Anda di halaman 1dari 6

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

L-39419 April 12, 1982 MAPALAD AISPORNA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT O APPEALS !"# THE PEOPLE O THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

DE CASTRO, J.: In this petition for certiorari, petitioner accused !isporna see"s the reversal of the decision dated !u#ust $%, $&'% 1 in (! ).R. No. $*+%* (R entitled ,People of the Philippines, plaintiff appellee, vs. Mapalad !isporna, defendant appellant, of respondent (ourt of !ppeals affir-in# the .ud#-ent of the (it/ (ourt of (abanatuan 2 rendered on !u#ust +, $&'$ 0hich found the petitioner #uilt/ for havin# violated Section $1& of the Insurance !ct 2!ct No. +%+', as a-ended3 and sentenced her to pa/ a fine of P455.55 0ith subsidiar/ i-prison-ent in case of insolvenc/, and to pa/ the costs. Petitioner !isporna 0as char#ed in the (it/ (ourt of (abanatuan for violation of Section $1& of the Insurance !ct on Nove-ber +$, $&'5 in an infor-ation 3 0hich reads as follo0s6 That on or before the +$st da/ of 7une, $&8&, in the (it/ of (abanatuan, Republic of the Philippines, and 0ithin the .urisdiction of this 9onorable (ourt, the above na-ed accused, did then and there, 0ilfull/, unla0full/ and feloniousl/ act as a#ent in the solicitation or procure-ent of an application for insurance b/ solicitin# therefor the application of one :u#enio S. Isidro, for and in behalf of Perla (o-pania de Se#uros, Inc., a dul/ or#ani;ed insurance co-pan/, re#istered under the la0s of the Republic of the Philippines, resultin# in the issuance of a <road Personal !ccident Polic/ No. +1PI RS! 555$ in the a-ount not e=ceedin# FIV: T9O>S!ND P:SOS 2P4,555.553 dated 7une +$, $&8&, 0ithout said accused havin# first secured a certificate of authorit/ to act as such a#ent fro- the office of the Insurance (o--issioner, Republic of the Philippines. (ONTR!R? TO @!A. The facts, 4 as found b/ the respondent (ourt of !ppeals are Buoted hereunder6 IT R:S>@TIN)6 That there is no debate that since ' March, $&8& and as of +$ 7une, $&8&, appellantCs husband, Rodolfo S. !isporna 0as dul/ licensed b/ Insurance (o--ission as a#ent to Perla (o-pania de Se#uros, 0ith license to e=pire on *5 7une, $&'5, :=h. (D on that date, at (abanatuan (it/, Personal !ccident Polic/, :=h. D 0as issued b/ Perla thru its author representative, Rodolfo S. !isporna, for a period of t0elve 2$+3 -onths 0ith beneficiar/ as !na M. Isidro, and for P4,555.55D apparentl/, insured died b/ violence durin# lifeti-e of polic/, and for reasons not e=plained in record, present infor-ation 0as filed b/ Fiscal, 0ith assistance of private prosecutor, char#in# 0ife of Rodolfo 0ith violation of Sec. $1& of Insurance @a0 for

havin#, 0ilfull/, unla0full/, and feloniousl/ acted, ,as a#ent in the solicitation for insurance b/ solicitin# therefore the application of one :u#enio S. Isidro for and in behalf of Perla (o-paEa de Se#uros, ... 0ithout said accused havin# first secured a certificate of authorit/ to act as such a#ent fro- the office of the Insurance (o--ission, Republic of the Philippines., and in the trial, People presented evidence that 0as hardl/ disputed, that afore-entioned polic/ 0as issued 0ith active participation of appellant 0ife of Rodolfo, a#ainst 0hich appellant in her defense sou#ht to sho0 that bein# the 0ife of true a#ent, Rodolfo, she naturall/ helped hi- in his 0or", as cler", and that polic/ 0as -erel/ a rene0al and 0as issued because Isidro had called b/ telephone to rene0, and at that ti-e, her husband, Rodolfo, 0as absent and so she left a note on top of her husbandCs des" to rene0 ... (onseBuentl/, the trial court found herein petitioner #uilt/ as char#ed. On appeal, the trial courtCs decision 0as affir-ed b/ the respondent appellate court findin# the petitioner #uilt/ of a violation of the first para#raph of Section $1& of the Insurance !ct. 9ence, this present recourse 0as filed on October ++, $&'%. $ In its resolution of October +1, $&'%, % this (ourt resolved, 0ithout #ivin# due course to this instant petition, to reBuire the respondent to co--ent on the aforesaid petition. In the co--ent & filed on Dece-ber +5, $&'%, the respondent, represented b/ the Office of the Solicitor )eneral, sub-itted that petitioner -a/ not be considered as havin# violated Section $1& of the Insurance !ct. 8 On !pril *, $&'4, petitioner sub-itted his <rief 9 0hile the Solicitor )eneral, on behalf of the respondent, filed a -anifestation 1' in lieu of a <rief on Ma/ *, $&'4 reiteratin# his stand that the petitioner has not violated Section $1& of the Insurance !ct. In see"in# reversal of the .ud#-ent of conviction, petitioner assi#ns the follo0in# errors co--itted b/ the appellate court6
11

alle#edl/

$. T9: R:SPOND:NT (O>RT OF !PP:!@S :RR:D IN FINDIN) T9!T R:(:IPT OF (OMP:NS!TION IS NOT !N :SS:NTI!@ :@:M:NT OF T9: (RIM: D:FIN:D <? T9: FIRST P!R!)R!P9 OF S:(TION $1& OF T9: INS>R!N(: !(T. +. T9: R:SPOND:NT (O>RT OF !PP:!@S :RR:D IN )IVIN) D>: A:I)9T TO :F9I<ITS F, F $, TO F $', IN(@>SIV: S>FFI(I:NT TO :ST!<@IS9 P:TITION:RCS )>I@T <:?OND R:!SON!<@: DO><T. *. T9: R:SPOND:NT (O>RT OF !PP:!@S :RR:D IN NOT !(G>ITTIN) 9:R:IN P:TITION:R. Ae find the petition -eritorious. The -ain issue raised is 0hether or not a person can be convicted of havin# violated the first para#raph of Section $1& of the Insurance !ct 0ithout reference to the second para#raph of the sa-e section. In other 0ords, it is necessar/ to deter-ine 0hether or not the a#ent -entioned in the first para#raph of the aforesaid section is #overned b/ the definition of an insurance a#ent found on its second para#raph. The pertinent provision of Section $1& of the Insurance !ct reads as follo0s6

No insurance co-pan/ doin# business 0ithin the Philippine Islands, nor an/ a#ent thereof, shall pa/ an/ co--ission or other co-pensation to an/ person for services in obtainin# ne0 insurance, unless such person shall have first procured fro- the Insurance (o--issioner a certificate of authorit/ to act as an a#ent of such co-pan/ as hereinafter provided. No person shall act as a#ent, sub a#ent, or bro"er in the solicitation of procure-ent of applications for insurance, or receive for services in obtainin# ne0 insurance, an/ co--ission or other co-pensation fro- an/ insurance co-pan/ doin# business in the Philippine Islands, or a#ent thereof, 0ithout first procurin# a certificate of authorit/ so to act fro- the Insurance (o--issioner, 0hich -ust be rene0ed annuall/ on the first da/ of 7anuar/, or 0ithin si= -onths thereafter. Such certificate shall be issued b/ the Insurance (o--issioner onl/ upon the 0ritten application of persons desirin# such authorit/, such application bein# approved and countersi#ned b/ the co-pan/ such person desires to represent, and shall be upon a for- approved b/ the Insurance (o--issioner, #ivin# such infor-ation as he -a/ reBuire. The Insurance (o--issioner shall have the ri#ht to refuse to issue or rene0 and to revo"e an/ such certificate in his discretion. No such certificate shall be valid, ho0ever, in an/ event after the first da/ of 7ul/ of the /ear follo0in# the issuin# of such certificate. Rene0al certificates -a/ be issued upon the application of the co-pan/. !n/ person 0ho for compensation solicits or obtains insurance on behalf of an/ insurance co-pan/, or trans-its for a person other than hi-self an application for a polic/ of insurance to or fro- such co-pan/ or offers or assu-es to act in the ne#otiatin# of such insurance, shall be an insurance agent within the intent of this section, and shall thereb/ beco-e liable to all the duties, reBuire-ents, liabilities, and penalties to 0hich an a#ent of such co-pan/ is sub.ect. !n/ person or co-pan/ violatin# the provisions of this section shall be fined in the su- of five hundred pesos. On the conviction of an/ person actin# as a#ent, sub a#ent, or bro"er, of the co--ission of an/ offense connected 0ith the business of insurance, the Insurance (o--issioner shall i--ediatel/ revo"e the certificate of authorit/ issued to hi- and no such certificate shall thereafter be issued to such convicted person. ! careful perusal of the above Buoted provision sho0s that the first para#raph thereof prohibits a person fro- actin# as a#ent, sub a#ent or bro"er in the solicitation or procure-ent of applications for insurance 0ithout first procurin# a certificate of authorit/ so to act fro- the Insurance (o--issioner, 0hile its second para#raph defines 0ho is an insurance a#ent 0ithin the intent of this section and, finall/, the third para#raph thereof prescribes the penalt/ to be i-posed for its violation. The respondent appellate court ruled that the petitioner is prosecuted not under the second para#raph of Section $1& of the aforesaid !ct but under its first para#raph. Thus H ... it can no lon#er be denied that it 0as appellantCs -ost active endeavors that resulted in issuance of polic/ to Isidro, she 0as there and then actin# as a#ent, and received the pa/ thereof H her defense that she 0as onl/ actin# as helper of her husband can no lon#er be sustained, neither her point that she received no co-pensation for issuance of the polic/ because an/ person 0ho for co-pensation solicits or obtains insurance on behalf of an/ insurance co-pan/ or trans-its for a person other than hi-self an application for a polic/ of insurance to or fro- such

