Cajucom, Katrina Monica T.
BPI v. Laingo
G.R. No. 205206, March 16, 2016
Q: Rheozel Laingo, the son of respondent Yolanda Laingo, opened a "Platinum 2-in-1 Savings and
Insurance" account with petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) which is a savings account
where depositors are automatically covered by an insurance policy against disability or death issued by
petitioner FGU Insurance Corporation, now known as BPI/MS Insurance Corporation. Yolanda
Laingo and Rhealyn, his sister, were named beneficiaries.
On 25 September 2000, Rheozel died due to a vehicular accident. Laingo wanted to use the money in
the savings account for Rheozel's burial and funeral expenses. Due to Laingo's credit standing and
relationship with BPI, BPI accommodated Laingo who was allowed to withdraw P995,000 from the
account of Rheozel.
More than two years later or on 21 January 2003, Rheozel's sister, Rhealyn, while arranging Rheozel's
personal things in his room at their residence found the Personal Accident Insurance Coverage
Certificate No. 043549 issued by FGU Insurance. Rhealyn immediately conveyed the information to
Laingo who in turn, requested BPI and FGU Insurance to process her claim as beneficiary of
Rhoezel’s insurance policy. FGU denied the claim stating that it should have been filed within three
calendar months from the death of Rhoezel as required under Par. 15 of the Personal Accident
Certificate of Insurance.
Laingo filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages against BPI and FGU Insurance.
The RTC ruled that the prescriptive period of 90 days shall commence from the time of death of the
insured and not from the knowledge of the beneficiary. Since the insurance claim was filed more than
90 days from the death of the insured, the case must be dismissed. On appeal, the CA reversed, ruling
that Laingo could not be expected to do an obligation which she did not know existed.
Laingo argues that she dealt with BPI after her son's death, when she was allowed to withdraw funds
from his savings account in the amount of P995,000. However, BPI did not notify her of the attached
insurance policy. Thus, Laingo attributes responsibility to BPI and FGU Insurance for her failure to
file the notice of insurance claim within three months from her son's death.
Is notice to the agent, BPI, sufficient notice to FGU Insurance of the insured’s death?
A: Yes. As the main proponent of the 2-in-1 deposit account, BPI tied up with its affiliate, FGU
Insurance, as its partner. Any customer interested to open a deposit account under this 2-in-1 product,
after submitting all the required documents to BPI and obtaining BPI's approval, will automatically be
given insurance coverage. Thus, BPI acted as agent of FGU Insurance with respect to the insurance
feature of its own marketed product.
Art. 1884 and 1887 of the Civil Code are clear that an agent is bound to carry out the agency. The
relationship existing between principal and agent is a fiduciary one, demanding conditions of trust and
confidence. It is the duty of the agent to act in good faith for the advancement of the interests of the
principal. In this case, BPI had the obligation to carry out the agency by informing the beneficiary,
who appeared before BPI to withdraw funds of the insured who was BPI’s depositor, not only of the
existence of the insurance contract but also the accompanying terms and conditions of the insurance
policy in order for the beneficiary to be able to properly and timely claim the benefit.
There is a rationale in the contract of agency, which flows from the “doctrine of representation,” that
notice to the agent is notice to the principal. Here, BPI had been informed of Rheozel’s death by the
latter’s family. Since BPI is the agent of FGU Insurance, then such notice of death to BPI is considered
as notice to FGU Insurance as well. FGU Insurance cannot now justify the denial of a beneficiary’s
insurance claim for being filed out of time when notice of death had been communicated to its agent
within a few days after the death of the depositor- insured. In short, there was timely notice of
Rheozel’s death given to FGU Insurance within three months from Rheozel’s death as required by
the insurance company.
