Cases Comrev

7/17/2019 Cases Comrev

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cases-comrev 1/10

CASES:

Stonehill vs Diokno (20 SCRA 383)

Posted by taxcasesdiest on !"esday# $"ly %&# 200'

Labels: constitutional law, corporation, general warrant, search and seizure

Facts: Respondents issued, on diferent dates, 42 search warrants against

petitioners personally, and/or corporations or which they are ocers directing

peace ocers to search the persons o petitioners and preises o their oces,

warehouses and/or residences to search or personal properties !boo"s o accounts,

#nancial records, $ouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, %ournals, portolios,

credit %ournals, typewriters, and other docuents showing all business transactions

including disburseent receipts, balance sheets and pro#t and loss stateents and

&obbins'cigarettes() as the sub%ect o the ofense or $iolations o *entral &an" +ct,

arif and *ustos Laws, -nternal Re$enue *ode, and Re$ised .enal *ode

0pon efecting the search in the oces o the aoreentioned corporations and on

the respecti$e residences o the petitioners, there seized docuents, papers,oney and other records .etitioners then were sub%ected to deportation

proceedings and were constrained to 1uestion the legality o the searches and

seizures as well as the adissibility o those seized as e$idence against the

n 3arch 2, 5672, the 8* issued a writ o preliinary in%unction and partially lited

the sae on 9une 26, 5672 with respect to soe docuents and papers

eld:

8earch warrants issued were $iolati$e o the *onstitution and the Rules, thus, illegal

or being general warrants here is no probable cause and warrant did not

particularly speciy the things to be seized he purpose o the re1uireent is toa$oid placing the sanctity o the doicile and the pri$acy o counication and

correspondence at the ercy o the whis, caprice or passion o peace ocers

;ocuent seized ro an illegal search warrant is not adissible in court as a ruit

o a poisonous tee owe$er, they could not be returned, e<cept i warranted by the

circustances

.etitioners were not the proper party to 1uestion the $alidity and return o those

ta"en ro the corporations or which they acted as ocers as they are treated as

personality diferent ro that o the corporation

ataan Shiya*d + Eninee*in Co,# -nc, vs P*esidential Co..ission on

/ood /ove*n.ent

%0 SCRA %8% 1 "siness *aniation 1 Co*o*ation 4a5 1 A Co*o*ation

Cannot -nvoke the Riht Aainst Sel67-nc*i.ination

=hen .resident *orazon +1uino too" power, the .residential *oission on >ood

>o$ernent '.*>>( was ored in order to reco$er ill gotten wealth allegedly

ac1uired by orer .resident 3arcos and his cronies +1uino then issued two



e<ecuti$e orders in 56?7 and pursuant thereto, a se1uestration and a ta"eo$er

order were issued against &ataan 8hipyard @ engineering *o, -nc '&+8A*(

&+8A* was alleged to be in actuality owned and controlled by the 3arcoses

through the Roualdez aily, and in turn, through duy stoc"holders

he se1uestration order issued in 56?7 re1uired, aong others, that &+8A*

produce corporate records ro 56BC to 56?7 under pain o contept o the .*>> i

it ails to do so &+8A* assails this order as it a$ers, aong others, that it is

against &+8A*Ds right against sel incriination and unreasonable searches and

seizures

-880A: =hether or not &+8A* is correct

AL;: Eo First o all, .*>> has the right to re1uire the production o such

docuents pursuant to the power granted to it 8econd, and ore iportantly, right

against selincriination has no application to %uridical persons here is a reser$e

right in the legislature to in$estigate the contracts o a corporation and #nd outwhether it has e<ceeded its powers -t would be a strange anoaly to hold that a

state, ha$ing chartered a corporation li"e &+8A* to a"e use o certain

ranchises, could not, in the e<ercise o so$ereignty, in1uire how these ranchises

had been eployed, and whether they had been abused, and deand the

production o the corporate boo"s and papers or that purpose

Eeither is the right against unreasonable searches and seizures applicable here

here were no searches ade and no seizure pursuant to any search was e$er

ade &+8A* was erely ordered to produce the corporate records

Philiine ational ank vs Co"*t o6 Aeals et al

83 SCRA 239 1 "siness *aniation 1 Co*o*ation 4a5 1 Co*o*ations

4iability 6o* elience

Rita apnio owes .E& an aount o .2, he aount is secured by her sugar

crops about to be har$ested including her e<port 1uota allocation worth 5,

piculs he said e<port 1uota was later dealt by apnio to a certain 9acobo uazon at

.2G per picul or a total o .2,G 8ince the sub%ect o the deal is ortgaged with

.E&, the latter has to appro$e it he branch anager o .E& recoended that

the price should be at .2? per picul which was the pre$ailing iniu aount

allowable apnio and uazon agreed to the said aount +nd so the ban" anager

recoended the agreeent to the $ice president o .E& he $ice president inturn recoended it to the board o directors o .E&

owe$er, the &oard o ;irectors wanted to raise the price to .C per picul his

uazon does not want hence he bac"ed out ro the agreeent his resulted to

apnio not being able to realize pro#t and at the sae tie rendered her unable to

pay her .2, crop loan which would ha$e been co$ered by her agreeent with

uazon



A$entually, apnio was sued by her other creditors and apnio #led a third party

coplaint against .E& where she alleged that her ailure to pay her debts was

because o .E&Ds negligence and unreasonableness

-880A: =hether or not apnio is correct

AL;: Hes -n this type o transaction, tie is o the essence considering that apnioDs sugar 1uota or said year needs to be utilized +8+. otherwise her allotent

ay be assigned to soeone else, and i she canDt use it, she wonDt be able to

e<port her crops -t is unreasonable or .E&Ds board o directors to disallow the

agreeent between apnio and uazon because o the ere diference o 2 in

the agreed price rate =hat a"es it ore unreasonable is the act that the .2?

was recoended both by the ban" anager and .E&Ds I. yet it was disappro$ed

by the board Further, the .2? per picul rate is the iniu allowable rate

pursuant to pre$ailing ar"et trends that tie his unreasonable stand reJects

.E&Ds lac" o the reasonable degree o care and $igilance in attending to the atter

.E& is thereore negligent

+ corporation is ci$illy liable in the sae anner as natural persons or torts,because !generally spea"ing, the rules go$erning the liability o a principal or

aster or a tort coitted by an agent or ser$ant are the sae whether the

principal or aster be a natural person or a corporation, and whether the ser$ant or

agent be a natural or arti#cial person +ll o the authorities agree that a principal or

aster is liable or e$ery tort which it e<pressly directs or authorizes, and this is %ust

as true o a corporation as o a natural person, a corporation is liable, thereore,

whene$er a tortious act is coitted by an ocer or agent under e<press direction

or authority ro the stoc"holders or ebers acting as a body, or, generally, ro

the directors as the go$erning body)

;A;<4A 4<;ER C, =S, P

22 SCRA 3'

+n arti#cial person li"e herein appellant corporation cannot e<perience physical

suferings, ental anguish, right, serious an<iety, wounded eelings, oral shoc" or

social huiliation which are basis or oral daages

+ *orporation ay ha$e a good reputation i besirched, ay also be a ground or

the award o oral daages

E&: Regarded only as an obiter dicta K

Asset P*ivatiation !*"st vs Co"*t o6 Aeals

300 SCRA 9' 1 "siness *aniation 1 Co*o*ation 4a5 1 Co*o*ation

/ene*ally ot Entitled !o ;o*al Da.aes 1 Po5e* !o Ente* -nto Cont*acts



-n 567?, the go$ernent undertoo" to support the #nancing o 3arindu1ue 3ining

and -ndustrial *orporation '33-*( he go$ernent then issued debenture bonds in

a$or o 33-* which enable the latter to ta"e out loans ro the ;e$elopent &an"

o the .hilippines ';&.( and the .hilippine Eational &an" '.E&( he loans were

ortgaged by 33-*Ds assets -n 56?4 howe$er, 33-*Ds indebtedness reached .5CB

billion and .?B billion to ;.& and .E& respecti$ely 33-* had trouble paying and

this e<posed the go$ernent, because o the debenture bonds, to a .22 billion

obligation

-n order to itigate 33-*Ds loan liability, a #nancial restructuring plan 'FR.( was

drated in the presence o 33-*Ds representati$es as well as representati$es ro

;&. and .E& he two ban"s howe$er ne$er orally appro$ed the said FR.

