ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Labor Relations, Volume II of a 3-Volume Series 2017 Edition, 5th Revised Edition,
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-2013 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 161921, July 17, 2013 - JOYCE V. ARDIENTE, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JAVIER AND MA. THERESA PASTORFIDE, CAGAYAN DE ORO WATER DISTRICT AND GASPAR GONZALEZ,* JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 199114, July 16, 2013 - ROSALINDA DIMAPILIS-BALDOZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS THEN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION (POEA), Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN REYNALDO A. VILLAR AND COMMISSIONER JUANITO G. ESPINO, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196529, July 01, 2013 - WILLIAM T. GO, Petitioner, v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS TERESITA C. LOOYUKO, ALBERTO LOOYUKO, JR., ABRAHAM LOOYUKO AND STEPHANIE LOOYUKO (MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER TERESITA LOOYUKO), ALVIN, AMOS, AARON, DAVID, SOLOMON AND NOAH, ALL SURNAMED PADECIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172206, July 03, 2013 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ, ROLANDO L. LONTOC, SR., DR. PORFIRIO C. LIGAYA, ROLANDO L. LONTOC, JR. AND GLORIA M. MENDOZA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 180281, July 01, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOEMARIE JALBONIAN alias “Budo”, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 183805, July 03, 2013 - JAMES WALTER P. CAPILI, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SHIRLEY TISMO-CAPILI, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201061, July 03, 2013 - SALLY GO-BANGAYAN, Petitioner, v. BENJAMIN BANGAYAN, JR., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-09-2690 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2889-P], July 09, 2013 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. NOEL R. ONG, DEPUTY SHERIFF, BRANCH 49, AND ALVIN A. BUENCAMINO, DEPUTY SHERIFF, BRANCH 53 OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195481, July 10, 2013 - ORIENTAL PETROLEUM AND MINERALS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TUSCAN REALTY, INC., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 08-5-305-RTC, July 09, 2013 - RE: FAILURE OF FORMER JUDGE ANTONIO A. CARBONELL TO DECIDE CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION AND TO RESOLVE PENDING MOTIONS IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 27, SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION.

  • G.R. No. 203241, July 10, 2013 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERICO A. SERRA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 202709, July 03, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ROMEO ONIZA Y ONG AND MERCY ONIZA Y CABARLE, Appellants.

  • A.M. No. CA-13-51-J, July 02, 2013 - RE: LETTER COMPLAINT OF MERLITA B. FABIANA AGAINST PRESIDING JUSTICE ANDRES B. REYES, JR., ASSOCIATE JUSTICES ISAIAS P. DICDICAN AND STEPHEN C. CRUZ; CARAG JAMORA SOMERA AND VILLAREAL LAW OFFICES AND ITS LAWYERS ATTYS. ELPIDIO C. JAMORA, JR. AND BEATRIZ O. GERONILLA-VILLEGAS, LAWYERS FOR MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION AND VISAYAN SURETY AND INSURANCE CORPORATION.

  • G.R. No. 188711, July 08, 2013 - TAN BROTHERS CORPORATION OF BASILAN CITY THROUGH ITS OWNER/MANAGER, MAURO F. TAN, Petitioners, v. EDNA R. ESCUDERO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197789, July 08, 2013 - PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND/OR PAUL A. AQUINO, FRANCIS A. PALAFOX, Petitioners, v. JOSELITO L. ESTRELLA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 185734, July 03, 2013 - ALFREDO C. LIM, JR., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES TITO S. LAZARO AND CARMEN T. LAZARO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198680, July 08, 2013 - HEIRS OF MAGDALENO YPON, NAMELY, ALVARO YPON, ERUDITA Y. BARON, CICERO YPON, WILSON YPON, VICTOR YPON, AND HINIDINO Y. PEÑALOSA, Petitioners, v. GAUDIOSO PONTERAS RICAFORTE A.K.A. “GAUDIOSO E. YPON,” AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TOLEDO CITY, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 6490 [Formerly CBD Case No. 03-1054], July 09, 2013 - LILIA TABANG AND CONCEPCION TABANG, Complainsnts, v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7749, July 08, 2013 - JOSEFINA CARANZA VDA. DE SALDIVAR, Complainant, v. ATTY. RAMON SG CABANES, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 170245, July 01, 2013 - THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES DOMINGO TRIA AND CONSORCIA CAMANO TRIA, Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 195649, July 02, 2013 - CASAN MACODE MACQUILING, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO Y CAGOCO, AND LINOG G. BALUA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 179256, July 10, 2013 - FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. RAQUEL M. CALIMBAS AND LUISA P. MAHILOM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 186366, July 03, 2013 - HEIRS OF JOSE FERNANDO, Petitioners, v. REYNALDO DE BELEN, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 6942, July 17, 2013 - SONIC STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., Complainant, v. ATTY. NONNATUS P. CHUA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 177050, July 01, 2013 - CARLOS LIM, CONSOLACION LIM, EDMUNDO LIM,* CARLITO LIM, SHIRLEY LEODADIA DIZON,** AND ARLEEN LIM FERNANDEZ, Petitioners, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198759, July 01, 2013 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 206844-45, July 23, 2013 - COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC. [SENIOR CITIZENS PARTY-LIST], REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIRPERSON AND FIRST NOMINEE, FRANCISCO G. DATOL, JR., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.; G. R. NO. 206982 - COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (SENIOR CITIZENS), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND INCUMBENT REPRESENTATIVE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ATTY. GODOFREDO V. ARQUIZA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191247, July 10, 2013 - FRANCISCO L. ROSARIO, JR., Petitioner, v. LELLANI DE GUZMAN, ARLEEN DE GUZMAN, PHILIP RYAN DE GUZMAN, AND ROSELLA DE GUZMAN­ BAUTISTA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189686, July 15, 2013 - UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION AND LANCE Y. GOKONGWEI, Petitioners, v. WILFREDO Z. CASTILLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191411, July 15, 2013 - RAFAEL L. COSCOLLUELA, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202867, July 15, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REGIE LABIAGA, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 196741, July 17, 2013 - PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY (Now known AS TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENTERPRISE ZONE AUTHORITY), Petitioner, v. MARCOSA A. SABANDAL-HERZENSTIEL, PEDRO TAPALES, LUIS TAPALES, AND ROMEO TAPALES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 176111, July 12, 2013 - CAROLINA B. JOSE, Petitioner, v. PURITA SUAREZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192306, July 15, 2013 - JESSIE G. MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. CENTRAL PANGASINAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (CENPELCO), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179334, July 01, 2013 - SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS AND DISTRICT ENGINEER CELESTINO R. CONTRERAS, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES HERACLEO AND RAMONA TECSON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 179786, July 24, 2013 - JOSIELENE LARA CHAN, Petitioner, v. JOHNNY T. CHAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 186264, July 08, 2013 - DR. LORNA C.FORMARAN, Petitioner, v. DR. GLENDA B. ONG AND SOLOMON S. ONG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191068, July 17, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRIS CORPUZ Y BASBAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 175142, July 22, 2013 - BONIFACIO WATER CORPORATION (FORMERLY BONIFACIO VIVENDI WATER CORPORATION), Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 200895, July 31, 2013 - ROLANDO M. MENDIOLA, Petitioner, v. COMMERZ TRADING INT’L., INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199294, July 31, 2013 - RALPH LITO W. LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206505, July 24, 2013 - JEREME G. VILLANUEVA, SR., Petitioner, v. BALIWAG NAVIGATION, INC., VICTORIA VDA. DE TENGCO AND UNITRA MARITIME CO., LTD., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188500, July 24, 2013 - PROVINCE OF CAGAYAN, REPRESENTED BY HON. ALVARO T. ANTONIO, GOVERNOR, AND ROBERT ADAP, ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICER, Petitioners, v. JOSEPH LASAM LARA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193874, July 24, 2013 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. RICORDITO N. DE ASIS, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 172346, July 24, 2013 - SPOUSES NAMEAL AND LOURDES BONROSTRO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES JUAN AND CONSTANCIA LUNA, Respondents.

