Search 3

! Your credit card information is invalid. Click

here to update it

Valenzuela vs Court of Appeals -

Case Digest
Uploaded by Man2x Salomon on Jun 27, 2013
·
) 0 * 0 1.3K views 2 pages ·
Document Information +
These are some important case digests on Law o…
Date uploaded
Jun 27, 2013
Download
Copyright
.
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Available Formats
DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Digested by: Grace Jayne Dingal

ShareSubject:
thisInsurance
document
Law
Title: VALENZUELA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ARAGON et al.
Topic: Effects of Nonpayment/Partial Payment
Facts:
Arturo Valenzuela is a General Agent of Philippine American General Insurance (Philamgen)
since 1965. He was authorized to solicit and sell in behalf of Philamgen all kinds of non-life
insurance, and in consideration of services rendered was entitled to receive the full agent's
commission of 32.5% from Philamgen under the scheduled commission rates. From 1973 to
Facebook Twitter
1975, Valenzuela solicited marine insurance from one of his clients, the Delta Motors in the
amount of P4.4 Million from which he was entitled to a commission of 32%. However,
Valenzuela did not receive his full commission which amounted to P1.6 Million from the P4.4
Million insurance coverage of the Delta Motors. In 1977, Philamgen started to become
interested in and expressed its intent to share in the commission due Valenzuela on a fifty-
fifty basis. Because of the refusal of Valenzuela, Philamgen terminated the General Agency
Agreement of Valenzuela.
Issue:
whether or not Philamgen could continue to hold Valenzuela jointly and severally liable with

Email
the insured for unpaid premiums
Held: NO.
The principal cause of the termination of Valenzuela as General Agent of Philamgen arose
from his refusal to share his Delta commission. The apparent bad faith of the private
respondents in terminating the General Agency Agreement of petitioners. The agency
involving petitioner and private respondent is one "coupled with an interest," and, therefore,
should not be freely revocable at the unilateral will of the latter. With the termination of the
General Agency Agreement, Valenzuela would no longer be entitled to commission on the
renewal of insurance policies of clients sourced from his agency.
Despite the termination of the agency, Philamgen continued to hold Valenzuela jointly and

, -
severally liable with the insured for unpaid premiums. Valenzuela had an interest in the
continuation of the agency when it was unceremoniously terminated not only because of the
commissions he should continue to receive from the insurance business he has solicited and
procured but also for the fact that by the very acts of the respondents, he was made liable
to Philamgen in the event the insured fail to pay the premiums due. They are estopped by
their own positive averments and claims for damages. Therefore, the respondents cannot
state that the agency relationship between Valenzuela and Philamgen is not coupled with

Is this content inappropriate? Report This Document

interest. There is an exception to the principle that an agency is revocable at will and that is
when the agency has been given not only for the interest of the principal but for the interest
of third persons or for the mutual interest of the principal and the agent. In these cases, it
is evident that the agency ceases to be freely revocable by the sole will of the principal.
The factor rendering Philamgen and the private respondents liable in damages is that the
termination by them of the General Agency Agreement was tainted with bad faith. If a
principal acts in bad faith and with abuse of right in terminating the agency, then he is liable
in damages.
Valenzuela is not liable to Philamgen for the unpaid and uncollected premiums. Under
Section 77 of the Insurance Code, the remedy for the non-payment of premiums is to put
an end to and render the insurance policy not binding —

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125

million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

Sec. 77 ... [N]otwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, no policy or

contract of insurance is valid and binding unless and until the premiums
thereof have been paid except in the case of a life or industrial life policy
whenever the grace period provision applies…
In Philippine Phoenix Surety v. Woodworks, we held that the non-payment of premium does
not merely suspend but puts an end to an insurance contract since the time of the payment
is peculiarly of the essence of the contract. And in Arce v. The Capital Insurance and Surety
Co. Inc. (117 SCRA 63, [1982]), we reiterated the rule that unless premium is paid, an
insurance contract does not take effect. Thus:
It is to be noted that Delgado (Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. v.
Delgado, 9 SCRA 177 [1963] was decided in the light of the Insurance Act
before Sec. 72 was amended by the underscored portion. Supra. Prior to the
Amendment, an insurance contract was effective even if the premium had not
been paid so that an insurer was obligated to pay indemnity in case of loss
and correlatively he had also the right to sue for payment of the premium.
But the amendment to Sec. 72 has radically changed the legal regime in that
unless the premium is paid there is no insurance.”
In Philippine Phoenix Surety case, we held:
Moreover, an insurer cannot treat a contract as valid for the purpose of
collecting premiums and invalid for the purpose of indemnity.
No contract of Insurance by an insurance company is valid and binding unless
and until the premium thereof has been paid, notwithstanding any agreement
to the contrary
Since admittedly the premiums have not been paid, the policies issued have lapsed. The
insurance coverage did not go into effect or did not continue and the obligation of
Philamgen as insurer ceased. Hence, for Philamgen which had no more liability under the
lapsed and inexistent policies to demand, much less sue Valenzuela for the unpaid
premiums would be the height of injustice and unfair dealing. In this instance, with the
lapsing of the policies through the nonpayment of premiums by the insured there were no
more insurance contracts to speak of. As this Court held in the Philippine Phoenix Surety
case, supra "the non-payment of premiums does not merely suspend but puts an end to an
insurance contract since the time of the payment is peculiarly of the essence of the
contract."
The circumstances of the case, however, require that the contractual relationship between
the parties shall be terminated upon the satisfaction of the judgment. No more claims
arising from or as a result of the agency shall be entertained by the courts after that date.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED.

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.

Read For Free

Cancel Anytime

Share this document

" # $ % &

Related Interests

Law Of Agency Insurance

Insurance Policy Common Law

Private Law

Documents Similar To Valenzuel…

Sevilla vs. CA Case Digest 41 - Obana digest of Filip

Digest vs. CA[1] Life Assuranc
UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY v. Pedrosa (G
UPLOADED B
unbeatable38 more2x 159489)
Rafael Pa

More From Man2x Salomon

Philcomsat Lesson 3 - 'Cc' Lesson 3 - 'Cc

Holdings… UPLOADED BY UPLOADED B
Corporation
UPLOADED BYv. Man2x Salomon Man2x Sa
Senate
Man2x Salomon

ABOUT SUPPORT

About Scribd Help / FAQ

Press Accessibility

Our blog Purchase help

Join our team! AdChoices

Contact Us Publishers

Invite Friends

Gi!s

LEGAL
' " # (
Terms

Privacy

Copyright

Scribd
Copyright © 00001 .
2019 Scribd Inc. Browse Books . Site Directory .
Books, audiobooks, and more. 2
Site Language: English
Get our free app