Jimenez vs CA : 103883 : November 14, 1996 : J Vitug : First Division
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/103883.htm
due execution of the insurance policy; it alleged, however, that since both the death certificate
issued by the Iraqi Ministry of Health and the autopsy report of the NBI failed to disclose the
cause of Gabriels death, it denied liability under the policy. In addition, private respondent raised
[10]
the defense of prescription, invoking Section 384
of the Insurance Code. Later, private
respondent filed an amended answer, still unverified, reiterating its original defenses but, this
time, additionally putting up a counterclaim and a crossclaim.
The trial court dismissed the case against ECDC for the failure of petitioner to take steps to
cause the service of the fourth alias summons on ECDC. The dismissal was without prejudice.
The case proceeded against private respondent alone. On 28 May 1987, the trial court
[11]
in favor (partly) of petitioners claim. In arriving at its conclusion, the trial
rendered its decision
court held that private respondent was deemed to have waived the defense, i.e., that the cause
of Gabriels death was not covered by the policy, when the latter failed to impugn by evidence
petitioners averment on the matter. With regard to the defense of prescription, the court
considered the complaint to have been timely filed or within one (1) year from private
respondents denial of the claim.
Petitioner and private respondent both appealed to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner
contended that the lower court should have awarded all the claims she had asked for. Private
respondent asserted, on its part, that the lower court erred in ruling (a) that the insurer had
waived the defense that Gabriels death was not caused by the insured peril (violent accidental
external and visible means) specified in the policy and (b) that the cause of action had not
prescribed.
The Court of Appeals, on 18 September 1991, reversed the decision of the lower court. The
appellate court held that petitioner had failed to substantiate her allegation that her husbands
death was caused by a risk insured against. The appellate court observed that the only evidence
presented by petitioner, in her attempt to show the circumstances that led to the death of the
insured, were her own affidavit and a letter allegedly written by a co-worker of the deceased in
[12]
Iraq which, unfortunately for her, were held to be both hearsay.
[13]
The motion for reconsideration was denied.
Petitioner s recourse to this Court must also fail.
On the issue of prescription, private respondent correctly invoked Section 384 of the
Insurance Code; viz:
Sec. 384. Any person having any claim upon the policy issued pursuant to this chapter shall, without any
unnecessary delay, present to the insurance company concerned a written notice of claim setting forth the
nature, extent and duration of the injuries sustained as certified by a duly licensed physician. Notice of
claim must be filed within six months from date of the accident, otherwise, the claim shall be deemed
waived. Action or suit for recovery of damage due to loss or injury must be brought, in proper cases, with
the Commissioner or the Courts within one year from denial of the claim, otherwise, the claimants right of
action shall prescribe.
The notice of death was given to private respondent, concededly, more than a year after the
death of petitioners husband. Private respondent, in invoking prescription, was not referring to
the one-year period from the denial of the claim within which to file an action against an insurer
but obviously to the written notice of claim that had to be submitted within six months from the
time of the accident.
Petitioner argues that private respondent must be deemed to have waived its right to
controvert the claim, that is, to show that the cause of death is an excepted peril, by failing to
2 of 5
1/20/2016 2:03 PM