8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
1/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
G.R. No. L-17825 June 26, 1922
In the matter of the Involuntary inolven!y of ". #$ %&LI.
'$LI() R&*)N, claimant-appellee,
vs.
)(I) +)NING &R%&R)I&N, claimant-appellant.
Wolfson, Wolfson and Schwarzkopf and Gibbs, McDonough & Johnson for appellant.
Antonio . !errero for appellee.
&(R)N#, J.:
This is an appeal from an order entered ! the Co"rt of #irst Instance of $anila in civil No.
%&'(), the insolvenc! of *merto de +oli, and declarin the lien claimed ! the appellee
#elisa Roman "pon a lot of leaf toacco, consistin of / ales, and fo"nd in the possession
of said insolvent, s"perior to that claimed ! the appellant, the Asia 0an1in Corporation.
The order appealed from is ased "pon the follo2in stip"lation of facts:
It is here! stip"lated and areed ! and et2een #elisa Roman and Asia 0an1in
Corporation, and on their ehalf ! their "ndersined attorne!s, that their respective
rihts, in relation to the / bultos of toacco mentioned in the order of this co"rt
dated April ', %&'%, e, and here! are, s"mitted to the co"rt for decision "pon
the follo2in:
I. #elisa Roman claims the / bultos of toacco "nder and ! virt"e of the
instr"ment, a cop! of 2hich is hereto attached and made a part hereof and mar1edE3hiit A.
II. That on Novemer ', %&'), said #elisa Roman noti4ed the said Asia 0an1in
Corporation of her contention, a cop! of 2hich noti4cation is hereto attached and
made a part hereof and mar1ed E3hiit 0.
III. That on Novemer '&, %&'), said Asia 0an1in Corporation replied as per cop!
hereto attached and mar1ed E3hiit C.
I5. That at the time the aove entitled insolvenc! proceedins 2ere 4led the /
bultos of toacco 2ere in possession of *. de +oli and no2 are in possession of theassinee.
5. That on Novemer %6, %&'), *. de +oli, for val"e received, iss"ed a 7"edan,
coverin aforesaid / bultos of toacco, to the Asia 0an1in Corporation as per cop!
of 7"edan attached and mar1ed E3hiit D.
5I. That aforesaid / bultos of toacco are part and parcel of the ', bultos
p"rchased ! *. de +oli from #elisa Roman.
5II. The parties f"rther stip"late and aree that an! f"rther evidence that either of
the parties desire to s"mit shall e ta1en into consideration toether 2ith this
stip"lation.
$anila, +. I., April '6, %&'%.
8Sd.9 ANTONIO 5. ERRERO
Attorne" for #elisa $o%an
% ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
2/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
8Sd.9 ;O
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
3/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
8#dos.9 ANTONIO 5. ERRERO
T. 0ARRETTO
8GAc1no2leded efore Notar!G9
E3hiit D is a 2areho"se receipt iss"ed ! the 2areho"se of *. de +oli for / ales of
toacco. The 4rst pararaph of the receipt reads as follo2s:
"edan depositados en estos almacenes por orden del Sr. *. de +oli la cantidad de
7"inientos setenta ! seis fardos de taaco en rama se"n marcas detalladas al
maren, ! con arrelo a las condiciones si"ientes:
In the left marin of the face of the receipts, *. de +oli certi4es that he is the sole o2ner of
the merchandise therein descried. The receipt is endorced in lan1 G*merto de +oliG it is
not mar1ed Gnon-neotialeG or Gnot neotiale.G
E3hiit 0 and C referred to in the stip"lation are not material to the iss"es and do not appear
in the printed record.
Tho"h E3hiit A in its pararaph 8c9 states that the toacco sho"ld remain in the 2areho"se
of *. de +oli as a deposit "ntil the price 2as paid, it appears clearl! from the lan"ae of the
e3hiit as a 2hole that it evidences a contract of sale and the recitals in order of the Co"rt of
#irst Instance, dated Han"ar! %6, %&'%, 2hich form part of the printed record, sho2 that De
+oli received from #elisa Roman, "nder this contract, ', ales of toacco of the total
val"e of +6,6%./&, of 2hich he paid +%,))) in cash and e3ec"ted fo"r notes of
+%,&.&' each for the alance. The sale havin een th"s cons"mmated, the onl! lien
"pon the toacco 2hich #elisa Roman can claim is a vendorJs lien.
The order appealed from is ased "pon the theor! that the toacco 2as transferred to the
Asia 0an1in Corporation as sec"rit! for a loan and that as the transfer neither f"l4lled the
re7"irements of the Civil Code for a plede nor constit"ted a chattel mortae "nder Act No.
%)6, the vendorJs lien of #elisa Roman sho"ld e accorded preference over it.
It is 7"ite evident that the co"rt elo2 failed to ta1e into consideration the provisions of
section (& of Act No. '% 2hich reads:
;here a neotiale receipts has een iss"ed for oods, no sellerJs lien or riht of
stoppae in transit" shall defeat the rihts of an! p"rchaser for val"e in ood faith to2hom s"ch receipt has een neotiated, 2hether s"ch neotiation e prior or
s"se7"ent to the noti4cation to the 2areho"seman 2ho iss"ed s"ch receipt of the
sellerJs claim to a lien or riht of stoppae in transit". Nor shall the 2areho"seman e
olied to deliver or "sti4ed in deliverin the oods to an "npaid seller "nless the
receipt is 4rst s"rrendered for cancellation.
The term Gp"rchaserG as "sed in the section 7"oted, incl"des mortaee and pledee. 8See
section 6 8a9 of the same Act.9
In vie2 of the foreoin provisions, there can e no do"t 2hatever that if the 2areho"se
receipt in 7"estion is neotiale, the vendorJs lien of #elisa Roman cannot prevail aainst the
rihts of the Asia 0an1in Corporation as the indorse of the receipt. The onl! 7"estion ofimportance to e determined in this case is, therefore, 2hether the receipt efore "s is
neotiale.
The matter is not entirel! free from do"t. The receipt is not perfect: It recites that the
merchandise is deposited in the 2areho"se Gpor ordenG instead of Ga la ordenG or Gs"eto a la
ordenG of the depositor and it contain no other direct statement sho2in 2hether the oods
;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
4/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
received are to e delivered to the earer, to a speci4ed person, or to a speci4ed person or
his order.
;e thin1, ho2ever, that it m"st e considered a neotiale receipt. A 2areho"se receipt, li1e
an! other doc"ment, m"st e interpreted accordin to its evident intent 8Civil Code, arts.
%'6% et se(.9 and it is 7"ite ovio"s that the deposit evidenced ! the receipt in this case
2as intended to e made s"ect to the order of the depositor and therefore neotiale.
That the 2ords Gpor ordenG are "sed instead of Ga la ordenG is ver! evidentl! merel! a
clerical or rammatical error. If an! intellient meanin is to e attac1ed to the phrase
G"edan depositados en estos almacenes por orden del Sr. *. de +oliG it m"st e held to
mean G"edan depositados en estos almacenes a la orden del Sr. *. de +oli.G The phrase
m"st e constr"ed to mean that *. de +oli 2as the person a"thoriFed to endorse and deliver
the receipts an! other interpretation 2o"ld mean that no one had s"ch po2er and the
cla"se, as 2ell as the entire receipts, 2o"ld e rendered n"ator!.
$oreover, the endorsement in lan1 of the receipt in controvers! toether 2ith its deliver!! *. de +oli to the appellant an1 too1 place on the ver! of the iss"ance of the 2areho"se
receipt, there! immediatel! demonstratin the intention of *. de +oli and of the appellant
an1, ! the emplo!ment of the phrase Gpor orden del Sr. *. de +oliG to ma1e the receipt
neotiale and s"ect to the ver! transfer 2hich he then and there made ! s"ch
endorsement in lan1 and deliver! of the receipt to the lan1.
As hereinefore stated, the receipt 2as not mar1ed Gnon-neotiale.G *nder modern
stat"tes the neotiailit! of 2areho"se receipts has een enlared, the stat"tes havin the
eKect of ma1in s"ch receipts neotiale "nless mar1ed Gnon-neotiale.G 8' R. C.
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
5/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
G.R. No. L-/080 (etemer 21, 1953
J&($ %. *)RIN$4, a aminitrator of the Intate $tate of %ero Roriue,e!eae, plaintiK-appellant,vs.%ILI%%IN$ N)I&N)L +)N, defendant-appellee.
Delgado, #lores, & Macapagal for appellant.$a%on . de los $e"es and Angel G. +lagan for appellee.
*&N$*)&R, J.:
As of #er"ar! %&(', the estate of +edro Rodri"eF 2as indeted to the defendant +hilippineNational 0an1 in the amo"nt of +'',%'6.(( 2hich represented the alance of the crop loanotained ! the estate "pon its %&(%-%&(' s"ar cane crop. Sometime in #er"ar! %&(',$rs. Amparo R. $artineF, late administratri3 of the estate "pon re7"est of the defendantan1 thro"h its Ce" ranch endorsed and delivered to the said an1 t2o 8'9 7"edansaccordin to plaintiK-appellant iss"ed ! the 0oo-$edellin $illin co. 2here the s"ar 2as
;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
6/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
stored coverin ',%&6.%% pic"ls of s"ar elonin to the estate, altho"h accordin to thedefendant-appellee, onl! one 7"edan coverin %,)%.)( pic"ls of s"ar 2as endorsed anddelivered. D"rin the last +aci4c 2ar, sometime in %&(, the s"ar covered ! the 7"edan or7"edans 2as lost 2hile in the 2areho"se of the 0oo-$edellin $illin Co. In the !ear %&(6,
the indetedness of the estate incl"din interest 2as paid to the an1, accordin to theappellant, "pon the insistence of land press"re ro"ht to ear ! the an1.
*nder the theor! and claim the sometime in #er"ar! %&(', 2hen the invasion of the+rovince of Ce" ! the Hapanese Armed #orces 2as imminent, the administratri3 of theestate as1ed the an1 to release the s"ar so that it co"ld e sold at a od price 2hich 2asao"t +' per pic"l in order to avoid its possile loss d"e to the invasion, "t that the an1ref"sed that re7"est and as a res"lt the amo"nt of +(,&'. representin the val"e of saids"ar 2as lost, the present action 2as ro"ht aainst the defendant an1 to recover saidamo"nt. After trial, the Co"rt of #irst Instance of $anila dismissed the complaint on thero"nd that the transfer of the 7"edan or 7"edans representin the s"ar in the 2areho"seof the 0oo-$edellin $illin Co. to the an1 did not transfer o2nership of the s"ar, andconse7"entl!, the loss of said s"ar sho"ld e orne ! the plaintiK appellant. administrator
Hose R. $artineF is no2 appealin from that decision.
;e aree 2ith the trial co"rt that at the time of the loss of the s"ar d"rin the 2ar,sometime in %&(, said s"ar still eloned to the estate of +edro Rodri"eF. It had nevereen sold to the an1 so as to ma1e the latter o2ner thereof. The transaction co"ld not haveeen a sale, 4rst, eca"se one of the essential elements of the contract of sale, namel!,consideration 2as not present. If the s"ar 2as sold, 2hat 2as the priceL ;e do not 1no2,for nothin 2as said ao"t it. Second, the an1 ! its charter is not a"thoriFed to enae inthe "siness of "!in and sellin s"ar. It onl! accepts s"ar as sec"rit! for pa!ment of itscrop loans and later on p"rs"ant to an "nderstandin 2ith the s"ar planters, it sell saids"ar for them, or the planters 4nd "!ers and direct them to the an1. The s"ar 2as ivenonl! as a sec"rit! for the pa!ment of the crop loan. This is admitted ! the appellant assho2n ! the alleations in its complaint 4led efore the trial co"rt and also in the rief for
appellant 4led efore "s. Accordin to la2, the mortaee or plede cannot ecome theo2ner of or convert and appropriate to himself the propert! mortaed r pleded 8Article%6&, old Civil Code Article ')66, ne2 Civil code9. Said propert! contin"es t elon to themortaor or pledor. The onl! remed! iven to the mortaee or pledee is to have saidpropert! sold at p"lic a"ction and the proceeds of the sale applied to the pa!ment of theoliation sec"red ! the mortae or plede.
The position and claim of plaintiK-appellant is rather inconsistent and conf"sin. #irst, hecontends that the endorsement and deliver! of the 7"edan or 7"edans to the an1transferred the o2nership of the s"ar to said an1 so that as o2ner, the an1 sho"ld s"Kerthe loss of the s"ar on the principle that Ga thin perishes for the o2nerG. ;e ta1e it that !endorsin the 7"edan, defendant 2as s"pposed to have sold the s"ar to the an1 for theamo"nt of the o"tstandin loan of +'',%'6.(( and the interest then occ"red. That 2o"ld
mean that plaintiKJs acco"nt 2ith the an1 has een entirel! li7"idated and their contract"alrelations ended, the an1 s"Kerin the loss of the amo"nt of the loan and interest 0"tplaintiK-appellant in the ne3t reath contends that had the an1 released the s"ar in#er"ar! %&(', plaintiK Mco"ld have sold it for +(,&'., from 2hich the amo"nt of theloan and interest co"ld have een ded"cted, the alance to have een retained ! plaintiK,and that since the loan has een entirel! li7"idated in %&(6, then the 2hole e3pected saleprice of +(,&'. sho"ld no2 e paid ! the an1 to appellant. This second theor!pres"pposes that despite the indorsement of the 7"edan plaintiK still retained o2nership ofthe s"ar, a position that r"ns co"nter to the 4rst theor! of transfer of o2nership to thean1.
In the co"rse of the disc"ssion of this case amon the memers of the Tri"nal, one or t2othem 2ho 2ill dissent from the maorit! vie2 so"ht to c"re and remed! this apparentinconsistenc! in the claim of appellant and s"stain the theor! that the endorsement of the7"edan made the an1 the o2ner of the s"ar res"ltin in the pa!ment of the loan, so thatno2, the an1 sho"ld ret"rn to appellant the amo"nt of the loan it improperl! collected in%&(6.
In s"pport of the theor! of transfer of o2nership of the s"ar to the an1 ! virt"e of theendorsement of the 7"edan, reference 2as made to the ;areho"se Receipts
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
7/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
place, this claim is inconsistent 2ith the ver! theor! of plaintiK appellant that the s"ar farfrom ein sold to the an1 2as merel! iven as sec"rit! for the pa!ment of the crop loan.In the second place, the a"thorities cited have not directl! applicale. In those cases thisco"rt held that for p"rposes of facilitatin commercial transaction, the endorse of transferee
of a 2areho"se receipt or 7"edan sho"ld e rearded as the o2ner of the oods covered !it. In other 2ords, as reards the endoser or transferor, even if he 2ere the o2ner of theoods, he ma! not ta1e possession and dispose of the oods 2itho"t the consent of theendorse or transferee of the 7"edan or 2areho"se receipt that in some cases the endorse of a 7"edan ma! sell the oods and appl! the proceeds of the sale to the pa!ment of the detand as reards third persons, the holder of a 2areho"se receipt or 7"edan is considered theo2ner of the oods covered ! it. To ma1e clear the vie2 of this co"rt in said co"rt in t2o ofthese cases cited 2hich are t!pical.
As to the 4rst of action, 2e hold that in Han"ar!, %&%&, the an1 ecame andremained the o2ner of the 4ve 7"edans Nos. ), , 6, (%, and (' that the! 2erein form neotiale, and that, as s"ch o2ner, it 2as leall! entitled to the possession and control of the propert! therein descried at the time the insolvenc! petition 2as
4led and had a riht to sell it and appl" the proceeds of the sale to its promissor!notes, c"red ! the three 7"edans Nos. , /, and &, 2hich the an1 s"rrenderedto the 4rm. 8+hilippine Tr"st Co. vs. National 0an1, (' +hil., (%, ('9.
... Section 6 provides that 2ithin the meanin of the Act Gto Gp"rchaseG incl"des tota1e as mortaee or pledeeJ and clear that, as to the leal title to the propert!covered ! a 2areho"se receipt, a pledee is on the same footin as a vendeee3cept that the former is "nder the oliation of s"rrenderin his title "pon thepa!ment of the det sec"red. To hold other2ise 2o"ld defeat one of the principalp"rposes of the Act, i. e., to f"rnish a asis for commercial credit. 80an1 of the+hilippine Islands vs. erride, ( +hil. , )9.
It is ovio"s that 2here the transaction involved in the transfer of a 2areho"se receipt or7"edan is not a sale "t plede or sec"rit!, the transferee or endorsee does not ecome theo2ner of the oods "t that he ma! onl! have the propert! sold then satisf! the oliationfrom the proceeds of the sale. #rom all this, it is clear that at the time the s"ar in 7"estion2as lost sometime d"rin the 2ar, estate of +edro Rodri"eF 2as still the o2ner thereof.
It is f"rther contended in this appeal that the defendant appellee failed to e3cercise d"e carefor the preservation of the s"ar, and that the loss 2as d"e to its nelience as a res"lt of2hich the appellee inc"rred the loss. In the 4rst place, this 7"estion 2as not raised in theco"rt elo2. +laintiKJs complaint to ma1e an! alleation reardin nelience in thepreservation of this s"ar. In the second place, it is a fact that the s"ar 2as lost in thepossession of the 2areho"se selected ! the appellant to 2hich it had oriinall! deliveredand stored it, and for ca"ses e!ond the an1Js control, namel!, the 2ar.
In connection 2ith the claim that had the released the s"ar sometime in #er"ar!, %&(',2hen re7"ested ! the plaintiK, said s"ar co"ld have een sold at the rate of +' a pic"l ora total of +(,&'., the amo"nt of the present claim, there is evidence to sho2 that there7"est for release 2as not made to the an1 itself "t directl! to the ocial of the2areho"se the 0oo $edellin $illin Co. and that an1 2as not a2are of an! s"ch re7"est,"t that therefore April &, %&(', 2hen the Ce" ranch of the defendant 2as closed, thean1 thro"h its ocials oKered the s"ar for sale "t that there 2ere no "!ers, perhapsd"e to the "nsettled and chaotic conditions that otainin ! reason of the enem!occ"pation.
In concl"sion, 2e hold that 2here a 2areho"se receipt or 7"edan is transferred or endorsedto a creditor onl! to sec"re the pa!ment of a loan or det, the transferee or endorsee does
not a"tomaticall! ecome the o2ner of the oods covered ! the 2areho"se receipt or7"edan "t he merel! retains the riht to 1eep and 2ith the consent of the o2ner to sellthem so as to satisf! the oliation from the proceeds of the sale, this for the simple reasonthat the transaction involved is not a sale covered ! the 7"edans of 2areho"se receipts islost 2itho"t the fa"lt or nelience of the mortaee or pledee or 7"edan, then said oodsare to e rearded as lost on acco"nt of the real o2ner, mortaor or pledor.-wphl.n/t
In vie2 of the foreoin, the decision appealed from is here! armed, 2ith costs.
;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
8/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
engzon, 0adilla, 1uason, $e"es, Jugo, autista Angelo, and 2abrador, JJ., conc"r.
(earate &inion
%)R)(, C. J., dissentin:
The plaintiK see1s to recover from the defendant +hilippine National 0an1 the s"m of+(,&'., representin the val"e of ',%&6.%% pic"ls of s"ar covered ! t2o 7"edansindorsed and delivered to the an1 ! the administrati3 of the estate of the deceased +edroRodri"eF to sec"re the indetedness of the latter in the amo"nt of +'',%'6.((. It is alleedthat 2hen the t2o 7"edans 2ere indorsed and delivered to the defendant an1 in or ao"t
Han"ar!, %&(', the s"ar 2as in deposit at the 0oo-$edellin S"ar Co., Inc. that said s"ar2as lost d"rin the 2ar that the indetedness of +'',%'6.(( 2as li7"idated in %&(6 ! theestate of the deceased +edro Rodri"eF and that, not2ithstandin demands, the defendant
an1 ref"sed to credit the plaintiK 2ith the val"e of the s"ar lost.
There is no 7"estion as to the e3istence of the s"ar covered ! the t2o 7"edans, or as tothe indorsement and deliver! of said 7"edans to the defendant an1. The Co"rt of #irstInstance of $anila 2hich decided aainst the plaintiK and held that the defendant an1 isnot liale for the loss of the s"ar in 7"estion, indeed stated that the onl! 7"estion thatarises is 2hether the indorsement of the 2areho"se receipts transferred the o2nership f thes"ar to the defendant an1 that if it did, the an1 sho"ld s"Ker the loss, "t if it did not,the loss sho"ld e for the acco"nt of the estate of the deceased +edro Rodri"eF. Indismissin the plaintiKJs action, the trial co"rt held that the indorsement of the 7"edans tothe defendant an1 did not carr! 2ith it the transfer of o2nership of the s"ar, as theindorsement and deliver! 2ere eKected merel! sec"re the pa!ment of an indetedness, tofacilitate the sale of the s"ar, and to prevent the detor from disposin of it 2itho"t the
1no2lede and consent of the defendant an1. The plaintiK has appealed.