  • A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1321-P, July 16, 2013 - CONCERNED CITIZEN, Complainant, v. NONITA V. CATENA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 50, PUERTO PRINCESA, PALAWAN, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 6664, July 16, 2013 - FERDINAND A. SAMSON, Complainant, v. ATTY. EDGARDO O. ERA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197537, July 24, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NINOY ROSALES Y ESTO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 190340, July 24, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGELIO RAMOS AND MARISSA INTERO RAMOS, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 179638, July 08, 2013 - HEIRS OF NUMERIANO MIRANDA, SR., namely: CIRILA (deceased), CORNELIO, NUMERIANO, JR., ERLINDA, LOLITA, RUFINA, DANILO, ALEJANDRO, FELIMON, TERESITA, ELIZABETH AND ANALIZA, ALL SURNAMED MIRANDA, Petitioners, v. PABLO R. MIRANDA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 173587, July 15, 2013 - ZUELLIG PHARMA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ALICE M. SIBAL, MA. TERESA J. BARISO, PRESCILLANO L. GONZALES, LAURA B. BERNARDO, MAMERTA R. ZITA, JOSEPHINE JUDY C. GARCIA, MENDOZA,* AND MA. ASUNCION B. HERCE, EDITHA D. CARPITANOS, MA. LUZ B. BUENO, DANTE C. VERASTIGUE,** AGNES R. ALCOBER, ARWIN Y. CRUZ, ADONIS F. OCAMPO, SOPHIA P. ANGELES, JOEL B. BUSTAMANTE, EDITHA B. COLE, LUDIVINA C. PACIA, ROSELLE M. DIZON, RODOLFO A. ABCEDE, WILFREDO RICAFRENTE, RODOLFO R. ROBERTO, ROSALIE R. LUNAR, BENJAMIN R. CALAYCAY, GUILLERO YAP CADORNA, THROVADORE TOBOSO, CAROLINA S. UY, MARIA LORETTO M. REGIS, ALMAR C. CALUAG,** VILMA R. SAPIWOSO, ANATALIA L. CALPITO, FELIPE S. CALINAWAN, VIVIELIZA DELMAR MANULAT, MA. LIZA L. RAFINAN,** AMMIE V. GATILAO, ALEX B. SADAYA AND REGINO EDDIE PANGA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 174912, July 24, 2013 - BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO CITY-FUBU (BPIEU-DAVAO CITY-FUBU), Petitioner, v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (BPI), AND BPI OFFICERS CLARO M. REYES, CECIL CONANAN AND GEMMA VELEZ, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 197360, July 03, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONALD CREDO AKA “ONTOG,” RANDY CREDO AND ROLANDO CREDO Y SAN BUENAVENTURA, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 199082, G.R. NO. 199085, G.R. NO. 199118, July 23, 2013 - JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; HON. LEILA DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; HON. SIXTO BRILLANTES, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; AND THE JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE AND FACT-FINDING TEAM, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 199085 - BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR., Petitioner, v. HON. LEILA DE LIMA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE; HON. SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMELEC CHAIRPERSON; RENE V. SARMIENTO, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO V. VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM AND AUGUSTO C. LAGMAN, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS COMELEC COMMISSIONERS; CLARO A. ARELLANO, GEORGE C. DEE, JACINTO G. ANG, ROMEO B. FORTES AND MICHAEL D. VILLARET, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE ON THE 2004 AND 2007 ELECTION FRAUD RESPONDENTS.; G.R. NO. 199118 - GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRPERSON SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, JOINT DOJ-COMELEC PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE, SENATOR AQUILINO M. PIMENTEL III, AND DOJ-COMELEC FACT-FINDING TEAM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 175844, July 29, 2013 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. SARABIA MANOR HOTEL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192571, July 23, 2013 - ABBOTT LABORATORIES, PHILIPPINES, CECILLE A. TERRIBLE, EDWIN D. FEIST, MARIA OLIVIA T. YABUT-MISA, TERESITA C. BERNARDO, AND ALLAN G. ALMAZAR, Petitioners, v. PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. 11-10-03-0, July 30, 2013 - RE: LETTER DATED APRIL 18, 2011 OF CHIEF PUBLIC ATTORNEY PERSIDA RUEDA-ACOSTA REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM THE PAYMENT OF SHERIFF’S EXPENSES