co-pan/ or offers or assu-es to act in the ne#otiatin# of such insurance, shall be an insurance a#ent 0ithin the intent of this section, and shall thereb/ beco-e liable to all the duties, reBuire-ents, liabilities, and penalties, to 0hich an a#ent of such co-pan/ is sub.ect. para#raph +, Sec. $1&, Insurance @a0, no0 it is true that infor-ation does not even alle#e that she had obtained the insurance, for co-pensation 0hich is the #ist of the offense in Section $1& of the Insurance @a0 in its +nd para#raph, but 0hat appellant apparentl/ overloo"s is that she is prosecuted not under the +nd but under the $st para#raph of Sec. $1& 0herein it is provided that, No person shall act as a#ent, sub a#ent, or bro"er, in the solicitation or procure-ent of applications for insurance, or receive for services in obtainin# ne0 insurance an/ co--ission or other co-pensation fro- an/ insurance co-pan/ doin# business in the Philippine Island, or a#ent thereof, 0ithout first procurin# a certificate of authorit/ to act fro- the insurance co--issioner, 0hich -ust be rene0ed annuall/ on the first da/ of 7anuar/, or 0ithin si= -onths thereafter.
therefore, there 0as no technical defect in the 0ordin# of the char#e, so that :rrors + and % -ust be overruled. 12

Fro- the above -entioned rulin#, the respondent appellate court see-s to i-pl/ that the definition of an insurance a#ent under the second para#raph of Section $1& is not applicable to the insurance a#ent -entioned in the first para#raph. Parentheticall/, the respondent court concludes that under the second para#raph of Section $1&, a person is an insurance a#ent if he solicits and obtains an insurance for co-pensation, but, in its first para#raph, there is no necessit/ that a person solicits an insurance for co-pensation in order to be called an insurance a#ent. Ae find this to be a reversible error. !s correctl/ pointed out b/ the Solicitor )eneral, the definition of an insurance a#ent as found in the second para#raph of Section $1& is intended to define the 0ord ,a#ent, -entioned in the first and second para#raphs of the aforesaid section. More si#nificantl/, in its second para#raph, it is e=plicitl/ provided that the definition of an insurance a#ent is 0ithin the intent of Section $1&. 9ence H !n/ person 0ho for co-pensation ... shall be an insurance agent within the intent of this section, ... Patentl/, the definition of an insurance a#ent under the second para#raph holds true 0ith respect to the a#ent -entioned in the other t0o para#raphs of the said section. The second para#raph of Section $1& is a definition and interpretative clause intended to Bualif/ the ter- ,a#ent, -entioned in both the first and third para#raphs of the aforesaid section. !ppl/in# the definition of an insurance a#ent in the second para#raph to the a#ent -entioned in the first and second para#raphs 0ould #ive har-on/ to the aforesaid three para#raphs of Section $1&. @e#islative intent -ust be ascertained fro- a consideration of the statute as a 0hole. The particular 0ords, clauses and phrases should not be studied as detached and isolated e=pressions, but the 0hole and ever/ part of the statute -ust be considered in fi=in# the -eanin# of an/ of its parts and