A$entually, the staggering loans becae o$erdue and .E& and ;&. chose to

oreclose 33-*Ds assets, FR. no longer easible at that point 8o the assets were

oreclosed and were e$entually assigned to the +sset .ri$atization rust '+.(

Later, 9esus *abarrus, 8r, a stoc"holder o 33-* initiated a deri$ati$e suit against

.E& and ;&. with +. being ipleaded as the successor in interest o the two

ban"s he suit basically 1uestioned the oreclosure as *abarrus asserted that the

oreclosure was in$alid because he insisted that the FR. was adopted by .E& and

;&. as a conse1uence o the presence o the ban"sD representati$es when the said

FR. was drated *abarrus asserts that +. should restore the assets to 33-* and

that .E& and ;&. should honor the FR. he suit was #led in the R* o 3a"ati but

while the case was pending, the parties agreed to subit the case or arbitration

ence, 3a"ati R* disissed the case upon otion o the parties

he +rbitration *oittee '+*( which heard the case ruled in a$or o *abarrus he

+* granted *abarrus prayer and at the sae tie awarded hi .5 illion in oral

daages Eot only that, the +* also awarded .2G billion in oral daages in a$or

o 33-* to be paid by the go$ernent +.Ds 3FR was denied *abarrus then #ledbeore the 3a"ati R* a otion to con#r the arbitration award +. opposed the

sae as it alleged that the otion is iproper 3a"ati R* denied +.Ds opposition

and con#red the arbitration award he *ourt o +ppeals ared the ruling o the

R*

-880A: =hether or not the ruling o the +rbitration *oittee as ared by the

Regional rial *ourt o 3a"ati '&ranch 72( and the *ourt o +ppeals is correct

AL;: Eo

he award o daages in a$or o 33-* is iproper First, it was not ade a party to

the case he deri$ati$e suit #led by *abarrus ailed to iplead 33-* 8o how can

an award or daages be awarded to a nonparty 8econd, e$en i 33-*, which is

actually a real party in interest, was ipleaded, it is not entitled to oral daages

-t is not yet a well settled %urisprudence that corporations are entitled to oral

daages =hile the 8upree *ourt in soe cases did award certain corporations

oral daages or besirched reputations, such is not applicable in this case

because when the alleged wrongul oreclosure was done, 33-* was already in bad

standing hence it has no good wholesoe reputation to protect 8o it could not be

said that there was a !reputation) besirched by the act o oreclosure Li"ewise,



the award o oral daages in a$or o *abarrus is in$alid e cannot ha$e possibly

sufered any oral daages because the alleged wrongul act was coitted

against 33-* -t is a basic postulate that a corporation has a personality separate

and distinct ro its stoc"holders he properties oreclosed belonged to 33-*, not

to its stoc"holders ence, i wrong was coitted in the oreclosure, it was done

against the corporation

he FR. is not $alid hence the oreclosure is $alid he ere presence o ;&.Ds and

.E&Ds representati$es during the drating o FR. is not constituti$e o the ban"sD

oral appro$al o the FR. he representati$es are personalities distinct ro .E&

and ;&. .E& and ;&. ha$e their own boards and ocers who ay ha$e diferent

decisions he representati$es were not shown to ha$e been authorized by the

respecti$e boards o the two ban"s to enter into any agreeent with 33-*

Further, the proceeding is procedurally in#r R* 3a"ati had already disissed the

ci$il case when the parties opted or arbitration ence, it should ha$e ne$er too"

cognizance o the *abarrusD otion to con#r the +*D award he sae should

ha$e been brought through a separate action not through a otion because R*

3a"ati already lost %urisdiction o$er the case when it disissed it to gi$e way or the

arbitration he arbitration was a not a continuation o the ci$il case #led in 3a"ati

R*

AS7C *oadcastin Co*o*ation vs Co"*t o6 Aeals

30% SCRA 92 1 "siness *aniation 1 Co*o*ation 4a5 1 Deleation o6

Co*o*ate Po5e*s 1 ;o*al Da.aes

-n 5662, +&8*&E &roadcasting *orporation, through its $ice president *haro

8antos*oncio, re1uested Ii$a .roduction, -nc to allow +&8*&E to air at least 54

#ls produced by Ii$a .ursuant to this re1uest, a eeting was held between Ii$aDs

representati$e 'Iicente ;el Rosario( and +&8*&EDs Augenio Lopez '>eneral3anager( and 8antos*oncio was held on +pril 2, 5662 ;uring the eeting ;el

Rosario proposed a #l pac"age which will allow +&8*&E to air 54 Ii$a #ls or

.7 illion Later, 8antos*oncio, in a letter to ;el Rosario, proposed a

counterproposal o GC #ls 'including the 54 #ls initially re1uested( or .CG

illion ;el Rosario presented the counter ofer to Ii$aDs &oard o ;irectors but the

&oard re%ected the counter ofer 8e$eral negotiations were subse1uently ade but

on +pril 26, 5662, Ii$a ade an agreeent with Republic &roadcasting *orporation

'reerred to as R&8 M or >3+ B( which ga$e e<clusi$e rights to R&8 to air 54 Ii$a

#ls including the 54 #ls initially re1uested by +&8*&E

+&8*&E now #led a coplaint or speci#c perorance against Ii$a as it alleged

that there is already a perected contract between Ii$a and +&8*&E in the +pril 2,

5662 eeting Lopez testi#ed that ;el Rosario agreed to the counterproposal and

he 'Lopez( e$en put the agreeent in a nap"in which was signed and gi$en to ;el

Rosario +&8*&E also #led an in%unction against R&8 to en%oin the latter ro airing

the #ls he in%unction was granted R&8 now #led a countersuit with a prayer or

oral daages as it claied that its reputation was debased when they ailed to air

the shows that they proised to their $iewers R&8 relied on the ruling in .eople $s

3anero and 3abulao Luber $s .E& which states that a corporation ay reco$er



oral daages i it !has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in social

huiliation) he trial court ruled in a$or o Ii$a and R&8 he *ourt o +ppeals

ared the trial court

-SS<E:

5 =hether or not a contract was perected in the +pril 2, 5662 eetingbetween the representati$es o the two corporations

2 =hether or not a corporation, li"e R&8, is entitled to an award o oral

daages upon grounds o debased reputation

E4D:

5 Eo here is no proo that a contract was perected in the said eeting LopezD

testiony about the contract being written in a nap"in is not corroborated because

the nap"in was ne$er produced in court Further, there is no eeting o the inds

because ;el RosarioDs ofer was o 54 #ls or .7 illion was not accepted +nd

that the alleged counterofer ade by Lopez on the sae day was not also

accepted because thereDs no proo o such he counter ofer can only be deeed toha$e been ade days ater the +pril 2 eeting when 8antos*oncio sent a letter to

;el Rosario containing the counterofer Regardless, there was no showing that ;el

Rosario accepted &ut e$en i he did accept, such acceptance will not bloo into a

perected contract because ;el Rosario has no authority to do so

+s a rule, corporate powers, such as the powerN to enter into contractsN are

e<ercised by the &oard o ;irectors &ut this power ay be delegated to a corporate

coittee, a corporate ocer or corporate anager 8uch a delegation ust be

clear and speci#c -n the case at bar, there was no such delegation to ;el Rosario

he act that he has to present the counterofer to the &oard o ;irectors o Ii$a is

proo that the contract ust be accepted #rst by the Ii$aDs &oard ence, e$en i;el Rosario accepted the counterofer, it did not result to a contract because it will

not bind Ii$a sans authorization

2 Eo he award o oral daages cannot be granted in a$or o a corporation

because, being an arti#cial person and ha$ing e<istence only in legal

conteplation, it has no eelings, no eotions, no senses, -t cannot, thereore,

e<perience physical sufering and ental anguish, which call be e<perienced only

by one ha$ing a ner$ous syste Eo oral daages can be awarded to a %uridical

person he stateent in the case o .eople $s 3anero and 3abulao Luber $s

.E& is a ere obiter dictu hence it is not binding as a %urisprudence

$a*dine Davis -nc, vs, CA

>acts: .etitioner .0RA F;8 *R.R+-E decided to install two generators in its

ood processing plant in 8an Ro1ue, 3ari"ina *ity to reco$er ro losses due to the

series o power ailures *onse1uently, bidding or the supply and installation o the

generators was held 8e$eral suppliers and dealers were in$ited to attend a pre

bidding conerence to discuss the conditions, propose schee and speci#cations



that would best suit the needs o .0RAF;8 ut o the eight '?( prospecti$e

bidders who attended the prebidding conerence, only three 'C( bidders, naely,

respondent F+R A+8 3-LL8 80..LH *R.R+-E 'hereater FA38* FA38*

started the .0RAF;8 pro%ect and bought the necessary aterials owe$er,

.0RAF;8 unilaterally canceled the award because signi#cant actors were

unco$ered which dictates the cancellation and warrant a total re$iew and rebid o

the said pro%ect *onse1uently, FA38* protested the cancellation o the award and

sought a eeting with .0RAF;8 owe$er, on 27 3arch 566C, beore the atter

could be resol$ed, .0RAF;8 already awarded the pro%ect and entered into a

contract with 9+R;-EA EALL, a di$ision o 9ardine ;a$ies, -nc which incidentally was

not one o the bidders FA38* sued .0RAF;8 or reneging on its contract and

9+R;-EA or its unwarranted intererence and induceent

-ssues: =hether or not there e<isted a perected contract between .0RAF;8 and

FA38*

+nd granting there e<isted a perected contract, whether there is any showing that

9+R;-EA induced or conni$ed with .0RAF;8 to $iolate the latterOs contract with

FA38*

?eld: he 8upree *ourt held that there was no issue as regards the sub%ect

atter o the contract and the cause o the obligation he contro$ersy lies in the

consent P whether there was an acceptance o the ofer, and i so, i it was

counicated, thereby perecting the contract 8ince petitioner .0RAF;8

started the process o entering into the contract by conducting bidding, +rt 5C27 o

the *i$il *ode, which pro$ides that ad$ertiseents or bidders are siply in$itations

to a"e proposals applies he 8upree *ourt also restated the distinguishent

between a condition iposed on the perection o a contract and a condition

iposed erely on the perorance o an obligation =hile ailure to coply with

the #rst condition results in the ailure o a contract, ailure to coply with thesecond erely gi$es the other party options and/or reedies to protect his

interests

;ERA4C =S !EA; E4EC!R-CS

he law in orce at the tie aterial to this contro$ersy was .; 45 -t penalized

unauthorized installation o water, electrical, telephone connections and such acts

as the use o tapered electrical eters .; 45 granted the electrical copanies

the right to conduct inspections o electric eters and the criinal prosecution or

erring custoers who were ound to ha$e tapered with their electrical eters -t

did not pro$ide or ore e<pedient reedies as the charging o diferential billing

and iediate disconnection against erring custoers hus, electric copaniesound a creati$e way o a$ailing thesel$es o such reedies by inserting into the

ser$ice contracts a pro$ision or diferential billing with the option o disconnection

upon nonpayent by the erring custoers he *ourt has recognized the $alidity o

such stipulations owe$er, recourse to diferential billing with disconnection was

sub%ect to the prior re1uireent o a 4?hour written notice o disconnection

3AR+L*, in the instant case, resorted to the reedy o disconnection without prior

notice =hile it is true that 3AR+L* sent a deand letter to A* or the payent



o diferential billing, it did not include any notice that the electric supply would be

disconnected -n #ne, it abused the reedies granted to it under .; 45 by outright

depri$ing A* o electric ser$ices without #rst notiying it o the ipending

disconnection

8* dees it proper to delete the award o oral daages A*Os clai was

preised allegedly on the daage to its goodwill and reputation +s a rule, +*R.R+-E -8 E AE-LA; 3R+L ;+3+>A8 &A*+08A, E &A-E> +

E+0R+L .AR8E, - *+EE AQ.AR-AE*A .H8-*+L 80FFAR-E> R 8AE-3AE8

li"e wounded eelings, serious an<iety, ental anguish, and oral shoc" he only

AQ*A.-E to this rule is when the corporation has a reputation that is debased,

resulting in its huiliation in the business real but in such a case, it is iperati$e

or the claiant to present proo to %ustiy the award -t is essential to pro$e the

e<istence o the actual basis o the daage and its causal relation to petitionerOs

acts -n the present case, the records are beret o any e$idence that the nae or

reputation o A*/.* has been debased as a result o petitionerOs act &esides, the

trial court siply awarded oral daages in the dispositi$e portion o its decision

without stating the basis thereo

Co*o*ate 4a5 Case Diest: Peole =, @"asha (%'3)

4essons Alicable: P"blic <tilities (Co*o*ate 4a5)

>AC!S:

=illia uasha, + eber o the .hilippine bar, coitted a crie o

alsi#cation o a public and coercial docuent or causing it to appear that

+rsenio &aylon, a Filipino citizen, had subscribed to and was the owner o 7G S

o the subscribed capital stoc" o .aci#c +irways *orp '.aci#c( when in reality theoney paid belongs to an +erican citizen whose nae did not appear in the

article o incorporation, to circu$ent the constitutional andate that no corp shall

be authorize to operate as a public utility in the .hilippines unless 7S o its capital

stoc" is owned by Filipinos

Found guilty ater trial and sentenced to a ter o iprisonent and a #ne

uasha appealed to this *ourt

.riary purpose: to carry on the business o a coon carrier by air, land or water

&aylon did not ha$e the controlling $ote because o the diference in $oting power

between the preerred shares and the coon shares

+R 5B5 Falsi#cation by public ocer, eployee, or notary or ecclesiastic inister

P he penalty o prision ayor and a #ne not to e<ceed G, pesos shall be

iposed upon any public ocer, eployee, or notary who, ta"ing ad$antage o his

ocial position, shall alsiy a docuent by coitting any o the ollowing acts:

4 3a"ing untruthul stateents in a narration o acts



+R 5B2 Falsi#cation by pri$ate indi$iduals and use o alsi#ed docuents P he

penalty o prision correccional in its ediu and a<iu period and a #ne o not

ore than G, pesos shall be iposed upon:

5 +ny pri$ate indi$idual who shall coit any o the alsi#cations

enuerated in the ne<t preceding article in any public or ocial docuent or letter

o e<change or any other "ind o coercial docuent

-880A: =/E uasha should be criinally liable

AL;: E +c1uitted

Falsi#cation consists in not disclosing in the articles o incorporation that &aylon was

a ere trustee ' or duy as the prosecution chooses to call hi( o his +erican

coincorporators, thus gi$ing the ipression that &aylon was the owner o the

shares subscribed to by hi

For the ere oration o the corporation such re$elation was not essential, and the

*orporation Law does not re1uire it

he oent or deterining whether a corporation is entitled to operate as a public

utility is when it applies or a ranchise, certi#cate, or any other or o

authorization or that purpose

hat can be done ater the corporation has already coe into being and not while it

is still being ored

8o ar as +erican citizens are concerned, the said act has ceased to be an ofense

within the eaning o the law, so that deendant can no longer be held criinally

liable thereor

>-4-P-AS DE C;PA-A DE SE/<RS vs, C?R-S!ER# ?<E>E4D + C

F+*8:

*hristern, ueneeld and *opany, a >eran copany, obtained a #re insurance

policy ro Filipinas *opaTia or the erchandise contained in a building located

in &inondo, 3anila in the su o .5, Filipinas *opaTia is an +erican

controlled copany he building and the insured erchandise were burned during

the 9apanese occupation *hristern #led its clai aounting to .62,7G but

Filipinas *opaTia reused to pay alleging that *hristern is a corporation whose

a%ority stoc"holders are >erans and that during the 9apanese occupation,

+erica declared war against >erany hence the insurance policy ceased to beefecti$e because the insured has becoe an eney Filipinas *opaTia was

e$entually ordered to pay *hristern as ordered by the 9apanese go$ernent

-880A:

=hether or not *hristern, ueneeld and *o is entitled to recei$e the proceeds ro

the insurance clai



AL;:

E here is no 1uestion that a%ority o the stoc"holders o *hristern were >eran

sub%ects his being so, *hristern becae an eney corporation upon the outbrea"

o the war between the 0nited 8tates and >erany he .hilippine -nsurance Law

'+ct Eo 242B, as aended,( in 8ection ?, pro$ides that !anyone e<cept a public

eney ay be insured) -t stands to reason that an insurance policy ceases to beallowable as soon as an insured becoes a public eney

he respondent ha$ing becoe an eney corporation on ;eceber 5, 5645, the

insurance policy issued in its a$or on ctober 5, 5645, by the petitioner had ceased

to be $alid and enorceable, and since the insured goods were burned ater

;eceber 5, 5645, and during the war, the respondent was not entitled to any

indenity under said policy ro the petitioner owe$er, eleentary rules o

%ustice 'in the absence o speci#c pro$ision in the -nsurance Law( re1uire that the

preiu paid by the respondent or the period co$ered by its policy ro ;eceber

55, 5645, should be returned by the petitioner

Documents

Cases Comrev