The applicale leal provision is section (% of Act No. '%, other2ise as the ;areho"seReceipts
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
9/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
The relation of a pledor of a 2areho"se receipt d"l! indorsed and delivered to the plede,is s"stantiall! riht of rep"rchase. The vendor a retro act"all! transfers the o2nership ofthe propert! sold to the vendee, "t the former ma! reac7"ire said o2nership "ponpa!ment is lost efore ein rep"rchased, the vendee nat"rall! has to ear the loss, 2ith
the vendor havin nothin to rep"rhase. 0"t if the loss sho"ld occ"r after the rep"rchaseprice has een paid "t efore the propert! sold a retro is act"all! reconve!ed, the vendeeis o"nd to ret"rn to the vendor onl! the rep"rchase price paid, and not the val"e of thepropert!. In m! opinion, therefore, the loss of the s"ar sho"ld e for the acco"nt of thedefendant an1, 2hich sho"ld ret"rn to the plaintiK +'',%'6.((, the amo"nt of theindetedness of the estate of the deceased +edro Rodri"eF 2hich had alread! een paid%&(6, 2itho"t ho2ever ein liale for the diKerence et2een +(,&'. 8act"al val"e ofthe s"ar9 and the amo"nt of said pa!ment.
The appealed "dment sho"ld therefore e reversed and the defendant an1 sentenced topa! to the plaintiK the s"m of +'',%'6.((.
0ablo, J., conc"rs.
& ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
10/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
G.R. No. 129918 July 9, 1998
%ILI%%IN$ N)I&N)L +)N, petitioner,
vs.
&N. *)R$LIN& L. ()&, JR., in hi !aa!ity a %reiin Jue of the Reional
rial ourt of *anila :+ran!h /5;, N&)I#$, JR., J.:
In this special civil action for certiorari, act"all! the third disp"te et2een the same privateparties to have reached this Co"rt, 1 petitioner as1s "s to ann"l the orders 2 of % April %&&
and %( H"l! %&& iss"ed in Civil Case No. &)-)' ! the Reional Trial Co"rt, $anila,
0ranch (. The 4rst order 3 ranted private respondentsJ motion for e3ec"tion to satisf! their
2areho"semanJs lien aainst petitioner, 2hile the second order / denied, 2ith 4nalit!,
petitionerJs motion for reconsideration of the 4rst order and "rent motion to lift
arnishment, and private respondentsJ motion for partial reconsideration.
The fact"al antecedents "ntil the commencement of .R. No. %%&'% 2ere s"mmariFed in
o"r decision therein, as follo2s:
In accordance 2ith Act No. '%, the ;areho"se Receipts
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
11/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
oleta and Ramos. NoahJs
Ar1 S"ar Re4ner! ref"sed to compl! 2ith the demand allein o2nership
thereof, for 2hich reason the +hilippine National 0an1 4led 2ith the Reional
Trial Co"rt of $anila a veri4ed complaint for GSpeci4c +erformance 2ith
Damaes and Application for ;rit of AttachmentG aainst NoahJs Ar1 S"ar
Re4ner!, Alerto T.
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
12/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
On $a! ', %&&%, the Reional Trial Co"rt iss"ed an order den!in the $otion
for S"mmar! H"dment. There"pon, the +hilippine National 0an1 4led a
+etition for 'ertiorari 2ith the Co"rt of Appeals, doc1eted as CA-.R. S+ No.
'&6 on Decemer %, %&&.
+ertinent portions of the decision of the Co"rt of Appeals read:
In iss"in the 7"estioned Orders, the respondent Co"rt r"led
that G7"estions of la2 sho"ld e resolved after and not efore,
the 7"estions of fact are properl! litiated.G A scr"tin! of
defendantJs armative defenses does not sho2 material
7"estions of fact as to the alleed nonpa!ment of p"rchase
price ! the vendees4rst endorsers, and 2hich nonpa!ment is
not disp"ted ! +N0 as it does not materiall! aKect +N0Js title
to the s"ar stoc1s as holder of the neotiale 7"edans.
;hat is determinative of the propriet! of s"mmar! "dment is
not the e3istence of conictin claims from prior parties "t
2hether from an e3amination of the pleadins, depositions,
admissions and doc"ments on 4le, the defenses as to the main
iss"e do not tender material 7"estions of fact 8see arcia vs.
Co"rt of Appeals, %/ SCRA 6%9 or the iss"es th"s tendered
are in fact sham, 4ctitio"s, contrived, set "p in ad faith or so
"ns"stantial as not to constit"te en"ine iss"es for trial. 8See
5erara vs. S"elto, et al., %/ SCRA $ercado, et al. vs.
Co"rt of Appeals, %/' SCRA 9. PsicM The 7"estioned Orders
themselves do not specif! 2hat material facts are in iss"e. 8SeeSec. (, R"le (, R"les of Co"rt9.
To re7"ire a trial not2ithstandin pertinent alleations of the
pleadins and other facts appearin on the record, 2o"ld
constit"te a 2aste of time and an in"stice to the +N0 2hose
rihts to relief to 2hich it is plainl! entitled 2o"ld e f"rther
dela!ed to its pre"dice.
In iss"in the 7"estioned Orders, ;e 4nd the respondent Co"rt
to have acted in rave a"se of discretion 2hich "stif! holdin
n"ll and void and settin aside the Orders dated $a! ' and H"l!
(, %&&) of respondent Co"rt, and that a s"mmar! "dment e
rendered forth2ith in favor of the +N0 aainst NoahJs Ar1 S"ar
Re4ner!, et al., as pra!ed for in petitionerJs $otion for S"mmar!
H"dment.
On Decemer %, %&&%, the Co"rt of Appeals n"lli4ed and set aside the orders
of $a! ' and H"l! (, %&&) of the Reional Trial Co"rt and ordered the trial
co"rt to render s"mmar! "dment in favor of the +N0. On H"ne %6, %&&', the
trial co"rt rendered "dment dismissin plaintiKs complaint aainst private
respondents for lac1 of ca"se of action and li1e2ise dismissed private
respondentJs co"nterclaim aainst +N0 and of the Third-+art! Complaint and
the Third-+art! DefendantJs Co"nterclaim. On Septemer (, %&&', the trialco"rt denied +N0Js $otion for Reconsideration.
On H"ne &, %&&', the +N0 4led an appeal from the RTC decision 2ith the
S"preme Co"rt, .R. No. %)'(, ! 2a! of a +etition for Revie2 on 'ertiorari
"nder R"le ( of the R"les of Co"rt. This Co"rt rendered "dment on
Septemer %, %&&, the dispositive portion of 2hich reads:
%' ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
13/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
;ERE#ORE, the trial "deJs decision in Civil Case No. &)-)', dated H"ne
%6, &&', is reversed and set aside and a ne2 one rendered conformal! 2ith
the 4nal and e3ec"tor! decision of the Co"rt of Appeals in CA-.R. S+ No.
'&6, orderin the private respondents NoahJs Ar1 S"ar Re4ner!, Alerto T.
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
14/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
;ERE#ORE, this co"rt here! 4nds that there e3ists in favor of
the defendants a valid 2areho"semanJs lien "nder Section ' of
Rep"lic Act '% and accordinl!, e3ec"tion of the "dment is
here! ordered sta!ed andor precl"ded "ntil the f"ll amo"nt of
defendantsJ lien on the s"ar stoc1s covered ! the 4ve 89
7"edans s"ect of this action shall have een satis4ed
conformal! 2ith the provisions of Section % of Rep"lic Act
'%. 5
*nsatis4ed 2ith the trial co"rtJs order of % $arch %&&, herein petitioner 4led 2ith "s .R.
No. %%&'%, contendin:
I
+N0JS RIT TO A ;RIT O# EEC*TION IS S*++ORTED 0U T;O #INA< AND
EEC*TORU DECISIONS: TE DECE$0ER %, %&&% CO*RT O# A++EA
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
15/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
2areho"seman s"rrenders the possession of the oods 2itho"t re7"irin
pa!ment of his lien, eca"se a 2areho"semanJs lien is possessor! in nat"re.
;e, therefore, "phold and s"stain the validit! of the assailed orders of p"lic
respondent, dated Decemer '), %&&( and $arch %, %&&.
In 4ne, 2e fail to see an! taint of a"se of discretion on the part of the p"lic
respondent in iss"in the 7"estioned orders 2hich reconiFed the leitimate
riht of NoahJs Ar1, after ein declared as 2areho"seman, to recover storae
fees efore it 2o"ld release to the +N0 s"ar stoc1s covered ! the 4ve 89
;areho"se Receipts. O"r resol"tion, dated $arch &, %&&(, did not precl"de
private respondentsJ "n7"ali4ed riht to estalish its claim to recover storae
fees 2hich is reconiFed "nder Rep"lic Act No. '%. Neither did the Co"rt of
AppealsJ decision, dated Decemer %, %&&%, restrict s"ch riht.
O"r Resol"tionJs reference to the decision ! the Co"rt of Appeals, datedDecemer %, %&&%, in CA-.R. S+ No. '&6, 2as intended to "ide the
parties in the s"se7"ent disposition of the case to its 4nal end. ;e certainl!
did not foreclose private respondentsJ inherent riht as 2areho"seman to
collect storae fees and preservation e3penses as stip"lated on the face of
each of the ;areho"se Receipts and as provided for in the ;areho"se
Receipts
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
16/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
7"estioned Order dated % April %&& 8Anne3 GAG9, the co"rt a (uo r"led in
this 2ise:
Accordinl!, the comp"tation of accr"ed storae fees and
preservation chares presented in evidence ! the defendants,
in the amo"nt of +(,(%,&.)/ as of Han"ar! %, %&& for
the 6/,/.(%, ) 1. as of s"ar, ein in order and 2ith
s"cient asis, the same sho"ld e ranted. This Co"rt
conse7"entl! reects +N0Js claim of no s"ar no lien, since it is
"ndisp"ted that the amo"nt of the accr"ed storae fees is
s"stantiall! in e3cess of the alternative a2ard of +&.% $illion
in favor of +N0, incl"din leal interest and +%),))).)) in
attorne!Js fees, 2hich +N0 is ho2ever entitled to e
credited . . . .
333 333 333
;ERE#ORE, premises considered and 4ndin merit in the
defendantsJ motion for e3ec"tion of their claim for lien as
2areho"seman, the same is here! RANTED. Accordinl!, let a
2rit of e3ec"tion iss"e for the amo"nt of +//',(6,/%%.), in
accordance 2ith the aove disposition.
SO ORDERED. 8Emphasis s"pplied.9
.'6 On ' April %&&, +N0 2as immediatel! served 2ith a ;rit of E3ec"tion
for the amo"nt of +//',(6,/%%.) in spite of the fact that it had not !et eenserved 2ith the Order of the co"rt a (uo dated % April %&&. +N0 th"s 4led
an *rent $otion dated ' April %&& see1in the deferment of the
enforcement of the ;rit of E3ec"tion. A photocop! of the ;rit of E3ec"tion is
attached hereto as Anne3 GHG.
.'& Nevertheless, the SheriK levied on e3ec"tion several properties of +N0.
