Emma Concepcion L. Lin; notwithstanding the loss of the mortgaged properties, the bank refused G.R. No. 207277 January 16, 2017 to go after Malayan and instead insisted PRINCIPLE: “The settled rule is that that she herself must pay the loans to criminal and civil cases are altogether RCBC, otherwise, foreclosure different from administrative proceedings would ensue; and that to matters, such that the disposition in add insult to injury, RCBC has been the first two will not inevitably govern compounding the interest on her loans, the third and vice versa.” despite RCBC’s failure or refusal to go after Malayan. FACTS: Respondent thus prayed that judgment On January 4, 2010, Emma Concepcion be rendered ordering petitioners to pay L. Lin (herein respondent) filed a her insurance claim plus interest on the Complaint for Collection of Sum of amounts due or owing her; that her Money with Damages against Malayan loans and mortgage to RCBC be deemed Insurance Co., Inc., et. al. (herein extinguished; that RCBC be enjoined petitioner) and the Rizal Commercial from foreclosing the mortgage on the and Banking Corporation (RCBC). properties put up as collaterals; and that Respondent alleged that she obtained petitioners be ordered to pay exemplary various loans from RCBC secured by six damages, and attorney’s fees. clustered warehouses located at Subsequently, respondent filed before Plaridel, Bulacan; that the five the IC an administrative case 10 against warehouses were insured with Malayan Malayan. In this administrative case, against fire for ₱56 million while the respondent claimed that Malayan remaining warehouse was insured for ₱2 should be held liable for unfair claim million; that on February 24, 2008, the settlement practice under Section 241 in five warehouses were gutted by fire; that relation to Section 247 of the Insurance the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) Code due to its unjustified refusal to issued a Fire Clearance Certification to settle her claim; and Malayan’s license after having determined that the cause to operate as a non-life insurance of fire was accidental; that the Insurance company should be revoked or Commission (IC) which, after a suspended. reinvestigation into the cause/s of the fire, recommended that Malayan pay On August 17, 2010, Malayan filed a respondent’s insurance claim and/or motion to dismiss based on forum accord great weight to the BFP’s shopping. findings; that Malayan still denied or ISSUE: refused to pay her insurance claim; and that for these reasons, Malayan’s Whether or not the civil case will proceed corporate officers should also be held independently from that of the liable for acquiescing to Malayan’s administrative case. unjustified refusal to pay her insurance RULING: claim. A civil case before the trial court involving recovery of payment of the insured’s insurance claim plus damages, can proceed simultaneously with an administrative case before the IC. Furthermore, petitioners in a civil case must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. While in administrative cases, the degree of proof required of petitioner to establish her claim is substantial evidence, which has been defined as that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify the conclusion. In addition, the procedure to be followed by the trial court in a civil case is governed by the Rules of Court, while the IC has its own set of rules and it is not bound by the rigidities of technical rules of procedure. These two bodies conduct independent means of ascertaining the ultimate facts of their respective cases that will serve as basis for their respective decisions. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.