  • G.R. No. 179607, July 24, 2013 - CIRILA MANOTA, FOR HERSELF AND IN BEHALF OF HER CHILDREN, CLAIRE, CATHERINE, CHARLES, PHILIP CHRISTOPHER, CARMI JOY, CARLO JOHN AND CEDRIC JAMES, Petitioners, v. AVANTGARDE SHIPPING CORPORATION AND/OR SEMBAWANG JOHNSON MANAGEMENT PTE., LTD, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185740, July 23, 2013 - THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF CAMARINES NORTE, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR JESUS O. TYPOCO, JR., Petitioner, v. BEATRIZ O. GONZALES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 179146, July 23, 2013 - HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL, Petitioner, v. HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, AND PINAG-ISANG TINIG AT LAKAS NG ANAKPAWIS – HOLY CHILD CATHOLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION (HCCS-TELU-PIGLAS), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 170677, July 31, 2013 - VSD REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNIWIDE SALES, INC. AND DOLORES BAELLO TEJAD, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 183608, July 13, 2013 - FAUSTINO T. CHINGKOE AND GLORIA CHINGKOE, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 203585, July 29, 2013 - MILA CABOVERDE TANTANO AND ROSELLER CABOVERDE, Petitioners, v. DOMINALDA ESPINA­CABOVERDE, EVE CABOVERDE-YU, FE CABOVERDE-LABRADOR, AND JOSEPHINE E. CABOVERDE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 194709, July 31, 2013 - MINETTE BAPTISTA, BANNIE EDSEL SAN MIGUEL, AND MA. FE DAYON, Petitioners, v. ROSARIO VILLANUEVA, JANETTE ROLDAN, DANILO OLAYVAR, ONOFRE ESTRELLA, CATALINO LEDDA, MANOLO GUBANGCO, GILBERT ORIBIANA, CONSTANCIO SANTIAGO, RUTH BAYQUEN, RUBY CASTANEDA, ALFRED LANDAS, JR., ROSELYN GARCES, EUGENE CRUZ, MENANDRO SAMSON, FEDERICO MUNOZ AND SALVADOR DIWA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172846, July 24, 2013 - MANILA POLO CLUB EMPLOYEES’ UNION (MPCEU) FUR-TUCP, Petitioner, v. MANILA POLO CLUB, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189028, July 16, 2013 - NATIONAL ARTIST FOR LITERATURE VIRGILIO ALMARIO, NATIONAL ARTIST FOR LITERATURE BIENVENIDO LUMBERA, NATIONAL ARTIST FOR VISUAL ARTS (PAINTING) BENEDICTO CABRERA, NATIONAL ARTIST FOR VISUAL ARTS (SCULPTURE) NAPOLEON ABUEVA, NATIONAL ARTIST FOR VISUAL ARTS (PAINTING AND SCULPTURE) ARTURO LUZ, NATIONAL ARTIST FOR PRODUCTION DESIGN SALVADOR BERNAL, UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR EMERITUS GEMINO ABAD, DEAN MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN (UP COLLEGE OF LAW), DEAN DANILO SILVESTRE (UP COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE), DEAN ROLAND TOLENTINO (UP COLLEGE OF MASS COMMUNICATION), PROF. JOSE DALISAY, DR. ANTON JUAN, DR. ALEXANDER CORTEZ, DR. JOSE NEIL GARCIA, DR. PEDRO JUN CRUZ REYES, PROF. JOSE CLAUDIO GUERRERO, PROF. MICHAEL M. COROZA, PROF. GERARD LICO, PROF. VERNE DE LA PENA, PROF. MARIAN ABUAN, PROF. THEODORE O. TE, DR. CRISTINA PANTOJA-HIDALGO, PROF. JOSE WENDELL CAPILI, PROF. SIR ANRIAL TIATCO, PROF. NICOLO DEL CASTILLO, PROF. HORACIO DUMANLIG, PROF. DANTON REMOTO, PROF. PRISCELINA PATAJO-LEGASTO, PROF. BELEN CALINGACION, PROF. AMIEL Y. LEONARDIA, PROF. VIM NADERA, PROF. MARILYN CANTA, PROF. CECILIA DELA PAZ, PROF. CHARLSON ONG, PROF. CLOD MARLON YAMBAO, PROF. KENNETH JAMANDRE, PROF. JETHRO JOAQUIN, ATTY. F.D. NICOLAS B. PICHAY, ATTY. ROSE BEATRIX ANGELES, MR. FERNANDO JOSEF, MS. SUSAN S. LARA, MR. ALFRED YUSON, MS. JING PANGANIBAN-MENDOZA, MR. ROMULO BAQUIRAN, JR., MR. CARLJOE JAVIER, MS. REBECCA T. ANONUEVO, MR. JP ANTHONY D. CUNADA, MS. LEAH NAVARRO, MR. MARK MEILLY, MR. VERGEL O. SANTOS, MR. GIL OLEA MENDOZA, MR. EDGAR C. SAMAR, MS. CHRISTINE BELLEN, MR. ANGELO R. LACUESTA, MS. ANNA MARIA KATIGBAK-LACUESTA, MR. LEX LEDESMA, MS. KELLY PERIQUET, MS. CARLA PACIS, MR. J. ALBERT GAMBOA, MR. CESAR EVANGELISTA BUENDIA, MR. PAOLO ALCAZAREN, MR. ALWYN C. JAVIER, MR. RAYMOND MAGNO GARLITOS, MS. GANG BADOY, MR. LESLIE BOCOBO, MS. FRANCES BRETANA, MS. JUDITH TORRES, MS. JANNETTE PINZON, MS. JUNE POTICAR-DALISAY, MS. CAMILLE DE LA ROSA, MR. JAMES LADIORAY, MR. RENATO CONSTANTINO, JR., AND CONCERNED ARTISTS OF THE PHILIPPINES (CAP), Petitioners, v. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, THE CULTURAL CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CULTURE AND THE ARTS, MS. CECILE GUIDOTE-ALVAREZ, MR. CARLO MAGNO JOSE CAPARAS,1 MR. JOSE MORENO, MR. FRANCISCO MAÑOSA, AND ALL PERSONS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, ACTING UNDER THEIR INSTRUCTIONS, DIRECTION, CONTROL AND SUPERVISION IN RELATION TO THE CONFERMENT OF THE ORDER OF THE NATIONAL ARTIST AND THE RELEASE OF FUNDS IN RELATION TO THE CONFERMENT OF THE HONORS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE ORDER OF NATIONAL ARTISTS ON RESPONDENTS GUIDOTE-ALVAREZ, CAPARAS, MORENO AND MAÑOSA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189316, July 01, 2013 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES BERNARD AND CRESENCIA MARAÑON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 184908, July 03, 2013 - MAJOR JOEL G. CANTOS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192394, July 03, 2013 - ROY D. PASOS, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 177763, July 03, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARY VERGARA Y ORIEL AND JOSEPH INOCENCIO1 y PAULINO, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 181277, July 03, 2013 - SWEDISH MATCH PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. THE TREASURER OF THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198240, July 03, 2013 - LUISA NAVARRO MARCOS*, Petitioner, v. THE HEIRS OF THE LATE DR. ANDRES NAVARRO, JR., NAMELY NONITA NAVARRO, FRANCISCA NAVARRO MALAPITAN, SOLEDAD NAVARRO BROCHLER, NONITA BARRUN NAVARRO, JR., IMELDA NAVARRO, ANDRES NAVARRO III, MILAGROS NAVARRO YAP, PILAR NAVARRO, TERESA NAVARRO-TABITA, AND LOURDES BARRUN-REJUSO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188217, July 03, 2013 - FERNANDO M. ESPINO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199932, July 03, 2013 - CAMILO A. ESGUERRA, Petitioner, v. UNITED PHILIPPINES LINES, INC., BELSHIPS MANAGEMENT (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD., AND/OR FERNANDO T. LISING, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 159213, July 03, 2013 - VECTOR SHIPPING CORPORATION AND FRANCISCO SORIANO, Petitioners, v. AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY AND SULPICIO LINES, INC., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198534, July 03, 2013 - JENNY F. PECKSON, Petitioner, v. ROBINSONS SUPERMARKET CORPORATION, JODY GADIA, ROENA SARTE, AND RUBY ALEX, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192179, July 03, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LITO HATSERO, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 182349, July 