View full case

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. PRUDENTIAL GUARANTEE

FACTS:

The case involves a complaint for sum of money filed by Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. (PGAI) against the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) for failure to pay the last reinsurance premium. PGAI alleged that GSIS acknowledged its obligation to pay the premium, while GSIS denied acknowledging such obligation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted PGAI's motion for judgment on the pleadings and ordered GSIS to pay the outstanding premium. PGAI then filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, which the RTC granted. GSIS appealed both the RTC's order granting judgment on the pleadings and the authorization of execution pending appeal. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC's order in both cases, with certain modifications. GSIS filed separate petitions for review on certiorari in the Supreme Court, challenging the CA's decisions.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there are good reasons to allow execution pending appeal.

  2. Whether the exemption under Section 39 of RA 8291 denies private entities from enforcing their contractual claims against GSIS.

  3. Whether judgment on the pleadings is appropriate in this case.

  4. Whether the non-payment of the last reinsurance premium renders the contract ineffective.

  5. Whether the insurance policies are valid even if the premiums were paid on installments.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that there were no sufficient "good reasons" to allow execution pending appeal in this case. The requirement of "good reason" must be premised on solid footing and must outweigh injury or damage to the adverse party. Mere allegations do not constitute proof and without sufficient basis to support the alleged "good reasons," execution pending appeal cannot be granted.

  2. The Court ruled that after the resolution of the appeal and barring any provisional injunction, the funds and assets of GSIS may be subject to execution, attachment, garnishment, or levy. The exemption under Section 39 of RA 8291 does not operate to deny private entities from enforcing their contractual claims against GSIS. GSIS, in the exercise of its power to invest its excess funds, assumes a character similar to a private corporation and may be held liable for contracts entered into in the course of its business investments.

  3. The Court found that judgment on the pleadings was appropriate in this case. GSIS's Answer failed to tender an issue as it admitted the material allegations of PGAI's complaint. An answer fails to tender an issue if it does not comply with the requirements of a specific denial, resulting in the admission of the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. Judgment on the pleadings is based solely on the submitted pleadings without the introduction of evidence as the factual issues remain uncontroverted.

  4. The non-payment of the last reinsurance premium does not render the contract ineffective. The Court ruled that the parties intended to make the insurance contract valid and binding, as evidenced by the insured paying and the insurer receiving several reinsurance premiums. The insurer's acceptance of the payments speaks loudly of its intention to honor the policies. The Court also held that Section 78 of the Insurance Code allows the insurer to waive the condition of prepayment by acknowledging receipt of the premium. Furthermore, it ruled that an agreement allowing the insured to pay premiums in installments is not prohibited and does not violate morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

  5. The insurance policies are valid even if the premiums were paid on installments. The Court held that the insurer's acceptance of the installment payments shows their intention to make the policies binding and effective. It also noted that the risk insured is entire and the contract is indivisible, so the insured is not entitled to a refund of the premiums paid if the insurer was exposed to the risk insured, even for a brief period.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Execution pending appeal is an exception to the general rule that only a final judgment may be executed. To grant execution pending appeal, there must be a motion by the prevailing party, good reason for execution pending appeal, and the good reason must be stated in a special order.

  • "Good reason" requires the presence of compelling circumstances that would warrant immediate execution for fear that a favorable judgment may yield to an empty victory. The presence or absence of "good reason" is determined based on the peculiar circumstances of each case.

  • Mere allegations do not constitute proof. The requirement of "good reasons" must be premised on solid footing to ensure that the "superior circumstance" which would impel immediate execution is not contrived or based on speculation.

  • The exemption under Section 39 of RA 8291, which grants GSIS an exemption from tax, lien, attachment, levy, execution, and other legal processes, does not operate to deny private entities from enforcing their contractual claims against GSIS. GSIS may be held liable for contracts it has entered into in the course of its business investments.

  • Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when an answer fails to tender an issue or admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading. An answer fails to tender an issue if it does not comply with the requirements of a specific denial, resulting in the admission of material allegations. Judgment on the pleadings is based solely on the submitted pleadings without introducing evidence, as factual issues remain uncontroverted.

  • Non-payment of the last reinsurance premium does not render the contract ineffective if the insurer accepted previous installment payments and if the insurer acknowledged receipt of the premium.

  • An agreement allowing the insured to pay premiums in installments is not prohibited and does not violate morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

  • The insured is not entitled to a refund of premiums paid if the insurer was exposed to the risk insured, even for a brief period.