[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
185 views1 page

PNB V CA

1. Spouses Desiderio took out a loan from Philippine National Bank (PNB) and used their store's inventory as collateral, with the goods insured by Cosmopolitan Insurance for P4,000 and PNB named as beneficiary. 2. A fire destroyed the Desiderio's building and merchandise. However, the insurance company did not pay out the proceeds. 3. The Court of Appeals ruled that as the attorney-in-fact and beneficiary of the Desiderios, PNB had the obligation to collect the insurance proceeds but failed to adequately pursue this, allowing the debt of the Desiderios to be extinguished.

Uploaded by

Agz Macalalad
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
185 views1 page

PNB V CA

1. Spouses Desiderio took out a loan from Philippine National Bank (PNB) and used their store's inventory as collateral, with the goods insured by Cosmopolitan Insurance for P4,000 and PNB named as beneficiary. 2. A fire destroyed the Desiderio's building and merchandise. However, the insurance company did not pay out the proceeds. 3. The Court of Appeals ruled that as the attorney-in-fact and beneficiary of the Desiderios, PNB had the obligation to collect the insurance proceeds but failed to adequately pursue this, allowing the debt of the Desiderios to be extinguished.

Uploaded by

Agz Macalalad
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. THE HON.

COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION), IGNACIO DESIDERIO AND VICTORIA F. DESIDERIO, respondents. [G.R. No. L-43766 February 26, 1988SARMIENTO, J.:] Facts: 1. Spouses Desiderio applied for a retailers'loan with PNB. a. loan was approved b. inventory of stocks in the Desiderio's store were used as a chattel mortgage i. goods were insured with Cosmopolitan Insurance Co. in the amount of P4000 ii. PNB named sa beneficiary 2. Desiderio's building and merchandise were totally detroyed by fire. 3. The insurance company did not pay the proceeds 4. 1966- insurance company became a subject of liquidation 5. after 7 yearsfrom the burning PNB filed a complaint for collection against the Desiderios 6. City Court dismissed the complaint and held that the partial payment of P1089.60 paid by the Desiderios is unrecoverable on account of loss contracted 7. CFI of Zamboanga affirmed City Court's decision. 8. CA also affirmed 9. Hence the petition: a. PNB's argument: the Chattel Mortgage did not express that they are compelled to collect the proceeds of the insurance in case of loss. ISSUE: W/N PNB as the attorney-in-fact and beneficiary of spouses Desiderio had the obligation to collect the proceeds of the policy. HELD: YES 1. Argument of PNB is a mere rationalization of one trying hard to put the blame on another for its own fault or negligence. a. PNB had ample time and enough legal remedies, not to mention resources, to collect the insurance proceeds when the same became due, yet, it merely sent demand letters to the insurance company. And when the company did not act on the letters, PNB did not pursue other remedies to press its claim. b. PNB did not even file a suit for the recovery of the insurance proceeds against the insurance company before and even during the liquidation of the company. It allowed seven long years to pass before finally deciding to file a collection case. 2. The obligation of the Desiderios to PNB had long been extinguished. a. PNB as attorney-in-fact and beneficiary is duty bound to collect and later on sued the insurance company.

You might also like