Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1970 > May 1970 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25803 May 29, 1970 - LUZ PICAR, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25803. May 29, 1970.]

LUZ PICAR, NANCY PICAR, JESSE PICAR, assisted by their mother, CONSOLACION PICAR, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, defendant-appellee, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, as represented by the PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF CAMARINES SUR, Intervenor-Appellee.

Nilo A. Malanyaon, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Celso B. Pleta, for Defendant-Appellee.

Florecita Flores for Intervenor-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. INSURANCE LAW; GSIS; LIFE INSURANCE; BENEFICIARY; WHEN BENEFICIARY IS NOT ENTITLED TO PROCEEDS OF INSURANCE. — It is true that under general principles in the law of insurance, if a policy provides that the proceeds shall be payable to the assured, if he lives to a certain date. and, in case of his death before that date, then they shall be payable to the beneficiary designated, the benefit of the policy will inure to such beneficiary in case the assured dies before the end of the period designated in the policy, and, generally, that the proceeds of a life insurance in which a third person is named beneficiary belong exclusively to such beneficiary as an individual, they are not the property of the heirs of the insured, are not subject to administration, and cannot properly be claimed or received by the administrator or other legal representatives of the insured as assets of his estate. However, such general principles are not applicable to the life insurance of government employees which is governed by specific law, namely Section 26 of Com. Act No. 186, which specifically provides that in life insurance policies issued by the GSIS in favor of government employees, the proceeds shall be liable to attachment, garnishment and other legal processes, when obligations or indebtedness to the GSIS and the employer are concerned.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUBJECT TO ATTACHMENT IN FAVOR OF GSIS AND EMPLOYER CONCERNED. — Under Section 26 of Com. Act No. 186, insurance proceeds of insurance policies issued to government employees are exempt from attachment or garnishment except when obligations or indebtedness to the GSIS and the employer are concerned.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; GOVERNMENT ENTITLED TO PROCEEDS INSTANT CASE. — Since the Republic of the Philippines, employer of the deceased employee in this case, is claiming the proceeds of his insurance on the basis of Section 26 of Com. Act No. 186, the court a quo was right in declaring that the intervenor Republic of the Philippines, is legally entitled to the proceeds of the life insurance of the deceased employee.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CLEARANCE FROM MONEY AND PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITIES, NECESSARY; EFFECT OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT. — The GSIS has the right to require the beneficiaries to submit the necessary clearance from money and property accountabilities of the deceased government employee whose insurance policy is involved, before paying them the proceeds of the policy concerned. For their failure to submit the certificate of clearance required of them, the lower court did not err in holding that the appellants have no cause of action against the GSIS.


D E C I S I O N


BARREDO, J.:


Appeal on pure questions of law from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur in its Civil Case No. 5673, dismissing the action instituted by the petitioners as designated beneficiaries in the life insurance policy of one Napoleon F. Picar, a deceased government employee, against the Government Service Insurance System, on the ground that due to the failure of the said petitioners to submit a certificate of clearance from the money and property accountabilities of the deceased, they have no cause of action against the defendant GSIS.

The case was submitted by all the parties for decision in the court below upon the following Stipulation of Facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That Policy No. 170329 issued in favor of the late Napoleon F. Picar, was, on September 13, 1961, in force;

"2. That Napoleon F. Picar died on September 13, 1961;

"3. That Consolacion J. Picar is the guardian of all the minors who are the plaintiffs herein;

"4. That the beneficiaries in the insurance policy issued in favor of Napoleon F. Picar are the following: Nancy Picar, Jesse Picar, Sylvia Picar, Luz Picar and Consolacion Picar;

"5. That the administrator of the estate of the late Napoleon F. Picar is the Provincial Treasurer of Camarines Sur;

"6. That on September 30, 1961 a claim was presented to the G.S.I.S. for the proceeds of the life insurance policy for relief or payment to the beneficiaries named therein;

"7. That the G.S.I.S. is withholding payment of the proceeds of the life insurance policy only on the ground that no clearance was issued to the deceased by the employer of the deceased, the Provincial Treasurer of Camarines Sur;

"8. That the Provincial Treasurer filed a claim for P9,746.07 to the intestate estate of the late Napoleon Picar;

"9. That the basis of the government represented by the Provincial Treasurer of Camarines Sur in intervening in this case (Civil Case No. 5673) is Section 26 of Commonwealth Act 186, as amended;

"10. That the plaintiffs are also withdrawing their claim for moral damages as well as attorney’s fees, but insist on the interest due from September 30, 1961 when the claim was made, up to the time the insurance policy is fully paid;

"11. That the plaintiffs secured the services of counsel to claim this insurance policy in the amount of P500.00."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the basis of these stipulated facts, the court a quo, on August 30, 1965, dismissed the aforesaid action of the beneficiaries. It ruled thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The only issues to be decided in this case are: (1) whether it is legally necessary for the plaintiffs to present a clearance from money and property accountabilities of the deceased to be issued by the authorities concerned, and required by the defendant, GSIS, before the proceeds of the Policy No. 170329 is paid to the beneficiaries designated therein; and (2) whether the Republic of the Philippines, as represented by the Provincial Treasurer of Camarines Sur, can legally lay claim to the proceeds of the policy in question.

"The contract of insurance entered into by the insured, Napoleon F. Picar and the Government Service Insurance System is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 186, the law creating the said insurance system and not by Act 2427 as contended by the plaintiffs. While Act 2427 governs the contract of insurance between Private Insurance Companies and private persons Commonwealth Act No. 186 on the other hand, governs the contract of insurance between the Government Service Insurance System and employees of the Philippine Government. The Government Service Insurance System was created by Commonwealth Act 186 for the sole purpose and benefit of government employees, so much so, that nobody can be insured with the Government Service Insurance System except when he is a government employee. Hence, General Circular No. 52 of the General Auditing Office dated December 28, 1957 is applicable to the insurance contract between the deceased Napoleon F. Picar and the defendant, Government Service Insurance System. And due to the failure of the plaintiffs to submit a certificate of clearance from the money and property accountabilities of the deceased, Napoleon F. Picar, they have no cause of action against the defendant, Government Service Insurance System.

"As to the claim of the intervenor, Republic of the Philippines represented by the Provincial Treasurer of Camarines Sur, the court is of the opinion and so holds, that it being the employer of the deceased, Napoleon F. Picar, it has the right to the proceeds of said insurance to satisfy the indebtedness of said deceased to the government, pursuant to the provision of Section 26 of Commonwealth Act 186.

"In view of all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered; (a) dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint with costs against them; and (b) declaring that the intervenor is legally entitled to the proceeds of the life insurance policy of the defendant, Napoleon F. Picar."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is from this holding of the court below that, as earlier stated in the opening paragraph of this decision, the present appeal has been taken to this Court by the designated beneficiaries in the life insurance policy here involved, the widow and the minor children of the late Napoleon F. Picar. Said appellants here allege that the lower court erred: (a) in holding that the plaintiffs-appellants have no cause of action against the defendant-appellee due to the failure of the plaintiffs-appellants to submit a certificate of clearance of the deceased Napoleon F. Picar; and (b) in holding that the Republic of the Philippines is the entity legally entitled to the proceeds of the policy on the life of Napoleon F. Picar.

Appellants vigorously contend that the proceeds of the life insurance policy here involved — upon the death of the insured employee during the endowment period — belonged exclusively to the beneficiaries designated in the policy and not to the estate of the insured; that, therefore, the said deceased’s employer — the Provincial Treasurer of Camarines Sur or the Republic of the Philippines — cannot legally lay claim to the proceeds of such life insurance, since it is not part of the estate of said deceased employee; and, consequently, the appellee Government Service Insurance System acted without legal authority when it made the presentation of a certificate of clearance from money and property accountabilities of the deceased to be secured from his employer as a condition precedent to the payment of the proceeds of the life insurance in question to the appellants who are the designated beneficiaries in the policy. This contention is untenable.

It is true that under general principles in the law of insurance, if a policy provides that the proceeds shall be payable to the assured, if he lives to a certain date, and, in case of his death before that date, then they shall be payable to the beneficiary designated, the benefit of the policy will inure to such beneficiary in case the assured dies before the end of the period designated in the policy, 1 and, generally, that the proceeds of a life insurance in which a third person is named beneficiary belong exclusively to such beneficiary as an individual, they are not the property of the heirs of the insured, are not subject to administration, and cannot properly be claimed or received by the administrator or other legal representative of the insured as assets of his estate. 2 As correctly ruled by the lower court, however, such general principles are not applicable to the life insurance herein involved which is governed by specific law.

The law in point is Section 26 of Commonwealth Act 186 (the law creating the Government Service Insurance System), as amended, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 26. Exemption from legal process and liens. — No policy of life insurance issued under this Act, or the proceeds thereof, when paid to any member thereunder, nor any other benefit granted under this Act, shall be liable to attachment, garnishment, or other proceeds, or to be seized, taken, appropriated, or applied by any legal or equitable process or operation of law to pay any debt or liability of such member, or his beneficiary, or any other person who may have a right thereunder; nor shall the proceeds thereof, when not made payable to a named beneficiary, constitute a part of the estate of the member for payment of his debt; Provided, however, That this section shall not apply when obligations or indebtedness to the System and the employer are concerned, nor when the retirement annuity is assigned to any person, corporation, association or bank or other financial institution, which is hereby authorized."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above-quoted provision is too clear to require the application of any rule of statutory construction for purposes of showing the weakness of the position taken by herein appellants. As may be seen, it recognizes the principles relied upon by them, but at the same time, it expressly provides that "this section shall not apply when obligations or indebtedness to the System and the employer are concerned." In other words, in life insurance policies issued by the GSIS in favor of government employees, the proceeds — even if not made payable to named beneficiaries and may, therefore, be payable to the estate of the insured — shall not constitute part of the estate of the member (insured) for payment of his debt; but such proceeds — whether or not made payable to named beneficiaries — shall so constitute part of the estate of the insured for payment of his debt and shall thereby be liable to attachment, garnishment and other legal processes, when obligations or indebtedness to the GSIS and the employer, that is, the government are concerned. There can be no doubt then that the appellee Government Service Insurance System was right in requiring herein appellants to submit the necessary clearance from money and property accountabilities of the deceased government employee whose insurance policy is here involved, before paying them the proceeds of the policy concerned; and the lower court did not err in holding that the appellants, for their failure to submit the certificate of clearance required of them. have no cause of action against the GSIS. Similarly, since it is not disputed by appellants that the Republic of the Philippines, employer of the deceased employee in this case, is claiming the proceeds of his insurance on the basis of the provisions of the law above-quoted, We agree with the appellee GSIS that the court a quo was right in declaring that the intervenor Republic of the Philippines is legally entitled to the proceeds of the life insurance here put to question.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed. On equitable considerations, no pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Fernando, Teehankee and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Dizon, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., took no part.

