This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
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
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
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.
- Fall '14