Case Digest (G.R. No. L-67835)
Facts:
Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. v. Gregoria Cruz Arnaldo, G.R. No. 67835, October 12, 1987, Supreme Court First Division, Cruz, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. (MICO); the public respondent is Gregoria Cruz Arnaldo in her capacity as Insurance Commissioner; the private respondent is Coronacion Pinca. Pinca obtained Fire Insurance Policy No. F-001-17212 from MICO on June 7, 1981, the policy stating coverage effective July 22, 1981 until July 22, 1982 for P100,000.
MICO alleges it canceled the policy for nonpayment of premium on October 15, 1981 and sent notice of cancellation to Pinca. Pinca paid the premium to MICO’s agent, Domingo Adora, on December 24, 1981 (the invoice being stamped “Payment Received”); Adora remitted the payment to MICO on January 15, 1982. Pinca’s property was totally destroyed by fire on January 18, 1982. MICO attempted to return the payment to Adora on February 5, 1982, but he refused to accept it. Pinca presented her claim to MICO, which refused payment, and she then filed a complaint with the Insurance Commission.
The Insurance Commission ruled for Pinca (decision dated April 5, 1982, notice received April 10, 1982). MICO filed a motion for reconsideration on April 25, 1982, which the Insurance Commission denied by order dated June 4, 1982; the Commission’s administrative records reflect that MICO received notice of that denial on June 13, 1982. MICO filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on July 2, 1982, contesting the Commission’s award on the ground that no valid policy was in effect at the time of the loss.
Before the Court, the parties disputed whether the petition was timely—MICO invoked Insurance Code, Sec. 416 (30-day period) and alternatively Rule 45 (Rules of Court), while respondents argued that B.P. 129 (15‑day period for quasi-judicial bodies) applied. The Supreme...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court timely filed, i.e., what is the proper accrual date and applicable appeal period?
- Was the fire insurance policy valid and in force at the time of the loss, given the alleged cancellation and the December 24, 1981 payment?
- Was the payment of the premium to MICO’s agent effective to bind the insurer, and was MICO’s attempted cancellation valid under the Insurance Code?
- Was Pinca’s proof of loss and valuation sufficient to sustain the award in the absence of an ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)