UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Masagana Telemart Inc. (Insurance)

UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Masagana Telemart Inc.

(Insurance Law)

356 SCRA 307 (G.R. No. 137172)

April 4, 2001

Petitioners:	UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc.
Respondents:	Masagana Telemart Inc.

CJ. Davide, Jr.:

FACTS:

On April 15, 1991, petitioner issued five (5) insurance policies covering respondent’s various property described therein against fire, for the period from May 22, 1991 to May 22, 1992.

In March 1992, petitioner evaluated the policies and decided not to renew them upon expiration of their terms on May 22, 1992. Petitioner advised respondent’s broker, Zuellig Insurance Broker’s, Inc. of its intention not to renew the policies.

On April 6, 1992, petitioner gave written notice to respondent of the non-renewal of the policies at the address stated in the policies.

On June 13, 1992, fire razed respondent’s property covered by three of the insurance policies petitioner issued.

On July 13, 1992, respondent presented to petitioner’s cashier at its head office five (5) manager’s checks in the total amount of ₱225,753.95, representing premium for the renewal of the policies from May 22, 1992 to May 22, 1993. No notice of loss was filed by respondent under the policies prior to July 14, 1992.

On July 14, 1992, respondent filed with petitioner its formal claim for indemnification of the insured property razed by fire.

On the same day, July 14, 1992, petitioner returned to respondent the five (5) manager’s check that it tendered, and at the same time rejected respondent’s claim for the reasons (a) that the policies had expired and were not renewed and (b) that the fire occurred on June 13, 1992, before respondent’s tender of premium payment.

On July 21, 1992, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Makati City, a civil complaint against petitioner for recovery of ₱18,645,000.00 representing the face value of the policies covering respondent’s insured property razed by fire and for attorney’s fees.

ISSUE:

Whether Sec. 77 of the Insurance Code of 1978 must strictly be applied to petitioner’s advantage despite its practice of granting a 60 to 90 day credit term for the payment of the premiums.

HELD:

No. It can be seen at once that Section 77 does not restate the portion of Section 72 expressly permitting an agreement to extend the period to pay the premium. But are there exceptions to Section 77? The answer is in the affirmative. The first exception is provided by Section 77 itself, and that is, in case of a life or industrial life policy whenever the grace period provision applies. The second is that covered by Section 78 of the Insurance Code, which provides: SEC. 78. Any acknowledgment in a policy or contract of insurance of the receipt of premium is conclusive evidence of its payment, so far as to make the policy binding, notwithstanding any stipulation therein that it shall not be binding until premium is actually paid. A third exception was laid down in Makati Tuscany Condominium Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, wherein we ruled that Section 77 may not apply if the parties have agreed to the payment in installments of the premium and partial payment has been made at the time of loss, x x x Not only that. In Tuscany, we also quoted with approval the following pronouncement of the Court of Appeals in its Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of its decision: x x x By the approval of the aforequoted findings and conclusion of the Court of Appeals, Tuscany has provided a fourth exception to Section 77, namely, that the insurer may grant credit extension for the payment of the premium. This simply means that if the insurer has granted the insured a credit term for the payment of the premium and loss occurs before the expiration of the term, recovery on the policy should be allowed even though the premium is paid after the loss but within the credit term.

Moreover, there is nothing in Section 77 which prohibits the parties in an insurance contract to provide a credit term within which to pay the premiums. That agreement is not against the law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. The agreement binds the parties.

Finally in the instant case, it would be unjust and inequitable if recovery on the policy would not be permitted against Petitioner, which had consistently panted a 60- to 90-day credit term for the payment of premiums despite its full awareness of Section 77. Estoppel bars it from taking refuge under said Section, since Respondent relied in good faith on such practice. Estoppel then is the fifth exception to Section 77.