Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FRIA
MR
Finally in the instant case, it would be unjust and inequitable if recovery on the policy would not be
permitted against Petitioner, which had consistently granted a 60- to 90-day credit term for the
payment of premiums despite its full awareness of Section 77. Estoppel bars it from taking refuge
under said Section, since Respondent relied in good faith on such practice. Estoppel then is the fifth
exception to Section 77||| (UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc. v. Masagana Telemart, Inc., G.R.
No. 137172 (Resolution), [April 4, 2001], 408 PHIL 423-447)
-----
MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. V. PAP CO., LTD (2013) materiality of location
Considering that the original policy was renewed on an "as is basis," it follows that the renewal
policy carried with it the same stipulations and limitations. The terms and conditions in the renewal
policy provided, among others, that the location of the risk insured against is at the Sanyo factory in
PEZA. The subject insured properties, however, were totally burned at the Pace Factory. Although
it was also located in PEZA, Pace Factory was not the location stipulated in the renewal policy.
There being an unconsented removal, the transfer was at PAP's own risk.
FIRST INTEGRATED BONDING & INSURANCE CO., INC. V. HERNANDO (1991)
pour atrui
It is settled that where the insurance contract provides for indemnity against liability to a third party,
such third party can directly sue the insurer. First Insurance cannot evade its liability as insurer by
hiding under the cloak of the insured. Its liability is primary and not dependent on the recovery of
judgment from the insured. ". . . the insurer's liability accrues immediately upon the occurrence of
the injury or event upon which the liability depends, and does not depend on the recovery of
judgment by the injured party against the insured |||
Thus, the public may mistakenly think that Dermaline is connected to or associated with Myra, such
that, considering the current proliferation of health and beauty products in the market, the
purchasers would likely be misled that Myra has already expanded its business through Dermaline
from merely carrying pharmaceutical topical applications for the skin to health and beauty services.
FRIA
PAL VS SPS. KURANGKING (2003) stay order; claim
RUBBERWORLD VS NLRC (1999) labor cases
SPS. SOBRAJUANITE VS ASB (2005) rescission
METROBANK VS CAMERON GRANVILLE (2007) preference of lien
RCBC VS IAC ( 1992) secured creditor
CORDOVA VS REYES DAWAY (2007) pro rata for money claim
TRANSPORTATION
FIRST PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION , vs CA(1998) pipeline concession
CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC vs. SULPICIO LINES charter party
CALVO VS UCPB (2002) customs broker
ASIA LIGHTERAGE AND SHIPPING, INC., petitioner, vs . COURT OF
APPEALS limited clientele
SPOUSES CRUZ, , vs. SUN HOLIDAYS, INC., beach resort
BELGIAN OVERSEAS CHARTERING AND SHIPPING N.V. and JARDINE
DAVIES TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., vs. PHILIPPINE FIRST
INSURANCE CO., INC.,(2002). Prima facie negligence
COKALIONG SHIPPING LINES, INC, vs. UCPB (2003) ensuring seaworthiness
DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC., CA (2001) certificates of seaworthiness
FORTUNE EXPRESS, INC., vs . CA (1999) police report
LA MALLORCA vs CA (1966) 4-year old
EQUITABLE LEASING VS SUYOM (2002) registered owner rule
DUAVIT VS CA (1989) stolen vehicle
DELA TORRE VA CA (2011) limited liability/ civil code provisions
PLANTERS PRODUCTS VS CA (1993) charter party
METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT VS ADALA (2007) franchise
SPS. TEODORO/PERENA VS SPS. ZARATE (2012) school service
GAMBOA VS TEVES (2011) control test / beneficial ownership test
INSURANCE
GULF RESORTS, INC, vs. PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION, (2005)
contract of adhesion
PHILIPPINE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS, INC. , vs CIR (2009) HMO not an insurance
contract
GREPALIFE VS CA (1999) binding receipt
LALICAN VS INSULAR LIFE (2009) reinstatement of policy
INSULAR LIFE VS EBRADO (1977) void beneficiary
FILIPINO MERCHANTS INSURANCE CO., INC vs CA (1989) insurable interest on property
GEAGONIA VS CA (1995) mortgagor-mortgagee
GREPALIFE VS CA(1999) loss-payable mortgage clause
SPS. CHA VS CA (1997) insurable interest
UCPB VS MASAGANA (1999) non-payment of premium
PHILIPPINE PRYCE ASSURANCE VS CA (1994) surety
PHILAMCARE HEALTH VS CA (2002) concealment
SUNLIFE OF CANADA VS CA (1995) non-disclosure
GENERAL INSURANCE VS NG HUA (1960) other insurance clause
CHOA TIEK SENG V. COURT OF APPEALS (1990) all-risks policy
CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. V. SULPICIO LINES (1999) seaworthiness
MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. V. PAP CO., LTD (2013) materiality of location
FIRST INTEGRATED BONDING & INSURANCE CO., INC. V. HERNANDO (1991) pour
atrui
PAN MALAYAN INSURANCE CORP. V. CA (1990) accidental meaning
FIRST QUEZON CITY INSURANCE CO., INC. V. CA (1993) limit of liability
VILLACORTA V. INSURANCE COMMISSION (1980) authorized driver vis-à-vis theft clause
BANKING
SIMEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. CA (1990) diligence
GUINGONA, JR. V. CITY FISCAL OF MANILA (1984) estafa
VITUG vs CA (1990) survivorship agreement
EJERCITO V SANDIGANBAYAN (2006) trust accounts
BSB GROUP vs SALLY GO (2010) account itself
SALVACION VS CENTRAL BANK (1997) dollar account of rapist
PDIC VS CA (2003) golden time deposits
RCBC VS HI-TRI DEV CORP (2012) notice to owner
MANALO VS CA (2001) appointment of a receiver
REPUBLIC VS EUGENIO (2008) existing criminal case
PDIC VS PCRBI (2011) examination vs investigation
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
KHO VS CA (2002) chin chun su
PEARL & DEAN VS SHOEART (2003) light boxes
ABS-CBN VS PMMSI (2009) must carry rule
MCDONALDS VS LC BIG MAK (2004) dominancy test
MIGHTY CORP VS EJ GALLO WINERY (2004) holistic test
DERMALINE VS MYRA (2010) aural test/ expansion of business
SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLÉ, S.A. V. CA, (2001) colorable imitation
CANON KABUSHIKI KAISHA VS CA (2000) dissimilar goods
COFFEE PARTNERS VS SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE (2010) IPO registration
SUPERIOR ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. KUNNAN ENTERPRISES (2010) test of unfair
competition