Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
The Petition is denied.
Accordingly, the CA annulled and set aside the RTC's decision, rendering a new decision dismissing the complaint without prejudice to the filing by the parties of the appropriate action before the proper agency. [15] Petitioner moved to reconsider, arguing that the dismissal of the complaint should be with prejudice , which the CA denied in an Amended Resolution [16] dated July 29, 2022; hence this Petition, to which Kintanar filed her Comment [17] dated July 11, 2024. The Issue Before the Court The Court resolves whether the CA erred in dismissing the complaint without prejudice on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Court's Ruling The Petition is denied. I Petitioner claims that the CA has decided a question of substance not theretofore determined by the Court. [18] Specifically, the CA held that between the civil courts and the Insurance Commission, it is the latter that has the primary and exclusive power over actions for specific performance seeking to enforce payment and refund under a pre-need plan. True, a survey of related jurisprudence shows that this specific jurisdictional issue has not yet reached the Court. Exercising its discretionary review, [19] however, the Court finds no reversible error on the part of the CA on the issue of jurisdiction. Petitioner concedes that Section 55 of Republic Act No. 9829 gives the Insurance Commission primary and exclusive power to adjudicate any and all claims involving pre-need plans. Contrary to its earlier argument that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the complaint, petitioner now argues that the RTC properly assumed jurisdiction because: (1) the complaint is one for specific performance, jurisdiction over which belongs to the civil courts, and not a "claim" under Republic Act No. 9829; (2) Republic Act No. 9829 does not preclude the civil courts from assuming jurisdiction over claims against pre-need plans, as its Section 59 provides that the rights and remedies under the Pre-need Code shall be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies under existing laws; and (3) the Insurance Commission does not have jurisdiction over Kintanar's complaint for damages; thus, for the CA to sanction the filing of the claim with the Insurance Commission and action for damages with the civil court would result in the splitting of Kintanar's causes of action. Given these, petitioner finally argues that the RTC Decision must be upheld because Kintanar failed to prove that she is entitled to damages and reimbursement of the difference between what petitioner paid her and the actual amount of her daughter's tuition fees. [20] These arguments may be summarized in three propositions: first , the action for specific performance is not a "claim involving a pre-need plan" within the Commission's jurisdiction; second , assuming that it is, the power of the Commission to adjudicate such claims is not exclusive; and third , jurisdiction over the complaint belongs to the RTC because the Insurance Commission doe