in order to produce har-onious 0hole. 13 ! statute -ust be so construed as to har-oni;e and #ive effect to all its provisions 0henever possible. 14 The -eanin# of the la0, it -ust be borne in -ind, is not to be e=tracted fro- an/ sin#le part, portion or section or fro- isolated 0ords and phrases, clauses or sentences but fro- a #eneral consideration or vie0 of the act as a 0hole. 1$ :ver/ part of the statute -ust be interpreted 0ith reference to the conte=t. This -eans that ever/ part of the statute -ust be considered to#ether 0ith the other parts, and "ept subservient to the #eneral intent of the 0hole enact-ent, not separatel/ and independentl/. 1% More i-portantl/, the doctrine of associated 0ords 2Noscitur a Sociis3 provides that 0here a particular 0ord or phrase in a state-ent is a-bi#uous in itself or is eBuall/ susceptible of various -eanin#s, its true -eanin# -a/ be -ade clear and specific b/ considerin# the co-pan/ in 0hich it is found or 0ith 0hich it is associated. 1& (onsiderin# that the definition of an insurance a#ent as found in the second para#raph is also applicable to the a#ent -entioned in the first para#raph, to receive a co-pensation b/ the a#ent is an essential ele-ent for a violation of the first para#raph of the aforesaid section. The appellate court has established ulti-atel/ that the petitioner accused did not receive an/ co-pensation for the issuance of the insurance polic/ of :u#enio Isidro. Nevertheless, the accused 0as convicted b/ the appellate court for, accordin# to the latter, the receipt of co-pensation for issuin# an insurance polic/ is not an essential ele-ent for a violation of the first para#raph of Section $1& of the Insurance !ct. Ae rule other0ise. >nder the Te=as Penal (ode $&$$, !rticle 81&, -a"in# it a -isde-eanor for an/ person for direct or indirect co-pensation to solicit insurance 0ithout a certificate of authorit/ to act as an insurance a#ent, an infor-ation, failin# to alle#e that the solicitor 0as to receive co-pensation either directl/ or indirectl/, char#es no offense. 18 In the case of <olen vs. Sta"e, 19 the provision of Section *'45, Sn/derCs (o-piled @a0s of O"laho-a $&5& is intended to penali;e persons onl/ 0ho acted as insurance solicitors 0ithout license, and 0hile actin# in such capacit/ ne#otiated and concluded insurance contracts for co-pensation. It -ust be noted that the infor-ation, in the case at bar, does not alle#e that the ne#otiation of an insurance contracts b/ the accused 0ith :u#enio Isidro 0as one for co-pensation. This alle#ation is essential, and havin# been o-itted, a conviction of the accused could not be sustained. It is 0ell settled in Our .urisprudence that to 0arrant conviction, ever/ ele-ent of the cri-e -ust be alle#ed and proved. 2' !fter #oin# over the records of this case, Ae are full/ convinced, as the Solicitor )eneral -aintains, that accused did not violate Section $1& of the Insurance !ct. A9:R:FOR:, the .ud#-ent appealed fro- is reversed and the accused is acBuitted of the cri-e char#ed, 0ith costs de oficio. SO ORD:R:D. Teehankee (Acting C.J.,) Makasiar, De Castro, Fernandez, concur. $!ana, J., took no part. uerrero and Me!encio"#errera, JJ.,

oo("o()* $ p. +$, Rollo.

+ p. $$, (! Rollo. * p. $5, (! Rollo. % pp. +$ ++, Rollo. 4 p. ', Rollo. 8 p. *8, Rollo. ' p. 4$, Rollo. 1 p. 41, Rollo. & p. 8&, Rollo. $5 p. '$, Rollo. $$ p. 8&, RolloD p. 8, <rief for the Petitioner. $+ pp. +4 and +8, Rollo. $* !raneta vs. (oncepcion, && Phil. '5&D Ta-a/o vs. )sell, *4 Phil. &4*D @ope; vs. :l 9o#ar Filipino, %' Phil. +%&D (hartered <an" vs. I-perial, %1 Phil. &*$. $% People vs. Pol-on 18 Phil. *45. $4 1+ (.7.S., Section *%4, pp. 8&& '55. $8 Ta-a/o vs. )sell, *4 Phil. &4*. $' (o Ii- (ha- vs. Valde; Tan Ieh J Di;on, '4 Phil. *'$. $1 7asper vs. State, '* Te=. (r. R $&'D $8% S.A. 14$. $& $%& p. $5'%, $$ O"la. (ri-. 4&%. +5 People vs. S/ )esion#, 85 Phil. 8$%.