#irstl!, a Notice of
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
17/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
89 Ass"min f"rther that said lien has not een
2aived nor arred, still there 2as no complaint
ever 4led in co"rt to eKectivel! commence this
entirel! ne2 ca"se of action
8(9 There is no evidence on record 2hich 2o"ld
s"pport and s"stain the claim of +(,(%,&.)/
2hich is e3cessive, oppressive and
"nconscionale
89 Said claim if e3ec"ted 2o"ld constit"te "n"st
enrichment to the serio"s pre"dice of +N0 and
indirectl! the +hilippine overnment, 2ho
innocentl! ac7"ired the s"ar 7"edans thro"h
assinment of credit
8/9 In all respects, the decisions of oth the
S"preme Co"rt and of the former +residin H"de
of the trial co"rt do not contain a speci4c
determination andor comp"tation of
2areho"semanJs lien, th"s re7"irin 4rst and
foremost a fair hearin of +N0Js evidence, to
incl"de the tr"e and standard ind"str! rates on
s"ar storae fees, 2hich if comp"ted at s"ch
standard rate of thirt! centavos per 1iloram per
month, shall res"lt in the s"m of ao"t Three
"ndred Tho"sand +esos onl!.
.% In its $otion for Reconsideration, petitioner pra!ed for the follo2in
reliefs:
%. +N0 e allo2ed in the meantime to e3ercise its asic riht to
present evidence in order to prove the aove alleations
especiall! the tr"e and reasonale storae fees 2hich ma! e
ded"cted from +N0Js "dment a2ard of +&.% $illion, 2hich
storae fees if comp"ted correctl! in accordance 2ith standard
s"ar ind"str! rates, 2o"ld amo"nt to onl! +)) Tho"sand
+esos, 2itho"t ho2ever 2aivin or aandonin its 8+N0Js9 leal
positionscontentions herein aovementioned.
'. The Order dated April %, %&& rantin the $otion for
E3ec"tion ! defendant NoahJs Ar1 e set aside.
. The e3ec"tion proceedins alread! commenced ! said
sheriKs e n"lli4ed at 2hatever stae of accomplishment.
A photocop! of petitionerJs $otion for Reconsideration 2ith *rent +ra!er for
"ashal of ;rit of E3ec"tion is attached hereto and made interal part hereof
as Anne3 G$G.
.' +rivate respondents 4led an Opposition 2ith $otion for +artial
Reconsideration dated 6 $a! %&&. Still discontented 2ith the e3cessive and
staerin amo"nt a2arded to them ! the co"rt a (uo, private respondentsJ
$otion for +artial Reconsideration so"ht additional and contin"in storae
fees over and aove 2hat the co"rt a (uo had alread! "n"stl! a2arded. A
% ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
18/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
photocop! of private respondentsJ Opposition 2ith $otion for +artial
Reconsideration dated 6 $a! %&& is attached hereto as Anne3 GNG.
.'.% +rivate respondents pra!ed for the f"rther amo"nt of
+'',,('.)) in storae fees from % #er"ar! %&& "ntil %
April %&&, the date of the 7"estioned Order rantin their
$otion for E3ec"tion.
.'.' In the same manner, private respondents pra!ed for a
contin"in amo"nt of +(,('(.)) as dail! storae fees after %
April %&& "ntil the total amo"nt of the storae fees is satis4ed.
. On %& $a! %&&, +N0 4led its Repl! 2ith Opposition 8To DefendantsJ
Opposition 2ith +artial $otion for Reconsideration9, containin therein the
follo2in motions: 8i9 S"pplemental $otion for Reconsideration 8ii9 $otion to
Stri1e o"t the Testimon! of NoahJs Ar1Js Acco"ntant
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
19/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
. On %( H"l! %&&, respondent H"de iss"ed the second Order 8Anne3 G0G9,
the 7"estioned part of the dispositive portion of 2hich states:
;ERE#ORE, premises considered, the plaintiK +hilippine
National 0an1Js s"ect G$otion for Reconsideration ;ith *rent
+ra!er for "ashal of ;rit of E3ec"tionG dated April '6, %&&
and "ndated G*rent $otion to
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
20/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
(./. The co"rt a (uo resolved a sini4cant and conse7"ential matter entirel!
rel!in on doc"ments s"mitted ! private respondents totall! disreardin
clearl! contrar! evidence s"mitted ! +N0.
(. The co"rt a (uo mis7"oted and misinterpreted the S"preme Co"rt
Decision dated %6 April %&&.
D. TE CO*RT A 674 ACTED ;IT RA5E A0*SE O# DISCRETION IN NOT
O
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
21/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
+etitioner li1e2ise emphasiFed that the hearin of '% #er"ar! %&& 2as marred !
proced"ral in4rmities, narratin that the trial co"rt proceeded 2ith the hearin
not2ithstandin the "rent motion for postponement of petitionerJs co"nsel of record, 2ho
attended a previo"sl! sched"led hearin in +ampana. o2ever, petitionerJs la2!er-
representative 2as sent to con4rm the alleations in said motion. To petitionerJs disma!,
instead of rantin a postponement, the trial co"rt allo2ed the contin"ance of the hearin
on the asis that there 2as Gnothin sensitive ao"t Pthe presentation of private
respondentsJ evidenceM.G 11 At the same hearin, the trial co"rt admitted all the
doc"mentar! evidence oKered ! private respondents and ordered the 4lin of the partiesJ
respective memoranda. ence, petitioner 2as virt"all! deprived of its riht to cross-e3amine
the 2itness, comment on or oect to the oKer of evidence and present co"ntervailin
evidence. In fact, to date, petitionerJs "rent motion to n"llif! the co"rt proceedins remains
"nresolved.
To stress its point, petitioner "nderscores the conictin vie2s of H"de 0enito C. Se, Hr., 2ho
heard and tried almost the entire proceedins, and his s"ccessor, H"de $arcelino
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
22/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
+etitioner f"rther asserted that NoahJs Ar1 co"ld no loner recover its lien, havin raised the
iss"e for the 4rst time onl! d"rin the e3ec"tion proceedins of this Co"rtJs decision in .R.
No. %)'(. As said claim 2as a separate ca"se of action 2hich sho"ld have een raised in
private respondentsJ ans2er 2ith co"nterclaim to petitionerJs complaint, private
respondentsJ fail"re to raise said claim sho"ld have een deemed a 2aiver thereof.
+etitioner li1e2ise insisted that "nder Section '& 19 of the ;areho"se Receipts
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
23/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
+rivate respondents ne3t alleed that the a2ard of +(,(%,&.)/ to satisf! their
2areho"semanJs lien 2as in accordance 2ith the stip"lations provided in the (uedans and
the correspondin Re4nin Contracts, and that the validit! of said doc"ments had een
reconiFed ! this Co"rt in o"r decision in .R. No. %%&'%. +rivate respondents then
7"estioned petitionerJs fail"re to oppose or re"t the evidence the! presented and e2ailed
its elated attempts to present contrar! evidence thro"h its pleadins. Nonetheless, said
evidence 2as even considered ! the trial co"rt 2hen petitioner so"ht a reconsideration of
the 4rst assailed order of % April %&&, th"s f"rther precl"din an! claim of denial of d"e
process.
+rivate respondents ne3t pointed to the fact that the! consistentl! claimed that the! had not
een paid for storin the s"ar stoc1, 2hich prompted them to 4le criminal chares of estafa
and violation of 0atas +amansa 80+9 0l. '' aainst Rosa N S! and Teresita N. In fact, S!
2as event"all! convicted of t2o co"nts of violation of 0+ 0l. ''. +rivate respondents,
moreover, inc"rred, and contin"e to inc"r, e3penses for the storae and preservation of the
s"ar stoc1 and denied havin 2aived their 2areho"semanJs lien, an iss"e alread! raisedand reected ! this Co"rt in .R. No. %%&'%.
+rivate respondents f"rther claimed that the arnishment order 2as proper, onl! that it 2as
rendered ineKective. In a letter 2/ received ! the sheriK from the 0an1o Sentral n
+ilipinas, it 2as stated that the arnishment co"ld not e enforced since petitionerJs deposits
2ith the 0an1o Sentral n +ilipinas consisted solel! of leal reserves 2hich 2ere e3empt
from arnishment. +etitioner therefore s"Kered no damae from said arnishment. +rivate
respondents li1e2ise deemed immaterial petitionerJs ar"ment that the 2rit of e3ec"tion
iss"ed aainst its real propert! in +asa! Cit! 2as s"cient, considerin its prevailin mar1et
val"e of +/,))),))),))) 2as in e3cess of the 2areho"semanJs lien and invo1ed R"le & of
the %&& R"les of Civil +roced"re, 2hich provided that the sheriK m"st lev! on all thepropert! of the "dment detor, e3cl"din those e3empt from e3ec"tion, in the e3ec"tion of
a mone! "dment.
#inall!, private respondents acc"sed petitioner of comin to co"rt 2ith "nclean hands,
speci4call! citin its misrepresentation that the a2ard of the 2areho"semanJs lien 2o"ld
res"lt in the collapse of its "siness. This claim, private respondents asserted, 2as
contradicted ! petitionerJs %&&/ A"dited #inancial Statement indicatin that petitionerJs
assets amo"nted to illions of pesos, and its %&&/ Ann"al Report to its stoc1holders 2here
petitioner declared that the pendin leal actions arisin from their normal co"rse of
"siness G2ill not materiall! aKect the ro"pJs 4nancial position.G 25
In repl!, petitioner advocated that resort to the remed! of certiorari 2as proper since the
assailed orders 2ere interloc"tor!, and not a 4nal "dment or decision. #"rther, that it 2as
virt"all! deprived of its constit"tional riht to d"e process 2as a valid iss"e to raise in the
instant petition and not even the doctrine of res ;udicata co"ld ar this petition as the
element of a 4nal and e3ec"tor! "dment 2as lac1in. +etitioner li1e2ise disp"ted the
claim that the resol"tion of % $arch %&& 2as 4nal and e3ec"tor!, other2ise private
respondents 2o"ld not have 4led an opposition and motion for partial reconsideration 26 t2o
!ears later. +etitioner also contended that the iss"es raised in this petition 2ere not resolved
in .R. No. %%&'%, as 2hat 2as resolved there 2as private respondentsJ mere entitlement
to a 2areho"semanJs lien, 2itho"t specif!in a correspondin amo"nt. In the instant
petition, the iss"es pertained to the amo"nt and enforceailit! of said lien ased on the
aritrar! manner the amo"nt 2as determined ! the trial co"rt.
+etitioner f"rther ar"ed that the re4nin contracts private respondents invo1ed co"ld not
ind the former since it 2as not a part! thereto. In fact, said contracts 2ere not even
attached to the (uedans 2hen neotiated and that their validit! 2as rep"diated ! a
s"pposed part! thereto, Rosa N S!, 2ho claimed that the contract 2as sim"lated, th"s void
p"rs"ant to Article %( of the Ne2 Civil Code. Sho"ld the re4nin contracts in t"rn e
declared void, petitioner advocated that an! determination ! the co"rt of the e3istence and
' ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
24/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
amo"nt of the 2areho"semanJs lien d"e sho"ld e arrived at "sin the test of
reasonaleness. +etitioner li1e2ise noted that the other re4nin contracts 27 presented !
private respondents to sho2 similar storae fees 2ere e3ec"ted et2een the !ears %&&/
and %&&, several !ears after %&6&. Th"s, petitioner concl"ded, private respondents co"ld
not claim that the more recent and increased rates 2here those 2hich prevailed in %&6&.
#inall!, petitioner asserted that in the event that this Co"rt sho"ld "phold the trial co"rtJs
determination of the amo"nt of the 2areho"semanJs lien, petitioner sho"ld e allo2ed to
e3ercise its option as a "dment olior to specif! 2hich of its properties ma! e levied
"pon, citin Section &89, R"le & of the %&& R"les of Civil +roced"re. +etitioner claimed to
have een deprived of this option 2hen the trial co"rt iss"ed the arnishment and lev!
orders.
The petition 2as set for oral ar"ment on '( Novemer %&& 2here the parties addressed
the follo2in iss"es 2e form"lated for them to disc"ss:
8%9 Is this special civil action the appropriate remed!L
8'9 as the trial co"rt the a"thorit! to iss"e a 2rit of e3ec"tion on NoahJs Ar1Js
claims for storae fees considerin that this Co"rt in .R. No. %%&'% merel!
s"stained the trial co"rtJs order of ') Decemer %&&( rantin the NoahJs Ar1
Omni"s $otion and settin the reception of evidence on its claims for
storae fees, and of % $arch %&& 4ndin that there e3isted in favor of NoahJs
Ar1 a 2areho"semanJs lien "nder Section ' of R.A. No. '% and directin
that the e3ec"tion of the "dment in favor of +N0 e sta!ed andor precl"ded
"ntil the f"ll amo"nt of NoahJs Ar1Js lien is satis4ed conformal! 2ith Section
% of R.A. No. '%L
89 Is PpetitionerM liale for storae fees 8a9 from the iss"ance of the 7"edans
in %&6& to Rosa S!, St. Therese $erchandisin and RNS $erchandisin, "p to
their assinment ! endorsees Ramos and >oleta to PpetitionerM for their loan
or 89 after PpetitionerM has 4led an action for speci4c performance and
damaes 8Civil Case No. &)-)'9 aainst NoahJs Ar1 for the latterJs fail"re
to compl! 2ith PpetitionerJsM demand for the deliver! of the s"arL
8(9 Did respondent H"de commit rave a"se of discretion as charedL 28
In o"r resol"tion of '( Novemer %&&, 2e s"mmariFed the positions of the parties on these
iss"es, th"s:
E3pectedl!, co"nsel for petitioner s"mitted that certiorari "nder R"le / of
the R"les of Co"rt is the proper remed! and not an ordinar! appeal,
contendin, amon others, that the order of e3ec"tion 2as not 4nal. On the
other hand, co"nsel for respondents maintained that petitioner +N0
disrearded the hierarch! of co"rts as it !passed the Co"rt of Appeals 2hen
it 4led the instant petition efore this Co"rt.
On the second iss"e, co"nsel for petitioner s"mitted that the trial co"rt had
no a"thorit! to iss"e the 2rit of e3ec"tion or if it had, it denied +N0 d"e
process 2hen it held +N0 liale for the astronomical amo"nt or+(,(%,&.)/ as 2areho"semanJs lien or storae fees. Co"nsel for
respondent, on the other hand, contended that the trial co"rtJs a"thorit! to
iss"e the 7"estioned 2rit of e3ec"tion is derived from the decision in .R. No.
%%&'% 2hich decision alleedl! provided for ample or s"cient parameters
for the comp"tation of the storae fees.
'( ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
25/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
On the third iss"e, co"nsel for petitioner 2hile pres"pposin that +N0 ma! e
held to ans2er for storae fees, contended that the same sho"ld start from
the time the endorsees of the s"ar 7"edans defa"lted in their pa!ments, i.e.,
%&&) eca"se efore that, respondent NoahJs Ar1Js claim 2as that it 2as the
o2ner of the s"ar covered ! the 7"edans. On the other hand, respondentsJ
co"nsel pointed o"t that +N0Js liailit! sho"ld start from the iss"ance of the
7"edans in %&6&.
The ar"ments on the fo"rth iss"e, hine on the partiesJ ar"ments for or
aainst the 4rst three iss"es. Co"nsel for petitioner stressed that the trial
co"rt indeed committed a rave a"se of discretion, 2hile respondentsJ
co"nsel insisted that no rave a"se of discretion 2as committed ! the trial
co"rt. 29
+rivate respondents li1e2ise admitted that d"rin the pendenc! of the case, the! failed to
avail of their options as a 2areho"seman. Concretel!, the! co"ld have enforced their lienthro"h the foreclos"re of the oods or the 4lin of an ordinar! civil action. Instead, the!
so"ht to e3ec"te this Co"rtJs "dment in .R. No. %%&'%. The! event"all! areed that
petitionerJs liailit! for the 2areho"semanJs lien sho"ld e rec1oned from the time it stepped
into the shoes of the oriinal depositors. 30
In o"r resol"tion of '( Novemer %&&, 2e re7"ired the parties to sim"ltaneo"sl! s"mit
their respective memoranda 2ithin ) da!s or, in the alternative, a compromise areement
sho"ld a settlement e achieved. Not2ithstandin eKorts e3erted ! the parties, no
m"t"all! acceptale sol"tion 2as reached.
In their respective memoranda, the parties reiterated or other2ise "ttressed the ar"mentsraised in their previo"s pleadins and d"rin the oral ar"ments on '( Novemer %&&,
especiall! on the form"lated iss"es.
The petition is meritorio"s.
;e shall ta1e "p the form"lated iss"es in seriati%.
A. 1his Special 'i)il Action is an Appropriate $e%ed" .
A caref"l per"sal of the 4rst assailed order sho2s that the trial co"rt not onl! ranted the
motion for e3ec"tion, "t also appreciated the evidence in the determination of the
2areho"semanJs lien form"lated its comp"tation of the lien and adopted an oKsettin of
the partiesJ claims. Inel"ctal!, the order as in the nat"re of a 4nal order for it left nothin
else to e resolved thereafter. ence, petitionerJs remed! 2as to appeal therefrom. 31
Nevertheless, petitioner 2as not precl"ded from availin of the e3traordinar! remed! of
certiorari "nder R"le / of the R"les of Co"rt. It is 2ell-settled that the availailit! of an
appeal does not foreclose reco"rse to the e3traordinar! remedies of certiorari or prohiition
2here appeal is not ade7"ate, or e7"all! ene4cial, speed! and s"cient. 32
+etitioner assailed the challened orders as havin een iss"ed 2itho"t or in e3cess of
"risdiction or 2ith rave a"se of discretion and alleed that it had no other plain, speed!
and ade7"ate remed! in the ordinar! co"rse of la2. As hereafter sho2n, these claims 2ere
not "nfo"nded, th"s the propriet! of this special civil action is e!ond 7"estion.
This Co"rt had oriinal "risdiction, conc"rrent 2ith that of Reional Trial Co"rts and the
Co"rt of Appeals, over petitions for certiorari, prohiition, %anda%us, (uo warranto and
habeas curpus, 33 and 2e entertain direct resort to "s in cases 2here special and important
reasons or e3ceptional and compellin circ"mstances "stif! the same. 3/ These reasons and
circ"mstances are present here.
' ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
26/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
. 7nder the Special 'ircu%stances in 1his 'ase, 0ri)ate
$espondents Ma" 3nforce 1heir Warehouse%an 5s 2ien
in 'i)il 'ase :o. ?=@?.
The remedies availale to a 2areho"seman, s"ch as private respondents, to enforce his
2areho"semanJs lien are:
8%9 To ref"se to deliver the oods "ntil his lien is satis4ed,
p"rs"ant to Section % of the ;areho"se Receipt oleta and Ramos then "sed the (uedans as sec"rit! for loans otained !
them from the +hilippine National 0an1 8+N09 as sec"rit! for loans otained !
them in the amo"nts of +'. million and +%./ million, respectivel!. These
(uedans the! indoors to the an1. 37
As s"ch, Martinez ). 0hilippine :ational ank 38 ecomes relevant:
'/ ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
27/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
In concl"sion, 2e hold that 2here a 2areho"se receipt or 7"edan is
transferred or endorsed to a creditor onl! to sec"re the pa!ment of a loan or
det, the transferee or endorsee does not a"tomaticall! ecome the o2ner of
the oods covered ! the 2areho"se receipt or 7"edan "t he merel! retains
the riht to 1eep and 2ith the consent of the o2ner to sell them so as to
satisf! the oliation from the proceeds of the sale, this for the simple reason
that the transaction involved is not a sale "t onl! a mortae or plede, and
that if the propert! covered ! the 7"edans or 2areho"se receipts is lost
2itho"t the fa"lt or nelience of the mortaee or pledee or the transferee
or endorsee of the 2areho"se receipt or 7"edan, then said oods are to e
rearded as lost on acco"nt of the real o2ner, mortaor or pledor.
The indorsement and deliver! of the 2areho"se receipts 87"edans9 ! Ramos and >oleta to
petitioner 2as not to conve! GtitleG to or o2nership of the oods "t to sec"re 8! 2a! of
plede9 the loans ranted to Ramos and >oleta ! petitioner. The indorsement of the
2areho"se receipts 87"edans9, to perfect the plede, 39 merel! constit"ted a s!molical orconstr"ctive deliver! of the possession of the thin th"s enc"mered. /0
The creditor, in a contract of real sec"rit!, li1e plede, cannot appropriate 2itho"t
foreclos"re the thins iven ! 2a! of plede. /1 An! stip"lation to the contrar!, termed
pactu% co%%issorio, is n"ll and void. /2 The la2 re7"ires foreclos"re in order to allo2 a
transfer of title of the ood iven ! 2a! of sec"rit! from its pledor, /3 and efore an! s"ch
foreclos"re, the pledor, not the pledee, is the o2ner of the oods. In 0hilippine :ational
ank ). Atendido, // 2e said:
The deliver! of the pala! ein merel! ! 2a! of sec"rit!, it follo2s that !
the nat"re of the transaction its o2nership remains 2ith the pledor s"ectonl! to foreclos"re in case of non-f"l4llment of the oliation. 0! this 2e mean
that if the oliation is not paid "pon mat"rit! the most that the pledee can
do is to sell the propert! and appl! the proceeds to the pa!ment of the
oliation and to ret"rn the alance, if an!, to the pledor 8Art. %6', Old Civil
Code PArt. '%%', Ne2 Civil CodeM9. This is the essence of this contract, for,
accordin to la2, a pledee cannot ecome the o2ner of, nor appropriate to
himself, the thin iven in plede 8Article %6&, Old Civil Code PArt. ')66, Ne2
Civil CodeM9. . . The fact that the 2areho"se receipt coverin pala! 2as
delivered, endorsed in lan1, to the an1 does not alter the sit"ation, the
p"rpose of s"ch endorsement ein merel! to transfer the "ridical possession
of the propert! to the pledees and to forestall an! possile disposition
thereof on the part of the pledor. This is tr"e not2ithstandin the provisions
of the ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
28/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
89 An oKer to s"rrender the receipt, if neotiale,
2ith s"ch indorsements as 2o"ld e necessar!
for the neotiation of the receipt and
8c9 A readiness and 2illinness to sin, 2hen the
oods are delivered, an ac1no2ledment that
the! have een delivered, if s"ch sinat"re is
re7"ested ! the 2areho"seman.
In case the 2areho"seman ref"ses or fails to deliver the oods in compliance
2ith a demand ! the holder or depositor so accompanied, the "rden shall
e "pon the 2areho"seman to estalish the e3istence of a la2f"l e3c"se for
s"ch ref"sal.
Sec. '&. !ow the lien %a" be lost . A 2areho"seman loses his lien "pon
oods
8a9 0! s"rrenderin possession thereof, or.
89 0! ref"sin to deliver the oods 2hen a
demand is made 2ith 2hich he is o"nd to
compl! "nder the provisions of this Act.
Sec. %. Warehouse%an need not deli)er until lien is satised . A
2areho"seman havin a lien valid aainst the person demandin the oods
ma! ref"se to deliver the oods to him "ntil the lien is satis4ed.
Simpl! p"t, 2here a valid demand ! the la2f"l holder of the (uedans for the deliver! of the
oods is ref"sed ! the 2areho"seman, despite the asence of a la2f"l e3c"se provided !
the stat"te itself, the 2areho"semanJs lien is thereafter concomitantl! lost. As to 2hat the
la2 deems a valid demand, Section 6 en"merates 2hat m"st accompan! a demand 2hile
as reards the reasons 2hich a 2areho"seman ma! invo1e to leall! ref"se to eKect
deliver! of the oods covered ! the (uedans, these are:
8%9 That the holder of the receipt does not satisf! the conditions prescried in
Section 6 of the Act. 8See Sec. 6, Act No. '%9
8'9 That the 2areho"seman has leal title in himself on the oods, s"ch titleor riht ein derived directl! or indirectl! from a transfer made ! the
depositor at the time of or s"se7"ent to the deposit for storae, or from the
2areho"semanJs lien. 8Sec. %/, Act No. '%9
89 That the 2areho"seman has leall! set "p the title or riht of third persons
as la2f"l defense for non-deliver! of the oods as follo2s:
8a9 ;here the 2areho"seman has een re7"ested, ! or on
ehalf of the person la2f"ll! entitled to a riht of propert! of or
possession in the oods, not to ma1e s"ch deliver! 8Sec. %), Act
No. '%9, in 2hich case, the 2areho"seman ma!, either as a
defense to an action ro"ht aainst him for nondeliver! of theoods, or as an oriinal s"it, 2hichever is appropriate, re7"ire
all 1no2n claimants to interplead 8Sec. %, Act No. '%9
89 ;here the 2areho"seman had information that the deliver!
ao"t to e made 2as to one not la2f"ll! entitled to the
possession of the oods 8Sec. %( Act No. '%9, in 2hich case,
'6 ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
29/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
the 2areho"seman shall e e3c"sed from liailit! for ref"sin to
deliver the oods, either to the depositor or person claimin
"nder him or to the adverse claimant, "ntil the 2areho"seman
has had a reasonale time to ascertain the validit! of the
adverse claims or to rin leal proceedins to compel all
claimants to interplead 8Sec. %6, Act No. '%9 and
8c9 ;here the oods have alread! een la2f"ll! sold to third
persons to satisf! a 2areho"semanJs lien, or have een la2f"ll!
sold or disposed of eca"se of their perishale or haFardo"s
nat"re. 8Sec. /, Act No. '%9.
8(9 That the 2areho"seman havin a lien valid aainst the person demandin
the oods ref"ses to deliver the oods to him "ntil the lien is satis4ed. 8Sec.
% Act No. '%9
89 That the fail"re 2as not d"e to an! fa"lt on the part of the 2areho"seman,
as ! sho2in that, prior to demand for deliver! and ref"sal, the oods 2ere
stolen or destro!ed ! 4re, ood, etc., 2itho"t an! nelience on his part,
"nless he has contracted so as to e liale in s"ch case, or that the oods
have een ta1en ! the mista1e of a third person 2itho"t the 1no2lede or
implied assent of the 2areho"seman, or some other "sti4ale ro"nd for non-
deliver!. 8/ C.H. '9 /5
Rerettal!, the fact"al settins do not s"cientl! indicate 2hether the demand to otain
possession of the oods complied 2ith Section 6 of the la2. The pres"mption, nevertheless,
2o"ld e that the la2 2as complied 2ith, rather than reached, ! petitioner. *pon theother hand, it 2o"ld appear that the ref"sal of private respondents to deliver the oods 2as
not anchored on a valid e3c"se, i.e., non-satisfaction of the 2areho"semanJs lien over the
oods, "t on an adverse claim of o2nership. +rivate respondents "sti4ed their ref"sal to
deliver the oods, as stated in their Ans2er 2ith Co"nterclaim and Third-+art! Complaint in
Civil Case No. &)-)', ! claimin that the! Gare still the leal o2ners of the s"ect
(uedans and the 7"antit! of s"ar represented therein.G *nder the circ"mstances, this
hardl! 7"ali4ed as a valid, leal e3c"se. The loss of the 2areho"semanJs lien, ho2ever, does
not necessaril! mean the e3tin"ishment of the oliation to pa! the 2areho"sin fees and
chares 2hich contin"es to e a personal liailit! of the o2ners, i.e., the pledors, not the
pledee, in this case. 0"t even as to the o2ners-pledors, the 2areho"seman fees and
chares have ceased to accr"e from the date of the reection ! NoahJs Ar1 to heed the
la2f"l demand ! petitioner for the release of the oods.
The 4nalit! of o"r denial in .R. No. %%&'% of petitionerJs petition to n"llif! the trial co"rtJs
order of )% $arch %&& con4rms the 2areho"semanJs lien ho2ever, s"ch lien, nevertheless,
sho"ld e con4ned to the fees and chares as of the date in $arch %&&) 2hen NoahJs Ar1
ref"sed to heed +N0Js demand for deliver! of the s"ar stoc1s and in no event e!ond the
val"e of the credit in favor of the pledee 8since it is asic that, in foreclos"res, the "!er
does not ass"me the oliations of the pledor to his other creditors even 2hile s"ch "!er
ac7"ires title over the oods less an! e3istin preferred lien thereover9. /6 The foreclos"re of
the thin pleded, it miht incidentall! e mentioned, res"lts in the f"ll satisfaction of the
loan liailities to the pledee of the pledors. /7
D. $espondent Judge 'o%%itted Gra)e Abuse of Discretion.
;e hold that the trial co"rt deprived petitioner of d"e process in renderin the challened
order of % April %&&/ 2itho"t ivin petitioner an opport"nit! to present its evidence.
D"rin the 4nal hearin of the case, private respondents commenced and concl"ded their
presentation of evidence as to the matter of the e3istence of and amo"nt o2in d"e to their
'& ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
30/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
2areho"semanJs lien. Their e3hiits 2ere d"l! mar1ed and oKered and the trial co"rt
thereafter r"led, to 2it:
Co"rt: Order.
;ith the admission of E3hiits G%G to G%%G, incl"sive of
s"mar1ins, as part of the testimon! of 0enino 0a"tista, the
defendant Pprivate respondentsM is iven 4ve 89 da!s from
toda! to 4le its memorand"m.
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
31/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
e3ec"tion onl! served to f"rther strenthen o"r perception of "nd"e and "n2arranted haste
on the part of respondent co"rt in resolvin the iss"e of the 2areho"semanJs lien in favor of
private respondents.
In liht of the aove, 2e need not r"le an!more on the fo"rth form"lated iss"e.
;ERE#ORE, the petition is RANTED. The challened orders of % April and %( H"l! %&&,
incl"din the notices of lev! and arnishment, of the Reional Trial Co"rt of $anila, 0ranch
(, in Civil Case No. &)-)' are RE5ERSED and SET ASIDE, and said co"rt is DIRECTED to
cond"ct f"rther proceedins in said case:
8%9 to allo2 petitioner to present its evidence on the matter of
the 2areho"semanJs lien
8'9 to comp"te the petitionerJs 2areho"semanJs lien in liht of
the foreoin oservations and
89 to determine 2hether, for the relevant period, NoahJs Ar1
maintained a s"cient inventor! to cover the vol"me of s"ar
speci4ed in the (uedans.
Costs aainst private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
ellosillo, itug, 0anganiban and 6uisu%bing, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. L-63/2 January 26, 195/
%ILI%%IN$ N)I&N)L +)N, plaintiK-appellee,
vs.
L)"R$)N& )$N#I#&, defendants-appellant.
:icolas #ernandez for appellee.
Gaudencio 2. Atendido for appellant.
+)"I(), )NG$L&, J.@
% ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
32/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
This is an appeal from a decision of the Co"rt of #irst Instance of N"eva Ecia 2hich orders
the defendant to pa! to the plaintiK the s"m of +,))), 2ith interest thereon at the rate of
/V per ann"m from H"ne '/, %&(), and the costs of action.
On H"ne '/, %&(),
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
33/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
coverin the pala! 2as delivered, endorsed in lan1, to the an1 does not alter the sit"ation,
the p"rpose of s"ch endorsement ein merel! to transfer the "ridical possession of the
propert! to the pledee and to forestall an! possile disposition thereof on the part of the
pledor. This is tr"e not2ithstandin the provisions to the contrar! of the ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
34/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
G.R. No. 1072/3 (etemer 1, 1993
%ILI%%IN$ N)I&N)L +)N, petitioner,
vs.
N&)
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
35/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
The receipts are s"stantiall! in the form, and contain the terms, prescried for neotiale
2areho"se receipts ! Section ' of the la2.
S"se7"entl!, 2areho"se receipts N"mered %6)6) and %6)6% 8coverin s"ar deposited
! RNS $erchandisin9 2ere neotiated and indorsed to oleta and Ramos failed to pa! their loans "pon mat"rit! on Han"ar! &, %&&).
Conse7"entl! on $arch %/, %&&), +N0 2rote to NoahJs Ar1 S"ar Re4ner! 8hereafter, simpl!
NoahJs Ar19 demandin deliver! of the s"ar covered ! the (uedans indorsed to it !
>oleta and Ramos. ;hen NoahJs Ar1 ref"sed to compl! 2ith the demand, +N0 4led 2ith the
Reional Trial Co"rt of $anila a veri4ed complaint for GSpeci4c +erformance 2ith Damaesand Application for ;rit of AttachmentG aainst NoahJs Ar1, Alerto T.
