METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY vs.
BA As a rule, when the payee is fictitious or not intended to
FINANCE CORPORATION
G.R. NO. 179952 DECEMBER 4, 2009
Banking business is imbued with public interest such that the
highest degree of diligence and highest standards of integrity
and performance are expected of banks in order to maintain
the trust and confidence of the public in general in the banking
sector
As the collecting bank or last indorser, generally suffers the
loss because it has the duty to ascertain the genuineness of all
prior indorsements considering that the act of presenting the
check for payment to the drawee is an assertion that the party
making the presentment has done its duty to ascertain the
genuineness of prior indorsements.
The payment of an instrument over a missing indorsement is
the equivalent of payment on a forged indorsement[27] or an
unauthorized indorsement in itself in the case of joint payees.
RCBC SAVINGS BANK VS. ODRADA
G.R. No. 219037, October 19, 2016
Drawee bank of a manager's check has the option of refusing
payment by interposing a personal defense if the holder is not
a holder in due course.
A manager's check as a check drawn by the bank's manager
upon the bank itself and accepted in advance by the bank by
the act of its issuance.43 It is really the bank's own check and
may be treated as a promissory note with the bank as its
maker.44 Consequently, upon its purchase, the check becomes
the primary obligation of the bank and constitutes its written
promise to pay the holder upon demand.45 It is similar to a
cashier's check46 both as to effect and use in that the bank
represents that the check is drawn against sufficient funds.
Odrada's action in depositing the manager's checks despite
knowledge of the Montero's defects amounted to bad faith.
DE OCAMPO vs. GATCHALIAN
G.R. No. 15126
Plaintiff-appellee was guilty of gross neglect in not finding out
the nature of the title and possession of Manuel Gonzales,
amounting to legal absence of good faith
EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION, INC. vs. SPECIAL
1
STEEL PRODUCTS, INC.
Page
G.R. No. 175350 June 13, 2012
There is unjust enrichment when (1) a person is unjustly benefited,
and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to
another.
Account payee only. This creates a reasonable expectation that the
payee alone would receive the proceeds of the checks and that
diversion of the checks would be averted.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. RODRIGUEZ
G.R. No. 170325. September 26, 2008
be the true recipient of the proceeds, the check is
considered as a bearer instrument
In a fictitious-payee situation, the drawee bank is absolved
from liability and the drawer bears the loss. When faced with
a check payable to a fictitious payee, it is treated as a bearer
instrument that can be negotiated by delivery. The underlying
theory is that one cannot expect a fictitious payee to negotiate
the check by placing his indorsement thereon.
A showing of commercial bad faith on the part of the drawee
bank, or any transferee of the check for that matter, will work
to strip it of this defense.
Commercial bad faith is present if the transferee of the check
acts dishonestly, and is a party to the fraudulent scheme.
This lack of knowledge on the part of the payees, however,
was not tantamount to a lack of intention on the part of
respondents-spouses that the payees would not receive
the checks proceeds.
BDO UNIBANK, INC. VS. LAO
G.R. NO. 227005, JUNE 19, 2017
Generally, BDO must be ordered to pay Lao the value of the
subject check; whereas, Union Bank would be ordered to
reimburse BDO the amount of the check.
Lao, the drawer of the subject check, has a right of action
against BDO for its failure to comply with its duty as the
drawee bank. BDO, in turn, would have a right of action
against Union Bank because of the falsity of its warranties as
the collecting bank. Considering, however, that BDO was not
made a party in the appeal, it could no longer be held liable to
Lao. Thus, following Associated Bank, the proceedings for
recovery must be simplified and Lao should be allowed to
recover directly from Union Bank.
The liability of the collecting bank is anchored on its
guarantees as the last endorser of the check. Under Section
66 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, an endorser warrants
"that the instrument is genuine and in all respects what it
purports to be; that he has good title to it; that all prior parties
had capacity to contract; and that the instrument is at the time
of his endorsement valid and subsisting."
