Title
Country Bankers Insurance Corp. vs. Lagman
Case
G.R. No. 165487
Decision Date
Jul 13, 2011
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Country Bankers and held Lagman liable for the payment of a surety bond after the bonded sacks of palay went missing, determining that the 1989 bonds were valid beyond one year and the 1990 bond did not supersede the 1989 bonds, making Lagman jointly and severally liable for any damages or losses incurred by Country Bankers.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 165487)

Facts:

  • In 1989, Country Bankers Insurance Corporation (Country Bankers) issued two warehouse bonds for Nelson Santos (Santos).
  • The bonds were for Santos to store up to 30,000 sacks of palay in his warehouse in Barangay Malacampa, Camiling, Tarlac.
  • Warehouse Bond No. 03304 was for P1,749,825.00, and Warehouse Bond No. 02355 was for P749,925.00.
  • These bonds were issued through Country Bankers' agent, Antonio Lagman (Lagman).
  • Santos, along with co-signors Ban Lee Lim Santos (Ban Lee Lim), Rhosemelita Reguine (Reguine), and Lagman, signed Indemnity Agreements, making them jointly and severally liable.
  • Santos defaulted on a loan secured by his warehouse receipts, leading to the disappearance of the bonded sacks of palay.
  • Country Bankers paid P1,166,750.37 due to the default and subsequently filed a complaint for a sum of money against Lagman and others in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.
  • The RTC ruled in favor of Country Bankers, holding Lagman and Reguine jointly and severally liable for P2,400,499.87.
  • Lagman appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC's decision, stating that a 1990 bond superseded the 1989 bonds.
  • Country Bankers then sought a review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the 1990 bond did not supersede the 1989 bonds.
  • The Supreme Court held that the receipts for the payment of ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court determined that the 1989 bonds were continuing bonds and remained in force until cancelled by the NFA Administrator, the Insurance Commissioner, or a competent court, as per Section 177 of the Insurance Code.
  • The Court stated that receipts for the payment of premiums only evidenced transactions between the bond principal and the surety and did not involve the NFA as the bond obligee.
  • Lagman failed to produce the original 1990 bond and did not provide a ...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.