View full case

RAFAEL VERENDIA v. CA

FACTS:

This case involves two consolidated cases that stemmed from the issuance of a fire insurance policy by Fidelity and Surety Insurance Company of the Philippines (Fidelity) covering Rafael (Rex) Verendia's residential building. Verendia also insured the same building with two other companies, The Country Bankers Insurance and The Development Insurance. While all three insurance policies were in force, the insured property was completely destroyed by fire. Verendia filed a complaint against Fidelity for payment of the insurance claim, but Fidelity refused payment. The trial court ruled in favor of Fidelity, finding that Verendia violated the policy by failing to inform Fidelity of his other insurance coverages. Verendia appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court, which reversed the decision and held that Fidelity waived the requirement to inform them of other insurance contracts. Fidelity received a copy of the appellate court's decision but filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. Verendia filed a motion to expunge Fidelity's motion for reconsideration on the ground that the motion for extension was filed out of time. The motion to expunge was denied, and the two petitions were subsequently consolidated.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Verendia violated the insurance policy by failing to inform Fidelity of his other insurance coverages.

  2. Whether Fidelity could legally ask for an extension of the 15-day reglementary period for appealing or moving for reconsideration.

RULING:

  1. The trial court ruled in favor of Fidelity, finding that Verendia violated the insurance policy by failing to inform Fidelity of his other insurance coverages.

  2. The appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court, stating that Fidelity waived the requirement of informing them of other insurance coverages. However, before the merits of the main case could be looked into, it must be determined whether Fidelity could have legally asked for an extension of the 15-day reglementary period for appealing.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The insured party has a duty to inform the insurer of other insurance coverages (Paragraph 3 of the policy).

  • The pendency of a motion for extension of time to perfect an appeal does not suspend the running of the period sought to be extended (Garcia vs. Buenaventura 74 Phil. 611).

  • A motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration is not allowed (Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. vs. Japson 142 SCRA 208).