, $$ O"la. (ri-. 4&%. +5 People vs. S/ )esion#, 85 Phil. 8$%.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close