It has been repeatedly held that in check transactions, the
collecting bank generally suffers the loss because it has the
duty to ascertain the genuineness of all prior endorsements
considering that the act of presenting the check for payment to
the drawee is an assertion that the party making the
presentment has done its duty to ascertain the genuineness of
the endorsements. If any of the warranties made by the
collecting bank turns out to be false, then the drawee bank
may recover from it up to the amount of the check.14
Gempesaw vs. CA, February 9, 1993
For his negligence or failure either to discover or to report
promptly the fact of such forgery to the drawee, the drawer
loses his right against the drawee who has debited his account
under a forged indorsement.6 In other words, he is precluded
from using forgery as a basis for his claim for re-crediting of his
account.
Cross check. It is more of a warning to the holder that the
check cannot be presented to the drawee bank for payment in
cash. Instead, the check can only be deposited with the
payee's bank which in turn must present it for payment against
the drawee bank in the course of normal banking transactions
between banks. The crossed check cannot be presented for
payment but it can only be deposited and the drawee bank
may only pay to another bank in the payee's or indorser's
account.
Associated Bank vs. CA, January 31, 1996
The Court has consistently ruled that the collecting bank
or last endorser generally suffers the loss because it has the
duty to ascertain the genuineness of all prior endorsements
considering that the act of presenting the check for payment to
the drawee is an assertion that the party making the
presentment has done its duty to ascertain the genuineness of
the endorsements.31
The drawee bank is not similarly situated as the collecting
bank because the former makes no warranty as to the
genuineness of any indorsement.32 The drawee banks duty is
but to verify the genuineness of the drawers signature and not
of the indorsement because the drawer is its client.
Ilusorio vs. CA, 393 SCRA 89
True, it is a rule that when a signature is forged or made
without the authority of the person whose signature it purports
to be, the check is wholly inoperative. No right to retain the
instrument, or to give a discharge therefor, or to enforce
payment thereof against any party, can be acquired through or
under such signature. However, the rule does provide for an
exception, namely: unless the party against whom it is
sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up
the forgery or want of authority. In the instant case, it is the
exception that applies. In our view, petitioner is precluded from
setting up the forgery, assuming there is forgery, due to his
own negligence in entrusting to his secretary his credit cards
and checkbook including the verification of his statements of
account.
Caltex vs CA, G.R. No. 97753 August 10, 1992
The negotiability or non-negotiability of an instrument is
determined from the writing, that is, from the face of the
instrument itself.
Perena vs. Nicolas Aug 29, 2012;
Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or
associations engaged in the business of carrying or
2
transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or
Page
air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.
Heirs of Ochoa vs. G&S Transport G.R. No. 170071, March 9,
2011
As a common carrier, G & S "is bound to carry [Jose Marcial]
safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using
the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard
for all the circumstances."37 However, Jose Marcial was not
able to reach his destination safely as he died during the
course of the travel. "In a contract of carriage, it is presumed
that the common carrier is at fault or is negligent when a
passenger dies or is injured. In fact, there is even no need for
the court to make an express finding of fault or negligence on
the part of the common carrier. T
MOF Company, Inc. vs. Shin Yang Brokerage Corporation
G.R. No. 172822, December 18, 2009
a consignee, although not a signatory to the contract of carriage
between the shipper and the carrier, becomes a party to the contract
by reason of either a) the relationship of agency between the
consignee and the shipper/ consignor; b) the unequivocal acceptance
of the bill of lading delivered to the consignee, with full knowledge of
its contents or c) availment of the stipulation pour autrui, i.e., when
the consignee, a third person, demands before the carrier the
fulfillment of the stipulation made by the consignor/shipper in the
consignees favor, specifically the delivery of the goods/cargoes
shipped.[16]
In the instant case, Shin Yang consistently denied in all of its
pleadings that it authorized Halla Trading, Co. to ship the goods on its
behalf; or that it got hold of the bill of lading covering the shipment or
that it demanded the release of the cargo
Cruz vs. Sun Holidays, June 29, 2010;