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
36/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
s"ar there! covered 2as Go"s and sim"lated 8ein part of the latterJs9 comple3
an1in schemes and 4nancial mane"versG that the sim"lated transaction G2as "st a
tollin scheme to
avoid 5AT pa!ment and other 0IR assessments 8considerin that9 as . . . con4dentiall!
intimated 8! said Himm! o9 . . . NoahJs Ar1 is "nder se7"estration ! the +C,G and that
the (uedans G2ere in fact "sed ! NoahJs Ar1 E3ec"tive Director,
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
37/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
"dment e rendered forth2ith in favor of the +N0 aainst NoahJs Ar1 S"ar Re4ner!, et al.,
as pra!ed for in petitionerJs $otion for S"mmar! H"dment.G Said the Appellate Co"rt: 2
In iss"in the 7"estioned Orders, the respondent Co"rt r"led that G7"estions
of la2 sho"ld e resolved after and not efore, the 7"estions of fact are
properl! litiated.G A scr"tin! of defendantsJ armative defenses does not
sho2 material 7"estions of facts as to the alleed non-pa!ment of p"rchase
price ! the vendees4rst indorsers, and 2hich non-pa!ment is not disp"ted
! +N0 as it does not materiall! aKect +N0Js title to the s"ar stoc1 as holder
of the neotiale 7"edans.
;hat is determinative of the propriet! of s"mmar! "dment is not the
e3istence of conictin claims for prior parties "t 2hether from an
e3amination of the pleadins, depositions, admissions and doc"ments on 4le,
the defenses as to the main iss"e do not tender material 7"estions of fact
8see arcia vs. Co"rt of Appeals %/ SCRA 6%9 or the iss"es th"s tenderedare in fact sham, 4ctitio"s, contrived, set "p in ad faith or so "ns"stantial as
not to constit"te en"ine iss"es for trial. 8See 5erara vs. S"elto, et al., %/
SCRA $ercado, et al. vs. Co"rt of Appeals, %/' SCRA 9. The 7"estioned
Orders themselves do not specif! 2hat material facts are in iss"e. 8See Sec. (,
R"le (, R"les of Co"rt9.
To re7"ire a trial not2ithstandin pertinent alleations of the pleadins and
other facts appearin on record, 2o"ld constit"te a 2aste of time and an
in"stice to the +N0 2hose rihts to relief to 2hich it is plainl! entitled 2o"ld
e f"rther dela!ed to its pre"dice.
In iss"in the 7"estioned Orders, ;e 4nd the respondent Co"rt to have acted
in rave a"se of discretion 2hich "stif! holdin n"ll and void and settin
aside the Orders dated $a! ' and H"l! (, %&&) of respondent Co"rt, and that a
su%%ar" ;udg%ent be rendered forthwith in fa)or of the 0: against :oah5s
Ark Sugar $ener", et al., as pra"ed for in the petitioner5s Motion for
Su%%ar" Judg%ent .
SO ORDERED.
NoahJs Ar1, et al. moved for reconsideration, "t their motion 2as denied ! the Appellate
Tri"nalJs Resol"tion dated $arch /, %&&%.
The "dment ecame 4nal. Entr! of H"dment 2as made on $a! '/, %&&'. Thereafter the
case 2as remanded to the Co"rt of oriin.
On H"ne %6, %&&', the Reional Trial Co"rt rendered "dment, "t not in accordance 2ith
the aforesaid decision of the Co"rt of Appeals. As stated in the openin pararaph of this
opinion, instead of a s"mmar! "dment Gin favor of the +N0 aainst NoahJs Ar1 S"ar
Re4ner!, et al., as pra!ed for in . . . 8+N09Js $otion for S"mmar! H"dment,G the Trial Co"rtJs
verdict decreed the dismissal of GplaintiKJs complaint aainst defendants NoahJs Ar1 S"ar
Re4ner!, Alerto T.
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
38/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
alleed ! plaintiK the onl! material facts estalished on the asis of the pleadins,
doc"mentar! evidence on record, stip"lations and admissions d"rin the proceedins on the
application for a 2rit of preliminar! attachmentLG To this 7"estion the Trial Co"rt ave a
neative ans2er, it ein its vie2 that other facts, Gas alleed ! defendants . . . 8and9 not
disp"ted ! +N0, have een li1e2ise estalished.G
The Trial Co"rt later denied +N0Js motion for reconsideration 8! Order dated Septemer (,
%&&'9, evidentl! 4ndin merit in the ar"ment of NoahJs Ar1, et al., therein 7"oted, that
G'ertiorari as a mode of appeal involves the revie2 of "dment, a2ard of 4nal order on the
merits, 2hile the oriinal action for certiorari and as a special civil action is enerall!
directed aainst an interloc"tor! order of the Co"rt, prior to an appeal from the "dment of
the main case 2hich in the case at ar is speci4c performance . . .G
ence, this appeal.
In CA-.R. S+ No. '&6 aove mentioned, after an e3tensive revie2 of the entire record ofthe case efore the Reional Trial Co"rt 8incl"din the admissions of NoahJs Ar1, et al. and
the partiesJ stip"lations of fact9, as 2ell as the pleadins 4led ! the parties efore it, the
Co"rt of Appeals arrived at the concl"sion that a s"mmar! "dment 2as proper since Gthere
2as no s"stantial controvers! on a8n!9 material fact, the onl! iss"es for the Co"rtJs
determination . . . 8ein9 p"rel! . . . 7"estions of la2, as follo2s:
%9 ;hether or not the non-pa!ment of the p"rchase price for
the s"ar stoc1 evidenced ! the 7"edans, ! the oriinal
depositors vendees 8RNS $erchandisin and St. Therese
$erchandisin9 rendered invalid the neotiation of said 7"edans
! vendees4rst indorsers to indorsers 8Ramos and >oleta9 andthe s"se7"ent neotiation of Ramos and >oleta to +N0.
'9 ;hether or not +N0 as indorsee pledee of 7"edans 2as
entitled to deliver! of s"ar stoc1s from the 2areho"seman,
NoahJs Ar1.G
These leal 7"estions 2ere disposed of ! the Appellate Co"rt as follo2s:
The validit! of the neotiation ! RNS $erchandisin and St. Therese
$erchandisin to Ramos and >oleta, and ! the latter to +N0 to sec"re a loan
cannot e impaired ! the fact that the neotiation et2een NoahJs Ar1 and
RNS $erchandisin and St. Therese $erchandisin 2as in reach of faith on
the part of the merchandisin 4rms or ! the fact that the o2ner 8NoahJs Ar19
2as deprived of the possession of the same ! fra"d, mista1e or conversion of
the person to 2hom the 2areho"se receipt7"edan 2as s"se7"entl!
neotiated if 8+N09 paid val"e therefor in ood faith 2itho"t notice of s"ch
reach of d"t!, fra"d, mista1e or conversion. 8See Article %%6, Ne2 Civil
Code9. And the creditor 8+N09 2hose detor 2as the o2ner of the neotiale
doc"ment of title 82areho"se receipt9 shall e entitled to s"ch aid from the
co"rt of appropriate "risdiction attachin s"ch doc"ment or in satisf!in the
claim ! means as is allo2ed ! la2 or in e7"it! in reard to propert! 2hich
cannot e readil! attached or levied "pon ! ordinar! process. 8See Art. %'),
Ne2 Civil Code9. If the 7"edans 2ere neotiale in form and d"l! indorsed to+N0 8the creditor9, the deliver! of the 7"edans to +N0 ma1es the +N0 the
o2ner of the propert! covered ! said 7"edans and on deposit 2ith NoahJs
Ar1, the 2areho"seman. 8See S! Con 0ien = Co. )s. on1on = Shanhai
0an1 Corp., / +hil. &69.
6 ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
39/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
In the case at ar, ;e fo"nd that the fact"al ases "nderl!in the defendantJs
armative defenses 8"pon 2hich +N0 has moved for s"mmar! "dment9 are
not disp"ted and have een stip"lated ! the parties and therefore do not
re7"ire presentation of evidence. +N0Js riht to enforce the oliation of
NoahJs Ar1 as a 2areho"seman, to deliver the s"ar stoc1 to +N0 as holder of
the 7"edans, does not depend on the o"tcome of the third-part! complaint
eca"se the validit! of the neotiation transferrin title to the oods to +N0 as
holder of the 7"edans is not aKected ! an act of RNS $erchandisin and St.
Therese $erchandisin, in reach of tr"st, fra"d or conversion aainst NoahJs
Ar1.
The Co"rt considers the Appellate Co"rtJs concl"sions of fact and la2 to e correct.
The Trial H"deJs ar"ment that the Appellate Co"rtJs decision failed to ta1e acco"nt of other
Gmaterial facts estalished on the asis of the pleadins, doc"mentar! evidence on record,
stip"lations and admissions d"rin the proceedins on the application for a 2rit ofpreliminar! attachment,G is 7"ite transparentl! specio"s. #or the matters cited ! is onor,
as alleedl! not e3amined ! the Co"rt of Appeals, 2ere in fact d"l! considered ! the latter
i.e., that Gthe vario"s postdated chec1s iss"ed ! the "!ers 8RNS $erchandisin and St.
Therese $erchandisin9 in favor of NoahJs Ar1 2ere dishonored 2hen presented for pa!ment
. . 8and hence9 the "!ers never ac7"ired title to the s"ar evidenced ! the 7"edans,G 3
and that +N0 Gdid not follo2 the proced"re stated in Article '%%' of the Civil Code.G / In its
decision, as "st pointed o"t, the Co"rt of Appeals e3plicitl! r"led that the Gvalidit! of the
neotiationG of the (uedans to +N0G cannot e impaired ! the fact that the neotiation
et2een NoahJs Ar1 and RNS $erchandisin and St. Therese $erchandisin 2as made in
reach of faith on the part of the merchandisin 4rms or ! the fact that the o2ner 8NoahJs
Ar19 2as deprived of the possession of the same ! fra"d, mista1e or conversion . . .G5
Italso r"led that the (uedans 2ere neotiale doc"ments and had een d"l! neotiated to the
+N0 2hich there! ac7"ired the rihts set o"t in Article %% of the Civil Code,G 6 )iz .:G
8%9 S"ch title to the oods as the person neotiatin the doc"ments to him
had or had ailit! to conve! to a p"rchaser in ood faith for val"e and also
s"ch title to the oods as the person to 2hose order the oods 2ere to e
delivered ! the terms of the doc"ment had or had ailit! to conve! to a
p"rchaser in ood faith for val"e and
8'9 The direct oliation of the ailee iss"in the doc"ment to hold possession
of the oods for him accordin to the terms of the doc"ment as f"ll! as if s"ch
ailee had contracted directl! 2ith him.
