Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Aisporna V CA (L-39419, April 12, 1982)

    Загружено:

    Kristina Karen
    38 просмотров1 страница
    Petitioner Mapalad Aisporna was charged with acting as an insurance agent without a certificate of authority in violation of the Insurance Act by helping her husband, a licensed agent, renew a policy while he was absent. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found her guilty. However, the Supreme Court ruled that to be considered an agent under the Insurance Act, one must act with a certificate and for compensation. Since compensation was not proven for Aisporna, the Court acquitted her of the charge.

    Исходное описание:

    Insurance Digest

    Оригинальное название

    Aisporna v CA

    Авторское право

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Доступные форматы

    DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Petitioner Mapalad Aisporna was charged with acting as an insurance agent without a certificate of authority in violation of the Insurance Act by helping her husband, a licensed agent, renew a policy while he was absent. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found her guilty. However, the Supreme Court ruled that to be considered an agent under the Insurance Act, one must act with a certificate and for compensation. Since compensation was not proven for Aisporna, the Court acquitted her of the charge.

    Авторское право:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Скачайте в формате DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    38 просмотров1 страница

    Aisporna V CA (L-39419, April 12, 1982)

    Загружено:

    Kristina Karen
    Petitioner Mapalad Aisporna was charged with acting as an insurance agent without a certificate of authority in violation of the Insurance Act by helping her husband, a licensed agent, renew a policy while he was absent. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found her guilty. However, the Supreme Court ruled that to be considered an agent under the Insurance Act, one must act with a certificate and for compensation. Since compensation was not proven for Aisporna, the Court acquitted her of the charge.

    Авторское право:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Скачайте в формате DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 1

    Aisporna v CA (L-39419, April 12, 1982) Petitioner: Mapalad Aisporna Respondents: CA and the People of the Philippines Ponente:

    De Castro, J. Facts

    Petitioner Aisporna was charged of violation of Section 189 of the Insurance Act for allegedly acting as an insurance agent in behalf of Perla Compania de Seguros without procuring the necessary certificate of authority from the Insurance Commission. She claimed that she only helped her husband, Rodolfo Aisporna, a clerk and licensed agent of Perla, in renewing the insurance policy of one Eugenio Isidro, when Rodolfo was absent. The trial court and the CA found the petitioner guilty of the charge. Hence this recourse. Issue

    Whether or not petitioner was to be considered an insurance agent and hence violated the Insurance Act Held

    NO. Upon closer inspection of Section 189 of the Insurance Act, the Court ruled that for a person to be considered an insurance agent, he must act as such with the necessary certificate of authority and for compensation. The element of compensation was not proved in this case, hence the petitioner was acquitted by the Court from the charge against her.

    Вам также может понравиться