DBP POOL V.

RADIO MINDANAO

Facts:
 Radio Mindanao filed a case against DBP (petitioner) and Provident Insurance
Corp. for recovery of insurance benefits.
 Radio Mindanao owns several broadcasting stations all over the country.
Provident covered their transmitter equipment and generating set for Php
13.550M under a fire insurance policy, while DBP covered respondent’s
transmitter, furniture, fixture, and other transmitter facilities for the amount of Php
5, 883, 650 under a fire insurance policy as well.
 Radio Mindanao’s radio station located in SSS Building, Bacolod was razed by a
fire causing damage in the amount of Php 1,044,040. Radio Mindanao sought
recovery under the 2 insurance policies. The claims were denied on the ground
that the cause of the loss was an excepted risk excluded in the policy.
o Company claims that the fire was caused by members of the CPP/NPA.
 This prompted Radio Mindanao to file the civil case.
 RTC: Ruled in favor of Radio Mindanao.
 CA: Affirmed the decision but reduced the interest rate to 6% pa.
o Both courts found that petitioner was not able to prove that the instant
case falls under the excepted risks mentioned in the policy. The police
blotter did not categorically state that the 20 armed men who burned the
station were CPP/NPA members. They were only believed to be or
suspected to be members. Even Rochas, a policeman who testified,
admitted that he was not sure that the said armed men were members of
the CPP/NPA. The only witness who testified that they were CPP/NPA
members was Torres. However, his testimony canot be conclusive proof
since he did not personally see the armed men as he tried to pursue
them. Also, he was presened as an ordinary witness and not an expert
witness. Hence, his opinion on the identity or membership of the armed
men is not admissible. With respect to Celso Magsilang, who claims to be
a member of NPA-NIROC, being an admission of person which is not a
party to the present action, is likewise inadmissible under Sec. 22, Rule
130.
 Hence, the instant petition.

Issues and Held:

 WoN the CA erred in sustaining the RTC decision- NO.
o The Court will not disturb factual findings absent compelling or
exceptional reasons. Petitioner was not able to show exceptional
circumstances that would warrant departure from the above findings.
o DBP: it is Radio Mindanao who has the burden of proving that the cause
of the damage/loss is covered by the insurance policy, as stipulated in the
insurance policy:
 In any action, suit or other proceeding where the Companies
allege that by reason of the provisions of this condition any loss or
damage is not covered by this insurance, the burden of proving
that such loss or damage is covered shall be upon the Insured.
o Court: The burden of proof contemplated by the provision actually refers
to the burden of evidence. As applied in the case, it refers to the duty of
the insured to show that the loss or damage is covered by the policy.
 o Burden of Proof- duty of any party to present evidence to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law, which is
preponderance of evidence in civil cases.
o Insurance: an insurer seeking to defeat a claim because of an exception
or limitation in the policy has the burden of proving that the loss comes
within the purview of the exception or limitation set up.
 Consequently, it is sufficiently for private respondent to prove the
fact of damage or loss. Once it makes out a prima facie case in its
favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to petitioner to
controvert respondent’s prima facie case.
o Unfortunately, petitioner failed to discharge this burden.
o DBP: Insists that the evidence on record established the identity of the
author of the damage. The lower courts erred in not appreciating the
reports of Torres and Rochar that the bystanders they interviewed
claimed that the perpetrators were members of the CPPNPA as an
exception to the hearsay rule as part of res gestae.
o Court: A witness can only testify as to facts which he knows of his
personal knowledge, which means those facts which are derived from his
perception. Otherwise, such is hearsay and may not be admitted.
o Res Gestae- refers to those exclamations and statements made by either
the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before,
during, or after the commission of the crime, when the circumstances are
such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or
utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no
opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false
statement.
o The Court is not convinced to accept the declarations as part of res
gestae. While it may concede that these statements were made by the
bystanders during a startling occurrence, it cannot be said however, that
these utterances were made spontaneously by the bystanders and before
they had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood
o Rochar and Torres received the bystanders statements when they were
making their investigations during and after the fire, hence the
bystanders already had enough time and opportunity to mill around, talk
to one another and exchange information, not to mention theories and
speculations, as is the usual experience in disquieting situations where
hysteria is likely to take place. It cannot therefore be ascertained whether
these utterances were the products of truth.

Ruling:
 Petition dismissed.