CASE 2016-0026: PARAMOUNT LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION, -VERSUS CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY T. CASTRO (G.R. NO. 195728, 19 APRIL 2016, SERENO J.); CHERRY T. CASTRO AND GLENN ANTHONY T. CASTRO –VERSUS PARAMOUNT LIFE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION (G.R. NO. 211329, 19 APRIL 2016, SERENO J.) (SUBJECT/S: THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT; MULTIPLICITY OF SUIT; MORTGAGE REDEMPTION INSURANCE; HEIRARCHY OF COURTS; FAILURE TO FILE AN ANSWER VIS A VIS FAILURE TO ATTEND PRE-TRIAL) (BRIEF TITLE: PARAMOUNT INSURANCE VS C.T. CASTRO ET AL).
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, THE PETITIONS IN G.R. NOS. 195728 AND 211329 ARE DENIED.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
WHAT ARE THE BASIC FACTS?
VIRGILIO OBTAINED HOUSING LOAN FROM PHILIPPINE POSTAL BANK.
SAID BANK REQUIRED VIRGILIO TO GET MORTGAGE REDEMPTION INSURANCE FROM PARAMOUNT INSURANCE.
THE POLICY STATES THAT PARAMOUNT INSURANCE SHALL PAY DIRECTLY PHILIPPINE POSTAL BANK IN CASE VIRGILIO IS UNABLE TO PAY THE LOAN AS WHEN HE DIES.
VIRGILIO DIED.
PARAMOUNT FILED CASE TO ANNUL INSURANCE BECAUSE OF VIRGILIO’S MATERIAL CONCEALMENT OF AN AILMENT.
HEIRS OF VIRGILIO FILED MOTION TO IMPLEAD PHILIPPINE POSTAL BANK.
PARAMOUNT INSURANCE OPPOSED MOTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASE INVOLVES ONLY NULLIFICATION OF POLICY AND DOES NOT INVOLVE PHILIPPINE POSTAL BANK.
IS PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORRECT?
NO.
BECAUSE SHOULD PARAMOUNT SUCCEED IN HAVING THE INDIVIDUAL INSURANCE CERTIFICATE NULLIFIED, THE PHILIPPINE POSTAL BANK SHALL THEN PROCEED AGAINST THE CASTROS. THIS WOULD CONTRADICT THE PROVISIONS OF THE GROUP INSURANCE POLICY THAT ENSURE THE DIRECT PAYMENT BY THE INSURER TO THE BANK.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING A THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT?
TO AVOID CIRCUITRY OF ACTION AND UNNECESSARY PROLIFERATION OF LAWSUITS, AS WELL AS TO EXPEDITIOUSLY DISPOSE OF THE ENTIRE SUBJECT MATTER ARISING FROM ONE PARTICULAR SET OF FACTS, IN ONE LITIGATION.
WHEN IS A THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT VALID?
THE SOUNDNESS OF ADMITTING A THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT HINGES ON CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF IN HIS COMPLAINT AND A CLAIM FOR CONTRIBUTION, INDEMNITY OR OTHER RELIEF OF THE DEFENDANT AGAINST THE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.
ACCORDING TO PARAMAOUNT, A THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT IS PROPER ONLY IF THE THIRD PARTY CAN RAISE SAME DEFENSES AS THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANT. IT THIS CORRECT?
NO THE THIRD PARTY’S DEFENSES ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE DEFENSES OF THE DEFENDANT. THE THIRD PARTY CAN ALSO DIRECTLY ATTACK THE PLAINTIFF, NOT ONLY THE DEFENDANT.
WHAT IS A MORTGAGE REDEMPTION INSURANCE?
IT IS A DEVISE FOR THE PROTECTION OF BOTH MORTGAGEE AND MORTGAGOR.
HOW DOES IT PROTECT THE MORTGAGEE?
ON THE PART OF THE MORTGAGEE, THE LOAN IT EXTENDED WILL BE PAID BY THE INSURANCE.
HOW DOES IT PROTECT THE MORTGAGOR?
ON THE PART OF THE MORTGAGOR, THE MORTGAGE WILL BE EXTINGUISHED SO HIS/HER HEIRS WILL NO LONGER BE OBLIGED TO PAY THE DEBT.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAILURE TO FILE ANSWER AND FAILURE TO ATTEND PRE-TRIAL?
FAILURE TO FILE ANSWER RESULTS TO ORDER OF DEFAULT ALLOWING COURT TO RENDER JUDGMENT BASED ON PLEADINGS.
FAILURE TO ATTEND PRE-TRIAL RESULTS TO ORDER OF DEFAULT ALLOWING THE OTHER PARTY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE EX-PARTE.
HEIRS OF VIRGILIO FILED MOTION TO DISMISS. RTC DENIED THE MOTION. VIRGILIO FILED APPEALED TO SC UNDER RULE 45. IS THIS PROPER?
NO.
THEY SHOULD HAVE FILED A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 SINCE THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT DISPOSE OF THE CASE.
BUT EVEN IF THEY FILED AT THE SC A PETITION UNDE RULE 65, IT STILL MUST BE DISMISSED FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF HEIRARCHY OF COURTS. THEY MUST HAVE FILED FIRST THE PETITION WITH THE CA.
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
SCD-2016-0026-PARAMOUNT INSURANCE
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “JABBULAO AND THE TOPIC”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “JABBULAO AND FORUM SHOPPING”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 