Insurance commission insular life was ordered to pay

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: from both the principal (Primateria Zurich) and its agents. It has been given judgment against the principal for the whole amount. It asked for such judgment, and did not appeal from it. It clearly stated that its appeal concerned the other three defendants. But plaintiff alleges that the appellees as agents of Primateria Zurich are liable to it under Art. 1897 of the New Civil Code which reads as follows: Art. 1897. The agent who acts as such is not personally liable to the party with whom he contracts, unless he expressly binds himself or exceeds the limits of his authority without giving such party sufficient notice of his powers. But there is no proof that, as agents, they exceeded the limits of their authority. In fact, the principal — Primateria Zurich — who should be the one to raise the point, never raised it, denied its liability on the ground of excess of authority. At any rate, the article does not hold that in cases of excess of authority, both the agent and the principal are liable to the other contracting party. Furthermore, the SC did not rule on the 2 remaining issues because of their ruling on the 1st question. DECISION: DENIED. DBP v. CA, 231 SCRA 370 (1994) SANA Facts: Juan B. Dans, together with his wife, son and daughter­in­law applied for a 500K loan with DBP. Dans, 76 years old, was advised by DBP to obtain a mortgage redemption insurance with the DBP MRI Pool. A reducen loan of 300K was approved, from which DBP deducted the amount of P1,476 as payment for the MRI premium. Dans accomplished and submitted the MRI application for Insurance and the Health Statement. Dans died of cardiac arrest. Upon notice, DBP relayed the information to the MRI Pool. The MRI Pool notified DBP that Dans was not eligible for MRI coverage, being over the acceptance age limit of 60 at the time of application. DBP offered to refund the premium paid but Candida Dans refused and filed a case for Collection of Sum of Money with Damages. Trial Court rendered a decision against DBP for reimbursement, and considered the mortgage settled. Issue: WON DBP estopped for having led Dans into ap...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online