Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    International Exchange Bank v. Sps Briones

    Uploaded by

    Emily Montallana
    The document summarizes a court case between Spouses Briones and International Exchange Bank (now Union Bank of the Philippines). The Spouses took out a loan from the bank to purchase a vehicle, with the bank appointed as their agent to file any insurance claims. However, when the vehicle was stolen, the bank failed to file an insurance claim and instead demanded full payment from the Spouses. The court ruled the bank was liable, as the agent, for failing to carry out its duties to file the insurance claim and prioritizing its own interests over its principals.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    International Exchange Bank v. Sps Briones

    Uploaded by

    Emily Montallana
    43 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a court case between Spouses Briones and International Exchange Bank (now Union Bank of the Philippines). The Spouses took out a loan from the bank to purchase a vehicle, with the bank appointed as their agent to file any insurance claims. However, when the vehicle was stolen, the bank failed to file an insurance claim and instead demanded full payment from the Spouses. The court ruled the bank was liable, as the agent, for failing to carry out its duties to file the insurance claim and prioritizing its own interests over its principals.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    6. International Exchange Bank v. Sps Briones

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case between Spouses Briones and International Exchange Bank (now Union Bank of the Philippines). The Spouses took out a loan from the bank to purchase a vehicle, with the bank appointed as their agent to file any insurance claims. However, when the vehicle was stolen, the bank failed to file an insurance claim and instead demanded full payment from the Spouses. The court ruled the bank was liable, as the agent, for failing to carry out its duties to file the insurance claim and prioritizing its own interests over its principals.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    43 views2 pages

    International Exchange Bank v. Sps Briones

    Uploaded by

    Emily Montallana
    The document summarizes a court case between Spouses Briones and International Exchange Bank (now Union Bank of the Philippines). The Spouses took out a loan from the bank to purchase a vehicle, with the bank appointed as their agent to file any insurance claims. However, when the vehicle was stolen, the bank failed to file an insurance claim and instead demanded full payment from the Spouses. The court ruled the bank was liable, as the agent, for failing to carry out its duties to file the insurance claim and prioritizing its own interests over its principals.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    205657

    INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK NOW UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner


    vs
    SPOUSES JEROME AND QUINNIE BRIONES, AND JOHN DOE, Respondents

    FACTS

     Spouses Briones took out a loan of ₱3,789,216.00 from iBank to purchase a BMW Z4
    Roadster.
     The Spouses Briones executed a promissory note with chattel mortgage that required
    them to take out an insurance policy on the vehicle.8 The promissory note also gave
    iBank, as the Spouses Briones' attomey-infact, irrevocable authority to file an
    insurance claim in case of loss or damage to the vehicle.9 The insurance proceeds
    were to be made payable to iBank.10
     Later, the mortgaged BMW Z4 Roadster was carnapped. The Spouses Briones declared
    the loss to iBank, which instructed them to continue paying the next three (3) monthly
    installments "as a sign of good faith," a directive they complied with.13
     after the Spouses Briones finished paying the three (3)-month installment, iBank sent
    them a letter demanding full payment of the lost vehicle.
     The Spouses Briones submitted a notice of claim with their insurance company,
    which denied the claim on June 29, 2004 due to the delayed reporting of the lost
    vehicle.1
     The Regional Trial Court pointed out that as the Spouses Briones' agent, iBank
    prioritized its interest over that of its principal when it failed to file the notice of
    claim with the insurance company and demanded full payment from the spouses.
     The CA upheld the RTC decision
    ISSUE
    WON the petitioner is liable to the respondents for failure to file notice of claim with the
    insurance company.
    RULING
    All the elements of agency exist in this case. Under the promissory note with chattel mortgage,
    Spouses Briones appointed iBank as their attorney-in-fact, authorizing it to file a claim with the
    insurance company if the mortgaged vehicle was lost or damaged.48 Petitioner was also
    authorized to collect the insurance proceeds as the beneficiary of the insurance policy.
    Article 1884 of the Civil Code provides that "the agent is bound by his acceptance to carry out
    the agency, and is liable for the damages which, through his non-performance, the principal
    may suffer."
    As the agent, petitioner was mandated to look after the interests of the Spouses Briones.
    However, instead of going after the insurance proceeds, as expected of it as the agent,
    petitioner opted to claim the full amount from the Spouses Briones, disregard the established
    principal-agency relationship, and put its own interests before those of its principal.
    The facts show that the insurance policy was valid when the vehicle was lost, and that the
    insurance claim was only denied because of the belated filing.1âwphiHaving been negligent in
    its duties as the duly constituted agent, petitioner must be held liable for the damages suffered
    by the Spouses Briones because of non-performance65 of its obligation as the agent, and
    because it prioritized its interests over that of its principal.

    If petitioner was indeed acting in good faith, it could have timely informed the Spouses Briones
    that it was terminating the agency and its right to file an insurance claim, and could have
    advised them to facilitate the insurance proceeds themselves. Petitioner's failure to do so only
    compounds its negligence and underscores its bad faith. Thus, it will be inequitable now to
    compel the Spouses Briones to pay the full amount of the lost property.

    You might also like