AGRICULTURAL CREDIT & COOPERATIVE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION

(ACCFA), plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
ALPHA INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC., defendant-appellee,
RICARDO A. LADINES, ET AL., third party-defendants-appellees.
G.R. No. L-24566
July 29, 1968

Topic: Prescriptive Period of Action

Facts:
On 14 February 1958, defendant-appellee Alpha Insurance & Surety Company issued a
fidelity bond in the sum of Five Thousand Pesos (Php5,000.00) in order to guarantee the Asingan
Farmers’ Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (FACOMA) against loss on account of
personal dishonesty amounting to estafa of its Secretary-Treasurer Ricardo Ladines. On the same
date, the Asingan FACOMA assigned its rights to the plaintiff-appellant Agricultural Credit
Cooperative and Financing Administration (ACCFA), with approval of the principal and the
surety. During the effectivity of the bond, Ladines converted and misappropriated, to his
personal benefit the FACOMA funds amounting to Php11,513.22, of which Php6,307.33
belonged to the ACCFA.

On 10 October 1958, ACCFA immediately notified in writing the surety company and
presented the proof of loss within the period fixed in the bond. Despite repeated demands, the
surety company refused and failed to pay. Thereafter, ACCFA filed an action against defendant-
appellee Alpha Insurance on 30 May 1960. Alpha Insurance moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a cause of action as the same was filed more than one year after ACCFA made
claim for loss, contrary to the eighth condition of the bond. The Court of First Instance dismissed
the complaint on the ground of prescription. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not the provision in a fidelity bond that no action shall be maintained thereon
unless commenced within one year from the making of a claim for the loss is valid.

Ruling:
No. A fidelity bond is, in effect, in the nature of a contract of insurance against loss from
misconduct, and is governed by the same principles of interpretation. Consequently, the
condition of the bond in question, limiting the period for bringing action thereon, is subject to the
provision of Section 61-A of the Insurance Act, which provides, “a condition, stipulation or
agreement in any policy of insurance, limiting the time for commencing an action thereunder to a
period of less than one year from the time when the cause of action accrues is void.”

Since a cause of action requires, as essential elements, not only a legal right of the
plaintiff and a correlative obligation of the defendant but also an act or omission of the defendant
in violation of said legal right, the cause of action does not accrue until the party obligated
refuses, expressly or impliedly, to comply with its duty (in this case, to pay the amount of the
bond). Therefore, the year for instituting action in court must be reckoned from the time of
defendant-appellee’s refusal to comply with its bond; it cannot be counted from the creditor’s
filing of the claim of loss, for that does not import that the surety company will refuse to pay.
In so far, therefore, as condition eight of the bond requires action to be filed within one year from
the filing of the claim for loss, such stipulation contradicts the public policy expressed in Section
61-A of the Philippine Insurance Act. As a consequence, condition eight of the Alpha bond is
null and void, and action may be brought within the statutory period of limitation for written
contracts. (Article 1144, New Civil Code)