The Co"rt of Appeals fo"nd correctl! that the indications in the pleadins to the contrar!
not2ithstandin, no s"stantial triale iss"e of fact act"all! e3isted, and that certain iss"es
raised in ans2er, even if ta1en as estalished, 2o"ld not materiall! chane the "ltimate
4ndins relative to the main claim. 7 Its decision is entirel! in accord 2ith this Co"rtJs r"lins
reardin the propriet! of s"mmar! "dments invo1ed ! the Appellate Tri"nal, i.e.,
ergara, Sr. ). Suelto, 8 and Mercado ). 'ourt of Appeals. 9 Accordin to ergara, for
instance, Geven if the ans2er does tender iss"es and therefore a "dment on the
pleadins is not proper a s"mmar! "dment ma! still e rendered on the plaintiKJs
motion if he can sho2 to the Co"rtJs satisfaction that Ge3cept as to the amo"nt of damaes,
there is no en"ine iss"e as to an! material fact,G 10 that is to sa!, the iss"es th"s tenderedare not en"ine, are in other 2ords sham, 4ctitio"s, contrived, set "p in ad faith, patentl!
"ns"stantial. 11 The determination ma! e made ! the Co"rt on the asis of the pleadins,
and the depositions, admissions and adavits that the movant ma! s"mit, as 2ell as those
2hich the defendant ma! present in t"rn.G 12
In an! event, the concl"sions of fact and la2 set o"t in the Appellate Co"rtJs decision are
"ndenial! indin on all the parties to the case, the respondent Reional Trial H"de
& ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
40/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
incl"ded. avin een rendered ! a competent co"rt 2ithin its "risdiction, and havin
ecome 4nal and e3ec"tor!, the decision no2 operates as the imm"tale la2 amon the
parties, the respondent Trial H"de incl"ded it has ecome the la2 of the case and ma! no
loner, in s"se7"ent proceedins, e altered or modi4ed in an! 2a!, m"ch less reversed or
set at na"ht, ! the latter, or an! other "de, not even ! the S"preme Co"rt it is an
"nalterale determination of the propriet! of a s"mmar! "dment in the action in 7"estion,
and "pon all the iss"es therein raised or 2hich co"ld have een raised relative to the merits
of said action. 13
The Trial H"de ma! not evade compliance 2ith the 4nal "dment of the Co"rt of Appeals on
the theor! that the latter had acted onl! on a mere interloc"tor! order 8the order den!in
+N0Js motion for s"mmar! "dment9, 2hile he had s"se7"entl! ad"ded the action for
speci4c performance on the merits. "ite ovio"s is that the Co"rt of Appeals had decided
that a s"mmar! "dment 2as proper in said action of speci4c performance, that this 2as in
tr"th a determination of the merits of the s"it, that that decision had ecome 4nal and
e3ec"tor!, and that the decision e3pressl! commanded is onor to render s"ch a "dment. *nder the circ"mstances, the latterJs d"t! 2as clear and inescapale.
It 2as not 2ithin the Trial H"deJs competence or discretion to ta1e e3ception to, m"ch less
overt"rn, an! of the fact"al or leal concl"sions laid do2n ! the Co"rt of Appeals in its
verdict. e 2as as m"ch o"nd there! as the private parties themselves. is onl! f"nction
2as to implement and carr! o"t the Appellate Tri"nalJs "dment. It 2as an act of
s"pereroation, of pres"mpt"o"sness, on is onorJs part to disreard the Co"rtJs clear and
cateorical command, and to dispose of the case in a manner diametricall! opposed thereto.
In doin so, the Trial H"de committed rave error 2hich m"st forth2ith e corrected.
;ERE#ORE, the Trial H"deJs Decision in Civil Case No. &)-)' dated H"ne %6, %&&' isRE5ERSED and SET ASIDE and a ne2 one rendered conformal! 2ith the 4nal and e3ec"tor!
Decision of the Co"rt of Appeals in CA-.R. S+ No. '&6, orderin the private respondents,
NoahJs Ar1 S"ar Re4ner!, Alerto T.
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
41/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
G.R. No. L-16510 January 9, 1922
%ILI%%IN$ N)I&N)L +)N, plaintiK-appellant,
vs.
%R"$R(< =)R$&"($ )((&I)I&N, defendant-appellee.
$o%an 2acson for appellant.
$oss & 2awrence and 3wald 3. Selph for appellee.
J&N(, J.:
The plaintiK is a corporation oraniFed "nder the an1in la2s of the +hilippine Islands 2ith
its principal oce in the cit! of $anila. The defendant is a domestic corporation doin a
eneral 2areho"se "siness and domiciled at $anila, and the +hilippine #ier and +rod"ce
Compan!, to 2hich 2e 2ill hereafter refer as the +rod"ce Compan!, is another domestic
corporation 2ith its principal oce also at $anila. In $a!, %&%/, the defendant, as part! of
the 4rst part, entered into a 2ritten contract 2ith the +rod"ce Compan!, as part! of the
second part, in and ! 2hich Gthe aove-named part! of the second part is here! named,
constit"ted, and appointed as the eneral manaer of the "siness of the part! of the 4rst
part, in all of the ranches thereof, 2ith the d"ties, po2ers, a"thorit! and compensation
hereinafter provided.G GThe said part! of the second part shall e3ercise a eneral and
complete s"pervision over and manaement of the "siness of the part! of the 4rst part,Gand Gshall direct, manae, promote and advance the said "siness, s"ect onl! to the
control and instr"ctions of the oard of directors of the part! of the 4rst part.G That said
part! of the second part, as eneral manaer, shall have all po2ers and a"thorities
necessar!, proper or "s"al for the d"e transaction of the "siness of the part! of the 4rst
part, incl"din the po2er to sin the compan!Js name, save and e3cept s"ch po2er or
a"thorit! as shall have een e3pressl! reserved to itself, ! the oard of directors of the
part! of the 4rst part, provided Gthat s"ch reservations ! the oard of directors shall not e
(% ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
42/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
emplo!ed to "nreasonal! hamper or interfere 2ith the d"e manaement of said "siness
and shall, at no time, red"ce the po2ers and a"thorities of said eneral manaer elo2 the
"s"al and ordinar! standard in "siness of li1e 1ind.G It is then areed that the +rod"ce
Compan! shall have an ann"al salar! of +,)) for its services as eneral manaer, and that
the defendant 2ill also pa! the local aents of the +rod"ce Compan! +)) per month for
their services. The areement also provides that it shall remain in force and eKect ten !ears
from date, 2ith the riht of the +rod"ce Compan! to rene2 it for a f"rther period of one to
ten !ears at its option. In the months of Novemer and Decemer, %&%6, and 2hile the
contract 2as in force and eKect, the defendant d"l! iss"ed to the +rod"ce Compan! its
neotiale 7"edans Nos. %', %'//, %', %', %', %'&, and %'6 for %,/&&.(
pic"ls of copra in and ! 2hich, s"ect to the terms and conditions therein stated, it areed
to deliver that amo"nt of copra to the +rod"ce Compan! or its order.
Section ( of the conditions printed on the ac1 provides:
This Association 2ill deliver the pac1ae, noted hereon, on s"rrender to theAssociation of this 2arrant endorsed ! the part! 2ho shall e for the time reistered
in the oo1s of the Association as the o2ner of the pac1aes descried hereon and
the prod"ction ! the Association of this 2arrant shall at all times e concl"sive proof
that the pac1aes hereon noted have een properl! delivered ! the Association and
shall e3empt the Association from all responsiilit! in connection 2ith the said
pac1aes or oods.
Section provides:
No transfer of interest andor o2nership 2ill e reconiFed ! the Association "nless
reistered in the oo1s of the Association, andor all chares for storae andorins"rance d"e to the Association paid. S"ch storae andor ins"rance shall constit"te
a lien aainst the pac1aes herein noted "ntil paid and aid pac1ae shall remain
"ndelivered "ntil s"ch lien or lien isare satis4ed.
Each 7"edan ave the n"mer of sac1, pic"ls, 2areho"se n"mer, ross 2eiht in 1ilos and
its declared val"e, and recited thereon that the copra 2as ins"red for the f"ll amo"nt of its
declared val"e, and across the face of the 7"edan 2ere the 2ords GNeotiale ;arrantG in
red in1. The! 2ere all of the printed form entitled G+rod"cersJ ;areho"se Association.G Each
recited in red in1 GThis 2arrant is of no val"e "nless sined ! an ocer of the Association,G
and 2ere sined G+rod"cersJ ;areho"se Association ! eore 0. ;ic1s, Treas"rer, and
+rod"cersJ ;areho"se Association ! R. Torres, ;areho"seman.G Each receipt 2as also
n"mered, and stated the n"mer of the 2areho"se and 2here sit"ated, and recited that
storae chares 2ere at the rate of +).)( per pic"l per month, and that the ins"rance rate
2as % per cent per month on the declared val"e.
The +rod"ce Compan! arraned for an overdraft 2ith the plaintiK of +%,))),))). To sec"re
s"ch overdraft, and as collateral from and after the dates of their iss"ance, the 7"edans in
7"estion 2ere endorsed in lan1 ! the +rod"ce Compan!, and delivered to the plaintiK,
2hich ecame and is no2 the o2ner and holder thereof. ;itho"t ma1in a tender of an!
chares, on $arch '%, %&%&, the plaintiK re7"ested the deliver! of the copra descried in the
respective 7"edans, and, for its fail"re to do so, commenced this action on April ', %&%&, to
recover its val"e alleed to e +'(),/6&, 2ith interest from $arch '%, %&%&, at the rate of /
per cent per ann"m. H"l! %), %&%&, an amended complaint 2as 4led, and on A""st &, %&%&,a second amended complaint 2as 4led, in 2hich it is alleed that, in ood faith, the plaintiK
p"rchased these 7"edans, and that it is the o2ner, and recites all of the conditions printed
on the ac1, and made a part of the 7"edans. It is then alleed that on H"l! ), %&%&, the
plaintiK re7"ested the defendant to reister the 7"edans in the name of the plaintiK, and to
deliver to it the %(,6.%& pic"ls of copra, and, "pon that date, that it had oKered to satisf!
an! lien that defendant miht have, to s"rrender the receipts 2ith s"ch indorsement that it
miht re7"ire, and the receipt therefor, 2hen the oods 2ere delivered, if s"ch sinat"re is
(' ;areho"se Receipt
8/18/2019 Week 5 CREDIT TRANSACTION- Warehouse Receipts Aw
43/70
CREDIT TRANSACTION: Compilation ofCases
re7"ested ! the defendant. GThat the defendant ref"sed to compl! 2ith the demands of the
plaintiK, statin that it co"ld not deliver the oods mentioned in the receipts as said oods
are not in the 2areho"se, said defendant still ref"sin to ma1e s"ch deliver!.G That on H"l!
), %&%&, copra 2as of the val"e of +'% per pic"l. That ! reason of s"ch ref"sal, plaintiK
has een damaed in the amo"nt of +)/,).&&. It is also alleed that in Han"ar!, %&%&,
2ith the consent of the plaintiK, the +rod"ce Compan! removed from the 2areho"se of the
defendant %,%%'.% pic"ls of copra descried in receipt No. %', of the declared val"e of
+%6,).
#or amended ans2er, the de