G.R. No. 205206 - Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Laingo

On 20 July 1999, Rheozel Laingo, son of Yolanda Laingo, opened a “Platinum 2-in-1 Savings and Insurance” account at the Claveria, Davao City branch of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI).

This particular deposit savings account inherently provided insurance coverage against death or disability, issued by FGU Insurance Corporation (now known as BPI/MS Insurance Corporation).

BPI issued Rheozel a passbook (No. 50298) corresponding to Savings Account No. 2233-0251-11 and FGU Insurance issued a Personal Accident Insurance Coverage Certificate (No. 043549) naming Yolanda Laingo as the beneficiary.

On 25 September 2000, Rheozel died in a vehicular accident, a fact corroborated by the Certificate of Death from the Office of the Civil Registrar General of Tagum City, Davao del Norte.

The death was reported in the media, as indicated by the Daily Mirror’s headline on 26 September 2000, emphasizing his reputable background.

On 27 September 2000, Yolanda Laingo, through her family’s personal secretary Alice Torbanos, approached BPI to withdraw funds from Rheozel’s account to cover burial and funeral expenses.

BPI, relying on Laingo’s established credit standing and familial relations, allowed the withdrawal of ₱995,000.

During the transaction, a BPI employee, Ms. Laura Cabico, verified the withdrawal by providing documents at Rheozel’s wake.

On 21 January 2003, Rheozel’s sister, Rhealyn Laingo-Concepcion, discovered the Personal Accident Insurance Coverage Certificate among Rheozel’s personal belongings, thereby alerting Yolanda Laingo to the existence of the insurance policy.

In response, Laingo sent letters dated 11 September 2003 and 7 November 2003 addressed to BPI and FGU Insurance, requesting the processing of her claim as beneficiary of the policy.

FGU Insurance, in its reply on 19 February 2004, denied the claim, citing the failure on Laingo’s part to file the claim within three calendar months of Rheozel’s death, as stipulated in Paragraph 15 of the insurance policy.

On 20 February 2004, Yolanda Laingo filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages and Attorney’s Fees before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 16, against BPI and FGU Insurance.

In its Decision dated 21 April 2008, the trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, holding that the prescriptive period for filing the claim was 90 days from the death of the insured—not from when the beneficiary became aware of the policy—thus dismissing the claim for being filed out of time.

Laingo subsequently appealed the trial court’s decision, leading to the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated 29 June 2012, which reversed the trial court’s ruling by emphasizing that Laingo was not a party to the insurance contract and therefore could not be expected to comply with the 90-day claim period.

The Court of Appeals directed both BPI and FGU Insurance to jointly pay actual damages of ₱44,438.75, attorney’s fees of ₱200,000.00, and the insurance proceeds with applicable legal interest to Yolanda Laingo.

Petitioners (BPI and FGU Insurance) filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied on 11 December 2012 by the same appellate court.

The present petition for review on certiorari is therefore an appeal from the decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 01575.

Whether Yolanda Laingo, as the named beneficiary and not an original contracting party, is bound by the requirement to file a written notice of claim within three calendar months from the death of the insured as stipulated in Paragraph 15 of the insurance policy.
Whether the absence of direct notice regarding the insurance policy by BPI and FGU Insurance to Laingo relieves her from the contractual constraint of the claim period.
The extent of BPI’s responsibility as an agent for FGU Insurance in ensuring that beneficiaries are properly informed of the existence of the insurance coverage and its corresponding claim period requirements.