The above article makes no distinction between one
whose principal business activity is the carrying of
persons or goods or both, and one who does such
carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local idiom, as a
sideline)
The elements of a "fortuitous event" are: (a) the cause of the
unforeseen and unexpected occurrence, or the failure of the
debtors to comply with their obligations, must have been
independent of human will; (b) the event that constituted
the caso fortuito must have been impossible to foresee or, if
foreseeable, impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must have
been such as to render it impossible for the debtors to fulfill
their obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the obligor must
have been free from any participation in the aggravation of the
resulting injury to the creditor.[24]
To fully free a common carrier from any liability, the fortuitous
event must have been the proximate and only cause of the
loss. And it should have exercised due diligence to prevent or
minimize the loss before, during and after the occurrence of
the fortuitous event.[25]
Villanueva vs Domingo, Sept 20, 2004;
Regardless of who the actual owner is of a motor vehicle might
be, the registered owner is the operator of the same with
respect to the public and third persons, and as such, directly
and primarily responsible for the consequences of its operation
UCPB Gen Insurance vs. Aboitiz Shipping, GR 168433;
Claim for damage or average must be made within 24 hours
from receipt of the merchandise if, as in this case, damage
cannot be ascertained merely from the outside packaging of
the cargo. Otherwise, at the time of receipt.
The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the goods
has at the time of their receipt been the subject of joint survey
or inspection.
PCI Leasing and Finance vs UCPB General Insurance, GR
162267;
The registered owner of a motor vehicle is primarily and
directly responsible for the consequences of its operation,
including the negligence of the driver, with respect to the public
and all third persons.17 In contemplation of law, the registered
owner of a motor vehicle is the employer of its driver, with the
actual operator and employer, such as a lessee, being
considered as merely the owner's agent
Singapore Airlines vs. Andion Fernandez GR 142305;
Petitioners employees at the Singapore airport did not accord
the respondent the attention and treatment allegedly warranted
under the circumstances.
(Inattention to and lack of care for the interests of its
passengers who are entitled to its utmost consideration,
particularly as to their convenience, amount to bad faith)
Japan Airlines vs. Asuncion GR 161730;
It may be true that JAL has the duty to inspect whether its
passengers have the necessary travel documents, however,
such duty does not extend to checking the veracity of every
entry in these documents. JAL could not vouch for the
authenticity of a passport and the correctness of the entries
therein. The power to admit or not an alien into the country is a
sovereign act which cannot be interfered with even by JAL.
Maranan vs. Perez GR 22272;
As between the carrier and the passenger, the former must
bear the risk of wrongful acts or negligence of the carrier's
employees against passengers, since it, and not the
passengers, has power to select and remove them.
Compania Maritima vs. CA GR 31379;
The weights stated in a bill of lading are prima facie evidence
of the amount received and the fact that the weighing was
done by another will not relieve the common carrier where it
accepted such weight and entered it on the bill of
lading. 16 Besides, common carriers can protect themselves
against mistakes in the bill of lading as to weight by exercising
diligence before issuing the same.
Sulpicio Lines vs. Curso 615 SCRA 575
Article 2206. The amount of damages
for death caused by a crime or quasi-
delict shall be at least three thousand pesos,
even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances. In addition:
3
(1) The defendant shall be liable for
Page
the loss of the earning capacity of the
deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to
the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in
every case be assessed and awarded by the
court, unless the deceased on account of
permanent physical disability not caused by
the defendant, had no earning capacity at
the time of his death;
(2) If the deceased was obliged to
give support according to the provisions of
article 291, the recipient who is not an heir
called to the decedent's inheritance by the
law of testate or intestate succession, may
demand support from the person causing the
death, for a period not exceeding five years,
the exact duration to be fixed by the court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and
illegitimate descendants and ascendants
of the deceased may demand moral
damages for mental anguish by reason of
the death of the deceased.
