The Commission on Audit (COA) has denied a P1.5-billion money claim filed by a group of insurance firms against the Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) or Pag-IBIG Fund over allegedly unremitted fire insurance premiums tied to housing loans.

In a 17-page decision dated March 17, 2026, the COA ruled that the claim of AFP General Insurance Corporation and 42 other insurers, collectively known as the “Insurance Pool,” lacked legal merit and failed to comply with strict documentary requirements.

“Accordingly, this Commission denies the payment of P1,502,715,628.97 for lack of merit,” the COA said in its decision signed by COA Chairperson Gamaliel A. Cordoba and Commissioner Douglas M. N. Mallillin.

The dispute traces its roots to 1985 when the HDMF and the Insurance Pool entered into a "Group Insurers Combined Fire Insurance Policy," an agreement that required mandatory fire insurance for all properties mortgaged to the HDMF.

By October 2013, the HDMF decided to shift its policy as then-CEO lawyer Darlene Marie Berberabe, now the Solicitor-General, notified the pool that it would no longer renew fire insurance coverage for accounts under the group policy.

This move prompted the Insurance Pool to seek arbitration before Branch 83 or the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC), which eventually ordered both parties to resolve the dispute through an arbitration committee.

The arbitration process concluded on May 6, 2016 and the committee issued a decision regarding the validity of the contract non-renewal, stating: "The Respondent [HDMF] validly exercised its right on behalf of its borrowers to no longer renew any existing individual one-year insurance policies under the 1985 Group Policy, with effect from the next applicable Anniversary Date expiry of the said policies."

While the ruling affirmed the HDMF's right to terminate the agreement for new borrowers, it also set specific obligations, directing the HDMF to pay premiums for the unexpired terms of existing policies until their next anniversary date.

In 2017, HDMF had no insurer aside from the Insurance Pool and it was only in 2018 when the state-run agency issued a notice to proceed to Lockton Philippines Insurance & Reinsurance Brokers Inc.

The Insurance Pool later sought the remittance of unpaid premiums worth P1,502,715,628.97, covering the period from May 7, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2017, in an attempt to reach an amicable settlement.

According to the petitioners (Insurance Pool), the period between May 7, 2016 and Dec. 31, 2017 marked a gap in coverage because HDMF supposedly had no insurance provider at the time. Despite this, the Insurance Pool claimed that HDMF continued collecting fire insurance premiums from the monthly housing loan amortizations of member-borrowers.

The insurers said HDMF refused to pay the amount being sought, prompting them to file a petition for money claim before the COA on Nov. 13, 2023.

The HDMF contested this as it noted that the pool's own internal reconciliation process, through a Technical Working Group (TWG), yielded a much smaller figure. The HDMF argued that the "reconciled accounts jointly arrived by the TWG will not amount to P1.5 billion but only P137 million and the latter amount is beyond the scope of Arbitral Award."

The COA agreed that the amount was not adequately supported, noting: "The money claim amounting to P1.5 billion is not expressly specified nor indicated in the arbitral award. No specific monetary award was declared under the arbitral award's dispositive portion."

The COA decision highlighted procedural lapses in the petition, including its lack of mandatory verification and certification against forum shopping. The COA said the petition also failed to present a notarized Secretary’s Certificate or Board Resolution, which are documents necessary to authorize a representative to file a claim on behalf of a corporation.

Several members of the Insurance Pool also moved to withdraw from the case, according to COA, including Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation, Stronghold Insurance Company, and Bethel General Insurance, which filed separate motions to be dropped as petitioners.

Because the petitioners failed to provide authenticated copies of the required documents, the commission found the veracity of the claim "questionable."

"There is no specific monetary award to be enforced based on the clear terms of the arbitral decision. Thus, there was no final order or judgment awarding the petitioners the amount prayed for in this petition," the COA ruled.