SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 231618. March 5, 2018.]
COCOPLANS, INC., petitioner,vs. ROSITA C. PAJEL, BY HERSELF AND ON BEHALF OF BEATRIZ PAJEL TAMONDONG AND MARLON C. PAJEL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 March 2018which reads as follows: TAIaHE
"G.R. No. 231618 (Cocoplans, Inc. v. Rosita C. Pajel, by herself and on behalf of Beatriz Pajel Tamondong and Marlon C. Pajel)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court, resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the January 31, 2017 Decision 1 and May 11, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CV No. 106372 for failure of petitioner Cocoplans, Inc. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA erred in ordering the payment of respondents Rosita C. Pajel, by herself and on behalf of Beatriz Pajel Tamondong and Marion C. Pajel's (respondents) insurance claim.
As correctly held by the CA, the insurance policy was still in force at the time of the policyholder's death notwithstanding his failure to pay the second installment on July 4, 2008. The policy's Pension Program General Provision provides a grace period of sixty (60) days within which the planholder may belatedly settle any payment to prevent the termination of the policy. Thus, considering that the grace period was in effect at the time of respondents' claim, the insurance policy remained valid and enforceable. Besides, the issues raised by the petitioner are factual in nature, which when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive upon this Court, 3 and are not to be disturbed, unless they fall under the recognized exceptions, 4 none of which are present in this case.
Finally, petitioner's failure to attach material portions of the record which should the petition, such as certified copies of the judgment or final order or resolution of the Regional Trial Court, is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the present petition. 5
SO ORDERED. (PERALTA, J., recused himself from the case as his spouse concurred in the assailed Court of Appeals decision and resolution. JARDELEZA, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated February 21, 2018)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 42-62. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela concurring.
2.Id. at 64-65.
3.Acevedo v. Advanstar Company, Inc., 511 Phil. 279, 287 (2005).
4.Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., 665 Phil. 784, 789 (2011).
5. See Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.