The omission from Article 2206 (3) of the brothers and sisters
of the deceased passenger reveals the legislative intent to
exclude them from the recovery of moral damages for mental
anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
Edna Diago lhuillier vs. british airways G.R. No. 171092; March
15, 2010
Article 1 of the Warsaw Convention provides:
1. This Convention applies to all international
carriage of persons, luggage or goods performed by
aircraft for reward. It applies equally to gratuitous
carriage by aircraft performed by an air transport
undertaking.
2. For the purposes of this Convention the expression
"international carriage" means any carriage in which,
according to the contract made by the parties, the
place of departure and the place of destination,
whether or not there be a break in the carriage or a
transhipment, are situated either within the territories
of two High Contracting Parties, or within the territory
of a single High Contracting Party, if there is an
agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the
sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate or authority of
another Power, even though that Power is not a party
to this Convention. (A carriage without such an
agreed stopping place between territories subject to
the sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate or authority of
the same High Contracting Party is not deemed to be
international for the purposes of this Convention.)
Under Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, the plaintiff may
bring the action for damages before
1. the court where the carrier is domiciled;
2. the court where the carrier has its principal place of
business;
3. the court where the carrier has an establishment by
which the contract has been made; or
4. the court of the place of destination.
Ramos vs. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 213418,
September 21, 2016
Article 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for
awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under
the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same
rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted
fraudulently or in bad faith.
Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Sesante, 798 SCRA 459, G.R. No.
172682 July 27, 2016
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be
substituted for the deceased, without requiring the
appointment of an executor or administrator
Article 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death or
injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful
acts of the former's employees, although such employees
may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in
violation of the orders of the common carriers.
This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof
that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family
in the selection and supervision of their employees.
The presumption of negligence applies so long as there is
evidence showing that: (a) a contract exists between the
passenger and the common carrier; and (b) the injury or death
took place during the existence of such contract.
Torres-Madrid Brokerage v. FEB Mitsu Marine Insurance &
Manalastas, G.R. No. 194121, July 11, 2016
Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or
associations engaged in the business of transporting
passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for
compensation, offering their services to the public.32 By the
nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, they
are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance
over the goods and in the safety of their passengers.
a customs broker - whose principal business is the preparation
of the correct customs declaration and the proper shipping
documents - is still considered a common carrier if it also
undertakes to deliver the goods for its customers.
a common carrier's extraordinary responsibility over the
shipper's goods lasts from the time these goods are
unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by,
the carrier for transportation, until they are delivered,
actually or constructively, by the carrier to the
consignee. 48chanrobleslaw
Article 2001. The act of a thief or robber, who has entered the
hotel is not deemed force majeure, unless it is done with the
use of arms or through an irresistible force.
LTFRB vs. G.V. Florida Transport, G.R. No. 213088, June 28,
2017
Power to suspend the CPCs issued to public utility vehicles
4
depends on its assessment of the gravity of the violation. In
Page
this regard, the Court gives due deference to petitioner's
exercise of its sound administrative discretion in applying its
special knowledge, experience and expertise
Estela Crisostomo vs CA G.R. No. 138334. August 25, 2003
Respondents as a travel agency is not an entity engaged in the
business of transporting either passengers or goods and is
therefore, neither a private nor a common carrier. Respondent
did not undertake to transport petitioner from one place to
another since its covenant with its customers is simply to make
travel arrangements in their behalf.
Central Shipping Company, Inc., vs. Insurance Company of
North America, G.R. No. 150751, 20 September 2004;
The doctrine of limited liability under Article 587 of the Code of
Commerce[36] is not applicable to the present case. This rule
does not apply to situations in which the loss or the injury
is due to the concurrent negligence of the shipowner and
the captain.[37] It has already been established that the sinking
of M/V Central Bohol had been caused by the fault or
negligence of the ship captain and the crew, as shown by the
improper stowage of the cargo of logs. Closer supervision on
the part of the shipowner could have prevented this fatal
miscalculation.[38] As such, the shipowner was equally
negligent. It cannot escape liability by virtue of the limited
liability rule.
