Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaFIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. 85296 May 14, 1990ZENITH INSURANCE CORPORATION,petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS and LAWRENCE FERNANDEZ,respondents.Vicente R. Layawen for petitioner.Lawrence L. Fernandez & Associates for private respondent.MEDIALDEA,J.:Assailed in this petition is the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.V. No. 13498 entitled, "Lawrence L. Fernandez, plaintiff-appellee v. Zenith Insurance Corp., defendant-appellant" which affirmedin totothe decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch XX in Civil Case No. CEB-1215 and the denial of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.The antecedent facts are as follows:On January 25, 1983, private respondent Lawrence Fernandez insured his car for "own damage" under private car Policy No. 50459 with petitioner Zenith Insurance Corporation. On July 6, 1983, the car figured in an accident and suffered actual damages in the amount of P3,640.00. After allegedly being given a run around by Zenith for two (2) months, Fernandez filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu for sum of money and damages resulting from the refusal of Zenith to pay the amount claimed. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-1215. Aside from actual damages and interests, Fernandez also prayed for moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00, exemplary damages of P5,000.00, attorney's fees of P3,000.00 and litigation expenses of P3,000.00.On September 28, 1983, Zenith filed an answer alleging that it offered to pay the claim of Fernandez pursuant to the terms and conditions of the contract which, the private respondent rejected. After the issues had been joined, the pre-trial was scheduled on October 17, 1983 but the same was moved to November 4, 1983 upon petitioner's motion, allegedly to explore ways to settle the case although at an amount lower than private respondent's claim. On November 14, 1983, the trial court terminated the pre-trial. Subsequently, Fernandez presented his evidence. Petitioner Zenith, however, failed to present its evidence in view of its failure to appear in court, without justifiable reason, on the day scheduled for the purpose. The trial court issued an order on August 23, 1984 submitting the case for decision without Zenith's evidence (pp. 10-11,Rollo). Petitioner filed a petition forcertiorariwith the Court of Appeals assailing the order of the trial court submitting the case for decision without petitioner's evidence. The petition was docketed as C.A.-G.R. No. 04644. However, the petition was denied due course on April 29, 1986 (p. 56,Rollo).On June 4, 1986, a decision was rendered by the trial court in favor of private respondent Fernandez. The dispositive portion of the trial court's decision provides:WHEREFORE, defendant is hereby ordered to pay to the plaintiff:1. The amount of P3,640.00 representing the damage incurred plus interest at the rate of twice the prevailing interest rates;2. The amount of P20,000.00 by way of moral damages;3. The amount of P20,000.00 by way of exemplary damages;4. The amount of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees;5. The amount of P3,000.00 as litigation expenses; and6. Costs. (p. 9,Rollo)Upon motion of Fernandez and before the expiration of the period to appeal, the trial court, on June 20, 1986, ordered the execution of the decision pending appeal. The order was assailed by petitioner in a petition forcertiorariwith the Court of Appeals on October 23, 1986 in C.A. G.R. No. 10420 but which petition was also dismissed on December 24, 1986 (p. 69,Rollo).On June 10, 1986, petitioner filed a notice of appeal before the trial court. The notice of appeal was granted in the same order granting private respondent's motion for execution pending appeal. The appeal to respondent court assigned the following errors:I. The lower court erred in denying defendant appellant to adduce evidence in its behalf.II. The lower court erred in ordering Zenith Insurance Corporation to pay the amount of P3,640.00 in its decision.III. The lower court erred in awarding moral damages, attorneys fees and exemplary damages, the worst is that, the court awarded damages more than what are prayed for in the complaint. (p. 12,Rollo)On August 17, 1988, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirmingin totothe decision of the trial court. It also ruled that the matter of the trial court's denial of Fernandez's right to adduce evidence is a closed matter in view of its (CA) ruling in AC-G.R. 04644 wherein Zenith's petition questioning the trial court's order submitting the case for decision without Zenith's evidence, was dismissed.The Motion for Reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 17, 1988 was denied on September 29, 1988, for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition was filed by Zenith on October 18, 1988 on the allegation that respondent Court of Appeals' decision and resolution ran counter to applicable decisions of this Court and that they were rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction. The issues raised by petitioners in this petition are:a) The legal basis of respondent Court of Appeals in awarding moral damages, exemplary damages and attomey's fees in an amount more than that prayed for in the complaint.b) The award of actual damages of P3,460.00 instead of only P1,927.50 which was arrived at after deducting P250.00 and P274.00 as deductible franchise and 20% depreciation on parts as agreed upon in the contract of insurance.Petitioner contends that while the complaint of private respondent prayed for P10,000.00 moral damages, the lower court awarded twice the amount, or P20,000.00 without factual or legal basis; while private respondent prayed for P5,000.00 exemplary damages, the trial court awarded P20,000.00; and while private respondent prayed for P3,000.00 attorney's fees, the trial court awarded P5,000.00.The propriety of the award of moral damages, exemplary damages and attorney's fees is the main issue raised herein by petitioner.The award of damages in case of unreasonable delay in the payment of insurance claims is governed by the Philippine Insurance Code, which provides:Sec. 244. In case of any litigation for the enforcement of any policy or contract of insurance, it shall be the duty of the Commissioner or the Court, as the case may be, to make a finding as to whether the payment of the claim of the insured has been unreasonably denied or withheld; and in the affirmative case, the insurance company shall be adjudged to pay damages which shall consist of attomey's fees and other expenses incurred by the insured person by reason of such unreasonable denial or withholding of payment plus interest of twice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board of the amount of the claim due the insured, from the date following the time prescribed in section two hundred forty-two or in section two hundred forty-three, as the case may be, until the claim is fully satisfied;Provided, That the failure to pay any such claim within the time prescribed in said sections shall be consideredprima facieevidence of unreasonable delay in payment.It is clear that under the Insurance Code, in case of unreasonable delay in the payment of the proceeds of an insurance policy, the damages that may be awarded are: 1) attorney's fees; 2) other expenses incurred by the insured person by reason of such unreasonable denial or withholding of payment; 3) interest at twice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board of the amount of the claim due the injured; and 4) the amount of the claim.As regards the award of moral and exemplary damages, the rules under the Civil Code of the Philippines shall govern."The purpose of moral damages is essentially indemnity or reparation, not punishment or correction. Moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of a defendant, they are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by reason of the defendant's culpable action." (J. Cezar S. Sangco, Philippine Law on Torts and Damages, Revised Edition, p. 539) (See also R and B Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 64515, June 22, 1984; 129 SCRA 745). While it is true that no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be adjudicated, the assessment of which is left to the discretion of the court according to the circumstances of each case (Art. 2216, New Civil Code), it is equally true that in awarding moral damages in case of breach of contract, there must be a showing that the breach was wanton and deliberately injurious or the one responsible acted fraudently or in bad faith (Perez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-20238, January 30,1965; 13 SCRA 137; Solis v. Salvador, G.R. No. L-17022, August 14, 1965; 14 SCRA 887). In the instant case, there was a finding that private respondent was given a "run-around" for two months, which is the basis for the award of the damages granted under the Insurance Code for unreasonable delay in the payment of the claim. However, the act of petitioner of delaying payment for two months cannot be considered as so wanton or malevolent to justify an award of P20,000.00 as moral damages, taking into consideration also the fact that the actual damage on the car was only P3,460. In the pre-trial of the case, it was shown that there was no total disclaimer by respondent. The reason for petitioner's failure to indemnify private respondent within the two-month period was that the parties could not come to an agreement as regards the amount of the actual damage on the car. The amount of P10,000.00 prayed for by private respondent as moral damages is equitable.On the other hand, exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good (Art. 2229, New Civil Code of the Philippines). In the case ofNoda v. Cruz-Arnaldo,G.R. No. 57322, June 22,1987; 151 SCRA 227, exemplary damages were not awarded as the insurance company had not acted in wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. The same is true in the case at bar.The amount of P5,000.00 awarded as attomey's fees is justified under the circumstances of this case considering that there were other petitions filed and defended by private respondent in connection with this case.As regards the actual damages incurred by private respondent, the amount of P3,640.00 had been established before the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. Respondent appellate court correctly ruled that the deductions of P250.00 and P274.00 as deductible franchise and 20% depreciation on parts, respectively claimed by petitioners as agreed upon in the contract, had no basis. Respondent court ruled:Under its second assigned error, defendant-appellant puts forward two arguments, both of which are entirely without merit. It is contented that the amount recoverable under the insurance policy defendant-appellant issued over the car of plaintiff-appellee is subject to deductible franchise, and . . . .The policy (Exhibit G, pp. 4-9, Record),does not mntion any deductible franchise,. . . (p. 13,Rollo)Therefore, the award of moral damages is reduced to P10,000.00 and the award of exemplary damages is hereby deleted. The awards due to private respondent Fernandez are as follows:1) P3,640.00 as actual claim plus interest of twice the ceiling prescribed by the Monetary Board computed from the time of submission of proof of loss;2) P10,000.00 as moral damages;3) P5,000.00 as attorney's fees;4) P3,000.00 as litigation expenses; and5) Costs.ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision is MODIFIED as above stated.SO ORDERED.Narvasa, Cruz and Grio-Aquino, JJ., concur.Gancayco, J., is on leave.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaFIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. 92383 July 17, 1992SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD.,petitioner,vs.THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and NERISSA LIM,respondents.CRUZ,J.:The petitioner issued Personal Accident Policy No. 05687 to Felix Lim, Jr. with a face value of P200,000.00. Two months later, he was dead with a bullet wound in his head. As beneficiary, his wife Nerissa Lim sought payment on the policy but her claim was rejected. The petitioner agreed that there was no suicide. It argued, however that there was no accident either.Pilar Nalagon, Lim's secretary, was the only eyewitness to his death. It happened on October 6, 1982, at about 10 o'clock in the evening, after his mother's birthday party. According to Nalagon, Lim was in a happy mood (but not drunk) and was playing with his handgun, from which he had previously removed the magazine. As she watched television, he stood in front of her and pointed the gun at her. She pushed it aside and said it might he loaded. He assured her it was not and then pointed it to his temple. The next moment there was an explosion and Lim slumped to the floor. He was dead before he fell.1The widow sued the petitioner in the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City and was sustained.2The petitioner was sentenced to pay her P200,000.00, representing the face value of the policy, with interest at the legal rate; P10,000.00 as moral damages; P5,000.00 as exemplary damages; P5,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages; and P5,000.00 as attorney's fees, plus the costs of the suit. This decision was affirmed on appeal, and the motion for reconsideration was denied.3The petitioner then came to this Court to fault the Court of Appeals for approving the payment of the claim and the award of damages.The term "accident" has been defined as follows:The words "accident" and "accidental" have never acquired any technical signification in law, and when used in an insurance contract are to be construed and considered according to the ordinary understanding and common usage and speech of people generally. In-substance, the courts are practically agreed that the words "accident" and "accidental" mean that which happens by chance or fortuitously, without intention or design, and which is unexpected, unusual, and unforeseen. The definition that has usually been adopted by the courts is that an accident is an event that takes place without one's foresight or expectation an event that proceeds from an unknown cause, or is an unusual effect of a known case, and therefore not expected.4An accident is an event which happens without any human agency or, if happening through human agency, an event which, under the circumstances, is unusual to and not expected by the person to whom it happens. It has also been defined as an injury which happens by reason of some violence or casualty to the injured without his design, consent, or voluntary co-operation.5In light of these definitions, the Court is convinced that the incident that resulted in Lim's death was indeed an accident. The petitioner, invoking the case ofDe la Cruz v. Capital Insurance,6says that "there is no accident when a deliberate act is performed unless some additional, unexpected, independent and unforeseen happening occurs which produces or brings about their injury or death." There was such a happening. This was the firing of the gun, which was the additional unexpected and independent and unforeseen occurrence that led to the insured person's death.The petitioner also cites one of the four exceptions provided for in the insurance contract and contends that the private petitioner's claim is barred by such provision. It is there stated:Exceptions The company shall not be liable in respect of1. Bodily injuryxxx xxx xxxb. consequent uponi) The insured person attempting to commit suicide or willfully exposing himself to needless peril except in an attempt to save human life.To repeat, the parties agree that Lim did not commit suicide. Nevertheless, the petitioner contends that the insured willfully exposed himself to needless peril and thus removed himself from the coverage of the insurance policy.It should be noted at the outset that suicide and willful exposure to needless peril arein pari materiabecause they both signify a disregard for one's life. The only difference is in degree, as suicide imports a positive act of ending