91. Aisporna v.

CA
[GR. No. L-39419; April 12, 1982]

Facts:
• Mapalad Aisporna, the wife of one Rodolfo Aisporna, an insurance agent, solicited the application of
Eugenio Isidro in behalf of Perla Compana de Seguros without the certificate of authority to act from
the insurance commissioner.
• Isidro passed away while his wife was issued Php 5000 from the insurance policy.
• After the death of Isidro, the fiscal instigated criminal action against Mapalad for violating Sec. 189 of
the Insurance code for feloniously acting as agent when she solicited the application form.
• In the trial court, Mapalad Aisporna claimed that she helped Rodolfo as clerk and that she solicited
a renewal, not a new policy from Isidro through the phone. She did this because her husband was
absent when he called. She only left a note on top of her husband’s desk to inform him of what
transpired. (She did not accept compensation from Isidro for her services)
• Mapalad Aisporna was sentenced to pay Php 500 with subsidiary costs in case of insolvency in 1971
in the Cabanatuan City Court.
• In the appellate court, she was found guilty of having violating Par. 1 of Sec. 189 of the Insurance
Code.
• The OSG kept on repeating that she didn’t violate Sec. 189 of the Insurance Code.

Issue:

Whether or not a person can be convicted for having violated the 1st paragraph of the Sec. 189 of the
Insurance Code without reference to the 2nd paragraph of the said section? - NO

Held/Ratio: WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the accused is acquitted of
the crime charged, with costs de oficio.

Section 189 of the Insurance Code states that:

“No insurance company doing business with the Philippine Islands nor l any agent thereof shall
pay any commission or other compensation to any person for services in obtaining new insurance
unless such person shall have first procured from the Insurance Commissioner a certificate of authority
to act as an agent of such company as herein after provided.

No person shall act as agent, sub-agent, or broker in the solicitation of procurement

of applications for insurance without obtaining a certificate from the Insurance Commissioner.”

 Paragraph 2 briefly states that any person who for COMPENSATION solicits or obtains
insurance for any for any insurance company or offers or assumes to act in the negotiation of
such insurance shall be considered an insurance agent in the intent of this section and shall
thereby become liable to all liabilities to which an insurance agent is subject.

 The court held that the definition of an insurance agent is stipulated in the 2nd paragraph and
violation of the 1st paragraph should be in consideration of the said definition found in the 2nd.

Doctrine of Associated Words / Noscitur A Sociis:

The court held that legislative intent must be ascertained from the consideration of the statute as a
whole. The words shouldn’t be studied in isolated explanations but the whole and every part of the
statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts in order to pronounce the
harmonious whole.

 Noscitur a sociis provides that where a particular word or phrase in a statement is ambiguous in
itself, the true meaning may be made clear in the company it is fixed in. In applying this, the
court held that the definition of an insurance agent in the 2ndparagraph was applicable in the
1st paragraph.