G.R. No. L-22814 - Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc. vs. City of Butuan

Fidelity and Surety Insurance Company of the Philippines issued Fire Insurance Policy No. F-18876 effective June 23, 1980, to June 23, 1981, covering Rafael (Rex) Verendia's residential building at Tulip Drive, Beverly Hills, Antipolo, Rizal, insured for P385,000.00.
Monte de Piedad & Savings Bank was designated as the beneficiary under the policy.
Verendia also insured the same residential building with two other companies:

The Country Bankers Insurance for P56,000.00 under Policy No. PDB-80-1913 (expiring May 12, 1981).
The Development Insurance for P400,000.00 under Policy No. F-48867 (expiring June 30, 1981).

The insured building was completely destroyed by fire on December 28, 1980, during the effective periods of all three policies.
Fidelity was notified and demanded to pay under its policy but refused.
Verendia filed a complaint before the Court of First Instance, seeking payment of P385,000.00, legal interest, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses.
Monte de Piedad was included as an "unwilling defendant" in an amended complaint.

Over-insurance.
Misrepresentation: Verendia allegedly represented that Roberto Garcia was the lessee of the property whereas it was actually Marcelo Garcia.
Violation of Paragraph 3 of the policy for failure to disclose other insurance coverages.

The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Fidelity, sustaining these defenses.

No misrepresentation regarding the lease because the contract was signed by Marcelo Garcia in the name of Roberto Garcia.
Fidelity waived the requirement to notify other insurance contracts by its conduct attempting to settle Verendia’s claim.

Fidelity filed on April 21, 1986, a motion for extension of three days to file a motion for reconsideration, claiming the 15th day after receipt was a Saturday.
The motion for extension was granted on April 30, 1986.
Fidelity filed its motion for reconsideration on April 24, 1986.
Verendia moved to expunge the motion for reconsideration, arguing the motion for extension was filed late because appellate court personnel accepted pleadings on Saturday.
The motion to expunge and a subsequent motion for reconsideration were denied.
Fidelity’s motion for reconsideration was eventually denied on October 21, 1986.

G.R. No. 75605 challenging the filing and acceptance of Fidelity’s motions for extension and reconsideration.
G.R. No. 76399, a petition for review on certiorari contesting the appellate court’s ruling on merits regarding the lease contract and the subrogation receipt.

The lease contract presented was dated June 25, 1980, between Verendia and Roberto Garcia (signed “Robert Garcia, married to Helen Cawinian”).
Police investigation reported the property had no occupant at the time of the fire; Roberto Garcia was renting another portion of the compound.
Roberto Garcia disappeared post-fire, was located only on October 9, 1981.
In an affidavit to NISA, Roberto Garcia denied being the lessee and declared his signature a forgery.
Verendia admitted during trial the lease was signed by Marcelo Garcia (Roberto’s cousin) but failed to explain the use of Roberto’s name in the contract or why this was permitted.

Verendia allegedly inflated the property value by including a monthly rental of P6,500, while the Provincial Assessor valued the property at only P40,300.00.
The aggregate insurance coverage by the three companies was around P900,000.

Fidelity submitted a subrogation receipt indicating payment of P142,685.77.
The receipt was incomplete, unsigned by a Fidelity representative, and indicated Verendia had received that amount.
Verendia’s suit for the full insured amount negated receipt of that payment.

Whether the lease contract submitted by Verendia was a false declaration that forfeited his right to benefits under Section 13 of the insurance policy.
Whether submission in evidence of the subrogation receipt by Fidelity constituted an agreement to settle Verendia’s claim for the stated amount.
Procedural question: Whether Fidelity’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration filed after the 15-day reglementary period could be granted, thereby enabling further appeal.