View full case

LUZ PINEDA v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves an administrative complaint filed against Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. by several complainants seeking payment of insurance claims and penalties for violations of contractual obligations and the Insurance Code. The Insurance Commission denied Insular Life's motion to dismiss, held hearings, and rendered a decision in favor of the complainants. The Commission ordered Insular Life to pay a fine, settle the claims of two complainants, and show cause why its officers should not be subjected to disciplinary sanctions. Insular Life appealed to the Court of Appeals, which modified the decision by eliminating the award to two complainants.

In 1983, Prime Marine Services, Inc. obtained a group policy from Insular Life to provide life insurance coverage for its sea-based employees. After the policy's effectivity, six covered employees died at sea, and their beneficiaries sought to claim death benefits. The beneficiaries executed special powers of attorney authorizing Capt. Roberto Nuval to collect indemnities on their behalf. The complainants-appellees were able to receive their death benefits through these powers of attorney. However, it was later discovered that PMSI filed formal claims through Nuval, including the powers of attorney executed by the complainants-appellees. Insular Life released checks payable to the complainants-appellees, which were endorsed and deposited into Nuval's account. In 1989, when the complainants-appellees sought to recover life insurance benefits, their claim was denied by Insular Life, arguing that the liability was already extinguished when the checks were delivered and received by PMSI.

The Insurance Commission held that it had jurisdiction over the case and rejected Insular Life's claims of misjoinder of causes of action and misplaced power of attorney. The Commission ruled that the powers of attorney were sufficient to authorize Nuval to collect the insurance proceeds.

The main issue in the case revolves around the interpretation of Section 180 of the Insurance Code and its amendment by the Family Code. Section 180 provides that in the absence of a judicial guardian, the father or mother of a minor can exercise any right under an insurance policy on behalf of the minor, without court authority or the need for a bond, as long as the interest of the minor does not exceed twenty thousand pesos. However, it is argued that this provision has been amended by the Family Code, which grants joint legal guardianship to the father and mother over the property of their unemancipated common child without the necessity of a court appointment.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the special powers of attorney granted to Capt. Nuval by the petitioners authorized him to collect and receive the insurance proceeds from the respondent company.

  2. Whether a specific or special power of attorney is required to collect insurance proceeds.

  3. Whether the insurer is required to pay the claims directly to the designated beneficiaries under a group insurance policy.

  4. Whether the employer acts as the agent of the insurer in the administration of group insurance policies.

  5. Did PMSI act as the agent of Insular Life?

  6. Was Insular Life bound by the misconduct of its agent?

  7. Was Insular Life negligent in relying on the special power of attorney?

  8. Did Insular Life deliver the checks to the wrong party?

  9. Did Article 225 of the Family Code repeal the third paragraph of Section 180 of the Insurance Code?

RULING:

  1. The special powers of attorney granted to Capt. Nuval by the petitioners do not authorize him to collect and receive the insurance proceeds from the respondent company. The powers granted to Capt. Nuval were limited to following up, demanding, collecting, and receipting for indemnities or sums of money related to the sinking of the vessel. These powers did not specifically mention the authority to collect insurance proceeds. As special powers of attorney, they must be strictly construed.

  2. A specific or special power of attorney is required to collect insurance proceeds. The Insurance Commission's opinion that there is no requirement for a specific or special power of attorney to collect insurance proceeds is not upheld. The court emphasized that the special powers of attorney in question were specifically prepared forms and must be construed strictly. The court also noted that Insular Life had a practice of requiring the policyholder, and not the designated beneficiaries, to file claims for insurance proceeds for group insurance policies.

  3. No, the insurer is not required to pay the claims directly to the designated beneficiaries under a group insurance policy. It is the practice in group insurance that claim payments are coursed through the policyholder, and not necessarily require a power of attorney from the policyholder for the payment of claims. The insurer may pay the claims to the policyholder himself even without the presentation of any power of attorney from the designated beneficiaries.

  4. Yes, the employer acts as the agent of the insurer in the administration of group insurance policies. The employer performs administrative functions and tasks in connection with the insurance policy, such as the collection and payment of premiums and the disbursement of insurance payments to the employees. The insurer directs the performance of these administrative acts, and if these duties are not undertaken properly, the insurer has the right to exercise control over the employer's conduct.

  5. Yes, PMSI acted as the agent of Insular Life.

  6. Yes, Insular Life is bound by the misconduct of its agent.

  7. Yes, Insular Life was negligent in relying on the special power of attorney.

  8. Yes, Insular Life delivered the checks to the wrong party.

  9. No, Article 225 of the Family Code did not repeal the third paragraph of Section 180 of the Insurance Code.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Special powers of attorney must be strictly construed.

  • A specific or special power of attorney is required to collect insurance proceeds.

  • In group insurance policies, the insurer is not required to pay the claims directly to the designated beneficiaries. The insurer may pay the claims to the policyholder himself even without the presentation of any power of attorney from the designated beneficiaries.

  • The employer acts as the agent of the insurer in the administration of group insurance policies. The employer performs administrative functions and tasks, and the insurer directs the performance of these acts and exercises control over the employer's conduct.

  • The employer owes the employee the duty of good faith and due care in attending to the policy, and the employer should make clear to the employee anything required to keep the policy in effect.

  • The employer should be considered as the agent of the insurer, and any omission of duty to the employee in its administration should be attributable to the insurer.

  • Third persons deal with agents at their peril and are bound to inquire as to the extent of the power of the agent.

  • The person dealing with an agent must also act with ordinary prudence and reasonable diligence.

  • If the person dealing with the agent knows or has good reason to believe that the agent is exceeding his authority, he cannot claim protection.

  • The market value of the property or the annual income of the child must exceed P50,000 for a bond to be required when the father and mother jointly exercise legal guardianship.