24, 2013 - REMAN RECIO, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF THE SPOUSES AGUEDO AND MARIA ALTAMIRANO, NAMELY: ALEJANDRO, ADELAIDA, CATALINA, ALFREDO, FRANCISCO, ALL SURNAMED ALTAMIRANO; VIOLETA ALTAMIRANO OLFATO, AND LORETA ALTAMIRANO VDA. DE MARALIT AND SPOUSES LAURO AND MARCELINA LAJARCA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 185160, July 24, 2013 - POLYMER RUBBER CORPORATION AND JOSEPH ANG, Petitioners, v. BAYOLO SALAMUDING, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192896, July 24, 2013 - DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS INCUMBENT PRESIDENT, GREG SERIEGO, Petitioner, v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 7686, July 31, 2013 - JAIME JOVEN AND REYNALDO C. RASING, Ccomplainants, v. ATTYS. PABLO R. CRUZ AND FRANKIE O. MAGSALIN III, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181539, July 24, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWIN ALEMAN Y LONGHAS, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 188046, July 24, 2013 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN RUBBER CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181163, July 24, 2013 - ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., Petitioner, v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC. (NOW CHARTIS PHILIPPINES INSURANCE, INC.), Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181444, July 17, 2013 - BOBBY “ABEL” AVELINO Y BULAWAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197250, July 17, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO “ANDY” SOMOZA Y HANDAYA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 201728, July 17, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARVIN CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 160739, July 17, 2013 - ANITA MANGILA, Petitioner, v. JUDGE HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN, ASST.CITY PROSECUTOR II LUCIA JUDY SOLINAP, AND NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (DIRECTOR REYNALDO WYCOCO), Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 173307, July 17, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTORINO REYES, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 157900, July 22, 2013 - ZUELLIG FREIGHT AND CARGO SYSTEMS, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND RONALDO V. SAN MIGUEL, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189343, July 10, 2013 - BENILDA N. BACASMAS, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 189369 - ALAN C. GAVIOLA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.; G.R. NO. 189553 - EUSTAQUIO B. CESA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 168951& 169000, July 17, 2013 - DR. ROGER R. POSADAS AND DR. ROLANDO P. DAYCO, Petitioners, v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 201979, July 10, 2013 - GILDA C. FERNANDEZ AND BERNADETTE A. BELTRAN, Petitioners, v. NEWFIELD STAFF SOLUTIONS, INC./ARNOLD “JAY” LOPEZ, JR., Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198020, July 10, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSEPH BARRA, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 195528, July 04, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE CLARA Y BUHAIN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 162385, July 15, 2013 - SAMAR-MED DISTRIBUTION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND JOSAFAT GUTANG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 172504, July 31, 2013 - DONNA C. NAGTALON, Petitioner, v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197725, July 31, 2013 - MARK ANTHONY ESTEBAN (IN SUBSTITUTION OF THE DECEASED GABRIEL O. ESTEBAN), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RODRIGO C. MARCELO AND CARMEN T. MARCELO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188708, July 31, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ALAMADA MACABANDO, Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 179326, July 31, 2013 - LUCIANO P. CAÑEDO,* Petitioner, v. KAMPILAN SECURITY AND DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC. AND RAMONCITO L. ARQUIZA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 174978, July 31, 2013 - SALLY YOSHIZAKI, Petitioner, v. JOY TRAINING CENTER OF AURORA, INC., Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-10-2789 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3181-P), July 31, 2013 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. BENILDA A. TEJADA, Complainant, v. DAMVIN V. FAMERO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43, ROXAS, ORIENTAL MINDORO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 165014, July 31, 2013 - HEIRS OF ALEJANDRA DELFIN, NAMELY: LEOPOLDO DELFIN (DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY HIS SPOUSE, LUZ C. DELFIN, AND CHILDREN, LELANE C. DELFIN AND ANASTACIA C. DELFIN, MARCELITO DELFIN, FRANCISCO DELFIN, APOLLO DELFIN, ABRILES DELFIN, LYDIA D. DACULAN, OLIVIA D. CABALLERO, ALEJANDRO DELFIN, JULITO DELFIN, AND CANDIDO DELFIN, JR., Petitioners, v. AVELINA RABADON, PACIANO PANOGALING, HILARIA RABADON, PABLO BOQUILLA, CATALINA RABADON, PACIANO RABAYA, FE RABADON, GONZALO DABON, AND ROBERTO RABADON, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 186509, July 29, 2013 - PHILMAN MARINE AGENCY, INC. (NOW DOHLE-PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY, INC.) AND/OR DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED, Petitioners, v. ARMANDO S. CABANBAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 159371, July 29, 2013 - D. M. CONSUNJI CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ROGELIO P. BELLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206236, July 15, 2013 - GILFREDO BACOLOD, A.K.A. GILARDO BACOLOD, Accused-Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 186610, July 29, 2013 - POLICE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT DIMAPINTO MACAWADIB, Petitioner, v. THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTORATE FOR PERSONNEL AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 161075, July 15, 2013 - RAFAEL JOSE CONSING, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 181119, July 31, 2013 - ARNEL ALICANDO Y BRIONES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189570, July 31, 2013 - HEIRS OF SANTIAGO NISPEROS, TEODORICO NISPEROS, RESTITUTA LARON, CARMELITA H. NISPEROS, VIRGILIO H. NISPEROS, CONCHITA H. NISPEROS, PURITA H. NISPEROS, PEPITO H. NISPEROS, REBECCA H. NISPEROS, ABRAHAM H. NISPEROS, IGNACIO F. NISPEROS, RODOLFO F. NISPEROS, RAYMUNDO F. NISPEROS, RENATO F. NISPEROS, FE N. MUNAR, BENITO F. NISPEROS, REYNALDO N. NISPEROS, MELBA N. JOSE, ELY N. GADIANO, REPRESENTED BY TEODORICO NISPEROS, Petitioners, v. MARISSA NISPEROS-DUCUSIN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 196973, July 31, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUPER POSING Y ALAYON, Accused-Appellant.

