14.philam life v valencia-bagalacsa

8/19/2019 14.Philam Life v Valencia-bagalacsa

1/6

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 139776. August 1, 2002]

PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE AND GENERAL INSRANCE

C!MPAN", petitioner, vs. #DGE L!RE R. $ALENCIA%

&AGALACSA, R'g(o)*+ -(*+ Cou-t o L(/*)*), C**-()'s Su-,

&-*) 6, *)4 EDARD! 5. LMANI!G, CELS! 5. LMANI!G

*)4 R&EN 5. LMANI!G,respondents.

D E C I S I ! N

ASRIA%MARINE5, J .

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court !etitioner !hilippine "#erican $ife and %eneral Insurance Co#pan& pra&s that

the decision of the Court of "ppeals pro#ul'ated on "pril ()* +,,, -e reversed and set

aside and that the Co#plaint filed a'ainst it -& private respondents .duardo /

$u#anio'* Celso / $u#anio' and Ru-en / $u#anio' -efore the Re'ional Trial Court

of $i-#anan* Ca#arines Sur* doc0eted as Civil Case No $1232 -e ordered dis#issed

on 'round of prescription of action

The facts of the case

On une 6)* +,,5* private respondents* as le'iti#ate children and forced heirs of

their late father* Faustino $u#anio'* filed with the aforesaid RTC* a co#plaint for

recover& of su# of #one& a'ainst petitioner alle'in' that their father was insured -&

petitioner under $ife Insurance !olic& No +()5437 with a face value of !5)*)))))8

their father died of coronar& thro#-osis on Nove#-er 65* +,3)8 on une 66* +,3+* the&

clai#ed and continuousl& clai#ed for all the proceeds and interests under the life

insurance polic& in the a#ount of !74+*)))))* despite repeated de#ands for paent

and9or settle#ent of the clai# due fro# petitioner* the last of which is on Dece#-er +*

+,,4* petitioner finall& refused or disallowed said clai# on Fe-ruar& +4* +,,58 :+; and so*

the& filed their co#plaint on une 6)* +,,5

!etitioner filed an "nswer with Counterclai# and


2/6

insurance covera'e that he had not -een treated for indication of chest pain* palpitation*

hi'h -lood pressure* rheu#atic fever* heart #ur#ur* heart attac0 or other disorder of the

heart or -lood vessel when in fact he was a 0nown h&pertensive since +,248 private

respondents sent a letter dated


3/6

+hus, this Court of the opinion and so holds that the prescriptive period

to bring the present action commences to run only on ebruary 1-, 199

/&ollo, pp. 0062, the date 3hen the petitioner finally rejected the claim

of private respondents and not in 198!. +he ten year period shouldinstead be counted from the date of rejection by the insurer in this case

ebruary 1-, 199 since this is the time 3hen the cause of action accrues.

+his fact 3as supported further by the letter of the petitioner to Atty.

Claro dated 'ecember 0", 199-, stating that they 3ere revie3ing the

claim and shall advise Atty. Claro of their action regarding his re4uest for

reconsideration /5d., p. !2.

5n the case of Summit uaranty and 5nsurance Co., 5nc. 7s. 'e uman

/11 SC&A !89, !9!982, citing the case of (agle Star 5nsurance Co.,

:td., et al. vs. Chia ;u, the Supreme Court held that

+he plaintiffs cause of action did not accrue until his claim 3as finally

rejected by the insurance company. +his is because, before such final

rejection, there 3as no real necessity for bringing suit.

5n the same case, the case of ACCA vs. Alpha 5nsurance and Surety Co.,

3as lience, ?e find no grave abuse of discretion committed by the court a

4uo 3hen it issued the %rders dated #une , 1996 and dated 'ecember

10, 199.


4/6

?>(&(%&(, the instant petition for certiorari 3ith prayer for issuance

of temporary restraining order and@or preliminary injunction is '($5('

'( C%&S( and is accordingly '5SB5SS(' by this Court for lac< of

merit.

Costs against the petitioner.

S% %&'(&('.)8*

@ence* the present petition for review !etitioner posits the followin' issues

A. ?hether or not the complaint filed by private respondents for

payment of life insurance proceeds is already barred by prescription ofaction.

