SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 194126. October 17, 2018.]

INDUSTRIAL PERSONNEL AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES,

INC., petitioner, vs. COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE
CORPORATION, respondent.

DECISION

CAGUIOA, J : p

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 (Petition) under

Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Industrial Personnel and
Management Services, Inc. (IPAMS) assailing the Decision 2 dated October
14, 2010 (assailed Decision) of the Court of Appeals (CA) Eleventh Division in
CA-G.R. SP No. 114683, which reversed and set aside the following rulings:
AHDacC

1. the Resolution 3 dated June 26, 2007 and Order 4 dated

December 4, 2007 issued by the Insurance Commission (IC);
2. the Decision 5 dated September 17, 2008 and Resolution 6 dated
April 29, 2009 issued by the Department of Finance (DOF); and
3. the Decision 7 dated January 8, 2010 and Resolution 8 dated June
1, 2010 issued by the Office of the President (OP).
These issuances upheld the ruling of the IC that respondent Country
Bankers Corporation (Country Bankers) shall be subjected to disciplinary
action pursuant to Section 241 (now Section 247) and Section 247 (now
Section 254) of the Insurance Code, as amended, 9 if respondent Country
Bankers does not settle the subject claims presented by petitioner IPAMS. cAaDHT

The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings

As narrated by the CA in its assailed Decision, the essential facts and

antecedent proceedings of the instant case are as follows:
In 2000, Industrial Personnel and Management Services, Inc.
(IPAMS) began recruiting registered nurses for work deployment in
the United States of America (U.S.). It takes eighteen (18) to twenty
four (24) months for the entire immigration process to complete. As
the process requires huge amounts of money, such amounts are
advanced [to] the nurse applicants.
By reason of the advances made to the nurse applicants, the
latter were required to post surety bond. The purpose of the bond is
to guarantee the following during its validity period: (a) that they will
comply with the entire immigration process, (b) that they will
complete the documents required, and (c) that they will pass all the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 qualifying examinations for the issuance of immigration visa. The
Country Bankers Insurance Corporation (Country Bankers for brevity)
and IPAMS agreed to provide bonds for the said nurses. [Under the
agreement of IPAMS and Country Bankers, the latter will provide
surety bonds and the premiums therefor were paid by IPAMS on
behalf of the nurse applicants.] 10
[The surety bonds issued specifically state that the liability of
the surety company, i.e., respondent Country Bankers, "shall be
limited only to actual damages arising from Breach of Contract by the
applicant."] 11
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was executed by the said
parties on February 1, 2002 which stipulated the various
requirements for collecting claims from Country Bankers, namely: HCaDIS

B. REQUIREMENTS FOR CLAIM

Requirements are as follows:
SURETY BOND:
A. 1st demand letter requiring his/her to submit complete
documents.
B. 2nd Demand letter (follow up of above).
C. Affidavit stating reason of any violation to be executed by
responsible officer of Recruitment Agency;
D. Statement of Account (detailed expenses);
E. Transmittal Claim Letter. 12 (Emphasis and underscoring in
the original)
[On the basis of the MOA, IPAMS submitted its claims under the
surety bonds issued by Country Bankers. For its part, Country
Bankers, upon receipt of the documents enumerated under the MOA,
paid the claims to IPAMS.] 13 According to IPAMS, starting 2004, some
of its claims were not anymore settled by Country Bankers.
[In 2004, Country Bankers was not able to pay six (6) claims of
IPAMS. The claims were not denied by Country Bankers, which
instead asked for time within which to pay the claims, as it alleged to
be cash-strapped at that time. Thereafter, the number of unpaid
claims increased. By February 16, 2007, the total amount of unpaid
claims was P11,309,411.56.
IPAMS took the matter up with the General Manager of Country
Bankers, Mr. Ignacio Ong (Ong). In response, Country Bankers,
through its letter 14 dated November 14, 2005 signed by Mr. Ong,
acknowledged the obligations of Country Bankers, apologized for the
delay in the payment of claims, and proposed to amortize the
settlement of claims by paying a semi-monthly amount of
P850,000.00. In addition, Country Bankers promised to pay future
claims within a ninety (90)-day period. That commitment made by
Country Bankers was not fulfilled and IPAMS had to deal with Country
Bankers' new General Manager, Ms. Tess Valeriano (Valeriano). Ms.
Valeriano assured IPAMS that the obligations of Country Bankers
would be paid promptly. AHCETa

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 However, the counsel of Country Bankers, Atty. Marisol Caleja,
started to oppose the payment of claims and insisted on the
production of official receipts of IPAMS on the expenses it incurred for
the application of nurses. IPAMS opposed this, saying that the Country
Bankers' insistence on the production of official receipts was contrary
to, and not contemplated in, the MOA and was an impossible
condition considering that the U.S. authorities did not issue official
receipts. In lieu of official receipts, IPAMS submitted statements of
accounts, as provided in the MOA.] 15
Then, [in a letter 16 dated August 22, 2006,] Country Bankers
limited the authority of its agent [assigned to the accounts of IPAMS,]
Mr. Jaime C. Lacaba [(Lacaba),] to transact business with IPAMS.
[Due to the unwillingness of Country Bankers to settle the
claims of IPAMS, the latter sought the intervention of the IC, through a
letter-complaint dated February 9, 2007.] 17
Country Bankers on the other hand alleged that until the third
quarter of 2006, it never received any complaint from IPAMS. Due to
remarkable high loss ratio of IPAMS, the latter's accounts were
evaluated and audited by the Country Bankers. The IPAMS was
informed of the same problem. Instead of complying with the
requirements for claim processes, IPAMS insisted that the supporting
documents cannot be produced.
[The] [c]ontending parties went to a series of conferences to
settle the differences but to no avail. The [IC] therefore ordered the
parties to submit [their] respective Position Papers. 18 On June 26,
2007, the Claims Division of the [IC] [issued] a [R]esolution 19
declaring the following: ScHADI

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Commission

believes and so holds that there is no ground for the
refusal of CBIC to pay the claims of IPAMS. Its failure to
settle the claim after having entered into an Agreement
with the complainant, IPAMS, demonstrates respondent's
bad faith in the fulfillment of their obligation, to the
prejudice of the complainant.
Accordingly, we find the insurance company liable
to settle the subject claim otherwise, this Commission
shall be constrained to take disciplinary action pursuant
to Sections 241 and 247 of the Insurance Code, as
amended." (Underscoring supplied) aICcHA

The move by Country Bankers to reconsider the above

resolution was denied by the [IC] in an [O]rder 20 dated December 4,
2007.
Country Bankers made an appeal before the [DOF]. The [DOF]
decided to affirm the assailed orders of the [IC]. The dispositive
portion of the said [D]ecision 21 [dated September 30, 2008] reads:
"WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the
questioned Resolution of the Commission dated June 26,
2007, as reiterated in its Order dated December 7, 2007,
is hereby AFFIRMED and that the same be implemented
in accordance with Sec. 241, in relation to Sec. 247 of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Insurance Code and other pertinent rules and regulations
on the matter."
A motion to reconsider the x x x aforementioned decision was
filed but was denied [by the DOF in its Resolution 22 dated] April 29,
2009.
On appeal to the [OP], the ruling of the [DOF] was affirmed in a
[D]ecision 23 docketed as O.P. Case No. 09-E-190 and dated January
8, 2010:
WHEREFORE, herein appeal is DISMISSED for lack of
merit. The Decision of the Secretary of Finance dated
September 17, 2008 and its Resolution dated April 29,
2009 are hereby AFFIRMED. 24
A subsequent motion to reconsider the same was denied by the
said office in its [R]esolution 25 dated June 1, 2010. EHaASD

Hence, [the] instant [P]etition [for Review filed by respondent

Country Bankers before the CA under Rule 43 of the Ru les of Court.]
26

The Ruling of the CA

In its assailed Decision, the CA granted the Rule 43 Petition filed by

respondent Country Bankers, reversing and setting aside the rulings of the
IC, DOF, and OP, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED
and the following issuances are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE :
1. June 1, 2010 decision of the Office of the President in O.P.
Case No. 09-E-190;
2. January 8, 2010 decision of the Office of the President in
O.P. Case No. 09-E-190;
3. Department of Finance resolution dated April 29, 2009;
4. Department of Finance decision dated September 17,
2008;
5. Insurance Commission order dated December 4, 2007; and
the
6. Insurance Commission resolution dated June 26, 2007.
SO ORDERED. 27 (Emphasis in the original)
The CA held that respondent Country Bankers was justified in delaying
the payment of the claims to petitioner IPAMS because of the purported lack
of submission by petitioner IPAMS of official receipts and other "competent
proof" 28 on the expenses incurred by petitioner IPAMS in its recruitment of
nurse applicants. The CA held that Section 241 (now Section 247) of the
Insurance Code, which defines an unfair claim settlement practice, and
Section 247 (now Section 254), which provides for the suspension or
revocation of the insurer's authority to conduct business, should not be
made to apply to respondent Country Bankers because of the failure of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 petitioner IPAMS to provide competent proof of its claims. DaIAcC

Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration, petitioner IPAMS decided

to directly file the instant Petition 29 dated November 2, 2010 on November
4, 2010 before the Court.
On April 4, 2011, respondent Country Bankers filed its Comment (To
Petition for Review on Certiorari dated November 2, 2010). 30 On August 18,
2011, petitioner IPAMS filed its Reply. 31

Issue

Stripped to its core, the present Petition asks the Court to resolve
whether the CA erred in issuing its assailed Decision which reversed and set
aside the rulings of the IC, DOF, and OP, which found that respondent
Country Bankers has no ground to refuse the payment of petitioner IPAMS'
claims and shall accordingly be subjected to disciplinary action pursuant to
Sections 241 (now Section 247) and 247 (now Section 254) of the Insurance
Code if the latter does not settle the subject claims of petitioner IPAMS.
SICDAa

The Court's Ruling

The appeal is partly meritorious.

In reversing and setting aside the rulings of the IC, DOF, and OP, the
CA, in the main, found that as provisions of applicable law are deemed
written into contracts, Article 2199 of the Civil Code 32 should be applied
regarding the MOA between petitioner IPAMS and respondent Country
Bankers. The CA reasoned that since "[c]ompetent proof x x x must be
presented to justify award for actual damages," 33 respondent Country
Bankers was correct in not paying the subject claims of petitioner IPAMS
because the latter failed to present official receipts and other "competent"
evidence establishing the actual costs and expenses incurred by petitioner
IPAMS.
Apparently, the CA concurred with the reason posited by respondent
Country Bankers for not paying the claims presented by petitioner IPAMS,
i.e., the failure of petitioner IPAMS to present official receipts of expenses it
incurred. Consequently, the CA found that mere Statements of Accounts with
detailed expenses, without accompanying official receipts or any other
"competent" evidence, cannot prove actual expenses. Hence, respondent
Country Bankers was supposedly justified in not paying the claims of
petitioner IPAMS.
Autonomy of Contracts

At the onset, it is important to note that according to the autonomy

characteristic of contracts, the contracting parties may establish such
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem
convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 customs, public order, or public policy. 34

The stipulation of the MOA at issue is the provision enumerating

requirements (Requirements for Claim Clause) that must be presented by
petitioner IPAMS in order to make a valid claim against the surety bond. To
reiterate, the Requirements for Claim Clause provides: DHIcET

B. REQUIREMENTS FOR CLAIM

Requirements are as follows:
SURETY BOND:
F. 1st demand letter requiring his/her to submit complete
documents.
G. 2nd Demand letter (follow up of above).
H. Affidavit stating reason of any violation to be executed by
responsible office of Recruitment Agency. HDICSa

I. Statement of Account (detailed expenses).

J. Transmittal Claim Letter. 35 (Emphasis and underscoring in
the original)
Petitioner IPAMS and respondent Country Bankers in essence made a
stipulation to the effect that mere demand letters, affidavits, and statements
of accounts are enough proof of actual damages — that more direct and
concrete proofs of expenditures by the petitioner such as official receipts
have been dispensed with in order to prove actual losses.
As to why the parties agreed on the sufficiency of the listed
requirements under the MOA goes into the motives of the parties, which is
not hard to understand, considering that the covered transactions, i.e., the
processing of applications of nurses in the U.S., are generally not subject to
the issuance of official receipts by the U.S. government and its agencies. 36
HcDSaT

Considering the foregoing, the question is crystallized: Can the parties

stipulate on the requirements that must be presented in order to claim
against a surety bond? And the answer is a definite YES, pursuant to the
autonomy characteristic of contracts, they can. In an insurance contract,
founded on the autonomy of contracts, the parties are generally not
prevented from imposing the terms and conditions that determine the
contract's obligatory force. 37
Thus, the view posited by the CA that the Requirements for Claim
Clause is contrary to law because it is incongruent with Article 2199 of the
Civil Code and, therefore, an exception to the rule on autonomy of contracts
is erroneous. A more thorough examination of Article 2199 does not support
the CA's view.
Article 2199 of the Civil Code states:
Article 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation,
one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary
loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such compensation is
referred to as actual or compensatory damages. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 The law is clear and unequivocal when it states that one is entitled to
adequate compensation for pecuniary loss only for such losses as he has
duly proved EXCEPT: (1) when the law provides otherwise, or (2) by
stipulation of the parties. Otherwise stated, the amount of actual
damages is limited to losses that were actually incurred and proven, except
when the law provides otherwise, or when the parties stipulate that actual
damages are not limited to the actual losses incurred or that actual damages
are to be proven by specific documents agreed upon. ASTcaE

The submission of official receipts and

other pieces of evidence as a prerequisite
for the payment of claims is excused by
stipulation of the parties; and in lieu
thereof, the presentation of statement of
accounts with detailed expenses, demand
letters, and affidavits is, by express
stipulation, sufficient evidence for the
payment of claims.

To reiterate, Article 2199 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that the
prerequisite of proof for the recovery of actual damages is not absolute. This
was illustrated in People of the Philippines v. Jonjie Eso y Hungoy, et al., 38
wherein this Court held that the requirement of providing actual proof found
under Article 2199 for the recovery of actual and compensatory damages (in
that case, funeral expenses) may be dispensed with, considering that there
was a stipulation to that effect made by the parties.DTCSHA

In the instant case, it is not disputed by any party that in the MOA
entered into by the petitioner IPAMS and respondent Country Bankers, the
parties expressly agreed upon a list of requirements to be fulfilled by the
petitioner in order to claim from respondent Country Bankers under the
surety bond.
Hence, it is crystal clear that the petitioner IPAMS and respondent
Country Bankers, by express stipulation, agreed that in order for the
former to have a valid claim under the surety bond, the only requirements
that need to be submitted are the two demand letters, an Affidavit stating
reason of any violation to be executed by responsible officer of the
Recruitment Agency, a Statement of Account detailing the expenses
incurred, and the Transmittal Claim Letter. Evidently, the parties did not
include as preconditions for the payment of claims the submission
of official receipts or any other more direct or concrete piece of
evidence to substantiate the expenditures of petitioner IPAMS . If the
parties truly had the intention of treating the submission of official receipts
as a requirement for the payment of claims, they would have included such
requirement in the MOA. But they did not.
It is elementary that when the terms of an agreement have been
reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon
and there can be no evidence on such terms other than the contents of the
written agreement. 39 Further, when the terms of the contract are clear and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the stipulations
of the parties are controlling. 40
In the case at hand, respondent Country Banker failed to present any
compelling evidence that convinces the Court that the parties had the
intention of adding requirements other than the five requirements for
payment of claims enumerated in the Requirements for Claim Clause. On
the contrary, several circumstances show that the submission of official
receipts was really NOT intended by the parties to be a precondition for the
payment of claims.
As found by the OP in its Decision dated January 8, 2010, respondent
Country Bankers "knew as a matter of IPAMS' regular course of business that
these covered transactions are generally not issued official receipts by US
government and its agencies and the US based professional organizations
and institutions involved to complete the requirements for the issuance of an
immigrant visa." 41 CScTED

Further, as found by the IC in its Resolution dated June 26, 2007, which
the CA did not controvert in its assailed Decision, respondent Country
Bankers had previously admitted liability and promised to make payment on
similar claims under the surety agreement even without the submission of
official receipts. 42 In fact, respondent Country Bankers had previously paid
similar claims made by petitioner IPAMS on the basis of the same set of
documents, even without the submission of official receipts and other pieces
of evidence.
As the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the contracting
parties shall be principally considered in determining the intention of the
parties, 43 and that, by virtue of estoppel, an admission or representation is
rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied or
disproved as against the person relying thereon, 44 the prior actuations of
respondent Country Bankers clearly establish that it did not intend the
submission of official receipts to be a prerequisite for the payment of claims.
Respondent Country Bankers is therefore estopped from claiming that the
submission of official receipts and other "competent proof" is a further
requirement for the payment of claims. EDCcaS

Hence, the Court finds that, by stipulation of petitioner IPAMS and

respondent Country Bankers in their MOA, the parties waived the
requirement of actually proving the expenses incurred by petitioner IPAMS
through the submission of official receipts and other documentary evidence.
Thus, respondent Country Bankers was not justified in denying the payment
of claims presented by petitioner IPAMS based on the lack of official receipts.
Under the Insurance Code, all defects in
the proof of loss, which the insured might
remedy, are waived as grounds for
objection when the insurer omits to specify
to him without unnecessary delay.

While placing utmost concentration on Article 2199 of the Civil Code in

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 ruling that competent proof is required for the payment of the subject
claims, the assailed Decision of the CA failed to take into consideration the
applicable provisions of the Insurance Code. cDCEIA

The subject agreement of the parties indubitably contemplates a

surety agreement, 45 which is governed mainly by the Insurance Code,
considering that a contract of suretyship shall be deemed an insurance
contract within the contemplation of the Insurance Code if made by a surety
which is doing an insurance business. 46 In this case, the surety, i.e.,
respondent Country Bankers, is admittedly an insurance company engaged
in the business of insurance. In fact, the CA itself in its assailed Decision
mentioned that a contract of suretyship is defined and covered by the
Insurance Code. 47
Moreover, the Insurance Code 48 specifically provides applicable
provisions on suretyship, stating that pertinent provisions of the Civil Code
shall only apply suppletorily whenever necessary in interpreting the
provisions of a contract of suretyship. 49 Jurisprudence also holds that a
specific law should prevail over a law of general character. 50
Hence, in the resolution of the instant case, the CA erred in not
considering the applicable provisions under the Insurance Code on the
required proof of loss and when such requirement is waivable.
Therefore, Section 92 51 of the Insurance Code must be taken into
consideration. The said provision states that all defects in the proof of loss,
which the insured might remedy, are waived as grounds for objection
when the insurer omits to specify to him without unnecessary delay. It is the
duty of the insurer to indicate the defects on the proofs of loss given, so that
the deficiencies may be supplied by the insured. When the insurer
recognizes his liability to pay the claim, there is waiver by the insurer of any
defect in the proof of loss. 52
In the instant case, it must be emphasized that respondent Country
Bankers, through its General Manager, Mr. Ong, issued a letter dated
November 14, 2005 which readily acknowledged the obligations of Country
Bankers under the surety agreement, apologized for the delay in the
payment of claims, and proposed to amortize the settlement of claims by
paying a semi-monthly amount of P850,000.00. 53 In addition, Country
Bankers promised to pay future claims within a 90-day period: DHESca

First of all, allow us to apologize for the delay in our response to

you considering that we still had to do some reconciliation of our
records with that of Mr. Lacaba. After evaluating the total number of
claims filed by IPAMS, we have come up with the final figure of
P20,575,492.25.
In this regard, we wish to propose to amortize the settlement of
the said amount by paying you the semi-monthly amount of
P850,000.00 until the entire amount of P20,575,492.25 is fully paid.
With respect to future claims (after the cut-off date, October 28,
2005), we shall see to it that they are settled within the 90 days time
frame allowed us. 54

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 It bears stressing that respondent Country Bankers, after undergoing
an evaluation of the total number of claims of petitioner IPAMS, undertook
the settlement of such claims even WITHOUT the submission of official
receipts.
In fact, respondent Country Bankers raised up the issue on the missing
official receipts and other evidence to prove the expenses incurred by
petitioner IPAMS only when the latter requested the intervention of the IC in
2007. If respondent Country Bankers truly believed that the submission of
official receipts was critical in providing proof as to petitioner IPAMS' claims,
then it would have raised the issue on the lack of official receipts at the
earliest possible opportunity. This only shows that the argument of
respondent Country Bankers on the lack of official receipts was a mere
afterthought to evade its obligation to pay the claims presented by
petitioner IPAMS.
While not denying the existence of the said letter, respondent Country
Bankers attempts to downplay it by arguing that the claims covered by the
letter and the claims raised by petitioner IPAMS before the IC are different
and distinct from each other. Such argument deserves scant consideration.
TEHIaD

While the claims in the said letter may be different from the
specific claims presented before the IC, both sets of claims were
similarly made under the same suretyship agreement between the
parties. Thus, the fact still remains that respondent Country Bankers had
previously acknowledged the validity of a set of claims under a surety bond
within the purview of the Requirements for Claim Clause despite the lack of
official receipts and other pieces of evidence aside from the required
documents enumerated in the MOA. To be sure, it must also be pointed out
that the representations of respondent Country Bankers in the said letter
likewise refer to future and similar claims of petitioner IPAMS. Hence,
respondent Country Bankers' attempt to downplay the ramifications of its
letter dated November 14, 2005 is puerile.
Also, it must be emphasized that the IC, after holding a series of
conferences between the parties and after the assessment of the respective
position papers and evidence from both parties, made the factual finding in
its Resolution dated June 26, 2007 that respondent Country Bankers
committed certain acts constituting a waiver of its right to require the
presentation of additional documents to prove the expenses incurred by
petitioner IPAMS, such as the issuance of the letter dated November 14,
2005 and the acceptance by respondent Country Bankers of reimbursement
from the nurse applicants of petitioner IPAMS on the basis of the Statements
of Accounts presented, even without any official receipt attached. 55 In fact,
the records show that respondent Country Bankers does not deny
the fact that it accepted the reimbursements from the nurse
applicants based on the Statements of Accounts of petitioner
IPAMS. 56 cCHITA

Furthermore, the DOF likewise factually determined that respondent

Country Bankers, through its new General Manager, Ms. Valeriano, had
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 assured IPAMS that the obligations of Country Bankers would be paid
promptly, again, even without the submission of official receipts and other
pieces of evidence. 57 The DOF similarly found that the proposal by
respondent Country Bankers to amortize the settlement of petitioner IPAMS'
claims by paying the latter the semi-monthly amount of P850,000.00 and
respondent Country Bankers' acceptance of reimbursements from the nurse-
applicants based on the mere Statements of Accounts submitted by
petitioner IPAMS are tantamount to an acknowledgment on the part of
respondent Country Bankers of its liability for claims under the surety bonds.
Moreover, the OP also factually found that respondent Country Bankers
"knew as a matter of IPAMS' regular course of business that these covered
transactions are generally not issued official receipts by US government and
its agencies and the US based professional organizations and institutions
involved to complete the requirements for the issuance of an immigrant
visa." 58 DETACa

These factual findings of three separate administrative agencies,

which were not at all reversed or refuted by the CA in its assailed
Decision, should not be perturbed by the Court without any compelling
countervailing reason. The Court has continuously adopted the policy of
respecting the findings of facts of specialized administrative agencies.
In Villafor v. Court of Appeals, 59 the Court held that the findings of fact
of an administrative agency must be respected as long as they are
supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence might not be
overwhelming or even preponderant, because it is not the task of an
appellate court to weigh once more the evidence submitted before the
administrative body and to substitute its own judgment for that of the
administrative agency in respect of sufficiency of evidence. 60
Hence, considering that the IC, through the Insurance Commissioner, is
particularly tasked by the Insurance Code to issue such rulings, instructions,
circulars, orders and decisions as may be deemed necessary to secure the
enforcement of the provisions of the law, to ensure the efficient regulation of
the insurance industry, and considering that there are no compelling reasons
provided by respondent Country Bankers to overthrow the IC's factual
findings, the Court upholds the findings of the IC, as concurred in by both the
DOF and OP, that respondent Country Bankers committed certain acts
constituting a waiver of its right to require the presentation of additional
documents to prove the expenses incurred by petitioner IPAMS.
Accordingly, under Section 92 of the Insurance Code, the failure to
attach official receipts and other documents evidencing the expenses
incurred by petitioner IPAMS, even assuming that it can be considered a
defect on the required proof of loss, is therefore considered waived as
ground for objecting the claims of petitioner IPAMS. TaDCEc

For the foregoing reasons, the ruling of the CA, which sets aside the
rulings of the IC, DOF, and OP, which found that respondent Country Bankers
has no ground to refuse the payment of petitioner IPAMS' claims and shall
accordingly be subjected to disciplinary action pursuant to Sections 241 (now
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Section 247) and 247 (now Section 254) of the Insurance Code if the latter
does not settle the subject claims of petitioner IPAMS, should be reversed.
Be that as it may, despite the reversal of the CA's assailed Decision,
petitioner IPAMS' prayers for (1) the suspension/revocation of the license of
respondent Country Bankers due to its commission of an unfair claim
settlement practice for unreasonable delay in paying petitioner IPAMS' claim
for the total amount of P21,230,643.19; (2) awarding of a total amount of
P21,230,643.19 and 20% thereof; and (3) awarding of moral and exemplary
damages, as well as attorney's fees and judicial costs, are denied.
It must be stressed that the instant case resolved by the Court is not a
claims adjudication case. The subject Resolution and Order of the IC that
was concurred in by the DOF and OP, which the Court now reinstates, were
issued in the IC's capacity as a regulator and not as an adjudicator of claims,
as admitted by the IC itself. 61 Hence, while the Court herein reinstates the
IC's Resolution finding that disciplinary action is warranted in the eventuality
that respondent Country Bankers continues to delay settling the claims of
petitioner IPAMS, the matter should be referred back to the IC so that it
could determine the remaining amount and extent of the liability that should
be settled by respondent Country Bankers in order to avoid the IC's
disciplinary action.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby
PARTIALLY GRANTED . The Decision dated October 14, 2010 issued by the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 114683 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
The Resolution dated June 26, 2007 and Order dated December 4, 2007
issued by the Insurance Commission, the Decision dated September 17,
2008 and Resolution dated April 29, 2009 issued by the Department of
Finance, and the Decision dated January 8, 2010 and Resolution dated June
1, 2010 issued by the Office of the President are REINSTATED and
AFFIRMED. cDEHIC

SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Perlas-Bernabe, A.B. Reyes, Jr. and J.C. Reyes, Jr., * JJ., concur.

Footnotes

* Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28,
2018.
1. Rollo , Vol. I, pp. 3-71.

2. Id. at 73-86. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate

Justices Noel G. Tijam (now a member of this Court) and Marlene Gonzales-
Sison concurring.

3. Id. at 199-237.

4. Id. at 239-242.
5. Id. at 244-253.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 6. Id. at 255-256.
7. Id. at 276-279.

8. Id. at 281-283.
9. Republic Act No. 10607: n AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY,
FURTHER AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 612, OTHERWISE KNOWN
AS THE INSURANCE CODE, AS AMENDED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NOS.
1141, 1280, 1455, 1460, 1814 AND 1981, AND BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 874,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES [INSURANCE CODE].
10. Rollo , p. 245.

11. Id. at 95.

12. Id. at 92.

13. Id. at 246.

14. Id. at 103.

15. Id. at 246.

16. Id. at 105.

17. Id. at 246.

18. Id. at 107-183, 185-197.

19. Id. at 199-237.

20. Id. at 239-242.

21. Id. at 244-253.

22. Id. at 255-256.

23. Id. at 276-279.

24. Id. at 279.

25. Id. at 281-283.

26. Id. at 74-77.

27. Id. at 85.

28. Id. at 81.

29. Id. at 3-71.

30. Id. at 506-564.

31. Id. at 1227-1266.

32. Article 2199. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an

adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he
has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory
damages.

33. Rollo , p. 81.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 34. CIVIL CODE, Art. 1306; William Golanco Construction Corporation v. Philippine
Commercial International Bank, 520 Phil. 167, 171 (2006).
35. Rollo , p. 92.

36. Id. at 279.

37. See Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Jose C. Vitug in Sps. Tibay v. Court
of Appeals, 326 Phil. 931, 954 (1996).
38. 631 Phil. 547 (2010).

39. RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 9.

40. CIVIL CODE, Art. 1370.

41. Rollo , p. 279.

42. Id. at 232-237.

43. CIVIL CODE, Art. 1371.

44. CIVIL CODE, Art. 1431.

45. Section 177. A contract of suretyship is an agreement whereby a party called
the surety guarantees the performance by another party called the principal
or obligor of an obligation or undertaking in favor of a third party called the
obligee. It includes official recognizances, stipulations, bonds or undertakings
issued by any company by virtue of and under the provisions of Act No. 536,
as amended by Act No. 2206.
46. INSURANCE CODE, Sec. 2 (a).

47. Rollo , p. 78.

48. Title 4 of the INSURANCE CODE.

49. INSURANCE CODE, Sec. 180.

50. Valera v. Tuason, Jr., 80 Phil. 823, 827-828 (1948).

51. Section 92. All defects in a notice of loss, or in preliminary proof thereof, which
the insured might remedy, and which the insurer omits to specify to him,
without unnecessary delay, as grounds of objection, are waived.

52. HECTOR S. DE LEON AND HECTOR M. DE LEON, JR., THE INSURANCE CODE OF
THE PHILIPPINES ANNOTATED, 294-295 (2010 Edition).
53. Rollo , p. 103.

54. Id.
55. Id. at 232-237.

56. Id. at 304.

57. Id. at 246.

58. Id. at 279.

59. 345 Phil. 524, 562 (1997).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 60. Id.

61. Rollo , p. 241.

n Note from the Publisher: Written as "Republic Act No. 1060" in the official
document.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com