FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 203447. August 7, 2019.]
BLUE CROSS INSURANCE, INC., petitioner, vs.BIENVENIDO U. JUAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 7, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 203447 (Blue Cross Insurance, Inc. v. Bienvenido U. Juan). — This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the July 12, 2012 1 and September 13, 2012 2 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 125021. The CA denied Blue Cross Insurance, Inc.'s (Blue Cross) motion for a second and final extension of time to file petition for review on the ground of lack of compelling reason to justify the grant of a second motion for extension. We reiterate that the grant of a second motion for extension under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court is discretionary upon the CA and may be granted only on meritorious reasons. 3
Bienvenido U. Juan (Juan) filed a complaint 4 against Blue Cross before the Insurance Commission (Commission) for the reimbursement of his hospital and medical expenses, or in the alternative, for refund of the annual fees he paid from 2004 to 2007 plus attorney's fees. Juan alleged that: he obtained a medical insurance from Blue Cross; he was diagnosed with "Perinephric Hematoma, Left 2º to Ruptured Renal Arterial Aneurysm"; on September 5, 2007, he underwent "Segmental Renal Artery Angioembolization"; and he submitted a notice of claim with Blue Cross for hospital and medical expenses in the amount of P455,057.87, but the latter denied his claim on the ground of non-declaration of illness. Juan argued that the denial of his claim was illegal and unjust because the insurance policy was already in force for more than three years before he was hospitalized and the final diagnosis for his hospitalization was not directly due to the undisclosed illness. 5
In its Decision 6 dated August 22, 2011, the Commission ruled in favor of Juan, the decretal portion of which reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent, BLUE CROSS INSURANCE, INC.[,] to reimburse the complainant, BIENVENIDO U. JUAN[,] the medical and hospitalization expenses paid by him in the reduced amount of P100,000.00 with legal interest from the date of the filing of the complaint, plus attorney's fees of P20,000.00 with costs.
The counterclaim of the respondent is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. 7
Blue Cross filed a motion for reconsideration, but the Commission denied it in its Resolution 8 dated March 12, 2012. The Commission ruled that the relief sought in Juan's memorandum is couched in the alternative — reimbursement of the sum of P100,000.00 representing medical and hospital expenses incurred between August 23, 2007 to September 5, 2007 or in the alternative, to return the premiums paid from 2004 to 2007. It also held that Blue Cross can no longer invoke concealment as a defense because the one year period under the pre-existing conditions provision of the renewed policy had already lapsed 9 at the time of the hospitalization.
Blue Cross filed a motion for extension of time to file petition for review before the CA. Atty. Samuel F. Baldado (Atty. Baldado), the counsel of Blue Cross, cited the following grounds in the motion for extension: (1) the material documents involved in the case as well as the record of the case which need to be attached to the petition were so voluminous that the process of collating may take considerable length of time; and (2) Atty. Baldado's physical condition and mobility were substantially affected by two major hip operations, for which he has not yet fully recovered due to serious infections. 10 The CA, in the interest of justice, granted the motion. It allowed Blue Cross until June 29, 2012 to file the petition. 11
On June 27, 2012, however, Blue Cross filed a motion for second and final extension of time to file petition for review. This time, Blue Cross claimed that Atty. Baldado could not finish the petition for review because of health reasons and physical handicap. 12
In a Resolution 13 dated July 12, 2012, the CA denied the second motion for extension of time. Relying on the Orthopedic Report dated February 5, 2011 executed by Atty. Baldado's physician-surgeon stating that Atty. Baldado's present condition "[does not] hinder him from doing his usual activities x x x [,]" 14 the CA held that there was no compelling reason to grant the requested second extension of time.
Blue Cross filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration to admit petition for review filed on July 12, 2012 and to reinstate petition for review (omnibus motion). 15 It alleged that Atty. Baldado's wound from the operation suffered serious infection and it became intense during the latter part of June 2012 when he was preparing the petition in the case. In support of its claim, Blue Cross attached the following: (1) photographs showing Atty. Baldado in a wheelchair with bandage on his hip wound; (2) medical prescriptions for high dosage antibiotics; and (3) receipts showing purchase of the antibiotics. Blue Cross also stated that Atty. Baldado is willing to submit himself to physical and medical examination by a doctor in the court's clinic. Finally, Blue Cross contended that it has a valid and meritorious defense as could be shown by the petition for review.
