FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243738. September 2, 2019.]
STANDARD INSURANCE CO., INC., petitioner, vs.TAI-PAN DEVELOPMENT, INC., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 2, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243738 (Standard Insurance Co., Inc. v. Tai-Pan Development, Inc.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the June 6, 2018 Amended Decision 2 and the December 7, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 09860 for failure of petitioner Standard Insurance Co., Inc. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding that the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 12 (RTC) did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss.
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondent Tai-Pan Development, Inc.'s (respondent) action should not be reckoned from the date of petitioner's initial refusal to pay the former's insurance claim on September 12, 2012, but from petitioner's final rejection of the claim on April 29, 2014, 4 after the final resolution 5 of the investigation by the Department of the Interior and Local Government on February 14, 2013. Consequently, when respondent filed its complaint on December 19, 2014, 6 the twelve (12)-month period mandated by the Fire Policy 7 (Policy) has not yet set in. Moreover, as the CA properly pointed out, petitioner was in bad faith when it employed deliberate effort to prevent the filing of the action within the prescriptive period set by the Policy through its act of negotiating the insurance claim with respondent until April 29, 2014, or more than 12 months after its initial denial of respondent's insurance claim on September 12, 2012. 8
While it is true that the prescriptive period for the filing of insurance claims should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the notice of denial of the claim, 9 such denial should be a final rejection since before the final rejection, there is no real necessity to bring suit. 10 Thus, the CA was correct in upholding the RTC's denial of petitioner's motion to dismiss.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo (Vol. I), pp. 3-64.
2.Id. at 69-78. Penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino, concurring.
3.Id. at 80-83.
4. See id. at 75.
5. The said resolution declared the fire to be accidental in nature; see id. at 304. Signed by Secretary Mar Roxas.
6. See id. at 17.
7.Id. 148-151. Paragraph 27 of the Policy provides:
27. Action or suit clause — if a claim be made and rejected and an action or suits be not commended [sic] either in the Insurance Commission or any Court [of] competent jurisdiction within twelve (12) months from receipt of notice of such rejection x x x then the claims shall for all purposes be deemed to have been abandoned and shall not thereafter be recoverable hereunder. (Emphasis supplied) (See id. at 76 and 151.)
8. See id. at 75-77.
9. See Sun Insurance Office, Ltd .v. CA, 272-A Phil. 155, 159 (1991).
10. See H.H. Hollero Construction, Inc. v. Government Service Insurance System, 744 Phil. 11, 19 (2014).