Philam Vs Auditor General

THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (PHILAM) vs.
THE AUDITOR GENERAL
No. L-19255. January 18, 1968.
Doctrine: A reinsurance policy is a contract of indemnity one insurer makes with another to protect the first insurer from a risk it has already
assumed. In contradiction, a reinsurance treaty is merely an agreement between two insurance companies where one agrees to cede and the
other to accept reinsurance business pursuant to provisions specified in the treaty. Reinsurance treaties are contracts for insurance;
reinsurance policies or cessions are contracts of insurance.
Recit-Ready Summary: Philippine American Life Insurance Company [Philamlife] and American International Reinsurance Company [Airco]
entered into an agreement—reinsurance treaty which provides that, “Ceding Company [Philamlife] agrees to reinsure with AIRCO the entire
first excess of such life insurance on the lives of persons as may be written by the Ceding Company.” No question ever arose with respect to the
remittances made by Philamlife to Airco before July 16, 1959, the date of approval of the Margin Law. Subsequently, the Central Bank of the
Philippines collected the sum of P268,747.48 as foreign exchange margin on Philamlife remittances to Airco made subsequent to July 16, 1959.
PHILAM then filed with the CB a claim for refund. The Auditor of the Central Bank denied PHILAM’s claim for refund. The issue in this case is
Whether or not PHILAM’s claim was recovered by the exemption. The Court held in the negative stating that for an exemption to come into
play, there must be a reinsurance policy or, as in the reinsurance treaty provided, a “reinsurance cession” which may be automatic or
facultative. To distinguish, a reinsurance policy is a contract of indemnity one insurer makes with another to protect the first insurer from a risk
it has already assumed. On the other hand, a reinsurance treaty is merely an agreement between two insurance companies whereby one
agrees to surrender and the other to accept reinsurance business pursuant to provisions specified in the treaty. Treaties are contracts for
insurance; reinsurance policies or cessions are contracts of insurance.
Facts:
On January 1, 1950, Philippine American Life Insurance Company [Philamlife], a domestic life insurance corporation, and American
International Reinsurance Company [Airco] of Pembroke, Bermuda, a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Panama, entered
into an agreement—reinsurance treaty which provides that, “Ceding Company [Philamlife] agrees to reinsure with AIRCO the entire first excess
of such life insurance on the lives of persons as may be written by the Ceding Company.” It is also stipulated that even though PHILAM is
already on a risk for its maximum retention under policies previously issued, when new policies are applied for and issued they can cede
automatically any amount, within the limits specified.
No question ever arose with respect to the remittances made by Philamlife to Airco before July 16, 1959, the date of approval of the
Margin Law. Subsequently, the Central Bank of the Philippines collected the sum of P268,747.48 as foreign exchange margin on Philamlife
remittances to Airco made subsequent to July 16, 1959.
PHILAM then filed with the CB a claim for refund for the same amount arguing that the reinsurance premiums remitted were paid on
January 1950 and is therefore exempt from the 25% foreign exchange margin fee.
The Acting legal counsel of the Monetary board resolved that reinsurance contracts entered into and approved by the Central Bank before
July 17, 1959 are exempt from the payment of the 25% foreign exchange margin, even if remittances thereof are made after July 17, 1959
because such remittances "are only made in the implementation of a mother contract, a continuing contract which is the reinsurance treaty."
The Auditor of the Central Bank denied PHILAM’s claim for refund. PHILAM filed reconsideration to the Auditor General and was
denied as well. Hence the petition.
Issue: Whether or not PHILAM’s claim was recovered by the exemption.
Held: No. The Court held in the negative stating that for an exemption to come into play, there must be a reinsurance policy or, as in the
reinsurance treaty provided, a “reinsurance cession” which may be automatic or facultative.
To distinguish, a reinsurance policy is a contract of indemnity one insurer makes with another to protect the first insurer from a risk
it has already assumed. On the other hand, a reinsurance treaty is merely an agreement between two insurance companies whereby one
agrees to surrender and the other to accept reinsurance business pursuant to provisions specified in the treaty. Treaties are contracts for
insurance; reinsurance policies or cessions are contracts of insurance.
Although the reinsurance treaty precedes the Margin Law by over nine years nothing in that treaty obligates PHILAM to remit to
AIRCO a fixed, certain, and obligatory sum by way of reinsurance premiums. All that the reinsurance treaty provides on this point is that
PHILAM “agrees to reinsure.” The treaty speaks of a probability; not a reality. PHILAM’s obligation to remit reinsurance premiums becomes
fixed and definite upon the execution of the reinsurance cession. Because, for every life insurance policy surrendered to AIRCO, PHILAM agrees
to pay premium. It is only after a reinsurance cession is made that payment of reinsurance premium may be exacted, as it is only after PHILAM
seeks to remit that reinsurance premium that the obligation to pay the margin fee arises.

Philam Vs Auditor General

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philam Vs Auditor General

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philam Vs Auditor General

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (PHILAM) vs.

THE AUDITOR GENERAL

No. L-19255. January 18, 1968.

Issue: Whether or not PHILAM’s claim was recovered by the exemption.

You might also like