Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, Inc. v. Fieldmen’s Insurance Co.

,
Inc.

Petitioners/plaintiffs/Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, Inc.

Respondent/defendant: Fieldmen’s Insurance Co., Inc.

Facts:
Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, Inc., a domestic very religious corporation, had an insurable interest in
a Chevrolet Carry-all in promo which was insured with the Fieldmen’s Insurance Co., Inc under its Private Car
Comprehensive Policy. Dr. Antonio Lim, the representative of the association, placed the Chevrolet at the Jones
Monument Mobilgas Service Station at Davao City for it to be displayed as being for sale. The Chevrolet was under
the care of the station’s operator Rene Te. Romeo Catiben, one of the boys at the Jones Monument Mobilgas Service
Station, and a nephew of the wife of Rene Te, took the Chevrolet for a joy ride to Toril, Davao City without the prior
permission of Lim or Te and on its way back to Davao City, the Chevrolet, due to some mechanical defect,
accidentally bumped an electric post causing actual damages. The trial court ordered the insurance company to pay
the association P5000 as indemnity for the damage sustained by the vehicle. Dissatisfied, the insurance company
filed an appeal to the appellate court.

Issue:
Whether there must be prior criminal conviction of Romeo Catiben for theft for the damage to the Chevrolet to be
compensable under the Fieldman’s Private Car Comprehensive Policy

Held:
Prior conviction of Catiben is not necessary. The insurance company is liable to pay the association.

Rationale:
The comprehensive policy issued by the insurance company includes loss of or damage to the motor vehicle by
burglary or theft. It is settled that the act of Catiben in taking the vehicle for a joy ride to Toril, Davao City, constitutes
theft within the meaning of the insurance policy and that recovery for damage to the car is not barred by the illegal
use of the car by one of the station boys. There need be no prior conviction for the crime of theft to make an insurer
liable under the theft clause of the policy. Upon the facts stipulated by the parties it is admitted that Catiben had taken
the vehicle for a joy ride and while the same was in his possession he bumped it against an electric post resulting in
damages. The act is theft within a policy of insurance. In a civil action for recovery on an automobile insurance, the
question whether a person using a certain automobile at the time of the accident stole it or not is to be determined by
a fair preponderance of evidence and not by the rule of criminal law requiring proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Besides, there is no provision in the policy requiring prior criminal conviction for theft.

Lesley Claudio 3A Atty. Tranquil Salvador III