. ?hether or not an e=trajudicial demand made after an action has

prescribed shall cause the revival of the action.)9*

!rivate respondents filed their Co##ent and petitioners* their Repl&

Before we deter#ine whether the Court of "ppeals had co##itted an& reversi-le

error* we #ust necessaril& first ascertain whether or not the RTC co##itted 'rave

a-use of discretion in issuin' the Orders dated une 2* +,,7 and Dece#-er +6* +,,2

Nota-l&* the RTC was initiall& correct in issuin' the Order dated une 2* +,,7 when

it set the case -elow for hearin' as there are #atters in the respective pleadin's of the

parties that are evidentiar& in nature* hence the necessit& of a trial on the #erits :+);* in

effect* den&in' the #otion to dis#iss* pursuant to the then prevailin' Section (* Rule +7*

of the Rules of Court* to wit

Sec. !. >earing and order . After hearing the court may deny or grantthe motion or allo3 amendment of pleading, or may defer the hearing and

determination of the motion until the trial if the ground alleged therein

does not appear to be indubitable.

-efore it was a#ended -& the +,,2 Rules of Civil !rocedure* effective ul& +* +,,2 :++;

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn11


5/6

It #ust -e e#phasiAed that petitioner had specificall& alle'ed in the "nswer that it

had denied private respondents clai# per its letter dated ul& ++* +,3( :+6; @ence* due

process de#ands that it -e 'iven the opportunit& to prove that private respondents had

received said letter* dated ul& ++* +,3( Said letter is crucial to petitioners defense that

the filin' of the co#plaint for recover& of su# of #one& in une* +,,5 is -e&ond the +)1

&ear prescriptive period:+(;

It is for the a-ove reason that the RTC co##itted a 'rave a-use of discretion when*

in resolvin' the #otion for reconsideration of petitioner* it ar-itraril& ruled in its Order

dated Dece#-er +6* +,,2* that the period of ten >+)? &ears had not &et lapsed It -ased

its findin' on a #ere eplanation of the private respondents counsel and not on

evidence presented -& the parties as to the date when to rec0on the prescriptive

period !ortions of the Order dated Dece#-er +6* +,,2 read

A perusal of the record 3ill lience, 3hen the instant case 3as filed on #une 0", 199, the ten

year period has not yet lapsed. Boreover, defendants counsel failed to

comply 3ith the re4uirements of the &ules in filing his motion for

reconsideration.)1-* /emphasis supplied2

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn14


6/6

The rulin' of the RTC that the cause of action of private respondents had not

prescri-ed* is ar-itrar& and patentl& erroneous for not -ein' founded on evidence on

record* and therefore* the sa#e is void:+5;

Conse=uentl&* while the Court of "ppeals did not err in upholdin' the une 2* +,37

Order of the RTC* it co##itted a reversi-le error when it declared that the RTC did not

co##it an& 'rave a-use of discretion in issuin' the Order dated Dece#-er +6* +,,2

The appellate court should have 'ranted the petition for certiorari assailin' said

Order of Dece#-er +6* +,,2 Certiorari is an appropriate re#ed& to assail an

interlocutor& order >+? when the tri-unal issued such order without or in ecess of

urisdiction or with 'rave a-use of discretion and >6? when the assailed interlocutor&

order is patentl& erroneous and the re#ed& of appeal would not afford ade=uate and

epeditious relief:+7; Said Order was issued with 'rave a-use of discretion for -ein'

patentl& erroneous and ar-itrar&* thus* deprivin' petitioner of due process* as discussed

earlier

HEREF!RE* the petition is partl& %R"NT.D The assailed decision of the Court

of "ppeals dated "pril ()* +,,, insofar onl& as it upheld the Order dated Dece#-er +6*

+,,2 is R.V.RS.D and S.T "SID. " new ud'#ent is entered reversin' and settin'

aside the Order dated Dece#-er +6* +,,2 of the Re'ional Trial Court of $i-#anan*

Ca#arines Sur >Branch 57? and affir#in' its Order dated une 6)* +,,5 Said RTC is

directed to proceed with dispatch with Civil Case No $1232

No costs

S! !RDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/139776.htm#_edn16

14.philam life v valencia-bagalacsa

Documents