Castro, J., is on official leave of absence.

Endnotes:



1. Villanueva v. Oro (Intestate estate of the late Esperanza J. Villanueva), 81 Phil. 464, citing Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law, Vol. 2, sec. 343, p. 1023.

2. 37 C.J., Sec. 323, p. 566.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1970 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-29155 May 13, 1970 - UNIVERSAL FOOD CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24995 May 27, 1970 - REPUBLIC COMMODITIES CORPORATION v. SALUSTIANO OCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27344 May 28, 1970 - MAXIMA B. ARCOS, ET AL. v. JULIAN ARDALES

  • G.R. No. L-27704 May 28, 1970 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. RAPAEL MISON, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27832 May 28, 1970 - CARLOS V. MATUTE v. JOSE S. MATUTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27610 May 28, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO EMPEÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22470 May 28, 1970 - SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL v. BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-24456 May 28, 1970 - LINO VICTORINO, ET AL. v. HONORIA LAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25906 May 28, 1970 - PEDRO D. DIOQUINO v. FEDERICO LAUREANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26931 May 28, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORADOR S. PINGOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27022 May 28, 1970 - RADIOWEALTH TRADING CORPORATION v. AIDA L. ABASTILLAS

  • G.R. No. L-25147 May 29, 1970 - ANGELINA MAQUILING v. MONSERRAT UMADHAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25326 May 29, 1970 - IGMIDIO HIDALGO, ET AL. v. POLICARPIO HIDALGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21576 May 29, 1970 - MUNICIPALITY OF PAETE v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-22439 May 29, 1970 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23560 May 29, 1970 - MARIA CONSUELO IGNACIO v. PASTOR MANALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24592 May 29, 1970 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24781 May 29, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26632 May 29, 1970 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26970 May 29, 1970 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BORROMEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26890-92 May 29, 1970 - NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNIONS v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27124 May 29, 1970 - FRANCISCO COLMENARES v. ARTURO P. VILLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27493 May 29, 1970 - SAN BEDA COLLEGE v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-27830 May 29, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONG DIN CHU

  • G.R. No. L-29116 May 29, 1970 - JUAN B. ESPE v. CENTRAL COOPERATIVE EXCHANGE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-29138 May 29, 1970 - ELENA CONTRERAS v. CESAR J. MACARAIG

  • G.R. No. L-29306 May 29, 1970 - CONSUELO S. GONZALES-PRECILLA v. JAIME ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30369 May 29, 1970 - SATURNINO A. TANHUECO v. ANDRES AGUILAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26901 May 29, 1970 - SOUTH SEA SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21727 May 29, 1970 - CRISPINA SALAZAR v. GUILLERMO GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970 - VICENTE URIARTE v. CFI OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26600 May 29, 1970 - EMILIANO PIELAGO, ET AL. v. RECAREDO ECHAVEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26629 May 29, 1970 - NGO DY v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-27816 May 29, 1970 - FEDERICO AGUILAR v. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28014-15 May 29, 1970 - MARCELO LANDINGIN, ET AL. v. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19835 May 29, 1970 - WILFREDO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20604 May 29, 1970 - EDUARDO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21644 May 29, 1970 - WENCESLAO PASCUAL v. PILAR BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25352 May 29, 1970 - JOSE MARIA SALVADOR, ET AL. v. ROSENDO FRIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25803 May 29, 1970 - LUZ PICAR, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-26838 May 29, 1970 - TOMAS BESA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27126 May 29, 1970 - LOU C. LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27585 May 29, 1970 - PROGRESSIVE LABOR ASSOCIATION v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28074 May 29, 1970 - NORTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. CASIANO SAPINOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29132 May 29, 1970 - JOSE YAP JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. EMILIO L. GALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31135 May 29, 1970 - DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ET AL. v. JOSE A. ALIGAEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31558 May 29, 1970 - RASID LUCMAN v. MACACUNA DIMAPURO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26681 May 29, 1970 - JOSE CALACDAY, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27562 May 29, 1970 - ROMULO A. YARCIA v. CITY OF BAGUIO