Juan filed a comment 16 on Blue Cross' omnibus motion. He observed that one year and two months already elapsed since Atty. Baldado's second surgery. If indeed his physical condition had deteriorated, Atty. Baldado could have secured another certification from his physician-surgeon to attest to his current physical condition. Yet, Atty. Baldado neither secured nor attached a new medical certificate to his second motion for extension of time and his omnibus motion. 17 There was no credible evidence that a compelling reason existed to grant an additional extension of time to file the petition for review. 18
The CA ruled in favor of Juan's arguments and denied the omnibus motion in its Resolution 19 dated September 13, 2012. It likewise noted that Blue Cross failed to attach any medical certificate to prove Atty. Baldado's allegations.
Hence, this petition. Blue Cross faults the CA for not finding that there was a compelling reason to grant the second motion for extension of time to file the petition for review.
We deny the petition for lack of merit.
Section 4, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court reads:
Sec. 4. Period of appeal. — The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. (Emphasis supplied.)
The CA, at its discretion, may grant the request for an additional period of 15 days to file the petition for review. This extension, however, may only be granted on reasons that the CA finds meritorious. 20
Here, there was no compelling reason to justify the grant of the second motion for extension of time. Blue Cross claims that Atty. Baldado was suffering from some physical handicap that prevents him from timely filing the petition; yet, it did not present credible evidence to prove the same. The documents submitted to the CA, such as photographs, medical prescriptions and proof of purchase of the antibiotics, do not attest to the alleged impaired physical condition of Atty. Baldado. Only a medical certificate could enlighten the CA and this Court as to the true medical condition of the counsel.
Blue Cross claims that it did not submit a medical certificate because doctors are hesitant to issue a certificate for presentation before the courts and doctors have no time to appear before a notary public. 21
We are not convinced. We note that in its first motion for extension of time to file a petition for review before the CA, Blue Cross attached, as a supporting document, an Orthopedic Report narrating Atty. Baldado's medical condition. This belies the contention that Atty. Baldado's physician is hesitant to issue a medical certificate. The absence of a new medical certificate showing the current physical condition of Atty. Baldado is suspect, especially in light of Blue Cross' claim that its counsel had regular appointments with his doctor to arrest the alleged infection in his hip wound. It would be easy for Atty. Baldado to secure a medical certificate from his doctor. As to why he did not do so, the Court may only assume that a new medical certificate would not be beneficial to his cause.
In Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano v. Benemerito, 22 we acknowledged the importance of a medical certificate to prove a medical condition that seeks the liberal application of the rules on appeal. In that case, the absence of a medical certificate failed to convince us that the counsel suffered a stroke and could not assist petitioners in filing their notice of appeal. 23
Blue Cross filed the petition for review on July 11, 2012 or 11 days after the lapse of the extended period allowed by the CA. Thus, it had already lost its right to appeal the Commission's Decision and Resolution.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The July 12, 2012 and September 13, 2012 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 125021 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 37-38; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Isaias P. Dicdican and Michael P. Elbinias, concurring.
2.Id. at 40-42.
3.Go v. BPI Finance Corporation, G.R. No. 199354, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 125, 131.
4. CA rollo, pp. 131-136.
5.Id. at 132-134, 165.
6.Id. at 82-103.
7.Rollo, p. 171; CA rollo, p. 103.
8.Rollo, pp. 171-196; penned by Insurance Commissioner Emmanuel F. Dooc.
9.Id. at 193.
10.Id. at 43-44.
11.Id. at 55.
12.Id. at 58-59.
13.Id. at 37-38.
14.Id.
15.Rollo, pp. 114-117.
16. CA rollo, pp. 350-355.
17.Rollo, p. 129.
18.Id. at 130.
19.Id. at 41-42.
20.Supra note 3.
21.Rollo, p. 24.
22. G.R. No. 174247, February 21, 2007, 516 SCRA 416.
23. In Heirs of Teofilo Gaudiano v. Benemerito, petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal without the assistance of counsel before the Regional Trial Court. They prayed for a 15-day extension on the ground that their counsel suffered stroke, and that they needed to engage the services of another counsel. Id.