Case Digest (G.R. No. 76399)
Facts:
Rafael (Rex) Verendia v. Court of Appeals and Fidelity & Surety Co. of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 75605 and 76399, January 22, 1993, Supreme Court Third Division, Melo, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from Fidelity & Surety Co. of the Philippines' Fire Insurance Policy No. F-18876 (June 23, 1980–June 23, 1981) covering Rafael (Rex) Verendia's residential building for P385,000, with Monte de Piedad & Savings Bank designated beneficiary. Verendia had also insured the same building with The Country Bankers Insurance (P56,000) and The Development Insurance (P400,000). The insured structure was totally destroyed by fire on December 28, 1980; Fidelity refused payment, prompting Verendia to sue in the then Court of First Instance of Quezon City for P385,000 plus interest, fees and expenses; Monte de Piedad was later joined as an "unwilling defendant."
Fidelity defended, alleging among other things over-insurance and that Verendia submitted a false lease contract (the June 25, 1980 lease) purporting that one Roberto (or Robert) Garcia was lessee when the true occupant was Marcelo Garcia; Fidelity also invoked non-disclosure of other insurance as a breach of a policy condition. On May 24, 1983 the trial court (Judge Rodolfo A. Ortiz) ruled for Fidelity, sustaining those defenses.
Verendia appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). On March 31, 1986 the IAC reversed the trial court, holding there was no misrepresentation on the lease (it found Marcelo signed in the name of Roberto) and that Fidelity had waived the policy condition requiring notice of other insurance by trying to settle Verendia's claim. Fidelity received the IAC decision April 4, 1986; instead of filing a motion for reconsideration within 15 days, Fidelity filed (April 21, 1986) a motion for a 3-day extension to file its motion for reconsideration. The IAC granted that extension on April 30, 1986; Fidelity had filed its motion for reconsideration on April 24, 1986.
Verendia moved to expunge Fidelity's motion for reconsideration, arguing the extension was untimely because the 15th day fell on a Saturday and the IAC allegedly accepted filings on Saturdays. The IAC denied expungement (June 17, 1986) and denied reconsideration (July 22, 1986), prompting Fidelity to file a petition (docketed as G.R. No. 75605). Fidelity separately filed a petition for review on certiorari (docketed as G.R. No. 76399); the two petitions were consolidated for this Court's consideration.
Before reaching the merits, the Court examined whether the IAC decision was still susceptible to review — specifically whether Fidelity's motion for extension legally suspended the reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration. The Court reviewed prior doctrine (e.g., Garcia v. Buenaventura, Gibbs v. CFI of Manila, Bello v. Fernando, Joe v. King) and the then-recent pronouncement in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japson (142 SCRA 208) that, effective one month after May 30, 1986, motions for extension to file motions for new trial or reconsideration should be strictly proscribed.
Turning to the merits of G.R. No. 76399, the core substantive issues were whether the lease Verendia produced was a false declaration forfeiting benefits under...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedurally, is Fidelity's petition in G.R. No. 75605 sustainable—i.e., was Fidelity's motion for extension to file a motion for reconsideration legally effective so as to preserve appellate relief?
- Substantively, did Verendia forfeit his insurance benefits by presenting a false lease contract in violation of Section 13 of the policy?
- Substantively, did Fidelity's submission of a subrogation receipt in evidence constitute a binding settlement of Veren...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)