Quiz 11 Questions Flashcards
Discussion:
G.R. No. 203060
1) In an insurance where there is a limit of liability for a given injury, what is the limit of liability for other injury not part of the listed/given injury?
The limit of liability for other injury not part of the listed/given injury is the total coverage of the plan.
G.R. No. 203060
2) Why was Stronghold made liable to pay for injuries not listed in the Schedule of Indemnity?
The Schedule of Indemnity is purported not to limit the kinds damages to be awarded, but limit only on the liability. Per interpretation of the Court, since the wording of the insurance plan was not specific, it allows other injuries not listed in the Schedule of Indemnity to be included as well.
So, to limit the liability for injuries not listed in the Schedule of Indemnity, the wording of the insurance plan should be specific and exclude what should be excluded.
G.R. Nos. 213130 & 218193
3) Which has jurisdiction over a rehabilitation and over a conservatorship of an insurance company?
The jurisdiction of these two (2) different actions is covered by two (2) separate judicial/quasi-judicial agencies.
The rehabilitation of an insurance company is covered by the regional trial courts acting as a commercial court.
The conservatorship of an insurance company is covered by the Insurance Commission.
G.R. Nos. 213130 & 218193
4) Was it proper to put the assets of CAP Pension under custodia legis?
No.
In the first place, what was placed under custodia legis, which was part of the directed mandate or order in a prior decision by the First Division of the Court, was only the properties of the parent corporation (the respondent) CAPPI, the one who was undergoing rehabilitation. Second, the IC has no jurisdiction over the rehabilitation proceedings initiated by the regional trial court.
There are two (2) valid reasons why the assets of CAP Pension was not placed under custodia legis.
1) Corporations have separate and distinct personalities. A parent corporation and a subsidiary corporation can be distinct from each other, and is obviously distinct in terms of liabilities and assets. As such, what is owned by the parent corporation cannot be used in place of that of the subsidiary corporation.
2) The planholders of the parent corporation CAPPI have been given protection by the Court when it released the directive on the rehabilitation. The same equal protection should be granted and accorded to the planholders of the subsidiary corporation CAP Pension. The assets and liabilities of CAP Pension should be strictly respected, protected, and distributed to its planholders only.
G.R. Nos. 213130 & 218193
5) Based on the preceding question, what corporation should be put under rehabilitation and under conservatorship?
Any insolvent corporations are the ones put under rehabilitation. In this instant case, it is the parent corporation CAPPI.
Subsidiary corporations or related corporations to those of the insolvent ones are the ones put under conservatorship. In this instant case, it is the CAP Pension.
Notes:
