Title
UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Masagana Telemart, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 137172
Decision Date
Apr 4, 2001
Insurance policies renewed despite late premium payment due to insurer's credit term practice; estoppel applied after fire damage claim denied.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 137172)

Trial Court and Court of Appeals Rulings

Both tribunals found no valid notice of non‐renewal given within 45 days before policy expiry. They also recognized a longstanding practice whereby UCPB granted Masagana a 60–90-day credit term for premium payments. On that basis, the policies were deemed automatically renewed by operation of law; UCPB was ordered to pay P18,645,000 indemnity plus attorney’s fees (trial court: 25%; CA reduced to 10%).

Supreme Court’s Initial Decision (June 15, 1999)

The Court reversed and set aside the CA ruling. Citing Section 77 of the Insurance Code and binding precedents (Valenzuela, South Sea Surety, Tibay), it held that non‐life policies are not valid or binding unless premiums are actually paid before the insured peril occurs. An implied credit extension or post‐loss payment cannot renew coverage.

Motion for Reconsideration and Final Ruling (April 4, 2001)

Upon reconsideration, the Court granted Masagana’s motion and reinstated the CA decision. It accepted the existence of a 60–90-day credit arrangement, UCPB’s habitual acceptance of late premiums, and the absence of proof of proper notice of non-renewal. Consequently, the renewal policies were held valid on June 30, 1992, when the fire occurred.

Legal Analysis of Exceptions to Section 77

  1. Life and industrial life policies with statutory grace periods (Section 77 exception).
  2. Acknowledgment of premium in the policy or contract (Section 78), conclusively binding the insurer.
  3. Installment payment arrangements with insurer’s acceptance (Makati Tuscany).
  4. Parties’ freedom to stipulate credit terms under Civil Code Article 1306, so long as not contrary to public policy.
  5. Estoppel arising from UCPB’s consistent practice of granting credit and accepting late payments, on which Masagana reasonably relied.

Separate and Dissenting Opinions

• Justice Vitug (separate): Emphasized public‐interest basis of insurance regulation, the integrity of reserves, and the mandatory nature of Section 77. He would deny reconsideration and insist on actual pre-risk premium payment.
• Justice Pardo (dissent): Found Masagana’s lat

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.