Haystack: Aisporna v.

CA [GR L-39419, 12 April 1982]

Posted by Berne Guerrero under (a) oas , haystacks

Aisporna v. CA [GR L-39419, 12 April 1982]

First Division, de Castro (p): 5 concur, 1 took no part
Facts: Since 7 March and on 21 June 1969, a Personal Accident Policy was issued by Perla Compania de Seguros,
through its authorized agent Rodolfo Aisporna, for a period of 12 months with the beneficiary designated as Ana M.
Isidro. The insured died by violence during lifetime of policy. Mapalad Aisporna participated actively with the
aforementioned policy. For reason unexplained, an information was filed against Mapalad Aisporna, Rodolfos wife,
with the City Court of Cabanatuan for violation of Section 189 of the Insurance Act on 21 November 1970, or acting
as an agent in the soliciting insurance without securing the certificate of authority from the office of the Insurance
Commissioner. Mapalad contends that being the wife of true agent, Rodolfo, she naturally helped him in his work,
as clerk, and that policy was merely a renewal and was issued because Isidro had called by telephone to renew,
and at that time, her husband, Rodolfo, was absent and so she left a note on top of her husbands desk to renew.
On 2 August 1971, the trial court found Mapalad guilty and sentenced here to pay a fine of P500.00 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
On appeal and on 14 August 1974, the trial courts decision was affirmed by the appellate court (CA-GR 13243-CR)
finding the Aisporna guilty of a violation of the first paragraph of Section 189 of the Insurance Act. Hence, the
present recourse was filed on 22 October 1974. In its 28 October 1974 resolution the Court resolved, without
giving due course to this instant petition, to require the respondent to comment on the aforesaid petition. In the
comment filed on 20 December 1974, the OSG, representing the CA, submitted that Aisporna may not be
considered as having violated Section 189 of the Insurance Act. On 3 April 1975, Aisporna submitted his Brief
while the Solicitor General filed a manifestation in lieu of a Brief on 3 May 1975 reiterating his stand that Aisporna
has not violated Section 189 of the Insurance Act.
The Supreme Court reversed the appealed judgment and acquitted the accused of the crime charged, with costs de
oficio.
1.

Scope of the law; Definition of Insurance Agent

The first paragraph of Section 189 prohibits a person from acting as agent, subagent or broker in the solicitation or
procurement of applications for insurance without first procuring a certificate of authority so to act from the
Insurance Commissioner; second paragraph defines who is an insurance agent within the intent of this section;
and, third paragraph prescribes the penalty to be imposed for its violation. In the case at bar, the appellate court
ruled that the petitioner is prosecuted not under the second paragraph of Section 189 but under its first paragraph.
This was a reversible error as the definition of insurance agent in paragraph 2 applies to the paragraph 1 and 2 of
Section 189, to wit Any person who for compensation shall be an insurance agent within the intent of this section.
2.

Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole; Doctrine of

Noscitur a Sociis
Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole. The particular words, clauses
and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of the
statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce harmonious whole. A
statute must be so construed as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions whenever possible. The meaning
of the law, it must be borne in mind, is not to be extracted from any single part, portion or section or from isolated
words and phrases, clauses or sentences but from a general consideration or view of the act as a whole. Every part
of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context. This means that every part of the statute must be
considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment, not
separately and independently.
The doctrine of associated words (Noscitur a Sociis) provides that where a particular word or phrase in a statement
is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings, its true meaning may be made clear and
specific by considering the company in which it is found or with which it is associated.
3.

Every element of the crime must be alleged and proved to warrant conviction

A law making it a misdemeanor for any person for direct or indirect compensation to solicit insurance without a
certificate of authority to act as an insurance agent, an information, failing to allege that the solicitor was to receive
compensation either directly or indirectly, charges no offense. In the case at bar, the information does not allege

that the negotiation of an insurance contract by the accused with Eugenio Isidro was one for compensation. This
allegation is essential, and having been omitted, a conviction of the accused could not be sustained. To warrant
conviction, every element of the crime must be alleged and proved.
Digest: Aisporna v. CA (GR L-39419, 12 April 1982)
Posted by Berne Guerrero under (a) oas , digests

Aisporna v. CA
GR L-39419, 12 April 1982 (113 SCRA 459)
First Division, de Castro (p): 5 concur, 1 took no part
Facts: Since 7 March and on 21 June 1969, a Personal Accident Policy was issued by Perla Compania de Seguros,
through its authorized agent Rodolfo Aisporna, for a period of 12 months with the beneficiary designated as Ana M.
Isidro. The insured died by violence during lifetime of policy. Mapalad Aisporna participated actively with the
aforementioned policy.
For reason unexplained, an information was filed against Mapalad Aisporna, Rodolfos wife, with the City Court of
Cabanatuan for violation of Section 189 of the Insurance Act on 21 November 1970, or acting as an agent in the
soliciting insurance without securing the certificate of authority from the office of the Insurance Commissioner.
Mapalad contends that being the wife of true agent, Rodolfo, she naturally helped him in his work, as clerk, and
that policy was merely a renewal and was issued because Isidro had called by telephone to renew, and at that
time, her husband, Rodolfo, was absent and so she left a note on top of her husbands desk to renew. On 2 August
1971, the trial court found Mapalad guilty and sentenced here to pay a fine of P500.00 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. On appeal and on 14 August 1974, the trial courts
decision was affirmed by the appellate court (CA-GR 13243-CR). Hence, the present recourse was filed on 22
October 1974. On 20 December 1974, the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the Court of Appeals,
submitted that Aisporna may not be considered as having violated Section 189 of the Insurance Act.
Issue: Whether Mapalad Aisporna is an insurance agent within the scope or intent of the Insurance Act
Held: Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as a whole. The particular words,
clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part of
the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce harmonious whole.
In the present case, the first paragraph of Section 189 prohibits a person from acting as agent, subagent or broker
in the solicitation or procurement of applications for insurance without first procuring a certificate of authority so to
act from the Insurance Commissioner; while the second paragraph defines who is an insurance agent within the
intent of the section; while the third paragraph prescribes the penalty to be imposed for its violation. The appellate
courts ruling that the petitioner is prosecuted not under the second paragraph of Section 189 but under its first
paragraph is a reversible error, as the definition of insurance agent in paragraph 2 applies to the paragraph 1 and 2
of Section 189, which is any person who for compensation shall be an insurance agent within the intent of this
section. Without proof of compensation, directly or indirectly, received from the insurance policy or contract,
Mapalad Aisporna may not be held to have violated Section 189 of the Insurance Act.
The Supreme Court reversed the appealed judgment and acquitted the accused of the crime charged, with costs de
oficio