Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    AFP GENERAL INSURANCE CORP Vs MOLINA

    Uploaded by

    Chelle Añonuevo

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    AFP GENERAL INSURANCE CORP Vs MOLINA

    Uploaded by

    Chelle Añonuevo
    19 views1 page

    Original Title

    AFP GENERAL INSURANCE CORP vs MOLINA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    19 views1 page

    AFP GENERAL INSURANCE CORP Vs MOLINA

    Uploaded by

    Chelle Añonuevo

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    AFP GENERAL INSURANCE CORP.

    vs NOEL MOLINA
    GR No. 151133, 30 June 2008
    QUISUMBING, J.:
    FACTS

    The private respondents are the complainants in a case for illegal dismissal, docketed as NLRC NCR
    Case No. 02-00672-90, filed against Radon Security & Allied Services Agency and/or Raquel Aquias
    and Ever Emporium, Inc. In his Decision dated August 20, 1996, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the
    private respondents were illegally dismissed and ordered Radon Security to pay them separation pay,
    back wages, and other monetary claims. Radon Security appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision to public
    respondent NLRC and posted a supersedeas bond, issued by herein petitioner AFPGIC as surety. The
    NLRC found the herein private respondents constructively dismissed and ordered Radon Security to
    pay them their separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement with back wages, as well as their monetary benefits
    limited to three years, plus attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the entire amount, with Radon Security
    and Ever Emporium, Inc. adjudged jointly and severally liable. Radon Security duly moved for
    reconsideration, but this was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution dated June 22, 1998. Radon Security
    then filed a Petition for Certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 134891 with this Court, but we dismissed
    this petition in our Resolution of August 31, 1998.In dismissing the appeal of AFPGIC, the NLRC pointed
    out that AFPGIC’s theory that the bond cannot anymore be proceeded against for failure of Radon
    Security to pay the premium is untenable, considering that the bond is effective until the finality
    of the decision. The NLRC stressed that a contrary ruling would allow respondents to simply stop
    paying the premium to frustrate satisfaction of the money judgment. AFPGIC then moved for
    reconsideration, but the NLRC denied the motion in its Resolution dated February 29, 2000.AFPGIC
    then filed a special civil action for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 58763, with the Court of
    Appeals, on the ground that the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Order
    dated March 30, 1999 of the Labor Arbiter.

    ISSUE

    Whether or Not the Court of Appeals seriously erred in sustaining the public respondent NLRC although
    the latter gravely abused its discretion when it arbitrarily ignored the fact that subject appeal bond was
    already cancelled for non-payment of premium and thus it could not be subject of execution or
    garnishment.

    RULING

    Under Section 17633 of the Insurance Code, the liability of petitioner and Radon Security is solidary in
    nature. There is solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law so provides,
    or when the nature of the obligation so requires.34 Since the law provides that the liability of the surety
    company and the obligor or principal is joint and several, then either or both of them may be proceeded
    against for the money award. The filing of a cash or surety bond is a jurisdictional requirement in an
    appeal involving monetary award, and the bond shall be in effect until the final disposition of the case. A
    surety bond, once accepted by the oblige (the employee to whom money benefits were due), becomes
    valid and enforceable, irrespective of whether or not the premiums thereon have been paid by the obligor
    (the employer liable for payment)

    You might also like