Phil-Nippon Kyoei, Corp. vs. Gudelosao, 796 SCRA 508, G.R.
No. 181375 July 13, 2016
Nonetheless, the limited liability rule is not absolute and is
without exceptions. It does not apply in cases: (1) where the
injury or death to a passenger is due either to the fault of the
shipowner, or to the concurring negligence of the shipowner
and the captain; (2) where the vessel is insured; and (3) in
workmen's compensation claims.
The claim for death benefits under the POEA-SEC is the same
species as the workmen's compensation claims under the
Labor Code - both of which belong to a different realm from
that of Maritime Law.
Vitug vs. Court of Appeals, 29 March 1990;
The validity of the contract seems debatable by reason of its
"survivor-take-all" feature, but in reality, that contract imposed a
mere obligation with a term, the term being death
Salvacion vs. Central Bank, 21 August 1997;
Shielding or protecting the dollar deposit of a transient alien
depositor against injustice to a national and victim of a crime?
Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan, 30 November 2006
An examination of the overt or criminal acts as described in
Section 1(d) of R.A. No. 7080 would make the similarity
between plunder and bribery even more pronounced since
bribery is essentially included among these criminal acts.
DBP vs. Arcilla, G.R. No. 161397, 30 June 2005
(1) the cash price or delivered price of the property or service
to be acquired;
(2) the amounts, if any, to be credited as down payment and/or
trade-in;
(3) the difference between the amounts set forth under clauses
(1) and (2);
(4) the charges, individually itemized, which are paid or to be
paid by such person in connection with the transaction but
which are not incident to the extension of credit;
(5) the total amount to be financed;
(6) the finance charges expressed in terms of pesos and
centavos; and
(7) the percentage that the finance charge bears to the total
amount to be financed expressed as a simple annual rate on
the outstanding unpaid balance of the obligation.
If the borrower is not duly informed of the data required by
the law prior to the consummation of the availment or
drawdown, the lender will have no right to collect such
charge or increases thereof, even if stipulated in the
promissory note.
Sps. Larrobis, Jr. vs. Philippine Veterans Bank, 1 October 2004
period within which respondent bank was placed under
receivership and liquidation proceedings does not constitute a
fortuitous event which interrupted the prescriptive period in
bringing actions
Fidelity Savings Bank vs. Cenzon, 5 April 1990
a banking institution which has been declared insolvent and
subsequently ordered closed by the Central Bank of the
Philippines cannot be held liable to pay interest on bank
deposits which accrued during the period when the bank is
actually closed and non-operational
Philippine National Bank vs. Vila, 799 SCRA 90, G.R. No.
213241 August 1, 2016
Clearly, the PNB failed to observe the exacting standards
required of banking institutions which are behooved by statutes
and jurisprudence to exercise greater care and prudence
before entering into a mortgage contract.
No credible proof on the records could substantiate the claim
of PNB that a physical inspection of the property was
conducted. We agree with, bbth the RTC and CA that if in fact
it were true that ocular inspection was conducted, a suspicion
could have been raised as to the real status of property.
Soriano vs. People, 611 SCRA 191, G.R. No. 162336 February
5
1, 2010
Page
The broad interpretation of the prohibition in Section 83 is
justified by the fact that it even expressly covers loans to third
parties where the third parties are aware of the transaction
(such as principals represented by the DOSRI), and where the
DOSRIs interest does not appear to be beneficial but even
burdensome (such as in cases when the DOSRI acts as a
mere guarantor or surety). If the law finds it necessary to
protect the bank and the banking system in such situations, it
will surely be illogical for it to exclude a case like this where the
DOSRI acted for his own benefit, using the name of an
unsuspecting person.
elements of a DOSRI law violation were enumerated:
1. the offender is a director or officer of any banking institution;
2. the offender, either directly or indirectly, for himself or as
representative or agent of another, performs any of the
following acts:
a. he borrows any of the deposits or funds of such bank; or
b. he becomes a guarantor, indorser, or surety for loans from
such bank to others, or
c. he becomes in any manner an obligor for money
borrowed from bank or loaned by it;
3. the offender has performed any of such acts without the
written approval of the majority of the directors of the bank,
excluding the offender, as the director concerned.
