In Jarque vs. Smith Bell & Co., the Supreme Court ruled that an insurer is liable for general average contributions, even if the policy covers only “absolute total loss.” The Court emphasized that such liability arises from a quasi-contract implied by law, benefiting all parties with an interest in the vessel or cargo.
In Philamlife vs. Auditor, the Supreme Court ruled that reinsurance treaties are contracts for insurance, not of insurance. Therefore, obligations to remit premiums become fixed only upon executing specific reinsurance cessions. Consequently, Philamlife’s remittances were subject to the Margin Law’s fees, as the treaty lacked a binding obligation for premium payments.
In Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. vs. Equinox Land Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled that a surety is solidarily liable with the principal obligor. Equinox terminated its contract with J’Marc Construction due to violations and delays. Prudential, as J’Marc’s surety, was held equally responsible for the obligations.
In Villacorta vs. Insurance Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that when an insured vehicle is taken without the owner’s consent, it constitutes theft under the insurance policy, regardless of the “Authorized Driver” clause. Therefore, the insurer is liable for the loss.
Villacorta vs. Insurance Commission [October 28, 1980] Read More »
In Harding vs. Commercial Union Assurance Co., the Supreme Court held that, absent fraud, the valuation stated in an insurance policy is conclusive between the parties. The insurer’s agent completed the application, and the insured did not misrepresent the automobile’s value or ownership. Therefore, the insurer was liable for the loss.
Harding vs. Commercial Union Assurance Co. [August 10, 1918] Read More »
In CCC Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that a driver’s license, appearing valid on its face, is presumed genuine. The burden of proving its invalidity lies with the insurer. Since the insurer failed to disprove the driver’s license validity, the claim was upheld.
CCC Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals [January 30, 1970] Read More »
In Tagaytay Realty Co., Inc. vs. Gacutan, the Supreme Court ruled that a developer’s failure to complete subdivision amenities within one year, as mandated by P.D. No. 957, excuses the buyer from paying penalties. However, the buyer remains obligated to pay agreed-upon interest on the purchase price.
Tagaytay Realty Co., Inc. vs. Gacutan [July 1, 2015] Read More »
In the case of Lo vs. KJS Eco-Formwork System Phil., Inc., the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that an employee’s resignation must be voluntary. If coerced, it is considered constructive dismissal, entitling the employee to reinstatement and back wages. The Court emphasized the employer’s burden to prove the resignation’s voluntariness.
Lo vs. KJS Eco-Formwork System Phil., Inc. [October 8, 2003] Read More »
In A. Francisco Realty vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a contract labeled as a “pacto de retro sale” was actually an equitable mortgage. The stipulation for automatic transfer of property ownership upon default was deemed a pactum commissorium, which is prohibited under Article 2088 of the Civil Code.
A. Francisco Realty vs. Court of Appeals [October 30, 1998] Read More »
In Roberts vs. Papio, the Supreme Court of the Philippines held that a contract labeled as an absolute sale cannot later be claimed as an equitable mortgage if the seller initially acknowledged it as a pacto de retro sale. The Court emphasized that judicial admissions prevent parties from changing their stance during proceedings.
