DISCLAIMER: This article does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader.  The answer of the author on the issue is just an expression of his general opinion based on Philippine law and hence does not constitute legal advice.

In a contract or agreement, we often encounter provision enumerating certain items like required documents or items of exclusion.  To capture other items not included in the enumeration, the last item in the enumeration is always the word “others” or words of similar import.  Most of the time when the contract or agreement is already operational, this “others” in the enumeration creates conflict between the contracting parties as one party includes item which the other party is not agreeable with.

Take this live case to discuss the issue.    

A contract with a service provider includes provision for items of exclusion during hospital confinement.  The exclusions in the enumeration are the following: 

1. Private nurse
2. Extra food
3. Extra bed
4. Room upgrade
5. Fee for request of room transfer
6. Toiletries other than those included in the package.
7. Charges for the use of wi-fi and for the use of electronic equipment and gadgets not related to the management of the patient condition.
8. Other miscellaneous charges

May the service provider exclude items such as facemask, face shield, and other personal protective equipment in the reimbursement or payment of hospital bills due to Covid-19 confinement? Are these items fall under item 8 in the above enumeration “other miscellaneous charges”?

The principle of “ejusdem generis” finds application to resolve the issue.  The principle of “ejusdem generis” in statutory construction applies to limit and guide on what items should be part of “other miscellaneous charges” as exclusion.

Under the principle of “ejusdem generis”, it is settled that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned (The City of Manila vs Juan Entote, G.R. No. L-24776 June 28, 1974).

Items 1 to 7 in the above enumeration have one thing in common.  By nature, these items are whimsical or capricious requests of the patient which are not necessary in the treatment of his health condition.  Applying then the principle of “ejusdem generis”, item that should form part of “other miscellaneous charges” in the above enumeration should, by nature, is also whimsical or capricious item.  Here, items such as facemask, face shield, and other personal protective equipment are not whimsical or capricious items but items which are necessary in the administration and management of the patient’s Covid-19 condition.

Hence, absence of other provisions in the contract specifically or intentionally disallowing the said items in the reimbursement or payment of hospital bills, the service provider is misplaced if facemask, face shield, and other personal protective equipment in the reimbursement or payment are excluded. 

The contract with the service provider in the instant case is a form of non-life insurance contract. Since most insurance contracts are ready-made contracts, the contract with the service provider is considered “Contract of Adhesion”. Any doubt then in its provision is resolved in favor of the assured due to lack of equal footing in the bargaining of the terms.

A Contract of Adhesion is a contract whereby almost all of its provisions are drafted by one party, with the participation of the other party being limited to affixing his or her signature or “adhesion” to the contract.  Contract of Adhesion is not invalid per se but the SC struck down contracts of adhesion as void when the weaker party has been imposed upon in dealing with the dominant bargaining party and reduced to the alternative of taking it or leaving it, completely deprived of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing (Encarnacion Construction & Industrial Corporation vs. Phoenix Ready Mix Concrete Development & Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 225402, September 4, 2017). 

(March 30, 2024)