Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CommRev Digest
CommRev Digest
Questions:
IPAMS executed a Memorandum of Agreement with Country Bankers which provided that the
requirements for claims are as follows: 1st demand letter requiring his/her to submit complete
documents, 2nd Demand letter, Affidavit stating reason of any violation to be executed by
responsible office of Recruitment Agency, Statement of Account (detailed expenses), and
Transmittal Claim Letter.
The former is in the business of recruiting medical personnel to be deployed overseas and they
made several cash advances to facilitate immigration processes. Due to cash involved, the
medical personnel were required to post bonds, which were guaranteed by Country Bankers
Insurance Corp.
IPAMS filed a complaint with the Insurance Commission (IC) for payment of the claims. The IC
granted these claims. The IC ruling was affirmed by both the Department of Finance and the
Office of the President. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and ruled that
Country Bankers was justified in delaying payment due to lack of official receipts from IPAMS.
The CA applied article 2199 of the Civil Code which provides that: “...one is entitled to an
adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.”
Answer:
The Insurance Code specifically provides applicable provisions on suretyship, stating that
pertinent provisions of the Civil Code shall only apply suppletorily whenever necessary in
interpreting the provisions of a contract of suretyship. Jurisprudence also holds that a specific
law should prevail over a law of general character. Hence, the CA erred in not considering the
applicable provisions under the Insurance Code on the required proof of loss and when such
requirement is waivable.
Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corp. v. Aban
G.R. No. 175666, July 29, 2013
J. Del Castillo
By: Lawrence Greghill R. Bravo
Question:
Mrs. Sotero took out a life insurance policy from Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation
designating respondent Cresencia P. Aban (Aban), her niece, as her beneficiary. Petitioner
issued the policy with a face value of P100,000.00, in Sotero's favor on August 30, 1993, after
the requisite medical examination and payment of the insurance premium.
Respondent filed a claim for the insurance proceeds on July 9, 1996. Petitioner conducted an
investigation into the claim and found that Sotero did not personally apply for insurance
coverage, as she was illiterate; Sotero was sickly since 1990;c Sotero did not have the financial
capability to pay the insurance premiums; Sotero did not sign the July 3, 1993 application for
insurance; Respondent was the one who filed the insurance application, and x x x designated
herself as the beneficiary. For the above reasons, petitioner denied respondent's claim on April
16, 1997 and refunded the premiums paid on the policy.
On April 24, 1997, petitioner filed a civil case for rescission and/or annulment of the policy,
which was docketed as Civil Case No. 97-867 and assigned to Branch 134 of the Makati Regional
Trial Court. The trial court issued an Order granting respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Upon
appeal, the CA sustained the decision of the trial court.
Answer:
Yes. Allegations of fraud, which are predicated on respondent's alleged posing asSotero and
forgery of her signature in the insurance application, are at once belied by thetrial and
appellate courts' finding that Sotero herself took out the insurance for herself."[Fraudulent
intent on the part of the insured must be established to entitle the insurer torescind the
contract" In the absence of proof of such fraudulent intent, no right to rescind arises.
Section 48 prevents a situation where the insurer knowingly continues to accept annual
premium payments on life insurance, only to later on deny a claim on the policy on specious
claims of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, such as what obtains in the instant
case. Thus, instead of conducting at the first instance an investigation into the circumstances
surrounding the issuance of insurance Policy No. 747411 which would have timely exposed the
supposed flaws and irregularities attending it as it now professes, petitioner appears to have
turned a blind eye and opted instead to continue collecting the premiums on the policy. For
nearly three years, petitioner collected the premiums and devoted the same to its own profit.
It cannot now deny the claim when it is called to account. Section 48 must be applied to it with
full force and effect.