The broad interpretation of the prohibition in Section 83 is
justified by the fact that it even expressly covers loans to third
parties where the third parties are aware of the transaction
(such as principals represented by the DOSRI), and where the
DOSRIs interest does not appear to be beneficial but even
burdensome (such as in cases when the DOSRI acts as a
mere guarantor or surety).
Philippine National Bank vs. Cheah Chee Chong G.R. No.
170865 April 25, 2012
Here, while PNB highlights Ofelias fault in accommodating a
strangers check and depositing it to the bank, it remains mum
in its release of the proceeds thereof without exhausting the
15-day clearing period, an act which contravened established
banking rules and practice.
1. Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs. Phil.
American Life Insurance Co., GR No. 166245, 09 April 2008
A contract of insurance, being a contract of adhesion, par
excellence, any ambiguity therein should be resolved
against the insurer;
2. Philamcare Health Systems, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 379
SCRA 356, G.R. No. 125678, March 18, 2002
1. Prior notice of cancellation to insured;
2. Notice must be based on the occurrence after effective date
of the policy of one or more of the grounds mentioned;
3. Must be in writing, mailed or delivered to the insured at the
address shown in the policy;
4. Must state the grounds relied upon provided in Section 64 of
the Insurance Code and upon request of insured, to furnish
facts on which cancellation is based.[18]
3. Asian Terminals, Inc. v. First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance
Corp., G.R. No. 185964, June 16, 2014
the right of subrogation accrues simply upon payment by the
insurance company of the insurance claim. Hence,
presentation in evidence of the marine insurance policy is not
indispensable before the insurer may recover from the
common carrier the insured value of the lost cargo in the
exercise of its subrogatory right. The subrogation receipt, by
itself, was held sufficient to establish not only the relationship
between the insure
4. Cha vs. Court of Appeals, 277 SCRA 690, G.R. No. 124520,
August 18, 1997
Therefore, respondent CKS cannot, under the Insurance Code
a special law be validly a beneficiary of the fire insurance
policy taken by the petitioner-spouses over their
merchandise.This insurable interest over said merchandise
remains with the insured,
5. Gaisano Cagayan, Inc. vs. Insurance Company of North
America, 490 SCRA 286, G.R. No. 147839, June 8, 2006
it is sufficient that the insured is so situated with reference to
the property that he would be liable to loss should it be injured
or destroyed by the peril against which it is insured.29 Anyone
has an insurable interest in property who derives a benefit from
its existence or would suffer loss from its destruction
6. Sun Life of Canada [Philippines], Inc. vs. Sibya, 793 SCRA
45, G.R. No. 211212 June 8, 2016
it has two years from its issuance, to investigate and verify
whether the policy was obtained by fraud, concealment, or
misrepresentation. Upon the death of Atty. Jesus Jr., however,
on May 11, 2001, or a mere three months from the issuance of
the policy, Sun Life loses its right to rescind the policy. As
discussed in Manila Bankers, the death of the insured within
the two-year period will render the right of the insurer to
rescind the policy nugatory. As such, the incontestability period
will now set in.
Moreover, he executed an authorization in favor of Sun Life to
conduct investigation in reference with his medical history. T
7. Geagonia vs. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 152, G.R. No.
114427, February 6, 1995;
In the policy obtained by the mortgagor with loss payable
clause in favor of the mortgagee as his interest may appear,
the mortgagee is only a beneficiary under the contract, and
recognized as such by the insurer but not made a party to the
contract himself. Hence, any act of the mortgagor which
defeats his right will also defeat the right of the mortgagee
8. The Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Paz Y. Khu, et
al.
