G.R. No.

141060 September 29, 2000 The Company will subject to the Limits of this Section as hereinafter provided
indemnify the insured against loss by any cause whatsoever occuring (sic)
PILIPINAS BANK, petitioner, outside the premises of Money and Securities in the personal charge of a
vs. Messenger in transit on a Money Route x x x.4
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ELOY R. BELLO, In his capacity as
Presiding Judge, RTC-Manila, Branch 15, And MERIDIAN and the warranty/rider attached to the Policy which provides that-
ASSURANCE CORPORATION, respondents.
WARRANTED that in respect of PILIPINAS BANK Head Office and all its
DECISION branches, pick-up and/or deposits and withdrawals without the use of armored
car, company car, or official's car shall be covered by this policy. x x x 5
KAPUNAN, J.:
Private respondent denied petitioner's claim and averred that the insurance does
not cover the deliveries of the withdrawals to petitioner's clients.
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Decision of the Court of
Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint against private respondent with the
Appeals, Sixth Division, dated July 30, 1999 in CA-G.R. S.P. No.
Regional Trial Court of Manila. Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss
297491 which dismissed petitioner Pilipinas Bank's petition for which was later granted by the RTC. Petitioner then moved to reconsider the
certiorari,2 and the Resolution, dated September 17, 19993 denying trial court's order, but the same was denied.
petitioner's Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to file Motion for
Reconsideration, Manifestation and Motion to Admit Motion for
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals
Reconsideration. assailing the RTC's order dismissing the complaint.6 The appellate court granted
the petition and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings. Private
The facts of the case are as follows: respondent filed with this Court a petition for review of the appellate court's
decision, but the same was dismissed in a Resolution dated July 5, 1989.
On January 8, 1995, petitioner obtained from private respondent Meridian
Assurance Corporation a Money Securities and Payroll Comprehensive Policy After the case was remanded to the RTC and the latter set the case for pre-trial,
which was effective from January 13, 1985 to January 13, 1986. On November petitioner filed its Pre-Trial Brief, stating among others, that it would present as
25, 1985, at about 9:15 a.m., while the policy was in full force and effect, one of its witnesses Mr. Cesar R. Tubianosa to testify on the existence and due
petitioner's armored vehicle bearing Plate No. NBT 379 which was on its way execution of the insurance policy, particularly on the negotiations that were held
to deliver the payroll withdrawal of its client Luzon Development Bank prior to the execution thereof, including negotiations that led to the attachment
ACLEM Paper Mills, was robbed by two armed men wearing police uniforms warranties, to prove that the loss subject of petitionerss claim is covered by the
along Magsaysay Road, San Antonio, San Pedro, Laguna. Petitioner's driver, Policy. Petitioner identified the issues of the case as follows:
authorized teller and two private armed guards were on board the armored
vehicle when the same was robbed. The loss suffered by petitioner as a result of 1. Whether or not the loss due to the hold-up/robbery is covered by the
the heist amounted to P545,301.40. Insurance Policy;

Petitioner filed a formal notice of claim under its insurance policy with private 2. In the affirmative, whether or not, defendant is liable to plaintiff
respondent on December 3, 1985, invoking Section II of the Policy which states:
for said loss, inclusive of other damages prayed for in the
Complaint.
Section II-MONEY AND SECURITIES OUTSIDE PREMISES
On September 18, 1991, when petitioner was about to present Mr. Tubianosa to
testify, private respondent objected and argued that said witness testimony

Parol Evidence Rule

regarding the negotiations on the terms and conditions of the policy would be the parties, notwithstanding its statement in its Pre-Trial Brief that it was
violative of the best evidence rule. However, private respondents objection was presenting said witness for that purpose.
overruled and Tubianosa was allowed to take the stand. Private respondent again
objected to the questions regarding the negotiations on the terms and conditions Section 9, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court expressly requires that
on the policy, and the trial court sustained the objection in part and overruled it for parol evidence to be admissible to vary the terms of the written
in part by allowing petitioner to adduce evidence pertaining to the negotiations
agreement, the mistake or imperfection thereof or its failure to express the
other than what appears in the insurance policy. Tubianosas testimony was
true agreement of the parties should be put in issue by the
completed on said date.
pleadings.7 1âwphi1
On June 18, 1992, petitioner filed a Motion to Recall Witness, praying that it be
allowed to recall Tubianosa to testify on the negotiations pertaining to the terms As correctly noted by the appellate court, petitioner failed to raise the issue
and conditions of the policy before its issuance to determine the intention of the of an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or imperfection in the terms of the Policy,
parties regarding the said terms and conditions. Private respondent objected or of the failure of said contract to express the true intent and agreement of
thereto, on the ground that the same would violate the parol evidence rule. the parties thereto in its Complaint. There was therefore no error on the part
of the appellate court when it affirmed the RTCs Order disallowing the recall
The RTC issued an Order dated July 24, 1999, denying petitioners motion to of Tubianosa to the witness stand, for such disallowance is in accord with
recall Tubianosa to the witness stand, ruling that the same would violate the the rule that when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing,
parol evidence rule. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was also denied by it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be,
the lower court. between the parties and their successors-in-interest, no evidence of such
other terms other than the contents of the written agreement.8
On December 21, 1992, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court
of Appeals assailing the aforementioned Orders of the RTC. In its Decision The rationale behind the foregoing rule was explained in Ortanez vs. Court
dated July 30, 1999, the appellate court dismissed the petition and held that there of Appeals,9 where we stated:
was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent judge. It held that
there is no ambiguity in the provisions of the Policy which would necessitate The parol evidence herein introduced is inadmissible. First, private
the presentation of extrinsic evidence to clarify the meaning thereof. The Court respondents oral testimony on the alleged conditions, coming from a party
of Appeals also stated that petitioner failed to set forth in its Complaint a specific who has an interest in the outcome of the case, depending exclusively on
allegation that there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the insurance policy which human memory, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence.
would warrant the presentation of further evidence to clarify the intent of the Spoken words could be notoriously undesirable unlike a written contract
contracting parties.
which speaks of a uniform language. Thus, under the general rule in Section
9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the terms of an agreement were
Hence, the present petition. reduced to writing, as in this case, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed
upon and no evidence of such terms can be admitted other than the contents
We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the Court of Appeals. thereof. xxx.10

Petitioners Complaint merely alleged that under the provisions of the Policy, WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of
it was entitled to recover from private respondent the amount it lost during the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.
the heist. It did not allege therein that the Policys terms were ambiguous or
failed to express the true agreement between itself and private respondent. SO ORDERED.
Such being the case, petitioner has no right to insist that it be allowed to
present Tubianosas testimony to shed light on the alleged true agreement of

Parol Evidence Rule