An agency relationship is based upon consentbyone

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: her in misrepresenting, or in affirming, or concealing the authority under which he assumes to act. DBP's liability however cannot be for the entire value for the insurance policy. Pineda v. CA, 226 SCRA 754 (1993) SUPAPO Doctrine: In group insurance policies, the employer is the agent of the insurer. Facts: (Principal: insular life; Acting Agent: Capt. Nuval of PMSI) Prime Marine Services, Inc. (PMSI), procured Group PoIicy from Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. to provide life insurance coverage to its sea­based employees enrolled under their plan. During the effectivity of the policy, 6 covered employees of the PMSI perished at sea when their vessel, M/V Nemos, a Greek cargo vessel, sunk somewhere in El Jadida, Morocco. As such, Complainants­appellees sought to claim death benefits due them. For this purpose, they approached the President and General Manager of PMSI, Capt. Roberto Nuval. The latter evinced willingness to assist complainants­appellees to recover OWWA benefits from the POEA and to work for the increase of their PANDIMAN and other benefits arising from the deaths of their husbands/sons. They were thus made to execute, with the exception of the spouses Alarcon, special powers of attorney authorizing Capt. Nuval to, among others, "follow up, ask, demand, collect and receive" for their benefit indemnities of sums of money due them relative to the sinking of M/V Nemos. By virtue of these written powers of attorney, complainants­appellees were able to receive their respective death benefits. Unknown to them, however, the PMSI, in its capacity as employer and policyholder of the life insurance of its deceased workers, filed with Insular Life formal claims for and in behalf of the beneficiaries, through its President, Capt. Nuval. Among the documents submitted by the latter for the processing of the claims were five special powers of attorney executed by complainants­appellees. On the basis of these and other documents duly submitted, respondent­appellant drew against its account with BPI six (6) checks, four f...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online