11. Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, Inc. v. Fieldmens Insurance Co.,Inc. INSURANCE GR No.

L-28772Date: September 21, 1983 Petitioner: Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, Inc.Respondent: Fieldmens Insurance Co., Inc. Facts: Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, Inc., a domestic religious corporation, had an insurable interest in aChevrolet Carry-all which was insured with the Fieldmens Insurance Co., Inc under its Private Car ComprehensivePolicy. Dr. Antonio Lim, the representative of the association, placed the Chevrolet at the Jones Monument MobilgasService Station at Davao City for it to be displayed as being for sale. The Chevrolet was under the care of thestations operator Rene Te. Romeo Catiben, one of the boys at the Jones Monument Mobilgas Service Station, and anephew 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 anelectric post causing actual damages. The trial court ordered the insurance company to pay the association P5000 asindemnity for the damage sustained by the vehicle. Dissatisfied, the insurance company filed an appeal to theappellate court. Issue: Whether there must be prior criminal conviction of Romeo Catiben for theft for the damage to the Chevrolet to becompensable under the Fieldmans 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 byburglary or theft. It is settled that the act of Catiben in taking the vehicle for a joy ride to Toril, Davao City, constitutestheft within the meaning of the insurance policy and that recovery for damage to the car is not barred by the illegaluse 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 takenthe vehicle for a joy ride and while the same was in his possession he bumped it against an electric post resulting indamages. The act is theft within a policy of insurance. In a civil action for recovery on an automobile insurance, thequestion whether a person using a certain automobile at the time of the accident stole it or not is to be determined bya 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 thef