oflodoR-Rodolfo

Development Bank of the Philippines v CA

231 SCRA 370

March 21, 1994

Facts:

Juan B. Dans, together with his family applied for a loan of P500,000 with DBP. As principal mortgagor, Dans, then 76 years of age  was advised by DBP to obtain a mortgage redemption insurance (MRI) with DBP MRI pool. A loan in the reduced amount was approved and released by DBP. From the proceeds of the loan, DBP deducted the payment for the MRI premium. The MRI premium of Dans, less the DBP service fee of 10%, was credited by DBP to the savings account of DBP MRI-Pool. Accordingly, the DBP MRI Pool was advised of the credit.

Dans died of cardiac arrest. DBP MRI Pool notified DBP that Dans was not eligible for MRI coverage, being over the acceptance age limit of 60 years at the time of application. DBP apprised Candida Dans of the disapproval of her late husband’s MRI application. DBP offered to refund the premium which the deceased had paid, but Candida Dans refused to accept the same demanding payment of the face value of the MRI or an amount equivalent of the loan. She, likewise, refused to accept an ex gratia settlement which DBP later offered. Hence the case at bar.

Issue:

Whether or not the DBP MRI Pool should be held liable on the ground that the contract was already perfected?

Held:

No, it is not liable. The power to approve MRI application is lodged with the DBP MRI Pool. The pool, however, did not approve the application. There is also no showing that it accepted the sum which DBP credited to its account with full knowledge that it was payment for the premium. There was as a result no perfected contract of insurance’ hence the DBP MRI Pool cannot be held liable on a contract that does not exist

In dealing with Dans, DBP was wearing 2 legal hats: the first as a lender and the second as an insurance agent. As an insurance agent, DBP made Dans go through the motion of applying for said insurance, thereby leading him and his family to believe that they had already fulfilled all the requirements for the MRI and that the issuance of their policy was forthcoming. DBP had full knowledge that the application was never going to be approved. The DBP is not authorized to accept applications for MRI when its clients are more than 60 years of age. Knowing all the while that Dans was ineligible, DBP exceeded the scope of its authority when it accepted the application for MRI by collecting the insurance premium and deducting its agent’s commission and service fee. Since the third person dealing with an agent is unaware of the limits of the authority conferred by the principal on the agent and he has been deceived by the non-disclosure thereof by the agent, then the latter is liable for damages to him.

If you like this, check out http://www.oflodor.com/auto-insurance/

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Related posts:

1. Insurance Case Digest | Great Pacific Life Assurance Co. v Court of Appeals
2. Insurance Case Digest | Perez v CA
3. Auto Insurance: Insights
4. Property Case Digest | Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals
5. Property Case Digest | Bank of Commerce v. Sps. Prudencio San Pablo
6. Case Digest | Morandarte v. Court of Appeals
7. Case Digest | The Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd v. Ebredo
8. Property Case Digest | Josefa Fabia v. David
9. Property Case Digest | Societe Des Products Nestle, et al. v. Court of Appeals
10. Property Case Digest | Pangan v. Court of Appeals