Tagle Vs CA
Tagle Vs CA
Tagle Vs CA
148235 11 August 2005 Carpio-Morales, J. FACTS Wilfredo P. Tagle, petitioners husband was recruited by Fast International Corporation to work as fisherman in Taiwan for Kuo Yu Huang, the private respondents. In the duration of the contract, Wilfredo figured into a sea accident and was presumed dead. On account of this his wife, the petitioner, was able to claim death benefits from Philippine Prudential Life Insurance Co., Inc. in the amount of Php 650,000. To get said amount, she accomplished a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim that stipulates an absolute bar to any suit that either is pending or may be prosecuted concerning matters of claims, demands, causes of actions, etc. Seeking additional insurance benefits, she filed a claim for additional labor insurance from the employer in the amount of NT$300,000 invoking Article II, Section 10 of the employment contract. Said contract stipulates this additional insurance benefit for accidents. ISSUE Whether or not the release, waiver and quitclaim executed by the petitioner included the additional labor insurance she is entitled to as provided in Section 10, Article II of her husbands employment contract. RULING No. Death is defined as "loss of life resulting from injury or sickness." Death could be a result of accident, but accident does not necessarily result to death. Compensation benefits for illness, death, accident which does not result to death, and partial or total disability are treated separately and differently in the 3-paragraph provision of Article II, Section 10 of the employment contract. The said provision in the employment contract being clear and
unambiguous, its literal meaning controls. It is a rule in statutory construction that if it is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. To uphold petitioners claim for additional insurance for accident, assuming that one for the purpose was secured, after receiving insurance benefits for death arising from accident, would violate the clear provision of Article II, Section 10 of the employment contract, the law between the parties. And it would trifle with the Release, Waiver and Quitclaim, another contract between the parties. The petition was dismissed.