  • OCA I.P.I. NO. 11-3589-RTJ, July 29, 2013 - KONRAD A. RUBIN AND CONRADO C. RUBIN, Complainants, v. JUDGE EVELYN CORPUS-CABOCHAN, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 98, QUEZON CITY, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191219, July 31, 2013 - SPO1 RAMON LIHAYLIHAY1 AND C/INSP. VIRGILIO V. VINLUAN, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 161211, July 17, 2013 - SPOUSES CELSO DICO, SR. AND ANGELES DICO, Petitioners, v. VIZCAYA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 173226, July 29, 2013 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MANUEL O. GALLEGO, JR., JOSEPH L. GALLEGO AND CHRISTOPHER L. GALLEGO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188767, July 24, 2013 - SPOUSES ARGOVAN AND FLORIDA GADITANO, Petitioners, v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189121, July 31, 2013 - AMELIA GARCIA-QUIAZON, JENNETH QUIAZON AND MARIA JENNIFER QUIAZON, Petitioners, v. MA. LOURDES BELEN, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF MARIA LOURDES ELISE QUIAZON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192685, July 31, 2013 - OSCAR R. AMPIL, Petitioner, v. THE HON. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, POLICARPIO L. ESPENESIN, REGISTRAR, REGISTER OF DEEDS, PASIG CITY, FRANCIS SERRANO, YVONNE S. YUCHENGCO, AND GEMA O. CHENG, Respondents.; G.R. No. 199115 - OSCAR R. AMPIL, Petitioner, v. POLICARPIO L. ESPENESIN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 175666, July 29, 2013 - MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CRESENCIA P. ABAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 165386, July 29, 2013 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES SALVADOR AND NENITA CRUZ, SPOUSES EDMUNDO AND MERLA BARZAGA, SPOUSES CRISANTO AND JULIETA DELA CRUZ, SPOUSES LORENZO AND ROSALINA PALAGANAS, SPOUSES RICARDO AND LOLITA SAGUID, SPOUSES CARMELITA A-ND RESTITUTO ALCID, HIPOLITA NASALGA, CRISELDA AND 'REDENTOR REYES, ILUMINADA ALIPIO, REYNALDO ALIPIO, CORAZON PELAYO, SPOUSES ROLANDO AND FELICIDAD BOANGUTS, SPOUSES JOSELLTO AND CAROLINE MENDOZA, SPOUSES ERLINDA AND CELSO DE GUZMAN, SPOUSES MIGUEL AND VIRGINIA CASAS, SPOUSES ERLINDA AND CELSO DICCION, MA. RENITA MARIANO, VICTORIA ESPIRITU, SPOUSES VICTOR AND ROSARION SOTELO, RENATO GUIEB, DANIEL STA. MARIA, SPOUSES MELANIO AND SOTERIA TORRES, SPOUSES CIRIACO AND PERLITA BENDIJO, SPOUSES L.ILIA AND DOMINGO TORRES, PACITA TORRES AND GREGORIA.CASTILLO, SPOUSES HILARIO AND AMANDA DONIZA, SPOUSES JEREMIAS AND ISABEL GARCIA, SPOUSES EDUARDO AND MA. MARIN CALDERON, SPOUSES ERNESTO AND PELAGIA LUCAS, CORAZON ACOSTA, TERESITA LACSON AND JULIANA DE GUZMAN, PERLA REYES, SPOUSES ESMELITON AND REMEDIOS ESPIRITU, SPOUSES ROGELIO AND AURORA ABALON, DITAS GARCIA, TERESITA CAPATI, SPOUSES EFREN AND MERCEDES MARTIN, SPOUSES HIPOLITO AND ANTONIA STA. MARIA, DIONISIO AND ATANACIA DOMONDON, JAOQUIN AND MA. THERESA DELA ROSA, SPOUSES ROMULO AND NORMA DUCUSIN, GENOVEVA CRUZ AND A. BAUTISTA, PURITA SUNICO, SPOUSES MINERVA AND ROQUE NUALLA, AND SPOUSES GABINO, JR. AND CRISPINA ALIPIO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 198110, July 31, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILSON ROMAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 147257, July 31, 2013 - SPOUSES JESUS DYCOCO and JOELA E. DYCOCO, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NELLY SIAPNO­SANCHEZ and INOCENCIO BERMA, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 9906, July 29, 2013 - ATTY. LESTER R. NUIQUE, Complainant, v. ATTY. EDUARDO SEDILLO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 191025, July 31, 2013 - RHODORA PRIETO, Petitioner, v. ALPADI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184622, July 03, 2013 - PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (POTC) AND PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION (PHILCOMSAT), Petitioners, v. VICTOR AFRICA, ERLINDA I. BILDNER, SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, HONORIO POBLADOR III, VICTORIA C. DELOS REYES, JOHN BENEDICT SIOSON, AND JOHN/JANE DOES. Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 184712-14 - PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (POTC) AND PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION (PHILCOMSAT), Petitioners, v. HON. JENNY LIN ALDECOA-DELORINO, PAIRING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY-BRANCH 138, VICTOR AFRICA, PURPORTEDLY REPRESENTING PHILCOMSAT, AND JOHN/JANE DOES, Respondents.; G.R. No. 186066 - PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY CONCEPCION POBLADOR, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION (PHILCOMSAT), REPRESENTED BY VICTOR AFRICA, Respondents.; G.R. No. 186590 - PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ERLINDA I. BILDNER, Petitioner, v. PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ENRIQUE L. LOCSIN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 182280, July 29, 2013 - TERESA C. AGUILAR, CESAR D. RAAGAS, VILLAMOR VILLEGAS, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF MAKATI, Petitioners. v. MICHAEL J. O’PALLICK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 189293, July 10, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE CANDELLADA, Accused-Appellant.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 175666, July 29, 2013 - MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CRESENCIA P. ABAN, Respondent.

