Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

PHIL. AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. (PHILAMLIFE) V.

ANSALDO
G.R. No. 76452 July 26, 1994

Facts:
One Ramon Paterno complained about the unfair practices committed by the
company against its agents, employees and consumers. The Commissioner
called for a hearing where Paterno was required to specify which acts were
illegal. Paterno then specified that the fees and charges stated in the Contract of
Agency between Philam and its agents be declared void. Philam, on the other
hand, averred that Paterno must submit a verified formal complaint and that his
letter didnt contain information Philam was seeking from him. Philam then
questioned the Insurance Commissions jurisdiction over the matter and
submitted a motion to quash. The commissioner denied this. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the resolution of the legality of the Contract of Agency falls within
the jurisdiction of the Insurance Commissioner.
Held:

No. The general regulatory authority of the Insurance Commissioner is described


in Section 414 as well as Section 415 of the Insurance Code. A plain reading of
said provisions shows that the Insurance Commissioner has the authority to
regulate the business of insurance as defined under Section 2 of the same Code.
Since the contract of agency entered into between Philamlife and its agents is
not included within the meaning of an insurance business, Section 2 of the
Insurance Code cannot be invoked to give jurisdiction over the same to the
Insurance Commissioner. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

Moreover, Section 416 of the Code in pertinent part, provides that The
Commissioner shall have the power to adjudicate claims and complaints
involving any loss, damage or liability for which an insurer may be answerable
under any kind of policy or contract of insurance, or for which such insurer may
be liable under a contract of suretyship, or for which a reinsurer may be used
under any contract or reinsurance it may have entered into, or for which a mutual
benefit association may be held liable under the membership certificates it has
issued to its members, where the amount of any such loss, damage or liability,
excluding interest, costs and attorney's fees, being claimed or sued upon any
kind of insurance, bond, reinsurance contract, or membership certificate does not
exceed in any single claim one hundred thousand pesos.

A reading of the said section shows that the quasi-judicial power of the Insurance
Commissioner is limited by law "to claims and complaints involving any loss,
damage or liability for which an insurer may be answerable under any kind of
policy or contract of insurance, . . ." Hence, this power does not cover the
relationship affecting the insurance company and its agents but is limited to
adjudicating claims and complaints filed by the insured against the insurance
company.

HELD:
No. The general authority of the Insurance Commissioner is laid down in the
Insurance Code, among others, to regulate the business of insurance. Since a
Contract of Agency is not covered in the authority of the Insurance Commission
to regulate business of insurance, jurisdiction of Ansaldo is wanting. Ansaldo also
has no quasi-judicial power to speak of in the Insurance Code since xxx his
power is limited to claims and complaints involving any loss, damage or liability
for which an insurer may be answerable under any kind of policy or contract of
insurance xxx".
This power does not affect the relationship between an insurance company and
its agents. In the same light, although the Insurance Code provides for the
subject Insurance Agents and Brokers, the same only speaks licensing
requirements and limitations imposed on insurance agents and brokers.
Thus, it is clear that the Insurance Code does not grant Ansaldo the authority to
take cognizance of the case. On the other hand, there are two classes of
insurance agents:

(1) salaried employees who keep definite hours and work under the control
and supervision of the company; and

(2) registered representatives, who work on commission basis. The former is


cognizable by the Labor Arbiter (as it involves the Contract of
Employment and provisions of the Labor Code) and the latter by regular
courts (as it involves issues on the Contract of Agency and the Civil Code
provisions on Agency).