ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136357. January 27, 1999]

SUPREME TRANSLINER, INC. vs. HON. SALVADOR S. ABAD SANTOS, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 27, 1999.

G.R. No. 136357 (Supreme Transliner, Inc. vs. Hon. Salvador S. Abad Santos, et al.)

The motion of petitioner for extension of thirty (30) days from December 19, 1998 within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED.

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the regional trial court, thus declaring that since the contract entered into by petitioner Supreme Transliner, Inc. (Transliner) and private respondent PCI Leasing and Finance (PCI) was one of simple loan, the proscription against action for recovery of any unpaid balance of credit following the foreclosure of chattel mortgage under article 1484 of the Civil Code is not applicable.

The present controversy stemmed form an action filed by PCI for recovery of sum of money and/or personal property and praying for the issuance of a writ of replevin, wherein PCI sought to recover possession of 2 Mitsubishi buses which were mortgaged as security for the indebtedness of petitioner Transliner amounting to P4,042,348.00 plus interest, and for the payment of any deficiency that may be left by the foreclosure.

Transliner, instead of filing an answer, moved for the dismissal of the case, alleging that the claim set forth in PCI's complaint was extinguished when PCI took possession of the buses subject matter of the chattel mortgage. The regional trial court denied petitioner's motion to dismiss and consequently decided in favor of PCI.

Displeased, transliner appealed, but it appeal and subsequent motion for reconsideration were unsuccessful. Hence, the instant petition which must likewise fail.

Initially the Court notes that the certificate on non-forum shopping is signed by counsel and not by petitioner itself through its proper officer, a lapse sufficient in itself to cause the outright dismissal of the petition. But even if we are minded to ignore this flaw, the petition would still be unavailing for the record shows that Transliner itself in its Answer categorically admitted that the transaction with PCI was one of loan, to wit:

3. On 17 January 1996, the Defendant (Supreme) borrowed from the plaintiff (PSI Leasing) the sum of P4,042,346.00 payable, together with interest thereon, in thirty six (36) equal monthly installments, as evidenced by and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Promissory Note of even date executed by said Defendant.

(p. 75, Rollo).

thereby negating the application of Article 1484 of the Civil Code which governs installments sales of personal property.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE