When the Supreme Court of the Philippines acquitted Hubert Webb and six others on the Vizconde massacre, I cannot help but analyze on what can possibly happen to those witnesses who testified in court regarding the Vizconde Massacre and admitted to the Witness Protection Program under Republic Act 6981.
Should the legislative department subsequently compel the Witnesses involved to shed light on what they have testified to determine whether or not perjury has been committed? Scrutinizing Section 4 of Republic Act 6981 would reveal the powers of the Legislative Department in case of legislative investigations in aid of legislation. However, the specific provision only applies in cases where the Witness has not yet been admitted to the Witness Protection Program and a necessary recommendation by the legislative department shall be required for purposes of admission of the Witness under said Witness Protection Program.
Who has the authority to terminate protection of a Witness under the Witness Protection Program? Section 15 of RA 6981 states: "No Witness shall be exempt from prosecution for perjury or contempt committed while giving testimony or producing evidence under compulsion pursuant to this Act. x x x. The procedure prescribed under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court shall be followed in contempt proceedings but the penalty to be imposed shall not be less than one (1) month but not more than one (1) year imprisonment." Accordingly, witnesses covered under the Witness Protection Program must be convicted of perjury or contempt, of which our judicial courts have the authority to determine the same.
The Department of Justice has the power to implement and enforce RA 6981. Accordingly, substantial breach of the Memorandum Agreement by the Witness under the Witness Protection Program shall be a ground for termination of the protection. In other words, the Secretary of Justice has the authority to terminate the protection of Witnesses covered under the Witness Protection Program, provided that there is a finding of substantial breach of the Memorandum of Agreement covered under the Program.
Under Section 5 of RA 6981, before a person is provided protection under the Program, he shall first execute a memorandum of agreement which shall set forth his responsibilities including:
(a) to testify before and provide information to all appropriate law enforcement officials concerning all appropriate proceedings in connection with or arising from the activities involved in the offense charged;
(b) to avoid the commission of the crime;
(c) to take all necessary precautions to avoid detection by others of the facts concerning the protection provided him;
(d) to comply with legal obligations and civil judgments against him;
(e) to cooperate with respect to all reasonable requests of officers and employees of the Government who are providing protection; and
(f) to regularly inform the appropriate program official of his current activities and address.
Violation of the Memorandum of Agreement in conjunction with Section 5 of RA 6981 should be supported by substantial evidence to that effect.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Philippine Insurance Law (Insurable Interest in Group Insurance)
Any person so related to another either by contract or commercial relation may lawfully procure insurance on the other’s life. Thus, an employer may insure the life of the employee and vice versa.
The primary aim of group insurance is to provide the employer with a means of procuring insurance protection for his employees and their families at the lowest possible cost, and in so doing, the employer creates goodwill with his employees, enables the employees to carry a larger amount of insurance, and helps to attract and hold a permanent class of employees.
A group insurance is essentially a single insurance contract that provides coverage for many individuals. It provides life or health insurance coverage for the employees of the employer. In order to validly claim benefits from the group insurance, employees must be actively at work and must have completed a specified period of continuous employment, otherwise, the insurable interest ceases. Generally, group insurance have non-forfeiture clauses, except for term insurance (provides protection for a limited period, i.e. 5, 10, 15 years). If an employee’s group insurance terminates because he leaves the employer, the employee has the privilege of converting the group insurance within one month following the termination of employment into any standard form of insurance, except for a term insurance.
Application of the Law
Case: On June 9, 2005, Mr. John Bartolome insured the life of his best friend Noel Lim under the group insurance of Mr. Bartolome’s travel agency called Lucky Charm Travel Agency, designating himself as the irrevocable beneficiary. Other than being his best friend, John Bartolome is not related to Noel Lim. On July 10, 2007, after the lapse of more than two years, Noel Lim dies. Is John Bartolome entitled to the proceeds of the policy, considering that all premiums have been paid and considering further that no misrepresentation or concealment material to the risk has been employed?
Legal Opinion: No, because the policy is void and unenforceable unless the person who procures it has an insurable interest in the life of the insured. An insurable interest must be present either in the person taking out the insurance or the beneficiary. Being best friends does not automatically create an insurable interest. There must be an actual expectation of pecuniary benefit to sustain an insurance (i.e. a corporation has an insurable interest in the life of a key man, such as an officer of the firm). In the instant case, John Bartolome has no insurable interest in the life of Noel Lim.
References:
The Law on Insurance by Hector de Leon, 1994 Edition.
Pineda et al. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 105562, September 27, 1993.
New Insurance Reviewer, by Cesario P. Tiopianco, 1986 Edition.
The primary aim of group insurance is to provide the employer with a means of procuring insurance protection for his employees and their families at the lowest possible cost, and in so doing, the employer creates goodwill with his employees, enables the employees to carry a larger amount of insurance, and helps to attract and hold a permanent class of employees.
A group insurance is essentially a single insurance contract that provides coverage for many individuals. It provides life or health insurance coverage for the employees of the employer. In order to validly claim benefits from the group insurance, employees must be actively at work and must have completed a specified period of continuous employment, otherwise, the insurable interest ceases. Generally, group insurance have non-forfeiture clauses, except for term insurance (provides protection for a limited period, i.e. 5, 10, 15 years). If an employee’s group insurance terminates because he leaves the employer, the employee has the privilege of converting the group insurance within one month following the termination of employment into any standard form of insurance, except for a term insurance.
Application of the Law
Case: On June 9, 2005, Mr. John Bartolome insured the life of his best friend Noel Lim under the group insurance of Mr. Bartolome’s travel agency called Lucky Charm Travel Agency, designating himself as the irrevocable beneficiary. Other than being his best friend, John Bartolome is not related to Noel Lim. On July 10, 2007, after the lapse of more than two years, Noel Lim dies. Is John Bartolome entitled to the proceeds of the policy, considering that all premiums have been paid and considering further that no misrepresentation or concealment material to the risk has been employed?
Legal Opinion: No, because the policy is void and unenforceable unless the person who procures it has an insurable interest in the life of the insured. An insurable interest must be present either in the person taking out the insurance or the beneficiary. Being best friends does not automatically create an insurable interest. There must be an actual expectation of pecuniary benefit to sustain an insurance (i.e. a corporation has an insurable interest in the life of a key man, such as an officer of the firm). In the instant case, John Bartolome has no insurable interest in the life of Noel Lim.
References:
The Law on Insurance by Hector de Leon, 1994 Edition.
Pineda et al. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 105562, September 27, 1993.
New Insurance Reviewer, by Cesario P. Tiopianco, 1986 Edition.
Philippine Insurance Law
The Law
A “Contract of Insurance” is an agreement whereby one undertakes for a consideration to indemnify another against loss, damage or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event.
Discussion of the Law
The essential elements of an insurance contract are:
(a) Insurable interest;
(b) Existence of risk;
(c) Assumption of such risk by the insurer;
(d) Said assumption being part of a general scheme to distribute actual losses among those bearing similar risks;
(e) Payment of premium.
Application of the Law
Case: American-Fortune Life and General Insurance Co., Inc. (Am-Fortune) issued Fire Insurance Policy No. 136171 in favor of Mr. John Michael Roxas on his five-star hotel building in Makati City, together with all its effects therein. The insurance was for P8M covering the period from 23 January 2008 to 23 January 2009. On 23 January 2008, of the total premium of P10,000 Mr. Roxas only paid P5,000.00 thus leaving a considerable balance unpaid.
On 8 March 2008, the insured building was completely destroyed by fire. On March 10, 2008 Mr. Roxas paid the balance of the premium. On the same day, Mr. Roxas filed with Am-Fortune a claim on the fire insurance policy.
Am-Fortune denied the claim of Mr. Roxas, for the premium has not yet been fully paid in violation of Policy Condition No. 2 of the Contract which states:
1. ‘This policy of insurance witnesseth, that only after payment to the Company in accordance with Policy Condition No. 2 of the total premiums by the insured as stipulated above for the period aforementioned for insuring against Loss or Damage by Fire or Lightning as herein appears, the Property herein described x x x
2. This policy including any renewal thereof and/or any endorsement thereon is not in force until the premium has been fully paid to and duly receipted by the Company in the manner provided herein.
Any supplementary agreement seeking to amend this condition prepared by agent, broker or Company official, shall be deemed invalid and of no effect.’
Is Mr. Roxas entitled to claim under the fire insurance policy?
Legal Opinion:
No, Mr. Roxas is not entitled to claim under the fire insurance policy. This is fully supported by Section 77 of the Insurance Code which provides –
Sec. 77. An insurer is entitled to payment of the premium as soon as the thing insured is exposed to the peril insured against. Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, no policy or contract of insurance issued by an insurance company is valid and binding unless and until the premium thereof has been paid, except in the case of a life or an industrial life policy whenever the grace period provision applies.
The rule that contracts of insurance will be construed in favor of the insured and most strongly against the insurer should not be permitted to have the effect of making a plain agreement ambiguous and then construe it in favor of the insured. In addition, it is elemental law that the payment of premium is requisite to keep the policy of insurance in force. If the premium is not paid in the manner prescribed in the policy as intended by the parties the policy is ineffective. Partial payment even when accepted as a partial payment will not keep the policy alive even for such fractional part of the year as the part payment bears to the whole payment.
References:
P.D. 1460, Insurance Code
3 Basic Commercial Laws with Introductory Features by Jose N. Nolledo, 1995 Edition.
Sps. Tibay et al. vs. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 119655, May 24, 1996.
A “Contract of Insurance” is an agreement whereby one undertakes for a consideration to indemnify another against loss, damage or liability arising from an unknown or contingent event.
Discussion of the Law
The essential elements of an insurance contract are:
(a) Insurable interest;
(b) Existence of risk;
(c) Assumption of such risk by the insurer;
(d) Said assumption being part of a general scheme to distribute actual losses among those bearing similar risks;
(e) Payment of premium.
Application of the Law
Case: American-Fortune Life and General Insurance Co., Inc. (Am-Fortune) issued Fire Insurance Policy No. 136171 in favor of Mr. John Michael Roxas on his five-star hotel building in Makati City, together with all its effects therein. The insurance was for P8M covering the period from 23 January 2008 to 23 January 2009. On 23 January 2008, of the total premium of P10,000 Mr. Roxas only paid P5,000.00 thus leaving a considerable balance unpaid.
On 8 March 2008, the insured building was completely destroyed by fire. On March 10, 2008 Mr. Roxas paid the balance of the premium. On the same day, Mr. Roxas filed with Am-Fortune a claim on the fire insurance policy.
Am-Fortune denied the claim of Mr. Roxas, for the premium has not yet been fully paid in violation of Policy Condition No. 2 of the Contract which states:
1. ‘This policy of insurance witnesseth, that only after payment to the Company in accordance with Policy Condition No. 2 of the total premiums by the insured as stipulated above for the period aforementioned for insuring against Loss or Damage by Fire or Lightning as herein appears, the Property herein described x x x
2. This policy including any renewal thereof and/or any endorsement thereon is not in force until the premium has been fully paid to and duly receipted by the Company in the manner provided herein.
Any supplementary agreement seeking to amend this condition prepared by agent, broker or Company official, shall be deemed invalid and of no effect.’
Is Mr. Roxas entitled to claim under the fire insurance policy?
Legal Opinion:
No, Mr. Roxas is not entitled to claim under the fire insurance policy. This is fully supported by Section 77 of the Insurance Code which provides –
Sec. 77. An insurer is entitled to payment of the premium as soon as the thing insured is exposed to the peril insured against. Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, no policy or contract of insurance issued by an insurance company is valid and binding unless and until the premium thereof has been paid, except in the case of a life or an industrial life policy whenever the grace period provision applies.
The rule that contracts of insurance will be construed in favor of the insured and most strongly against the insurer should not be permitted to have the effect of making a plain agreement ambiguous and then construe it in favor of the insured. In addition, it is elemental law that the payment of premium is requisite to keep the policy of insurance in force. If the premium is not paid in the manner prescribed in the policy as intended by the parties the policy is ineffective. Partial payment even when accepted as a partial payment will not keep the policy alive even for such fractional part of the year as the part payment bears to the whole payment.
References:
P.D. 1460, Insurance Code
3 Basic Commercial Laws with Introductory Features by Jose N. Nolledo, 1995 Edition.
Sps. Tibay et al. vs. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 119655, May 24, 1996.
The Barangay Micro Business Enterprise Law, Philippines
Micro business enterprises and start-up companies in the Philippines might find the BMBE Law useful. If your start up company has total assets not exceeding 3 million pesos, registration under the BMBE Law may prove to be a helpful incentive for your company to be exempted from the minimum wage law and payment of income tax. All you need is to pay a registration fee of only P1,000.00 to the proper local government unit where you intend to put up your start-up company.
The Law
The Barangay Micro Business Enterprises (BMBEs) Act of 2002 (R.A. 9178, July 22, 2002) was enacted to hasten the country’s economic development by encouraging the formation and growth of barangay micro business enterprises which effectively serve as seedbeds of Filipino entrepreneurial talents, and integrating those in the informal sector with the mainstream economy, through the rationalization of bureaucratic restrictions, the active intervention of the government specially in the local level, and the granting of incentives and benefits to generate much-needed employment and alleviate poverty.
“Barangay Micro Business Enterprise," hereinafter referred to as BMBE, refers to any business entity or enterprise engaged in the production, processing or manufacturing of products or commodities, including agro-processing, trading and services, whose total assets including those arising from loans but exclusive of the land on which the particular business entity's office, plant and equipment are situated, shall not be more than Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000).
Any person, natural or juridical, or cooperative, or association, having the qualifications of a Barangay Micro Business Enterprise as defined may apply for registration as BMBE.
Procedure for Registration
The following are the procedures when applying for registration as BMBE:
a. an applicant for BMBE shall go to the Office of the Municipal or City Treasurer where the business is located;
b. the applicant shall accomplish BMBE Form 01 in triplicate and submit to the Office of the Municipal or City Treasurer;
c. the Municipal or City Treasurer evaluates the application. Application shall be processed within fifteen (15) working days upon submission of complete documents. Otherwise, the BMBEs shall be deemed registered; and
d. a registered BMBE shall be issued a Certificate of Authority (CA) as proof of registration, which will be effective for a period of two (2) years, renewable for a period of two (2) years for every renewal.
All BMBEs shall be exempted from income tax for income arising from the operation of the enterprise. The Local Government Units (LGUs) are encouraged either to reduce the amount of local taxes, fees and charges imposed or to exempt the BMBE from local taxes, fees and charges.
The BMBEs shall be exempt from the coverage of the Minimum Wage Law: Provided, That all employees covered under the Act shall be entitled to the same benefits given to any regular employee such as social security and healthcare benefits.
Application of the Law
Case: Mrs. Nenita Naidas wishes to put up a resort in the City of Muntinlupa under the name “Nitz Garden and Swimming Pool.” She has a capital of P2.5M for the construction of the swimming pool and other improvements therein. She wants to legally put up her business without going through expensive registration fees and subsequent expenses for labor benefits. Does her business qualify for the BMBE Law?
Legal Opinion: Yes, it is definitely advisable for Mrs. Naidas to register as a Barangay Micro Business Enterprise (BMBE). Under the Barangay Micro Business Enterprises (BMBEs) Act of 2002 (R.A. 9178, July 22, 2002), a registered BMBE shall be exempted from income tax for income arising from the operation of the enterprise. In addition, a registered BMBE shall also be exempted from the coverage of the Minimum Wage Law. In this regard, registration shall be valid for and renewable every two years. A registration fee not exceeding P1,000.00 shall be paid to the local government unit concerned.
Reference:
Department Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2003, Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9178, Otherwise Known as the “Barangay Micro Business Enterprises (BMBEs) Act of 2002.”
The Law
The Barangay Micro Business Enterprises (BMBEs) Act of 2002 (R.A. 9178, July 22, 2002) was enacted to hasten the country’s economic development by encouraging the formation and growth of barangay micro business enterprises which effectively serve as seedbeds of Filipino entrepreneurial talents, and integrating those in the informal sector with the mainstream economy, through the rationalization of bureaucratic restrictions, the active intervention of the government specially in the local level, and the granting of incentives and benefits to generate much-needed employment and alleviate poverty.
“Barangay Micro Business Enterprise," hereinafter referred to as BMBE, refers to any business entity or enterprise engaged in the production, processing or manufacturing of products or commodities, including agro-processing, trading and services, whose total assets including those arising from loans but exclusive of the land on which the particular business entity's office, plant and equipment are situated, shall not be more than Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000).
Any person, natural or juridical, or cooperative, or association, having the qualifications of a Barangay Micro Business Enterprise as defined may apply for registration as BMBE.
Procedure for Registration
The following are the procedures when applying for registration as BMBE:
a. an applicant for BMBE shall go to the Office of the Municipal or City Treasurer where the business is located;
b. the applicant shall accomplish BMBE Form 01 in triplicate and submit to the Office of the Municipal or City Treasurer;
c. the Municipal or City Treasurer evaluates the application. Application shall be processed within fifteen (15) working days upon submission of complete documents. Otherwise, the BMBEs shall be deemed registered; and
d. a registered BMBE shall be issued a Certificate of Authority (CA) as proof of registration, which will be effective for a period of two (2) years, renewable for a period of two (2) years for every renewal.
All BMBEs shall be exempted from income tax for income arising from the operation of the enterprise. The Local Government Units (LGUs) are encouraged either to reduce the amount of local taxes, fees and charges imposed or to exempt the BMBE from local taxes, fees and charges.
The BMBEs shall be exempt from the coverage of the Minimum Wage Law: Provided, That all employees covered under the Act shall be entitled to the same benefits given to any regular employee such as social security and healthcare benefits.
Application of the Law
Case: Mrs. Nenita Naidas wishes to put up a resort in the City of Muntinlupa under the name “Nitz Garden and Swimming Pool.” She has a capital of P2.5M for the construction of the swimming pool and other improvements therein. She wants to legally put up her business without going through expensive registration fees and subsequent expenses for labor benefits. Does her business qualify for the BMBE Law?
Legal Opinion: Yes, it is definitely advisable for Mrs. Naidas to register as a Barangay Micro Business Enterprise (BMBE). Under the Barangay Micro Business Enterprises (BMBEs) Act of 2002 (R.A. 9178, July 22, 2002), a registered BMBE shall be exempted from income tax for income arising from the operation of the enterprise. In addition, a registered BMBE shall also be exempted from the coverage of the Minimum Wage Law. In this regard, registration shall be valid for and renewable every two years. A registration fee not exceeding P1,000.00 shall be paid to the local government unit concerned.
Reference:
Department Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2003, Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9178, Otherwise Known as the “Barangay Micro Business Enterprises (BMBEs) Act of 2002.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)