ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1941 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47054 March 10, 1941 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    071 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. 47776 March 11, 1941 - DY PAC AND COMPANY v. KATIPUNAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA KAHOY SA FILIPINAS, ET AL.

    071 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 48054 March 11, 1941 - BENEDICTO AUSTRIA, ET AL. v. SOLICITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

    071 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. 47661 March 12, 1941 - BOHOL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO. v. BLT EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION

    071 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 47430 March 13, 1941 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. ISABELA ABLAZA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 47477 March 13, 1941 - TIMOTEA SAMBAAN v. GREGORIA VILLANUEVA

    071 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 47772 March 13, 1941 - MONICO A. DIA v. FINANCE & MINING INVESTMENTS CORPORATION

    071 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 47822 March 13, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FRANCISCO BIHAG

    071 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. 47870 March 13, 1941 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE ECHAUS, ET AL.

    071 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. 47337 March 14, 1941 - ANDRES SOLER v. JOSE FUENTEBELLA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 47467 March 14, 1941 - OSAKA BOEIKI KAISHA, INC. v. LEONARDO GUISON, ET AL.

    071 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 47682 March 14, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CONCEPCION PAGAYON

    071 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. 47714 March 14, 1941 - LOURDES RIVERO DE ORTEGA v. FELIPE NATIVIDAD

    071 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 47774 March 14, 1941 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. v. LOUIS J. MYRICK

    071 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 47815 March 14, 1941 - FLORENTINO CRUZ v. EL PUEBLO DE FELIPINAS

    071 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 47832 March 14, 1941 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JESUS DE LA CRUZ

    071 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 47963 March 14, 1941 - HIJOS DE F. ESCANO v. JOAQUIN LAO GOO

    071 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. 47401 March 15, 1941 - CENTRAL REPUBLIC BANK & TRUST CO. v. P. L. BUSTAMANTE

    071 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 47900 March 15, 1941 - ANTONIO SALOMON, ET AL. v. SEVERA BOCAUTO, ET AL.

    071 Phil 363

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 47963   March 14, 1941 - HIJOS DE F. ESCANO v. JOAQUIN LAO GOO<br /><br />071 Phil 355

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 47963. March 14, 1941.]

    HIJOS DE F. ESCANO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOAQUIN LAO GOO, Defendant-Appellant.

    Francisco Zialcita, for Appellant.

    Demetrio, Abiera & Demetrio, for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. DEBTOR AND CREDITOR; INSURANCE POLICY AS COLLATERAL SECURITY; LACK OF CONSENT OF BENEFICIARY. — Without here deciding whether the defendant-appellant could legally encumber his Policy No. 100324 with the West Coast Life Insurance Company as a collateral security, the consent of his beneficiary, Nicanor Lao Hing Chong, not appearing upon the record, we are of the opinion that paragraphs 3 and 4 of the promissory note (Exhibit B) do not constitute a valid assignment of any interest in said policy which could give the creditor-appellee a good lien for the amount of his claim.

    2. ATTACHMENT; REQUISITES; CASE AT BAR. — Under section 426 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now section 3 of Rule 59 of the New Rules of Court, a judge or justice of the peace shall grant an order of attachment when it is made to appear to the judge or justice of the peace by the affidavit of the plaintiff, or of some other person who knows the facts, that a sufficient cause of action exists, and that the case is one of those mentioned in section four hundred and twenty-four, and that there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by the action, and that the amount due to the plaintiff above all legal set-offs or counterclaims is as much as the sum for which the order is granted. The requirements of said section 426 are well met in the instant case. There is here a good cause of action. the case is one which is specifically contemplated in section 424 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and finally, the does not exist any security sufficient to answer for the claim the plaintiff.


    D E C I S I O N


    LAUREL, J.:


    On April 7, 1938, the plaintiff-appellee, Hijos de F. Escaño, Inc., brought an action against Joaquin Lao G in the Court of First Instance of Leyte for the recovery of a certain sum of money. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, on different occasions during the years 1927, 1928 and 1929, received from its branch office at Maasin, Leyte, several amounts totalling P4,000 which, by a promissory note (Exhibit B) dated October 22, 1929, he bound himself to pay on or before October 20, 1932; that, although said obligation had fallen due, defendant refused to settle the same, and prayed for A writ of attachment and an entry of judgment against the defendant for the sum of P4,000 with interest from October 20, 1932, besides damages and costs.

    After trial, the lower court, on June 6, 1939, rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which recites:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "In view of the foregoing, the Court enters judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Hijos de F. Escano, Inc., and against the defendant, Joaquin Lao Goo, hereby ordering the latter to pay the former the sum of four thousand pesos (P4,000) plus the legal interests thereon from October 20, 1932, and costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Defendant presented a motion for a new trial which was denied on August 12, 1939. He excepted and appealed and here assigns the following errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. El Juzgado inferior incurrio en error al admitir el Exhibito B como prueba de una supuesta deuda del demando no garantizada.

    "2. El Juzgado inferior tambien incurrio en error al no declarar impropio e ilegal el embargo preventivo trabado contra los bienes del demandado, por haberse obtenido el mismo con malicia y sin causa suficiente.

    "3. Por ultimo, el Juzgado inferior asimismo incurrio en error al no sobreseer la demanda, y al no conceder la nueva vista solicitada por el demandado."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Under the first assignment of error, appellant contends that the lower court erred in not holding that the credit in question was guaranteed by his life insurance policy and emphasizes, in support, paragraphs 3 and 4 of Exhibit B.

    Without here deciding whether the defendant-appellant could legally encumber his Policy No. 100324 with the West Coast Life Insurance Company as a collateral security, the consent of his beneficiary, Nicanor Lao Hing Chong, not appearing upon the record, we are of the opinion that paragraphs 3 and 4 of the promissory note (Exhibit B) do not constitute a valid assignment of any interest in said policy which could give the creditor-appellee a good lien for the amount of his claim. By the two clauses adverted to, nowhere does it appear that Joaquin Lao Goo ceded or conveyed any right or interest in the policy to the appellee. Upon the other hand, it is evident that Exhibit B embodies only a promise by the debtor to apply "al pago de mi deuda arriba mencionada cualquiera cantidad que yo pudiere cobrar de la compania aseguradora al o despues del vencimiento de mi poliza." This view is further explained by paragraph 5 of Exhibit B, wherein the defendant-appellant acknowledges that, should he be unable to pay the sum owed by him on October 20, 1932, appellee "pueda entablar una accion contra mi por el cobro de mi deuda, y en caso de que dicha compania obtuviera una sentencia favorable, ella podra pedir la ejecucion de la sentencia contra todos los bienes que tuviere."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Defendant-appellant likewise impugns the action of the court below in issuing the writ of attachment. Under section 426 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now section 3 of Rule 59 of the New Rules of Court), a judge or just of the peace shall grant an order of attachment when is made to appear to the judge or justice of the peace the affidavit of the plaintiff, or of some other person knows the facts, that a sufficient cause of action exits and that the case is one of those mentioned in section four hundred and twenty-four, and that there is no other sufficient security for the claim sought to be enforced by action, and that the amount due to the plaintiff above legal set-offs or counterclaims is as much as the sum which the order is granted. The requirements of section 426 are well met in the instant case. There here a good cause of action, the case is one which is specifically contemplated in section 424 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and finally, there does not exist any security sufficient to answer for the claim of the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the action of the lower court must be sustained. (Central Capiz v. Salas, 43 Phil., 930.)

    The third error assigned needs no consideration.

    The appealed decision is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

    Imperial, Diaz, Moran and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 47963   March 14, 1941 - HIJOS DE F. ESCANO v. JOAQUIN LAO GOO<br /><br />071 Phil 355




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED