BPI & FGU Insurance vs.

Yolanda Laingo necessary documents but also the necessary endorsement for
G.R. No. 205206 prompt approval of the insurance coverage without any other
March 16, 2016 action on the part of the deceased. The deceased did not
Justice Carpio interact with FGU directly and every action was coursed
through BPI. The acts of the agent on behalf of the principal
F: Rheozel (Respondents son), opened an Savings and within the scope o
Insurance account with BPI, Davao Branch. This type of f the delegated authority have the same legal effect and
account automatically covers insurance against disability and consequence as though the principal had been the one so
death by FGU Insurance. acting in the given situation.

9/25/2000, Rheozel died in a vehicular accident and as part BPI and FGU had the responsibility to ensure that the
of a affluent family this was highlighted in the newspaper, account be reasonably carried out with full disclosure to the
“Daily Mirror”. parties concerned, particularly the beneficiaries. Thus it was
incumbent upon them to give proper notice of the existence
Respondent then instructed her secretary about to inquire of the insurance coverage upon the death of the deceased.
about the subject account so she can use the amount therein
for the funeral expense of the deceased. And due to their Upon the death of the deceased which was properly
existing relationship and standing with the bank, the communicated to BPI by the respondent, BPI in turn should
respondent was allowed to withdraw 995k from the account have fulfilled its duty as agent of FGU Insurance about the
of Rehozel. The bank even sent one of their employees to the added benefit of insurance coverage. This notification is how
wake to have the respondent sign documents pertaining to a good father of a family should have acted within the scope
the withdrawn amount. of its business dealings with its clients.

2 years later, Rhealyn, the sister of the deceased arranged the
personal things of the deceased and found the Insurance
policy issued by FGU Insurance, and immediately informed
the respondent about this. Respondent then wrote 2 letters to
BPI and FGU about this and requested the processing of their
claim as beneficiary of the deceased.
FGU denied the claim, stating that the claim must have been
filed within 3 months of the death of the deceased as required
in the policy.
A case for specific performance was thus filed before the
RTC against BPI and FGU. The RTC ruled in favor of the
bank and insurer. The CA then reversed the RTC.
Following the “doctrine of representation”, notice to the
agent is notice to the principal. BPI was informed of the
death of the deceased thus it was considered as notice to FGU
as well. BPI had ample opportunity to inform the respondent
regarding the existence of the policy. It was in the headline
of the newspaper, there was an inquiry and allowed
withdrawal about the account of the deceased, and BPI’s
employee even went to the wake of the deceased to have the
respondent sign documents. Despite all this, BPI neglected
its duty to inform the respondent. Hence, respondent had no
means to learn of her entitlement to the proceeds. It is unfair
to respondent to suffer when it was petitioner who was
remising on their duty to notify her.

Ruling: BPI issued a 2-in-1 Savings and Insurance account,

that after the required documents were submitted and after
approval thereof, there will be automatic insurance coverage.

Under the law an “agent” is one who bids himself to render

some service or to do something in representation of another.
The basis of agency is representation. Agency may even be
implied from the words and conduct of the parties and
circumstances of every case.

Thus in this case, the deceased directly communicated with

BPI, the Agent of FGU regarding the formers commercial
product (2 in 1 account). BPI not only facilitated the
processing of the deposit account and the collection of the