G.R. No. 195176; April 18, 2016
6
To characterize the insurer and the insured as contracting
Page
parties on equal footing is inaccurate at best. Insurance
contracts are wholly prepared by the insurer with vast amounts
of experience in the industry
9. Vda. de Maglana vs. Hon. Consolacion (August 6, 1992)
The Court then proceeded to distinguish the extent of the
liability and manner of enforcing the same in ordinary contracts
from that of insurance contracts. While in solidary obligations,
the creditor may enforce the entire obligation against one of
the solidary debtors, in an insurance contract, the insurer
undertakes for a consideration to indemnify the insured against
loss, damage or liability arising from an unknown or contingent
event. 11 Thus, petitioner therein, which, under the insurance
contract is liable only up to P20,000.00, can not be made
solidarily liable with the insured for the entire obligation of
P29,013.00 otherwise there would result "an evident breach of
the concept of solidary obligation."
10. Tiu vs. Arriesgado (GR No. 138060, 01 September 2004)
However, although the victim may proceed directly against the
insurer for indemnity, the third party liability is only up to the
extent of the insurance policy and those required by law. While
it is true that where the insurance contract provides for
indemnity against liability to third persons, and such persons
can directly sue the insurer, the direct liability of the insurer
under indemnity contracts against third party liability does not
mean that the insurer can be held liable in solidum with the
insured
11. Gaisano vs. Development Insurance and Surety
Corporation, 818 SCRA 603, G.R. No. 190702 February 27,
2017
No payment of premium had thus been made at the time of the
loss of the vehicle
12. Roque vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 139 SCRA 596,
No. L-66935
Since the law provides for an implied warranty of
seaworthiness in every contract of ordinary marine insurance,
it becomes the obligation of a cargo owner to look for a reliable
common carrier which keeps its vessels in seaworthy
condition.
13. Manulife Philippines, Inc. vs. Ybañez, 810 SCRA 516, G.R.
No. 204736 November 28, 2016
Manulife had utterly failed to prove by convincing evidence that
it had been beguiled, inveigled, or cajoled into selling the
insurance to the insured
14. Sun Life of Canada (Philippines), Inc. vs. Tan Kit, 738
SCRA 371, G.R. No. 183272 October 15, 2014
Petitioner avers that Tio Khe Chio, albeit pertaining to marine
insurance, is instructive on the issue of payment of interest.
There, the Court pointed to Sections 243 and 244 of the
Insurance Code which explicitly provide for payment of interest
when there is unjustified refusal or withholding of payment of
the claim by the insurer, 23 and to Article 220924 of the New Civil
Code which likewise provides for payment of interest when the
debtor is in delay.
The Court finds, however, that Tio Khe Chio is not applicable
here as it deals with payment of interest on the
insurance proceeds in which the claim therefor was either
unreasonably denied or withheld or the insurer incurred delay
in the payment thereof. In this case, what is involved is an
order for petitioner to refund to respondents the
insurance premium paid by Norberto as a consequence of the
rescission of the insurance contract on account of the latter’s
concealment of material information in his insurance
application. Moreover, petitioner did not unreasonably deny or
withhold the insurance proceeds as it was satisfactorily
established that Norberto was guilty of concealment.
15. Lourdes v. Philam Plans, G.R. No. 186983, February 22,
2012
But by its tenor, the responsibility for preparing the application
belonged to Manuel. Nothing in it implies that someone else
may provide the information that Philam Plans needed. Manuel
cannot sign the application and disown the responsibility for
having it filled up.
16. Loadstar Shipping Company, Incorporated vs. Malayan
Insurance Company, Incorporated, 742 SCRA 627, G.R. No.
185565 November 26, 2014
"The right of subrogation is not dependent upon, nor does it
grow out of, any privity of contract or upon written assignment
of claim.
17. Alpha Insurance ans Surety Co. vs. Castor, 704 SCRA 550,
G.R. No. 198174 September 2, 2013
"(A)n insurance contract should be interpreted as to carry out
the purpose for which the parties entered into the contract
which is to insure against risks of loss or damage to the goods.
Such interpretation should result from the natural and
reasonable meaning of language in the policy.
18. Malayan Insurance vs. Lin, G.R. No. 207277, January 16,
2017
a civil case before the trial court involving recovery of payment
of the insured's insurance claim plus damages, can proceed
simultaneously with an administrative case before the IC.
Ubas, Sr. vs Chan
That a privity of contract exists between petitioner and
respondent is a conclusion amply supported by the averments
and evidence on record in this case.
First, the Court observes that petitioner was consistent in his
account that he directly dealt with respondent in his personal
and not merely his representative capacity. In his Complaint,
petitioner alleged that "[Chan, doing business under the name
and style of Unimaster] is indebted to [him] in the amount
[P1,500,000.00] x
BDO Unibank Corp. vs. Engr. Selywn Lao
Communication and Information Systems Corporation vs. Mark
Sensing Australia Pty. Ltd, Mark Sensing Philippine, Inc. and
Ofelia B. Cajigal
The reinsurer's contractual relationship is with the direct
insurer, not the original insured, and the latter has no interest in
and is generally not privy to the contract of reinsurance. 56 Put
simply, reinsurance is the "insurance of an insurance."57
Jaime T. Gaisano vs. Development Insurance and Surey Corp.
7
Page
While there was mention of a credit agreement between Trans-
Pacific and respondent, such arrangement was not proven and
was internal between agent and principal.55 Under the principle
of relativity of contracts, contracts bind the parties who entered
into it. It cannot favor or prejudice a third person, even if he is
aware of the contract and has acted with knowledge.56
Loadstar Shipping Company, Incorporated and Loadstar
International Shipping Company, Incorporated vs. Malayan
Insurance Company, Incorporated
Actual damages are not presumed
a subrogee steps into the shoes of the insured and can recover
only if the insured likewise could have recovered.
The Insular Assurance Co., Ltd Vs The Heirs of Jose H.
Alvarez/Union Bank of the Philippines Vs Heirs of Jose H.
Alvarez
The Insurance Code dispenses with proof of fraudulent intent
in cases of rescission due to concealment, but not so in cases
of rescission due to false representations. When an abundance
of available documentary evidence can be referenced to
demonstrate a design to defraud, presenting a singular
document with an erroneous entry does not qualify as clear
and convincing proof of fraudulent intent. Neither does
belatedly invoking just one other document, which was not
even authored by the alleged miscreant.
Asian Terminals, Inc. Vs Padoson Stainless Steel Corporation
Although Padoson's shipments were the subject of BOC's
Hold-Order dated September 7, 2001, the fact remains that it
was Padoson, and not BOC, that entered into a contract of
service with ATI and consequently was the one who was
benefited therefrom.
Federal Corporation Vs Luwalhati R. Antonio and Eliza Bettina
Ricasa Antonino
The duty of common carriers to observe extraordinary
diligence in shipping goods does not terminate until delivery to
the consignee or to the specific person authorized to receive
the shipped goods. Failure to deliver to the person authorized
to receive the goods is tantamount to loss of the goods,
thereby engendering the common carrier's liability for loss.
Ambiguities in contracts of carriage, which are contracts of
adhesion, must be interpreted against the common carrier that
prepared these contracts.
Visitacion R. Rebultan, et al. Vs Sps. Edmundo Daganta and
Marvelyn P. Daganta and Willie Viloria
contributory negligence of drivers does not bar the passengers
or their heirs from recovering damages from those who were at
fault
Sulpicio Line, Inc. Vs Major Victorino Karaan, et al.
petitioner and its agents on the scene acted wantonly and
recklessly. Wanton and reckless are virtually synonymous
in meaning as respects liability for conduct towards
others. Wantonmeans characterized by extreme
recklessness and utter disregard for the rights of others;
or marked by or manifesting arrogant recklessness of
justice or of rights or feelings of others. Conduct
is reckless when it is an extreme departure from ordinary
care, in a situation in which a high degree of danger is
apparent.