     

    G.R. No. 175666, July 29, 2013 - MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CRESENCIA P. ABAN, Respondent.

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    G.R. No. 175666, July 29, 2013

    MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CRESENCIA P. ABAN, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    DEL CASTILLO, J.:

     

    The ultimate aim of Section 48 of the Insurance Code is to compel insurers to solicit business from or provide insurance coverage only to legitimate and bona fide clients, by requiring them to thoroughly investigate those they insure within two years from effectivity of the policy and while the insured is still alive. If they do not, they will be obligated to honor claims on the policies they issue, regardless of fraud, concealment or misrepresentation. The law assumes that they will do just that and not sit on their laurels, indiscriminately soliciting and accepting insurance business from any Tom, Dick and Harry.

    Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 are the September 28, 2005 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 62286 and its November 9, 2006 Resolution3 denying the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.4cralaw virtualaw library

    Factual Antecedents

    On July 3, 1993, Delia Sotero (Sotero) took out a life insurance policy from Manila Bankers Life Insurance Corporation (Bankers Life), designating respondent Cresencia P. Aban (Aban), her niece,5 as her beneficiary.

    Petitioner issued Insurance Policy No. 747411 (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.6cralaw virtualaw library

    On April 10, 1996,7 when the insurance policy had been in force for more than two years and seven months, Sotero died. Respondent filed a claim for the insurance proceeds on July 9, 1996. Petitioner conducted an investigation into the claim,8 and came out with the following findings:
    1. Sotero did not personally apply for insurance coverage, as she was illiterate;chanr0blesvirtualawlibrary

    2. Sotero was sickly since 1990;chanr0blesvirtualawlibrary

    3. Sotero did not have the financial capability to pay the insurance premiums on Insurance Policy No. 747411;chanr0blesvirtualawlibrary

    4. Sotero did not sign the July 3, 1993 application for insurance;9 [and]

    5. Respondent was the one .who filed the insurance application, and x x x designated herself as the beneficiary.10cralaw virtualaw library
    For the above reasons, petitioner denied respondent's claim on April 16, 1997 and refunded the premiums paid on the policy.11cralaw virtualaw library

    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 main thesis of the Complaint was that the policy was obtained by fraud, concealment and/or misrepresentation under the Insurance Code,12 which thus renders it voidable under Article 139013 of the Civil Code.

    Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss14 claiming that petitioner's cause of action was barred by prescription pursuant to Section 48 of the Insurance Code, which provides as follows:
    Whenever a right to rescind a contract of insurance is given to the insurer by any provision of this chapter, such right must be exercised previous to the commencement of an action on the contract.

    After a policy of life insurance made payable on the death of the insured shall have been in force during the lifetime of the insured for a period of two years from the date of its issue or of its last reinstatement, the insurer cannot prove that the policy is void ab initio or is rescindible by reason of the fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of the insured or his agent.
    During the proceedings on the Motion to Dismiss, petitioner's investigator testified in court, stating among others that the insurance underwriter who solicited the insurance is a cousin of respondent's husband, Dindo Aban,15 and that it was the respondent who paid the annual premiums on the policy.16cralaw virtualaw library

    Ruling of the Regional Trial Court


    On December 9, 1997, the trial court issued an Order17 granting respondent's Motion to Dismiss, thus:
    WHEREFORE, defendant CRESENCIA P. ABAN's Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted. Civil Case No. 97-867 is hereby dismissed.

    SO ORDERED.18cralaw virtualaw library
    In dismissing the case, the trial court found that Sotero, and not respondent, was the one who procured the insurance; thus, Sotero could legally take out insurance on her own life and validly designate - as she did — respondent as the beneficiary. It held further that under Section 48, petitioner had only two years from the effectivity of the policy to question the same; since the policy had been in force for more than two years, petitioner is now barred from contesting the same or seeking a rescission or annulment thereof.

    Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but in another Order19 dated October 20, 1998, the trial court stood its ground.

