Title
Chartis Philippines Insurance, Inc. vs. Cyber City Teleservices, Ltd.
Case
G.R. No. 234299
Decision Date
Mar 3, 2021
Chartis sued CCTL for unpaid insurance premiums; SC ruled policies valid despite non-payment, citing credit terms exception under Insurance Code.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 160090)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Insurance Products
    • Chartis Philippines Insurance, Inc. (formerly Philam Insurance Co., now AIG Philippines Insurance, Inc.) is a domestic insurer offering professional indemnity and fidelity insurance.
    • Cyber City Teleservices, Ltd. (CCTL) is a call‐center agency specializing in customer relationship management, represented by Jardine Lloyd Thompson Insurance Brokers (JLT).
  • Formation of the Insurance Contracts
    • June 21, 2004 – JLT applied to Chartis for quotations on professional indemnity (US$56,325 premium) and fidelity insurance (US$45,060 premium), each with US$2,000,000 aggregate limits, coverage from January 20, 2005 to January 20, 2006, and 90‐day premium payment terms.
    • January 20, 2005 – JLT’s “Placing Instructions” confirmed CCTL’s acceptance, effective 12:01 AM Philippine Time, and guaranteed payment of documentary stamp tax (DST). Chartis issued Policy Nos. 130100284 (fidelity) and 130100285 (professional indemnity) and paid the DST.
  • Credit Extensions, Cancellation, and Demand for Payment
    • As the 90‐day term neared expiration, Chartis granted CCTL credit extensions—first to April 20, then April 30, June 3, and finally June 15, 2005—upon JLT’s email requests.
    • June 15, 2005 – With no payment made, Chartis cancelled both policies, credited “time‐on‐risk” premiums of US$24,036 and US$30,045, and demanded full payment via letters dated August 8, September 14, and November 8, 2005.
  • Litigation History
    • Chartis filed suit for sum of money with damages; CCTL answered, denied agency, invoked Section 77 of the Insurance Code (no binding policy absent paid premium), and counterclaimed for damages and costs.
    • The Makati RTC (Branch 139) granted Chartis summary judgment (September 30, 2011), ordering CCTL to pay earned premiums (US$47,304) plus taxes, 12% interest, P100,000 attorney’s fees, and P60,713.32 costs. CCTL’s counterclaim was dismissed.
    • The CA reversed (February 20, 2017), dismissed Chartis’s complaint for lack of a binding policy, and denied CCTL’s damage claims. The SC granted Chartis’s certiorari petition and resolved on March 3, 2021.

Issues:

  • Whether Chartis is entitled to payment of the premiums despite non‐payment at inception.
  • Whether the “time‐on‐risk” (pro rata/short‐rate) provisions contravene law, morals, or public policy.
  • Whether CCTL must reimburse Chartis for the documentary stamp tax paid.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.