ChanRobles Virtual law Library

G.R. No. 154682. November 20, 2002

ISAAC vs. JJR LENDING INVESTORS, INC.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated 20 NOVEMBER 2002 :

G.R. No. 154682 (Amelia Z. Isaac v. JJR Lending Investors, Inc.)

On August 19, 1994 , respondent JJR Lending Investors, Inc. filed a collection Suit against petitioner Amelia Z. Isaac in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 145, MakatiCity. The complaint alleged that petitioner, as co-maker, and a certain Jobyna Tonggol, as principal, executed in favor of respondent corporation a promissory note, dated April 21, 1994, in the amount of P500,000.00 with 3.6% monthly interest to pay for a loan bf P500,000.00 obtained by Tonggol from respondent corporation; that by the terms of the promissory note, petitioner bound herself jointly and severally liable with Tonggol for the payment of the said amount; and that Tonggol defaulted on the loan.

Petitioner admitted having signed as co-maker of the promissory note in question on April 16, 1994, but claimed that she did so upon, the assurance of Tonggol and respondent corporation's representative, Joaquin Tolentino, that the promissory note would be cancelled and turned over to her a week thereafter when Tonggol would have constituted a chattel mortgage in favor of respondent corporation as security for the loan. To prove her claim, she points to the fact that respondent's counsel had in his custody the registration certificate of the vehicle subject of the proposed chattel mortgage.

On November 6, 1997 , the trial court rendered judgment finding petitioner liable and ordering her to pay to respondent corporation the amount of P500,000.00 with interest and penalty of 2% per month computed from May 22, 1994 until the same was fully paid. Petitioner sought reconsideration of the decision, but her motion was denied.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, on January 24, 2002, affirmed the decision of the trial court with the modification that petitioner was ordered to pay respondent corporation (a) 12% interest per annum of the principal amount of P500,000.00 and a penalty equivalent to 12% per annum of the total amount due and (b) attorney's fees equivalent to 10% thereof. It held that the parol evidence presented by petitioner was inadmissible because it did not concern the terms of the promissory note. The court denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Hence this petition for review on certiorari.

The petition has no merit. The parol evidence presented by petitioner concerning representation which allegedly led to the execution of an agreement was considered but found not credible by the trial court in view of a material inconsistency in petitioner's testimony on the execution of the promissory note in question. While she testified that the promissory note was executed in her office at the Far Fast Bank and Trust- Company (FEBTC) building in Ayala Avenue, Makati City on April 16, 1994 , it was shown that petitioner was not hired by FEBTC until May 10, 1994 . This Court finds no reason to modify the foregoing finding. The trial court also correctly held that the fact that respondent corporation had in its possession a copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle alleged to be mortgaged in its favor by Tonggol was inconclusive and irrelevant and could not prevail over the terms of the promissory note which are complete and unambiguous in themselves. At any rate, if petitioner's claim is true, it was incumbent upon her to have had the promissory note cancelled when, after a lapse of one week after its execution, the same was not turned over to her. Her failure to do so tends to lend credence to respondent corporation's denial that it had agreed to cancel the promissory note after the alleged deed of mortgage had been executed.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the petition for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE