The Supreme Court invalidated Executive Order No. 464, which required presidential consent for executive officials to attend congressional inquiries. The Court emphasized that such a requirement undermines legislative oversight and the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
The Supreme Court invalidated the Philippine Truth Commission’s creation, ruling it unconstitutional due to its exclusive focus on investigating the previous administration, which violated the equal protection clause. The Court emphasized that while the President can establish fact-finding bodies, these must operate within constitutional boundaries.
Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission [December 7, 2010] Read More »
The Supreme Court ruled that the President’s creation of municipalities via executive orders was unconstitutional, as this legislative power cannot be delegated without clear standards. The Court emphasized that establishing municipalities is a legislative function requiring explicit guidelines to prevent separation of powers violations.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the RH Law, emphasizing its role in providing access to family planning and reproductive health services. However, it struck down provisions that penalized healthcare providers who refuse services based on religious beliefs, protecting individual conscience rights.
In this case, Sio Choy’s jeep, insured by Malayan Insurance for own damage and third-party liability, collided with a bus, causing injuries to passenger Vallejos. The Supreme Court ruled that both the insured (Sio Choy) and the insurer (Malayan Insurance) are solidarily liable to the victim, with the insurer entitled to reimbursement from the negligent third party’s employer, San Leon Rice Mill, Inc., through subrogation.
Malayan Insurance vs. Court of Appeals [September 26, 1988] Read More »
In this case, Pioneer Insurance paid a bond for Jacob Lim’s aircraft purchase and sought reimbursement from Lim and his co-indemnitors. However, since Pioneer had already recovered the amount from its reinsurer, the Supreme Court ruled that only the reinsurer could claim subrogation rights, dismissing Pioneer’s case.
Pioneer Insurance vs. Court of Appeals [July 28, 1989] Read More »
In Sun Insurance vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that the 12-month period to file a lawsuit for insurance claims starts when the insured receives the insurer’s initial denial. Requesting reconsideration doesn’t pause this period. Filing after this timeframe results in prescription, barring the claim.
Sun Insurance vs. Court of Appeals [March 13, 1991] Read More »
In Lopez vs. Filipinas, the Supreme Court ruled that filing a complaint with the Insurance Commissioner doesn’t stop the 12-month prescriptive period for insurance claims. Only a court action can do this. Since Lopez filed in court after the period lapsed, his claim was barred.
Lopez vs. Filipinas Compania De Seguros [April 30, 1966] Read More »
In Cathay Insurance Co. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that insurers must pay claims within 90 days after the insured submits proof of loss. Unreasonable delays make insurers liable for double interest on the claim amount. The Court upheld the insured’s right to timely payment and penalties for insurer delays.
Cathay Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals [June 5, 1989] Read More »
In Filipino Merchants Insurance Co. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that under an “all risks” insurance policy, the insured only needs to prove the fact of loss or damage. The burden then shifts to the insurer to demonstrate that the loss was due to an excepted peril. In this case, the insurer failed to prove any exception, making it liable for the claim.
Filipino Merchants vs. Court of Appeals [November 28, 1989] Read More »
