Ayala Land, Inc. v. Standard Insurance Co., Inc.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 241349. October 17, 2018.]

AYALA LAND, INC., petitioner, vs.STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 17, 2018which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 241349 — Ayala Land, Inc. vs. Standard Insurance Co., Inc.

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by Ayala Land, Inc. (Ayala Land) assailing the Decision 2 dated April 13, 2018 and Resolution 3 dated August 7, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 108746, which affirmed the Decision dated January 26, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 65 in dismissing the complaint for Specific Performance and Damages filed by Ayala Land against Standard Insurance Co., Inc. (Standard Insurance).

After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to DENY the petition filed by Ayala Land for its failure to show that the CA erred in affirming the dismissal of its complaint for specific performance and damages against Standard Insurance.

At the outset, We must emphasize that the Court's review of the present case is through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which generally bars any question pertaining to the factual issues raised. It is well-settled that questions of fact are not reviewable in petitions for review under Rule 45. 4 The question of whether or not the explosion that occurred in Glorietta 2 (G2) in Makati on October 19, 2007, was caused by the build-up of methane gas and diesel vapor in the basement of the mall or whether the same was caused by an explosive device are questions of fact which cannot be entertained in the present case. Further, it is a settled rule that findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect, especially so, such as in this case that the RTC and the CA are all in agreement that Ayala Land cannot recover under its Commercial "All Risks" Collective Policy (COMMAR Policy) with Standard Insurance since the loss or damage of the property insured was caused by an excluded peril under the policy. Thus, we see no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the RTC and CA without any evidence of such nature that would convince this Court to overturn, much less, modify the findings of the lower courts. aScITE

In the instant case, Ayala Land entered into an "all risks" policy with Standard Insurance, PNB General Insurers Co., Inc., Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation and UCPB General Insurance Corporation, (collectively referred to as Insurers). Under the policy, it is specified that Standard Insurance and the other co-insurers, undertook to indemnify Ayala Land for any:

SUDDEN AND ACCIDENTAL PHYSICAL DESTRUCTION OF OR DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY, REDUCTION IN GROSS EARNINGS AND LOSS OF RENT MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE HERETO DIRECTLY AND WHOLLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY CAUSE, EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER EXCLUDED, OCCURRING DURING THE CURRENCY OF THE POLICY. 5 (Emphasis ours)

An all risk insurance policy "insured against all causes of conceivable loss or damage except when otherwise excluded or when the loss or damage was due to fraud or intentional misconduct committed by the insured." 6

In the present case, Standard Insurance undertake to indemnify Ayala Land in any sudden and accidental physical destruction or damage of its property except if the damage or destruction was caused by an excluded risk. Under the insurance, the following circumstances are the excluded perils, to wit:

EXCLUDED PERILS

UNLESS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY AGREED this insurance does not cover any destruction or damage occasioned by or through or in consequence of, directly or indirectly, any of the following:

1) Pollution, whatever the cause;

2) a. War, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not), civil war; HEITAD

   b. Mutiny, military or popular rising, insurrection, rebellion, revolution, military or usurped power, martial law or state of siege or any of the event or causes which determine the proclamation or maintenance of martial law or state of siege;

   c. Acts of terrorism committed by a person or persons acting on behalf of or on connection with any organization.

For the purpose of this Exclusion, 'terrorism' means the use of violence for political ends and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear.

xxx xxx xxx. 7 (Emphasis ours)

The general rule is that the insured has the burden of proof to show that the loss or damage was caused by a covered peril. 8 However, in case of an "all-risk policy insurance," the insurer has the duty to establish that the loss or damage falls within the excluded risk or perils. 9

Here, Standard Insurance has discharged its burden by proving that the destruction of the G2 was caused by an excluded peril.

Ayala Land has numerously declared and as found by Ayala Land's own investigators, that the explosion was caused by an explosive device, which constitutes as an act of terrorism. In fact, Ayala Land released an Official Press Statement stating its disappointment as to the finding of Multi-Agency Task Force that the cause of the explosion was the build up of methane gas and diesel vapor at the basement and not due to an explosive device, to wit:

Our own assessment shows due diligence and care was exercised in the maintenance of the basement where the explosion appears to have occurred. Moreover, we believe that the conditions in the basement could not have resulted in the build up of methane and diesel vapor required for such a powerful blast.

We requested the PNP to be open to investigating all possibilities. It will be recalled that the PNP has said that it would welcome cooperation from all sectors. Within this spirit of cooperation, we have shared lab results from foreign forensic experts we had consulted that indicate that traces of explosives were present at the site. While we acknowledge the authority of the PNP and the multi-agency task force as the official investigating body, we are disappointed that the evidence we have shared appears not to have been considered. 10 (Emphasis in the original) ATICcS

To suddenly claim that the explosion was not caused by an explosive device simply because Malayan Insurance denied its claim under its Terrorism policy with the latter is merely an afterthought that cannot be considered by this Court. "[A] man's acts, conduct, and declaration, wherever made, if voluntary, are admissible against him, for the reason that it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth." 11

Nevertheless, even if we are to rule that the explosion was caused by the build up of methane gas and diesel vapor at the basement, the same does not help Ayala Land's cause. As stated in the COMMAR Policy, pollution of whatever cause is also an excluded peril.

Chapter 1, Article Two, Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 8749, 12 also known as the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 states that:

Sec. 5. Definitions. — x x x

xxx xxx xxx

b) "Air pollution" means any alteration of the physical, chemical and biological properties of the atmospheric air, or any discharge thereto of any liquid, gaseous or solid substances that will or is likely to create or to render the air resources of the country harmful, detrimental, or injurious to public health, safety or welfare or which will adversely affect their utilization for domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate purposes[.]

Thus, because of the leakage and build up of methane gas and diesel vapor at the basement, Standard Insurance has a valid ground to deny Ayala Land's insurance claim.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 13, 2018 and Resolution dated August 7, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 108746 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED." Bersamin, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per S.O. No. 2606 dated October 10, 2018; Jardeleza, J., no part; Leonen, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated October 10, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 2607 dated October 10, 2018, on leave. TIADCc

 

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-29.

2.Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon, and Pablito A. Perez; id. at 35-50.

3.Id. at 51-52.

4.Guevarra, et al. v. People of the Philippines, 726 Phil. 183, 192 (2014).

5.Rollo, p. 66.

6.New World International Dev't. (Phils.), Inc. v. NYK-Fil-Japan Shipping Corp., et al., 671 Phil. 638, 647 (2011).

7.Rollo, pp. 88-89.

8.Filipino Merchants Insurance Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Choa Tiek Seng, 259 Phil. 262, 268 (1989).

9.Choa Tiek Seng v. Court of Appeals, et al., 262 Phil. 245, 256 (1990).

10.Rollo, pp. 37-38.

11.Unchuan v. Lozada, et al., 603 Phil. 410, 425 (2009).

12.AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL POLICY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved June 23, 1999.