Great Pacific Life vs. CA and Teodoro Cortez ; G.R. L57308, April 23, 1990
Teodoro Cortez, upon the solicitation of Mrs. Siega, applied for a 20-year endowment policy for P30,000, and his application was accepted and approved. Thus, a policy was issued in his name. The effective date indicated on the face of the policy was December 25, 1972. The annual premium was P1,416.60. Mrs. Siega assured him that the first premium may be paid within the grace period of thirty (30) days from date of delivery of the policy. The first premium of P1,416.60 was paid by him in three (3) installments. In a letter date June 1, 1973, insurer advised Teodoro that the policy was not in force, and to make in enforceable and operative, he must remit the balance of P1,015.60 to complete the initial annual premium due December 15, 1972, and to see Dr. Remollo for another full medical examination at his own expense. Teodoro immediately informed the insurer that he was cancelling the policy and demanded the return of his premium plus damages. Insurer ignored the demand. Teodoro filed a complaint for damages praying for the refund, moral damages and atty’s fees. TC granted. CA affirmed
W/N Teodoro is entitled for refund.
Yes. When the petitioner advised private respondent on June 1, 1973, four months after he had paid the first premium, that his policy had never been in force, and that he must pay another premium and undergo another medical examination to make the policy effective, the petitioner committed a serious breach of the contract of insurance if the premium paid by Cortez was unacceptable for being late, it was the company’s duty to return it. By accepting his premiums without giving him the corresponding protection, the company acted in bad faith. Since his policy was in fact inoperative or ineffectual from the beginning, the company was never at risk, hence, it is not entitled to keep the premium. The award of moral damages was also proper because he must have suffered moral shock, serious anxiety and wounded feeling upon being informed that the policy was in fact worthless even after paying the premium.
Please check out our tags for more personal case digests!
abuse of rights Administrative Law Agency alteration Article 19 Article 26 of the Family Code article 36 Article 148 of the Family Code Article 153 of the Family Code Bill of Rights capacity to contract marriage Case Digest Chain of Custody Civil Code civil law Civil Procedure commercial law Company Policies Conflicts of Law Constitutional Law Constitutional Rights of Employers and Employees Corporate Law court of appeals Credit Card Credit Transactions criminal law criminal procedure Different Kind Of Obligations dismissal divorce Donation Dreamwork easements ec2 Effect of Partial payment ejusdem generis Election Law Eminent Domain Employee’s Rights evidence Expropriation Extinguishment of Obligations – Compensation family code family home Federico O Borromeo Inc Foreclosure foreign divorce forgery G.R. No. 107019 G.R. No. 119122 Government Service Insurance System Injunction instagram Insurable Interest Insurance Intellectual Property japan Judicial review Just Compensation L-26002 labor law Law School Local Government Code marriage NAIA Terminal 3 National Labor Relations Commission negotiable instrument Oblicon Obligation and Contracts Payment through Agent Persons and Family Relations Philippine Airlines Philippine Airlines Inc. Philippine Basketball Association Philippine citizenship Police power Political Law Ponente Premium Payment programming property Provisional Remedies Psychological Incapacity public officers R.S. Tomas Inc. Reinsurance Remedial Law Residence Rights to Security of Tenure and Due Process San Miguel Properties security Seven (7) Cardinal Rights of Workers shrines Social justice Sources of Labor Rights and Obligations Succession Taxation Law temple tokyo TYPES of Employees