G.R. No. 186983

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

G.R. No.

186983, February 22, 2012

FACTS:

On October 23, 1997 Manuel Florendo filed an application for comprehensive pension
plan with respondent Philam Plans after some convincing by respondent Perla Abcede.
The plan had a pre-need price of ₱997,050.00, payable in 10 years, and had a maturity
value of ₱2,890,000.00 after 20 years. Manuel signed the application and left to Perla
the task of supplying the information needed in the application.Respondent Ma. Celeste
Abcede, Perla’s daughter, signed the application as sales counselor.

Aside from pension benefits, the comprehensive pension plan also provided life
insurance coverage to Florendo.This was covered by a Group Master Policy that Philam
Life issued to Philam Plans. Under the master policy, Philam Life was to automatically
provide life insurance coverage, including accidental death, to all who signed up for
Philam Plans’ comprehensive pension plan.

On September 15, 1998, Manuel died of blood poisoning. Subsequently, Manuel’s wife
Lourdes filed a claim with Philam Plans for the payment of the benefits under her
husband’s plan. However, Philam Plans declined Lourdes’ claim. Apparently, Philam Life
found that Manuel was on maintenance medicine for his heart and had an implanted
pacemaker. Further, he suffered from diabetes mellitus and was taking insulin.

Lourdes renewed her demand for payment under the planbut Philam Plans rejected
it,prompting her to file action against the pension plan company.
The RTC ruled in favor of Lourdes. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the
RTC decision, holding that insurance policies are traditionally contracts uberrimae fidae
or contracts of utmost good faith. As such, it required Manuel to disclose to Philam
Plans conditions affecting the risk of which he was aware or material facts that he knew
or ought to know.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Manuel is guilty of concealing his illness when he kept blank and did
not answer questions in his pension plan application regarding the ailments he suffered
from

2. Whether or not Manuel was bound by the failure of respondents Perla and Ma.
Celeste to declare the condition of his health in the pension plan application; and

3. Whether or not Philam Plans’ approval of Manuel’s pension plan application and
acceptance of his premium payments precluded it from denying Lourdes’ claim.

RULING:

Yes, Manuel is guilty of concealing his illness.

Since Manuel signed the application without filling in the details regarding his continuing
treatments for heart condition and diabetes, the assumption is that he has never been
treated for the said illnesses in the last five years preceding his application. This is
implicit from the phrase “If your answer to any of the statements above (specifically,
the statement: I have never been treated for heart condition or diabetes) reveal
otherwise, please give details in the space provided for.” But this is untrue since he had
been on “Coumadin,” a treatment for venous thrombosis,and insulin, a drug used in the
treatment of diabetes mellitus, at that time.

2. Yes, Manuel was bound by the failure of respondents Perla and Ma. Celeste to
declare the condition of his health in the pension plan application.

Lourdes contends that the mere fact that Manuel signed the application in blank and let
Perla fill in the required details did not make her his agent and bind him to her
concealment of his true state of health. But, Manuel forgot that in signing the pension
plan application, he certified that he wrote all the information stated in it or had
someone do it under his direction.

Assuming that it was Perla who filled up the application form, Manuel is still bound by
what it contains since he certified that he authorized her action. Philam Plans had every
right to act on the faith of that certification.

3. No, Philam Plans’ approval of Manuel’s pension plan application and acceptance of
his premium payments precluded it from denying Lourdes’ claim.

The comprehensive pension plan that Philam Plans issued contains a one-year
incontestability period. Since Manuel died on the eleventh month following the issuance
of his plan, the one year incontestability period has not yet set in. Consequently, Philam
Plans was not barred from questioning Lourdes’ entitlement to the benefits of her
husband’s pension plan.

You might also like