Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 248 views

    Magbojos - Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Salaried Employees Union v. Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation - 4D

    Uploaded by

    Kristine Magbojos
    The Supreme Court ruled that reimbursing employees for medical expenses already covered by health insurance would result in double insurance, which is prohibited. The case involved a dispute over whether an employer's collective bargaining agreement required reimbursing employees for all medical costs of dependents or only those not covered by other insurance. The Court cited the principle of indemnity, which prohibits recovering more than the actual loss, and said allowing double recovery would unjustly enrich the employees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Magbojos - Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Salaried Employees Union v. Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation - 4D

    Uploaded by

    Kristine Magbojos
    248 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that reimbursing employees for medical expenses already covered by health insurance would result in double insurance, which is prohibited. The case involved a dispute over whether an employer's collective bargaining agreement required reimbursing employees for all medical costs of dependents or only those not covered by other insurance. The Court cited the principle of indemnity, which prohibits recovering more than the actual loss, and said allowing double recovery would unjustly enrich the employees.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Magbojos_Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Salaried Employees Union v. Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation - 4D

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that reimbursing employees for medical expenses already covered by health insurance would result in double insurance, which is prohibited. The case involved a dispute over whether an employer's collective bargaining agreement required reimbursing employees for all medical costs of dependents or only those not covered by other insurance. The Court cited the principle of indemnity, which prohibits recovering more than the actual loss, and said allowing double recovery would unjustly enrich the employees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    248 views1 page

    Magbojos - Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Salaried Employees Union v. Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation - 4D

    Uploaded by

    Kristine Magbojos
    The Supreme Court ruled that reimbursing employees for medical expenses already covered by health insurance would result in double insurance, which is prohibited. The case involved a dispute over whether an employer's collective bargaining agreement required reimbursing employees for all medical costs of dependents or only those not covered by other insurance. The Court cited the principle of indemnity, which prohibits recovering more than the actual loss, and said allowing double recovery would unjustly enrich the employees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Magbojos, Kristine V.

    TOPIC: Double Insurance

    MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILIPPINES SALARIED EMPLOYEES UNION (MMPSEU) v.


    MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION (MMPC)
    GR 175773 | June 17, 2013
    Del Castillo, J.

    DOCTRINE: The principle of indemnity which proscribes the insured from recovering greater
    than the loss. Indeed, to profit from a loss will lead to unjust enrichment and therefore should
    not be countenanced.

    FACTS: CBA of the parties provides that the company shall shoulder the hospitalization
    expenses of dependents of covered employees. The latter pay part of the hospitalization
    insurance premium through salary deduction. 3 members filed claims for reimbursement of
    hospitalization expenses but MMPC only paid for the amounts not covered by other insurance
    companies and those covered by official receipts. The union insists that the members are
    entitled to the whole and undiminished amount which should not be reduced by the amounts
    paid by insurance companies. MMPC counters that such will result to double insurance.

    ISSUE: Will the reimbursement of the full amount of the hospitalization expenses by the
    employer under the CBA including those amounts already covered by health insurance
    companies will result to double insurance?

    RULING: Yes. The principle of indemnity which proscribes the insured from recovering greater
    than the loss. Indeed, to profit from a loss will lead to unjust enrichment and therefore should
    not be countenanced. In the present case, the condition that payment should be direct to the
    hospital and doctor implies that MMPC is only liable to pay medical expenses actually
    shouldered by the employees’ dependents and does not include the amounts paid by other
    health insurance providers. This condition is obviously intended to thwart not only fraudulent
    claims but also double claims for the same loss of the dependents of covered employees.

    PAGE
    \*

    You might also like