Wednesday, August 12, 2015
It is well-settled that when the words of a contract are plain and readily understood, there is no room for construction.
GAISANO CAGAYAN, INC. vs. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, G.R. No. 147839, June 8, 2006.
“x x x.
At issue is the proper interpretation of the questioned insurance policy. Petitioner claims that the CA erred in construing a fire insurance policy on book debts as one covering the unpaid accounts of IMC and LSPI since such insurance applies to loss of the ready-made clothing materials sold and delivered to petitioner.
The Court disagrees with petitioner's stand.
It is well-settled that when the words of a contract are plain and readily understood, there is no room for construction.22 In this case, the questioned insurance policies provide coverage for "book debts in connection with ready-made clothing materials which have been sold or delivered to various customers and dealers of the Insured anywhere in the Philippines."23 ; and defined book debts as the "unpaid account still appearing in the Book of Account of the Insured 45 days after the time of the loss covered under this Policy."24 Nowhere is it provided in the questioned insurance policies that the subject of the insurance is the goods sold and delivered to the customers and dealers of the insured.
Indeed, when the terms of the agreement are clear and explicit that they do not justify an attempt to read into it any alleged intention of the parties, the terms are to be understood literally just as they appear on the face of the contract.25 Thus, what were insured against were the accounts of IMC and LSPI with petitioner which remained unpaid 45 days after the loss through fire, and not the loss or destruction of the goods delivered.
X x x.”
22 De Mesa v. Court of Appeals, 375 Phil. 432, 443 (1999).
25 First Fil-Sin Lending Corporation v. Padillo, G.R. No. 160533, January