such life whereas the second act indicates a reckless risking of it that is almost suicidal in intent. To illustrate, a person who walks a tightrope one thousand meters above the ground and without any safety device may not actually be intending to commit suicide, but his act is nonetheless suicidal. He would thus be considered as "willfully exposing himself to needless peril" within the meaning of the exception in question.The petitioner maintains that by the mere act of pointing the gun to hip temple, Lim had willfully exposed himself to needless peril and so came under the exception. The theory is that a gun isper sedangerous and should therefore be handled cautiously in every case.That posture is arguable. But what is not is that, as the secretary testified, Lim had removed the magazine from the gun and believed it was no longer dangerous. He expressly assured her that the gun was not loaded. It is submitted that Lim did not willfully expose himself to needless peril when he pointed the gun to his temple because the fact is that he thought it was not unsafe to do so. The act was precisely intended to assure Nalagon that the gun was indeed harmless.The contrary view is expressed by the petitioner thus:Accident insurance policies were never intended to reward the insured for his tendency to show off or for his miscalculations. They were intended to provide for contingencies. Hence, when I miscalculate and jump from the Quezon Bridge into the Pasig River in the belief that I can overcome the current, I have wilfully exposed myself to peril and must accept the consequences of my act. If I drown I cannot go to the insurance company to ask them to compensate me for my failure to swim as well as I thought I could. The insured in the case at bar deliberately put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger. He wilfully exposed himself to peril.The Court certainly agrees that a drowned man cannot go to the insurance company to ask for compensation. That might frighten the insurance people to death. We also agree that under the circumstances narrated, his beneficiary would not be able to collect on the insurance policy for it is clear that when he braved the currents below, hedeliberatelyexposed himself to aknownperil.The private respondent maintains that Lim did not. That is where she says the analogy fails. The petitioner's hypothetical swimmer knew when he dived off the Quezon Bridge that the currents below were dangerous. By contrast, Lim did not know that the gun he put to his head was loaded.Lim was unquestionably negligent and that negligence cost him his own life. But it should not prevent his widow from recovering from the insurance policy he obtained precisely against accident. There is nothing in the policy that relieves the insurer of the responsibility to pay the indemnity agreed upon if the insured is shown to have contributed to his own accident. Indeed, most accidents are caused by negligence. There are only four exceptions expressly made in the contract to relieve the insurer from liability, and none of these exceptions is applicable in the case at bar.**It bears noting that insurance contracts are as a rule supposed to be interpreted liberally in favor of the assured. There is no reason to deviate from this rule, especially in view of the circumstances of this case as above analyzed.On the second assigned error, however, the Court must rule in favor of the petitioner. The basic issue raised in this case is, as the petitioner correctly observed, one of first impression. It is evident that the petitioner was acting in good faith then it resisted the private respondent's claim on the ground that the death of the insured was covered by the exception. The issue was indeed debatable and was clearly not raised only for the purpose of evading a legitimate obligation. We hold therefore that the award of moral and exemplary damages and of attorney's fees is unjust and so must be disapproved.In order that a person may be made liable to the payment of moral damages, the law requires that his act be wrongful. The adverse result of an action does notper semake the act wrongful and subject the act or to the payment of moral damages. The law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate; such right is so precious that moral damages may not be charged on those who may exercise it erroneously. For these the law taxes costs.7The fact that the results of the trial were adverse to Barreto did not alone make his act in bringing the action wrongful because in most cases one party will lose; we would be imposing an unjust condition or limitation on the right to litigate. We hold that the award of moral damages in the case at bar is not justified by the facts had circumstances as well as the law.If a party wins, he cannot, as a rule, recover attorney's fees and litigation expenses, since it is not the fact of winning alone that entitles him to recover such damages of the exceptional circumstances enumerated in Art. 2208. Otherwise, every time a defendant wins, automatically the plaintiff must pay attorney's fees thereby putting a premium on the right to litigate which should not be so. For those expenses, the law deems the award of costs as sufficient.8WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in so far as it holds the petitioner liable to the private respondent in the sum of P200,000.00 representing the face value of the insurance contract, with interest at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the complaint until the full amount is paid, but MODIFIED with the deletion of all awards for damages, including attorney's fees, except the costs of the suit.SO ORDERED.Grio-Aquino, Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaFIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. L-54171 October 28, 1980JEWEL VILLACORTA, assisted by her husband, GUERRERO VILLACORTA,petitioner,vs.THE INSURANCE COMMISSION and EMPIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,respondents.TEEHANKEE,Acting C.J.:The Court sets aside respondent Insurance Commission's dismissal of petitioner's complaint and holds that where the insured's car is wrongfully taken without the insured's consent from the car service and repair shop to whom it had been entrusted for check-up and repairs (assuming that such taking was for a joy ride, in the course of which it was totally smashed in an accident), respondent insurer is liable and must pay insured for the total loss of the insured vehicle under the theft clause of the policy.The undisputed facts of the case as found in the appealed decision of April 14, 1980 of respondent insurance commission are as follows:Complainant [petitioner] was the owner of a Colt Lancer, Model 1976, insured with respondent company under Private Car Policy No. MBI/PC-0704 for P35,000.00 Own Damage; P30,000.00 Theft; and P30,000.00 Third Party Liability, effective May 16, 1977 to May 16, 1978. On May 9, 1978, the vehicle was brought to the Sunday Machine Works, Inc., for general check-up and repairs. On May 11, 1978, while it was in the custody of the Sunday Machine Works, the car was allegedly taken by six (6) persons and driven out to Montalban, Rizal. While travelling along Mabini St., Sitio Palyasan, Barrio Burgos, going North at Montalban, Rizal, the car figured in an accident, hitting and bumping a gravel and sand truck parked at the right side of the road going south. As a consequence, the gravel and sand truck veered to the right side of the pavement going south and the car veered to the right side of the pavement going north. The driver, Benito Mabasa, and one of the passengers died and the other four sustained physical injuries. The car, as well, suffered extensive damage. Complainant, thereafter, filed a claim for total loss with the respondent company but claim was denied. Hence, complainant, was compelled to institute the present action.The comprehensive motor car insurance policy for P35,000.00 issued by respondent Empire Insurance Company admittedly undertook to indemnify the petitioner-insured against loss or damage to the car (a) by accidental collision or overturning, or collision or overturning consequent upon mechanical breakdown or consequent upon wear and tear; (b) by fire, external explosion, self-ignition or lightning or burglary, housebreaking or theft; and (c) by malicious act.Respondent insurance commission, however, dismissed petitioner's complaint for recovery of the total loss of the vehicle against private respondent, sustaining respondent insurer's contention that the accident did not fall within the provisions of the policy either for the Own Damage or Theft coverage, invoking the policy provision on "Authorized Driver" clause.1Respondent commission upheld private respondent's contention on the "Authorized Driver" clause in this wise: "It must be observed that under the above-quoted provisions, the policy limits the use of the insured vehicle to two (2) persons only, namely: the insured himself or any person on his (insured's) permission. Under the second category, it is to be noted that the words "any person' is qualified by the phrase... on the insured's order or with his permission.' It is therefore clear that if the person driving is other than the insured, he must have been duly authorized by the insured, to drive the vehicle to make the insurance company liable for the driver's negligence. Complainant admitted that she did not know the person who drove her vehicle at the time of the accident, much less consented to the use of the same (par. 5 of the complaint). Her husband likewise admitted that he neither knew this driver Benito Mabasa (Exhibit '4'). With these declarations of complainant and her husband, we hold that the person who drove the vehicle, in the person of Benito Mabasa, is not an authorized driver of the complainant. Apparently, this is a violation of the 'Authorized Driver' clause of the policy.Respondent commission likewise upheld private respondent's assertion that the car was not stolen and therefore not covered by the Theft clause, ruling that "The element of 'taking' in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code means that the act of depriving another of the possession and dominion of a movable thing is coupled ... with the intention. at the time of the 'taking', of withholding it with the character of permanency (People vs. Galang, 7 Appt. Ct. Rep. 13). In other words, there must have been shown a felonious intent upon the part of the taker of the car, and the intent must be an intent permanently to deprive the insured of his car," and that "Such was not the case in this instance. The fact that the car was taken by one of the residents of the Sunday Machine Works, and the withholding of the same, for a joy ride should not be construed to mean 'taking' under Art. 308 of the Revised Penal Code. If at all