    Petitioner interposed an appeal with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 62286. Petitioner questioned the dismissal of Civil Case No. 97-867, arguing that the trial court erred in applying Section 48 and declaring that prescription has set in. It contended that since it was respondent - and not Sotero - who obtained the insurance, the policy issued was rendered void ab initio for want of insurable interest.

    Ruling of the Court of Appeals

    On September 28, 2005, the CA issued the assailed Decision, which contained the following decretal portion:
    WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED.20cralaw virtualaw library
    The CA thus sustained the trial court. Applying Section 48 to petitioner's case, the CA held that petitioner may no longer prove that the subject policy was void ab initio or rescindible by reason of fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation after the lapse of more than two years from its issuance. It ratiocinated that petitioner was equipped with ample means to determine, within the first two years of the policy, whether fraud, concealment or misrepresentation was present when the insurance coverage was obtained. If it failed to do so within the statutory two-year period, then the insured must be protected and allowed to claim upon the policy.

    Petitioner moved for reconsideration,21 but the CA denied the same in its November 9, 2006 Resolution.22 Hence, the present Petition.

    Issues

    Petitioner raises the following issues for resolution:
     
    I

    [WHETHER] THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND OF PRESCRIPTION IN CONTRAVENTION (OF) PERTINENT LAWS AND APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE.

    II

    [WHETHER] THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE APPLICATION OF THE INCONTESTABILITY PROVISION IN THE INSURANCE CODE BY THE TRIAL COURT.

    III

    [WHETHER] THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.23cralaw virtualaw library

    Petitioner's Arguments

    In praying that the CA Decision be reversed and that the case be remanded to the trial court for the conduct of further proceedings, petitioner argues in its Petition and Reply24 that Section 48 cannot apply to a case where the beneficiary under the insurance contract posed as the insured and obtained the policy under fraudulent circumstances. It adds that respondent, who was merely Sotero's niece, had no insurable interest in the life of her aunt.

    Relying on the results of the investigation that it conducted after the claim for the insurance proceeds was filed, petitioner insists that respondent's claim was spurious, as it appeared that Sotero did not actually apply for insurance coverage, was unlettered, sickly, and had no visible source of income to pay for the insurance premiums; and that respondent was an impostor, posing as Sotero and fraudulently obtaining insurance in the latter's name without her knowledge and consent.

    Petitioner adds that Insurance Policy No. 747411 was void ab initio and could not have given rise to rights and obligations; as such, the action for the declaration of its nullity or inexistence does not prescribe.25cralaw virtualaw library

    Respondent's Arguments

    Respondent, on the other hand, essentially argues in her Comment26 that the CA is correct in applying Section 48. She adds that petitioner's new allegation in its Petition that the policy is void ab initio merits no attention, having failed to raise the same below, as it had claimed originally that the policy was merely voidable.

    On the issue of insurable interest, respondent echoes the CA's pronouncement that since it was Sotero who obtained the insurance, insurable interest was present. Under Section 10 of the Insurance Code, Sotero had insurable interest in her own life, and could validly designate anyone as her beneficiary. Respondent submits that the CA's findings of fact leading to such conclusion should be respected.

    Our Ruling

    The Court denies the Petition.

    The Court will not depart from the trial and appellate courts' finding that it was Sotero who obtained the insurance for herself, designating respondent as her beneficiary. Both courts are in accord in this respect, and the Court is loath to disturb this. While petitioner insists that its independent investigation on the claim reveals that it was respondent, posing as Sotero, who obtained the insurance, this claim is no longer feasible in the wake of the courts' finding that it was Sotero who obtained the insurance for herself. This finding of fact binds the Court.

    With the above crucial finding of fact - that it was Sotero who obtained the insurance for herself - petitioner's case is severely weakened, if not totally disproved. Allegations of fraud, which are predicated on respondent's alleged posing as Sotero and forgery of her signature in the insurance application, are at once belied by the trial 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 to rescind the contract"27 In the absence of proof of such fraudulent intent, no right to rescind arises.

    Moreover, the results and conclusions arrived at during the investigation conducted unilaterally by petitioner after the claim was filed may simply be dismissed as self-serving and may not form the basis of a cause of action given the existence and application of Section 48, as will be discussed at length below.

    Section 48 serves a noble purpose, as it regulates the actions of both the insurer and the insured. Under the provision, an insurer is given two years - from the effectivity of a life insurance contract and while the insured is alive - to discover or prove that the policy is void ab initio or is rescindible by reason of the fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of the insured or his agent. After the two-year period lapses, or when the insured dies within the period, the insurer must make good on the policy, even though the policy was obtained by fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation. This is not to say that insurance fraud must be rewarded, but that insurers who recklessly and indiscriminately solicit and obtain business must be penalized, for such recklessness and lack of discrimination ultimately work to the detriment of bona fide takers of insurance and the public in general.

    Section 48 regulates both the actions of the insurers and prospective takers of life insurance. It gives insurers enough time to inquire whether the policy was obtained by fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation; on the other hand, it forewarns scheming individuals that their attempts at insurance fraud would be timely uncovered - thus deterring them from venturing into such nefarious enterprise. At the same time, legitimate policy holders are absolutely protected from unwarranted denial of their claims or delay in the collection of insurance proceeds occasioned by allegations of fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation by insurers, claims which may no longer be set up after the two-year period expires as ordained under the law.

    Thus, the self-regulating feature of Section 48 lies in the fact that both the insurer and the insured are given the assurance that any dishonest scheme to obtain life insurance would be exposed, and attempts at unduly denying a claim would be struck down. Life insurance policies that pass the statutory two-year period are essentially treated as legitimate and beyond question, and the individuals who wield them are made secure by the thought that they will be paid promptly upon claim. In this manner, Section 48 contributes to the stability of the insurance industry.

    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.

    The Court therefore agrees fully with the appellate court's pronouncement that -
    [t]he "incontestability clause" is a provision in law that after a policy of life insurance made payable on the death of the insured shall have been in force during the lifetime of the insured for a period of two (2) years from the date of its issue or of its last reinstatement, the insurer cannot prove that the policy is void ab initio or is rescindible by reason of fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation of the insured or his agent.

