AgencyDPFebruary32014

Because la compania became insolvent pnb made formal

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: him to keep the policy in effect, and the time that the obligations are due. In its position as administrator of the policy, we feel also that the employer should be considered as the agent of the insurer, and any omission of duty to the employee in its administration should be attributable to the insurer. SC Ruling: petition is GRANTED. BA Finance v. CA, 211 SCRA 112 (1992) VELASCO FACTS Spouses Reynaldo and Florencia Manahan executed a promissory note binding themselves to pay Carmasters, Inc. To secure payment, the Manahan spouses executed a deed of chattel mortgage over a motor vehicle. Carmasters later assigned the promissory note and the chattel mortgage to petitioner BA Finance Corporation with the conformity of the Manahans. Spouses failed to pay. Petitioner sent demand letters. Demands were not heeded, and petitioner filed a complaint for replevin with damages. RTC issued a writ of replevin cautioning petitioner that should summons be not served on the defendants within 30 days from the writ's issuance, the case would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The service of summons upon the spouses Manahan was caused to be served by petitioner. The original of the summons had the name and the signature of private respondent Roberto M. Reyes indicating that he received a copy of the summons and the complaint. Petitioner issued a certification to the effect that it had received from the deputy sheriff of RTC Manila the car seized from private respondent Roberto M. Reyes. The lower court came out with an order of seizure. Trial court issued an order stating that summons were not served to the spouses. The case was dismissed for failure to prosecute and further ordering petitioners to return the property seized. CA granted petitioner’s motion. The court recalled the order directing the return of the vehicle to private respondent, set aside the order dismissing the case, directed petitioner "to cause the service of summons together with a copy of the complaint on the principal defendants, and ordered private respondent to answer the complaint. A few months later, petitioner filed a motion to declare private respondent in default. The court granted the motion on that same day and declared private respondent in default for failing to answer within the reglementary period. The case proceeded ex­parte. 47 RTC DECISION Trial court dismissed the complaint against the Manahans for fai...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online