Cited Laws
Accordingly said office is ordered to withdraw from security deposit of Capital Insurance & Surety Company, Inc. the amount of P11,835,375.50 to be paid to Sheriff Manuel S. Paguyo in satisfaction of the Notice of Garnishment served on August 16, 2002. [17] On December 27, 2002, the sheriff served a copy of the assailed resolution on the then Insurance Commissioner Edgardo T. Malinis, with the request for him to release the security deposit. However, Insurance Commissioner Malinis turned down the request to release, citing Section 203 of the Insurance Code , which expressly provided that the security deposit was exempt from execution. [18] On January 8, 2003, the respondent moved to cite Insurance Commissioner Malinis in contempt of court for refusing to comply with the RTC's resolution. [19] On January 16, 2003, the RTC, finding no lawful justification for the Insurance Commissioner's refusal to comply with the order of the RTC, declared him guilty of indirect contempt of court. [20] Meanwhile, on January 21, 2003, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration [21] against the December 18, 2002 resolution, but the RTC denied the motion on January 30, 2003. [22] Thus, the petitioner assailed the resolution of December 18, 2002 and the order of January 30, 2003 by petition for certiorari in the CA. [23] Decision of the CA On September 15, 2003, the CA dismissed the petitioner's petition for certiorari , explaining: Per records of the Office of the Insurance Commission, petitioner CISCO is a duly accredited insurance and bonding company. Hence, a counterbond issued by it constitutes a valid and binding contract between petitioner CISCO and the court. As such, the counterbond it issued x x x is valid. No evidence was presented by petitioner CISCO to dispute its validity. Its contention that Pio Ancheta and Carlito Alub, petitioner CISCO'S Vice President for Surety and Asst. Branch Manager, respectively, of the Manila Service Office were not authorized to sign the counterbond does not hold water. x x x. Further, petitioner CISCO avers that the subject CISCO Bond No. 00005/JCL(3), is among those missing; from its custody. Granting without admitting that this is true, it is incumbent upon petitioner CISCO to inform the court of such loss. Sad to say, petitioner CISCO failed to do so. x x x. x x x x If indeed, CISCO Bond No. JCL(3)00005 was lost, petitioner CISCO should have inform (sic) the court of such loss. It is incumbent upon petitioner CISCO to protect and safeguard the bonds it issues. Needless to say, this Court finds the petitioner CISCO'S act as a thinly veiled attempt to renege on its obligation under the insurance contract it issued. [24] The CA opined that the security deposit could answer for the depositor's liability, and be the subject of levy in accordance with Section 203 of the Insurance Code, viz .: Section 203 of the Insurance Code is clear and unequivocal that the security deposit will be held by the Insurance Commissioner for