there was a 'taking', the same was merely temporary in nature. A temporary taking is held not a taking insured against (48 A LR 2d., page 15)."The Court finds respondent commission's dismissal of the complaint to be contrary to the evidence and the law.First, respondent commission's ruling that the person who drove the vehicle in the person of Benito Mabasa, who, according to its finding, was one of the residents of the Sunday Machine Works, Inc. to whom the car had been entrusted for general check-up and repairs was not an "authorized driver" of petitioner-complainant is too restrictive and contrary to the established principle that insurance contracts, being contracts of adhesion where the only participation of the other party is the signing of his signature or his "adhesion" thereto, "obviously call for greater strictness and vigilance on the part of courts of justice with a view of protecting the weaker party from abuse and imposition, and prevent their becoming traps for the unwary.2The main purpose of the "authorized driver" clause, as may be seen from its text,supra, is that a person other than the insured owner, who drives the car on the insured's order, such as his regular driver, or with his permission, such as a friend or member of the family or the employees of a car service or repair shop must be duly licensed drivers and have no disqualification to drive a motor vehicle.A car owner who entrusts his car to an established car service and repair shop necessarily entrusts his car key to the shop owner and employees who are presumed to have the insured's permission to drive the car for legitimate purposes of checking or road-testing the car. The mere happenstance that the employee(s) of the shop owner diverts the use of the car to his own illicit or unauthorized purpose in violation of the trust reposed in the shop by the insured car owner does not mean that the "authorized driver" clause has been violated such as to bar recovery, provided that such employee is duly qualified to drive under a valid driver's license.The situation is no different from the regular or family driver, who instead of carrying out the owner's order to fetch the children from school takes out his girl friend instead for a joy ride and instead wrecks the car. There is no question of his being an "authorized driver" which allows recovery of the loss although his trip was for a personal or illicit purpose without the owner's authorization.Secondly, and independently of the foregoing (since when a car is unlawfully taken, it is the theft clause, not the "authorized driver" clause, that applies), where a car is admittedly as in this case unlawfully and wrongfully taken by some people, be they employees of the car shop or not to whom it had been entrusted, and taken on a long trip to Montalban without the owner's consent or knowledge, such taking constitutes or partakes of the nature of theft as defined in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, viz. "Who are liable for theft. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent," for purposes of recovering the loss under the policy in question.The Court rejects respondent commission's premise that there must be an intent on the part of the taker of the car "permanently to deprive the insured of his car" and that since the taking here was for a "joy ride" and "merely temporary in nature," a "temporary taking is held not a taking insured against."The evidence does not warrant respondent commission's findings that it was a mere "joy ride". From the very investigator's report cited in its comment,3the police found from the waist of the car driver Benito Mabasa Bartolome who smashed the car and was found dead right after the incident "one cal. 45 Colt. and one apple type grenade," hardly the materials one would bring along on a "joy ride". Then, again, it is equally evident that the taking proved to be quite permanent rather than temporary, for the car was totally smashed in the fatal accident and was never returned in serviceable and useful condition to petitioner-owner.Assuming, despite the totally inadequate evidence, that the taking was "temporary" and for a "joy ride", the Court sustains as the better view that which holds that when a person, either with the object of going to a certain place, or learning how to drive, or enjoying a free ride, takes possession of a vehicle belonging to another, without the consent of its owner, he is guilty of theft because by taking possession of the personal property belonging to another and using it, his intent to gain is evident since he derives therefrom utility, satisfaction, enjoyment and pleasure. Justice Ramon C. Aquino cites in his work Groizard who holds that the use of a thing constitutes gain and Cuello Calon who calls it "hurt de uso. "4The insurer must therefore indemnify the petitioner-owner for the total loss of the insured car in the sum of P35,000.00 under the theft clause of the policy, subject to the filing of such claim for reimbursement or payment as it may have as subrogee against the Sunday Machine Works, Inc.ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision is set aside and judgment is hereby rendered sentencing private respondent to pay petitioner the sum of P35,000.00 with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until full payment is made and to pay the costs of suit.SO ORDERED.Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.