RCBC v. CA - Insurance Proceeds
289 SCRA 292 (1998)
Facts:
> GOYU applied for credit facilities and accommodations with RCBC. After due evaluation, a credit facility in the amount of P30 million was initially granted. Upon GOYU's application increased GOYU's credit facility to P50 million, then to P90 million, and finally to P117 million
> As security for its credit facilities with RCBC, GOYU executed two REM and two CM in favor of RCBC, which were registered with the Registry of Deeds at. Under each of these four mortgage contracts, GOYU committed itself to insure the mortgaged property with an insurance company approved by RCBC, and subsequently, to endorse and deliver the insurance policies to RCBC.
> GOYU obtained in its name a total of 10 insurance policies from MICO. In February 1992, Alchester Insurance Agency, Inc., the insurance agent where GOYU obtained the Malayan insurance policies, issued nine endorsements in favor of RCBC seemingly upon instructions of GOYU
> On April 27, 1992, one of GOYU's factory buildings in Valenzuela was gutted by fire. Consequently, GOYU submitted its claim for indemnity.
> MICO denied the claim on the ground that the insurance policies were either attached pursuant to writs of attachments/garnishments issued by various courts or that the insurance proceeds were also claimed by other creditors of GOYU alleging better rights to the proceeds than the insured.
> GOYU filed a complaint for specific performance and damages. RCBC, one of GOYU's creditors, also filed with MICO its formal claim over the proceeds of the insurance policies, but said claims were also denied for the same reasons that AGCO denied GOYU's claims.
> However, because the endorsements do not bear the signature of any officer of GOYU, the trial court, as well as the Court of Appeals, concluded that the endorsements are defective and held that RCBC has no right over the insurance proceeds.
Issue:
Whether or not RCBC has a right over the insurance proceeds.
Held:
RCBC has a right over the insurance proceeds.
It is settled that a mortgagor and a mortgagee have separate and distinct insurable interests in the same mortgaged property, such that each one of them may insure the same property for his own sole benefit. There is no question that GOYU could insure the mortgaged property for its own exclusive benefit. In the present case, although it appears that GOYU obtained the subject insurance policies naming itself as the sole payee, the intentions of the parties as shown by their contemporaneous acts, must be given due consideration in order to better serve the interest of justice and equity.
It is to be noted that 9 endorsement documents were prepared by Alchester in favor of RCBC. The Court is in a quandary how Alchester could arrive at the idea of endorsing any specific insurance policy in favor of any particular beneficiary or payee other than the insured had not such named payee or beneficiary been specifically disclosed by the insured itself. It is also significant that GOYU voluntarily and purposely took the insurance policies from MICO, a sister company of RCBC, and not just from any other insurance company. Alchester would not have found out that the subject pieces of property were mortgaged to RCBC had not such information been voluntarily disclosed by GOYU itself. Had it not been for GOYU, Alchester would not have known of GOYU's intention of obtaining insurance coverage in compliance with its undertaking in the mortgage contracts with RCBC, and verify, Alchester would not have endorsed the policies to RCBC had it not been so directed by GOYU.
On equitable principles, particularly on the ground of estoppel, the Court is constrained to rule in favor of mortgagor RCBC. RCBC, in good faith, relied upon the endorsement documents sent to it as this was only pursuant to the stipulation in the mortgage contracts. We find such reliance to be justified under the circumstances of the case. GOYU failed to seasonably repudiate the authority of the person or persons who prepared such endorsements. Over and above this, GOYU continued, in the meantime, to enjoy the benefits of the credit facilities extended to it by RCBC. After the occurrence of the loss insured against, it was too late for GOYU to disown the endorsements for any imagined or contrived lack of authority of Alchester to prepare and issue said endorsements. If there had not been actually an implied ratification of said endorsements by virtue of GOYU's inaction in this case, GOYU is at the very least estopped from assailing their operative effects.
To permit GOYU to capitalize on its non-confirmation of these endorsements while it continued to enjoy the benefits of the credit facilities of RCBC which believed in good faith that there was due endorsement pursuant to their mortgage contracts, is to countenance grave contravention of public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and justice. Such an unjust situation, the Court cannot sanction. Under the peculiar circumstances obtaining in this case, the Court is bound to recognize RCBC's right to the proceeds of the insurance policies if not for the actual endorsement of the policies, at least on the basis of the equitable principle of estoppel.
GOYU cannot seek relief under Section 53 of the Insurance Code which provides that the proceeds of insurance shall exclusively apply to the interest of the person in whose name or for whose benefit it is made. The peculiarity of the circumstances obtaining in the instant case presents a justification to take exception to the strict application of said provision, it having been sufficiently established that it was the intention of the parties to designate RCBC as the party for whose benefit the insurance policies were taken out. Consider thus the following:
1. It is undisputed that the insured pieces of property were the subject of mortgage contracts entered into between RCBC and GOYU in consideration of and for securing GOYU's credit facilities from RCBC. The mortgage contracts contained common provisions whereby GOYU, as mortgagor, undertook to have the mortgaged property properly covered against any loss by an insurance company acceptable to RCBC.
2. GOYU voluntarily procured insurance policies to cover the mortgaged property from MICO, no less than a sister company of RCBC and definitely an acceptable insurance company to RCBC.
3. Endorsement documents were prepared by MICO's underwriter, Alchester Insurance Agency, Inc., and copies thereof were sent to GOYU, MICO and RCBC. GOYU did not assail, until of late, the validity of said endorsements.
4. GOYU continued until the occurrence of the fire, to enjoy the benefits of the credit facilities extended by RCBC which was conditioned upon the endorsement of the insurance policies to be taken by GOYU to cover the mortgaged properties.
This Court can not over stress the fact that upon receiving its copies of the endorsement documents prepared by Alchester, GOYU, despite the absence written conformity thereto, obviously considered said endorsement to be sufficient compliance with its obligation under the mortgage contracts since RCBC accordingly continued to extend the benefits of its credit facilities and GOYU continued to benefit therefrom. Just as plain too is the intention of the parties to constitute RCBC as the beneficiary of the various insurance policies obtained by GOYU. The intention of the parties will have to be given full force and effect in this particular case. The insurance proceeds may, therefore, be exclusively applied to RCBC, which under the factual circumstances of the case, is truly the person or entity for whose benefit the policies were clearly intended.
