Philippines AXA Life Insurance Corp. v. Tabora

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 211367. June 4, 2014.]

PHILIPPINE AXA LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. CORAZON D. TABORA, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated04 June 2014 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 211367Philippine AXA Life Insurance Corporation, petitionerv. Corazon D. Tabora, respondent.

On 23 April 1997, Melchor T. Tabora (Tabora) applied with Philippine AXA Life Insurance Corporation (AXA) for a Non-Medical Individual Insurance Coverage for P3,000,000.00 in connection with Tabora's approved loan application with Metrobank's Occidental Mindoro Branch. Upon payment of the premium, AXA issued an insurance policy coverage effective 23 April 1997 to 23 April 1998.

On 28 June 1997, Tabora was killed by four armed men in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. Based on his death certificate, the cause of his death was cardio-pulmonary arrest due to sustained gunshot wound. As a consequence, his wife Corazon D. Tabora (Corazon) filed an insurance claim with AXA amounting to P3,000,000.00.

On 4 December 1997, AXA denied the claim on the ground of material concealment on the part of Tabora when he failed to disclose that he had consulted a doctor within the last five (5) years before the issuance of the insurance contract and that he had a previous history of myocardial infarction. Thereafter, on 26 November 1998, AXA filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Tabora's Individual Insurance Coverage with Damages.

On 26 September 2008, the Regional Trial Court of Makati City dismissed the complaint of AXA and ruled in favor of Corazon. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendant Corazon D. Tabora and against the plaintiff Philippine AXA Life Insurance Corporation, ordering the latter to pay the former, the following: DIECTc

1. The proceeds of the life insurance policy in the amount of Php3,000,000.00, plus interest in the amount of Php911,312.52 being charged by the Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company on the outstanding balance of defendant's deceased husband Melchor L. Tabora for the period ending September 29, 1998, plus additional interest and penalty which may later on be charged by said bank as a result of plaintiff's failure to pay the proceeds of the insurance policy, as well as the compounded legal interest on the total amount to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant;

2. Attorney's fees in the amount equivalent to 25% of the total claim of the defendant; and

3. The cost of suit. 1

On 11 October 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the assailed decision of the trial court. 2 The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, the decision dated September 26, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City in Civil Case No. 98-2895 is AFFIRMED. 3

Similarly, the motion for reconsideration filed by AXA was denied on 11 February 2014.

The Petition should be denied.

In its Petition, 4 AXA primarily raises the argument that the trial court and Court of Appeals both failed to consider the materiality of the concealment by the insured in the issuance of the non-medical insurance contract. This is a factual issue. When both the trial court and the appellate court are in agreement regarding the factual issue, the general rule is that the findings must be respected. 5

In line with jurisprudence, we affirm the findings of the Court of Appeals that:

This Court affirms the finding of trial court that plaintiff-appellant failed to establish material concealment or misrepresentation as defined by law. Contrary to plaintiff-appellant's contentions, the trial court found that the alleged medical findings of myocardial infarction was not conclusive as admitted by defendant-appellee's witness Dr. Cecilia Castillo. Dr. Castillo testified that she merely read Melchor Tabora's ECG results, but did not examine him thoroughly. According to Dr. Castillo, her uncertainty stemmed from the fact that the ECG results did not conform to medical requirements in order to positively conclude existence of inferior myocardial infarction, thus, her recommendation in Rx dated November 6, 1996 for Melchor Tabora to consult a specialist in order to rule out myocardial infarction. Anent the alleged diabetis mellitus, there was also no basis for concluding that Melchor Tabora was diabetic, as his blood test results proved otherwise. The alleged condition of diabetis mellitus was controverted by endocrinologist Dr. Guillermo Manalo, who declared that Melchor Tabora's blood test results were normal and that there was no need for any kind of medication. Record shows that plaintiff-appellant's witness Dr. Domingo Domingo also arrived at the same conclusion. Dr. Domingo testified that based on the blood test results, Melchor Tabora was hyperglycemic because there was only a slight increase in his blood sugar but such increase was still within the normal range and did not indicate that he was diabetic.

xxx xxx xxx

Considering therefore the absence of any fraudulent intent on the part of Melchor Tabora in filling up the insurance application form, plaintiff-appellant cannot refuse payment of the claim. It has been ruled that any fraudulent intent on the part of the insured must be established to entitle the insurer to rescind the contract. Misrepresentation as a defense of the insurer to avoid liability is an affirmative defense and the duty to establish such defense by satisfactory and convincing evidence rests upon the insurer. In the case at bar, the plaintiff-appellant failed to clearly and satisfactorily establish its defense, and is therefore liable to pay the proceeds of the insurance. 6

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' decision dated 11 October 2013 in CA-G.R. CV No. 92861 is hereby AFFIRMED. TIaDHE

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 80.

2. Id. at 81-92.

3. Id. at 92.

4. Id. at 16-52.

5. Garcia-Quizon v. Belen, G.R. No. 189121, 31 July 2013 citing Golden (Iloilo) Delta Sales Corporation v. Pre-Stress International Corporation, 596 Phil. 26, 39 (2009); Seaoil Petroleum Corporation v. Autocorp Group, G.R. No. 164326, 17 October 2008, 569 SCRA 387, 394; Ejercito v. M.R. Vargas Construction, 574 Phil. 255, 265 (2008).

6. Rollo, pp. 90-91.