G.R. No. L-19613 – ALFONSO G. LOPEZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS, defendant-appellee.
REGALA, J.
Rule Synopsis
The filing of an “action” that will bar the running of the prescriptive period for filing the claim for insurance proceeds pertains to an action filed in court. Filing an action before the Office of the Insurance Commissioner does not have such effect.
Facts
Alfonso Lopez (insured) insured his tractor and trailer with Filipinas Compania de Seguros (insurer). The insured vehicles then figured in an accident resulting in loss and damage. The insured filed a claim with the insurer. On April 28, 1960, the latter rejected the claim because of the latter’s alleged “concealment of a material fact,” namely: that the insured property had previously been declined insurance by another company. On May 27, 1960, the insured complained to the Office of the Insurance Commissioner; this latter rejected the case. Thus, on September 19, 1961, the insured filed a complaint with the CFI. It was dismissed upon motion of the insurer on the ground of prescription, for the insurer’s failure to file an “action” to enforce the claim within 12 months from its rejection by the insurance company as stipulated in the policy.
Issue
Should Filipinas Compania de Seguros be held liable?
Ruling and Discussion
No. Filipinas Compania de Seguros should not be held liable.
The Supreme Court absolved the insurer from liability on the grounds of prescription, the action having been filed before a court of justice 17 months after the insurer rejected the claim. It held that the filing of the complaint with the Office of the Insurance Commissioner did not bar the running of the prescriptive period and that the “action” contemplated in the policy pertains to an action filed before a court of justice. The Court here distinguished between an “action” and a “special proceeding.” The former is a formal demand of a right by one against another, while the latter is a petition or a declaration of status, right, or fact. An “action” was also held synonymous to a “suit,” i.e. one that involves the “enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.” On the contrary, the Insurance Commissioner is not given such power to adjudicate claims and disputes between the insurer and the insured.
Dispositive
Order affirmed.