G.R. No. 100970 September 2, 1992 FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION, vs. THE HONORA LE COURT OF APPEALS !

"# $ULIA SURPOSA, FACTS: October 22, 1986, deceased, Carlie Surposa was insured wit petitioner Fin!an "eneral Assurance Corporation under Fin!an "eneral Teac ers #rotection #lan $aster #olic% &o. 2''( and )ndividual #olic% &o. '892* wit is parents, and brot ers, as bene+iciaries. , ile said insurance polic% was in +ull +orce and e++ect, t e insured, died as a result o+ a stab wound in+licted b% one o+ t e t ree -./ unidenti+ied !en wit out provocation and warnin0 on t e part o+ t e +or!er as e and is cousin, were waitin0 +or a ride on t eir wa% o!e a+ter attendin0 t e celebration o+ t e 1$as2arra Annual Festival.1 #rivate respondent and t e ot er bene+iciaries o+ said insurance polic% +iled a written notice o+ clai! wit t e petitioner insurance co!pan% w ic denied said clai! contendin0 t at !urder and assault are not wit in t e scope o+ t e covera0e o+ t e insurance polic%. T e )nsurance Co!!ission rendered a decision orderin0 t e insurer to pa% t e proceeds o+ t e polic% wit interest. T e appellate court a++ir!ed said decision. )SS34: , et er or not t e deat was co!!itted wit deliberate intent w ic , b% t e ver% nature o+ a personal accident insurance polic%, cannot be inde!ni+ied. 536)&": &o. T e appenin0 was a pure accident on t e part o+ t e victi!. T e insured died +ro! an event t at too2 place wit out is +oresi0 t or e7pectation, an event t at proceeded +ro! an unusual e++ect o+ a 2nown cause and, t ere+ore, not e7pected. &eit er can it be said t at w ere was a capricious desire on t e part o+ t e accused to e7pose is li+e to dan0er considerin0 t at e was 8ust 0oin0 o!e a+ter attendin0 a +estival. Furt er!ore, t e personal accident insurance polic% involved erein speci+icall% enu!erated onl% ten -1'/ circu!stances w erein no liabilit% attac es to petitioner insurance co!pan% +or an% in8ur%, disabilit% or loss su++ered b% t e insured as a result o+ an% o+ t e sti!ulated causes. T e principle o+ 1 expresso unius exclusio alterius1 9 t e !ention o+ one t in0 i!plies t e e7clusion o+ anot er t in0 9 is t ere+ore applicable in t e instant case since !urder and assault, not avin0 been e7pressl% included in t e enu!eration o+ t e circu!stances t at would ne0ate liabilit% in said insurance polic% cannot be considered b% i!plication to disc ar0e t e petitioner insurance co!pan% +ro! liabilit% +or, an% in8ur%, disabilit% or loss su++ered b% t e insured. T us a!bi0uit% in t e words o+ an insurance contract s ould be interpreted in +avor o+ its bene+iciar%.