    The purpose of the law is to give protection to the insured or his beneficiary by limiting the rescinding of the contract of insurance on the ground of fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation to a period of only two (2) years from the issuance of the policy or its last reinstatement.

    The insurer is deemed to have the necessary facilities to discover such fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation within a period of two (2) years. It is not fair for the insurer to collect the premiums as long as the insured is still alive, only to raise the issue of fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation when the insured dies in order to defeat the right of the beneficiary to recover under the policy.

    At least two (2) years from the issuance of the policy or its last reinstatement, the beneficiary is given the stability to recover under the policy when the insured dies. The provision also makes clear when the two-year period should commence in case the policy should lapse and is reinstated, that is, from the date of the last reinstatement.

    After two years, the defenses of concealment or misrepresentation, no matter how patent or well-founded, will no longer lie.

    Congress felt this was a sufficient answer to the various tactics employed by insurance companies to avoid liability.

    The so-called "incontestability clause" precludes the insurer from raising the defenses of false representations or concealment of material facts insofar as health and previous diseases are concerned if the insurance has been in force for at least two years during the insured’s lifetime. The phrase "during the lifetime" found in Section 48 simply means that the policy is no longer considered in force after the insured has died. The key phrase in the second paragraph of Section 48 is "for a period of two years."

    As borne by the records, the policy was issued on August 30. 1993, the insured died on April 10, 1996, and the claim was denied on April 16, 1997. The insurance policy was thus in force for a period of 3 years, 7 months, and 24 days. Considering that the insured died after the two-year period, the plaintiff-appellant is, therefore, barred from proving that the policy is void ab initio by reason of the insured fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation or want of insurable interest on the part of the beneficiary, herein defendant-appellee.

    Well-settled is the rule that it is the plaintiff-appellant's burden to show that the factual findings of the trial court are not based on substantial evidence or that its conclusions are contrary to applicable law and jurisprudence. The plaintiff-appellant failed to discharge that burden.28cralaw virtualaw library
    Petitioner claims that its insurance agent, who solicited the Sotero account, happens to be the cousin of respondent's husband, and thus insinuates that both connived to commit insurance fraud. If this were truly the case, then petitioner would have discovered the scheme earlier if it had in earnest conducted an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Sotero policy. But because it did not and it investigated the Sotero account only after a claim was filed thereon more than two years later, naturally it was unable to detect the scheme. For its negligence and inaction, the Court cannot sympathize with its plight. Instead, its case precisely provides the strong argument for requiring insurers to diligently conduct investigations on each policy they issue within the two-year period mandated under Section 48, and not alter claims for insurance proceeds are filed with them.

    Besides, if insurers cannot vouch for the integrity and honesty of their insurance agents/salesmen and the insurance policies they issue, then they should cease doing business. If they could not properly screen their agents or salesmen before taking them in to market their products, or if they do not thoroughly investigate the insurance contracts they enter into with their clients, then they have only themselves to blame. Otherwise said, insurers cannot be allowed to collect premiums on insurance policies, use these amounts collected and invest the same through the years, generating profits and returns therefrom for their own benefit, and thereafter conveniently deny insurance claims by questioning the authority or integrity of their own agents or the insurance policies they issued to their premium-paying clients. This is exactly one of the schemes which Section 48 aims to prevent.

    Insurers may not be allowed to delay the payment of claims by filing frivolous cases in court, hoping that the inevitable may be put off for years - or even decades — by the pendency of these unnecessary court cases. In the meantime, they benefit from collecting the interest and/or returns on both the premiums previously paid by the insured and the insurance proceeds which should otherwise go to their beneficiaries. The business of insurance is a highly regulated commercial activity in the country,29 and is imbued with public interest.30 "[A]n insurance contract is a contract of adhesion which must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer in order to safeguard the [former's] interest."31cralaw virtualaw library

    WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed September 28, 2005 Decision and the November 9, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 62286 are AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Perez, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    1Rollo. pp. 3-14.

    2 CA rollo, pp. 38-47; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate Justices Danilo B. Pine and Vicente S.E. Veloso.

    3 Id. at 59-60; penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate Justices Regalado H. Maambong and Vicente S.E. Veloso.

    4 Id. at 48-56.

    5Rollo, p. 6.  chanr0blesvirtualawlibrary

    6 Id. at 6-7, 71.

    7 Records, p. 23.

    8Rollo. p. 7.nadcralawlibrary

    9 Id. at 7, 16.redcralaw

    10 Records, p. 2.

    11 Id.

    12 Presidential Decree No. 612.

    13 Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties:cralawlibrary

    (1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract;chanr0blesvirtualawlibrary

    (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud.

    These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court. They are susceptible of ratification.

    14 Records, pp. 19-22.

    15 TSN, May 5, 1998, pp.-12-13; records, pp. 95-96.

    16 Id. at 15; id. at 98.

    17 Records, pp. 55-56; penned by Judge Ignacio M. Capulong.

    18 Id at 56.

    19 Id. at 116-119.

    20 CA rollo, p. 46.

    21 Id. at 48-56.

    22 Id. at 59-60.

    23Rollo, p. 9.

    24 Id. at 69-75.red cralawlibrary

    25 Citing Article 1410 of the Civil Code:cralawlibrary

    Art. 1410. The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.

    26Rollo, pp. 57-67.

    27Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 375 Phil. 142, 152 (1999).

    28 CA rollo, pp. 44-46.

    29Tongko v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Phils.), Inc., G.R. No. 167622, June 29, 2010, 622 SCR A 58,75. chanr0blesvirtualawlibrary

    30Republic v. Del Monte Motors, Inc., 535 Phil. 53, 60 (2006); White Gold Marine Services, Inc. v. Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation, 502 Phil. 692, 700 (2005). chanr0blesvirtualawlibrary

    31Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation v. Philippine American Life Insurance Company, G.R. No. 166245. April 9. 2008, 551 SCRA 1, 13.

    G.R. No. 175666, July 29, 2013 - MANILA BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CRESENCIA P. ABAN, Respondent.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

           

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED