G.R. No. 165596 - Orquinaza vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 165596)

Factual Background

In 2004, PPSBI obtained Group Master Policy No. G-086 from Paramount, which provided that death benefits would be payable to the creditor, PPSBI, as its interest may appear. Thereafter, Virgilio J. Castro obtained a housing loan of P1.5 million from PPSBI and was required to secure mortgage redemption insurance. In his individual application for mortgage redemption insurance, Virgilio named Cherry T. Castro and Glenn Anthony T. Castro as beneficiaries, and Paramount issued Individual Insurance Certificate No. 041913 effective 12 March 2008, subject to the group policy terms. Virgilio died on 26 February 2009, and a claim for death benefits under the individual certificate followed. Paramount denied the claim on the ground of alleged material concealment or misrepresentation in Virgilio’s application, asserting that he answered “no” to questions about adverse health history and consultations despite having sought medical consultation in 2005. Paramount declared Certificate No. 041913 rescinded ab initio and filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the certificate was null and void.

Trial Proceedings and Early Pleadings

On 2 July 2009, Paramount filed Civil Case No. 09-599 in the RTC, praying for the nullification of Individual Insurance Certificate No. 041913 and for attorney’s fees and exemplary damages. The Castros answered, denied material misrepresentation, asserted that necessary evidence of insurability had satisfied Paramount, and alleged estoppel by Paramount’s approval of the application. The Castros counterclaimed for actual and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for alleged breach of contract.

Motions to Join and Third-Party Complaint

The Castros moved to include PPSBI as an indispensable party-defendant and later sought leave to file a third-party complaint against PPSBI, contending that upon Virgilio’s death the bank would be subrogated to their position and that the mortgage redemption insurance would operate to relieve the heirs of liability. The RTC denied those motions, finding that Paramount’s complaint could be resolved without PPSBI’s participation. The Castros elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Remand

In its Decision dated 4 October 2010, the Court of Appeals granted the petition in part and ordered that the Castros be permitted to file a third-party complaint against PPSBI. The CA reasoned that mortgage redemption insurance protects both mortgagee and mortgagor and that PPSBI’s interest in the validity of individual certificates issued under the group policy was inseparable from the subject matter of the RTC action. The CA concluded that impleading PPSBI would avoid multiplicity of suits and enable resolution of all related claims in a single action.

Subsequent Trial-Court Ruling on Motion to Dismiss

Separately, on 7 January 2014 the Castros filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute and for the plaintiff’s presentation of evidence ex parte pursuant to a prior court order. The RTC denied the motion by Resolution dated 11 February 2014, deeming the motion expunged because the Castros had earlier been declared in default for failure to attend pretrial pursuant to an order dated 26 May 2010. The Castros petitioned this Court under Rule 45 to challenge that denial.

Issues Presented

The petitions raised principally: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in remanding the case to the RTC for admission of the Castros’ Third-Party Complaint against PPSBI; and (2) whether the RTC erred in denying and expunging the Castros’ Motion to Dismiss.

Parties’ Contentions on Impleader and Dismissal

Paramount argued that its action sought only the nullification of the individual certificate and that the case could be fully resolved without impleading PPSBI as a third-party defendant, because the group policy relationship between Paramount and PPSBI was distinct. The Castros contended that PPSBI’s rights under the group policy and the mortgage redemption insurance rendered the bank’s interest inseparable from the controversy; that subrogation and indemnity principles made PPSBI the proper party; and that impleading PPSBI would prevent multiplicity of suits. Regarding the Motion to Dismiss, the Castros urged that the RTC’s prior default declarations had been improperly applied and that dismissal for failure to prosecute or to allow antibody to ex parte evidence was warranted.

Supreme Court Disposition — G.R. No. 195728

The Supreme Court denied the petition of Paramount in G.R. No. 195728 and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ remand to admit the Castros’ Third-Party Complaint against PPSBI. The Court held that PPSBI, as the mortgagee and policyholder under the group policy, had an inseparable interest in the validity of individual insurance certificates issued by Paramount, particularly given the group policy provision that death benefits were payable to PPSBI as creditor. The Court found that permitting impleader served the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of suits and enabling full adjudication of related claims in a single proceeding.

Supreme Court Disposition — G.R. No. 211329

The Court denied the petition in G.R. No. 211329 challenging the RTC’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss. The Court concluded that the RTC’s denial was interlocutory and therefore not appealable under Rule 41, Section 1(b), Rules of Court. The Court explained that the proper remedy for an interlocutory ruling was a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, and that even were certiorari sought, the hierarchy of courts required that the petition for certiorari be filed first with the Court of Appeals rather than directly with the Supreme Court.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Impleader

The Court relied on the doctrinal characterization of mortgage redemption insurance as protecting both mortgagee and mortgagor, citing Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals, and emphasized that group-policy provisions expressly directing payment to the creditor demonstrated PPSBI’s concrete interest. The Court applied the standard for third-party complaints, observing that impleader is appropriate where the claim of the plaintiff is causally connected to an indemnity, contribution, or other relief that the defendant may seek against a third party. The Court referred to Rule 6, Section 13, Revised Rules of Court, which allows third-party defendants to interpose defenses and counterclaims, and to precedent endorsing impleader to avoid circuitry of actions, including Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. of the Phil v. Tempongko and Asian Construction and Development Corp. v. CA.

Procedural Clarifications on Default and Pretrial Effects

The Court clarified the distinction between a declaration of default under Rule 9, Section 3, which arises from failure to file a responsive pleading within the prescribed period and permits entry of judgment on the pleading, and the consequences of failure to appear at pretrial under Rule 18, Section 5, which allow the plaintiff to p

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 165596)

Parties and Posture

Paramount Life & General Insurance Corporation, Petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Individual Insurance Contract in the RTC, Makati City, Branch 61, docketed as Civil Case No. 09-599.
Cherry T. Castro and Glenn Anthony T. Castro, Respondents answered with counterclaims and sought to implead the Philippine Postal Savings Bank, Incorporated as an indispensable third-party defendant.
The cases were docketed separately as G.R. No. 195728 and G.R. No. 211329 and were consolidated by the Court for joint disposition.
SERENO, C.J. delivered the decision denying both petitions and resolving interlocutory and procedural questions raised by the parties.

Key Facts

Philippine Postal Savings Bank, Incorporated (PPSBI) obtained Group Master Policy No. G-086 from Paramount effective 1 September 2004.
Virgilio J. Castro obtained a housing loan of P1.5 million from PPSBI and was required to secure Mortgage Redemption Insurance from Paramount.
Virgilio applied for an individual certificate (No. 041913) effective 12 March 2008 naming Cherry and Glenn as beneficiaries, subject to the terms of Group Master Policy No. G-086.
Virgilio died on 26 February 2009, and a claim for death benefits under the individual certificate was filed.
Paramount denied the claim and declared Individual Certificate No. 041913 rescinded ab initio for alleged material misrepresentations concerning Virgilio’s health history and prior medical consultations.
The Castros counterclaimed for breach of contract and damages for Paramount’s refusal to honor the loan-insuring obligation.

Procedural History

The RTC denied the Castros’ motion to include PPSBI as an indispensable party and denied leave to file a third-party complaint.
The Castros filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC’s refusal to admit a third-party complaint.
The Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 113972 remanded the case to the RTC and allowed the filing and admission of a third-party complaint against PPSBI.
Paramount filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45, Rules of Court from the CA decision (G.R. No. 195728).
Separately, the Castros filed a Motion to Dismiss in the RTC for failure to prosecute, which the RTC denied and expunged as a consequence of a prior finding of default; the Castros filed a Rule 45 petition from that denial (G.R. No. 211329).

Issues Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in remanding the case to the RTC for the admission of the Third-Party Complaint against PPSBI.
Whether the RTC erred in denying the Castros’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to prosecute and in expunging that Motion as a result of the defendants’ prior default.

Contentions of the Parties

Paramount contended that its nullification action concerned only the individual certificate and that inclusion of PPSBI as a third-party defendant was unnecessary and unrelated to the main action.
The Castros contended that upon Virgilio’s death PPSBI stepped into their shoes by virtue of the MRI and group policy provisions, and that subrogation or indemnity obligations entitled them to bring PPSBI into the case.
The Castros further contended that the RTC’s declaration of default rendered their subsequent Motion to Dismiss a nullity and that the RTC erred in expunging the Motion.

Statutory and Policy Framework

The remedies invoked and procedural questions were governed by Rule 45, Rules of Court and the availability of Rule 65, Rules of Court for certiorari.
Thir