Anda di halaman 1dari 1

d2015member

ACCFA v. Alpha Insurance & Surety Co Inc (1968) Reyes JBL, J. Asingan Farmers Cooperative Marketing Assoc Inc wanted to have a guarantee against loss on account of personal dishonesty, amounting to larceny or estafa of its Secretary-Treasurer, Ricardo Ladines. Alpha Insurance & Surety then issued a fidelity bond for P5k with Ladines as principal and Alpha as solidary surety. FACOMA then assigned its rights to ACCFA (Agricultural Credit Cooperative and Financing Admin). Ladines misappropriated P11,513 of FACOMA funds to his personal benefit. On October 1958, ACCFA notified in writing the survey company and presented proof of loss. Surety Alpha refused to pay. ACCFA filed suit 30 May 1960. Alpha seeks to dismiss due to a provision in the fidelity bond saying that no action shall be had unless commenced within one year from the making of the claim for loss. Another is that the complaint failed to show an civil or criminal action filed against Ladines as required by the conditions of the bond. Last, Ladines is an indispensable party but was not joined. CFI denied dismissal but, upon reconsideration, reversed and dismissed the complaint because the action was filed beyond the contractual limitation period

Issue: Was contractual limitation void due to Sec. 61-A of Insurance Act? Held: Yes Ratio:

Fidelity bond is in the nature of a contract of insurance against loss from misconduct. Subject to Insurance Act Sec 61-A: A condition, stipulation or agreement in any policy of insurance, limiting the time for commencing an action thereunder to a period of less than 1 year from the time when the cause of action accrues is VOID Cause of action (1) legal right (2) obligation (3) act or omission in violation of legal right Cause of action ACCRUED when insurance company REFUSED to comply with the bond NOT from the time of filing claim of loss Stipulation in contract is VOID because of Sec 61-A Condition of previous conviction was deleted by express agreement Surety assumed solidary liability so creditor may go against any one of the solidary debtors.

Case remanded to CFI with instructions to require defendant to answer