GR L 67835; (October, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-67835 October 12, 1987
MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. (MICO), petitioner, vs. GREGORIA CRUZ ARNALDO, in her capacity as the INSURANCE COMMISSIONER, and CORONACION PINCA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. (MICO) issued Fire Insurance Policy No. F-001-17212 to private respondent Coronacion Pinca, effective July 22, 1981, covering her property for P14,000. MICO claims it cancelled the policy on October 15, 1981, for non-payment of premium. However, on December 24, 1981, Pinca paid the premium to MICO’s agent, Domingo Adora, who remitted it to MICO on January 15, 1982. Pinca’s property was completely burned on January 18, 1982. MICO subsequently returned Pinca’s payment on February 5, 1982, insisting the policy was already cancelled. Pinca filed a claim with the Insurance Commission, which ruled in her favor.
MICO appealed to the Supreme Court. A preliminary procedural issue arose regarding the timeliness of the petition. The Insurance Commission’s authenticated records showed MICO received notice of the denial of its motion for reconsideration on June 13, 1982. MICO, however, presented a copy suggesting receipt on June 18, 1982. The petition was filed with the Court on July 2, 1982.
ISSUE
(1) Was MICO’s petition filed on time? (2) Was there a valid insurance contract at the time of the loss, entitling Pinca to indemnity?
RULING
The petition was dismissed. Procedurally, it was filed out of time. The Court found the authenticated date of receipt—June 13, 1982—to be credible, making the petition filed on July 2, 1982, tardy under any applicable period (whether the 30-day period under the Insurance Code, the 15-day period under Rule 45 or BP 129, or the 10-day period under RA 5434).
On the merits, the Court affirmed the Insurance Commission’s decision. The insurance contract was valid and in force at the time of the fire. The alleged cancellation was ineffective. Payment of the premium to MICO’s authorized agent, Adora, on December 24, 1981, constituted payment to the company itself, binding MICO. The subsequent remittance to MICO on January 15, 1982, and its retention until after the loss on January 18, 1982, confirmed the acceptance of the premium and the policy’s subsistence. MICO’s return of the premium only on February 5, 1982, after the fire, indicated an attempt to evade a just obligation. Furthermore, MICO failed to promptly object to the proof of loss, waiving any defects. The Court found MICO’s actions bordered on bad faith and duplicity.