Notice: Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court
Notice: Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court
Notice: Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 10 November 2021 which reads as follows :
On July 20, 2001, petitioner obtained a car loan from respondent Union
Bank of the Philippines (Union Bank) for Pl,699,728.00 payable in 48
monthly installments. 4 In order to secure the loan, petitioner executed a
Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage constituted over one ( 1) Isuzu
Trooper, 2001 model, with Serial NumberPABUBR73GL1200888 and Motor
Number 804355. Said promissory note was executed by Edda Dalupang
(Dalupang).
Hence, invoking its right based on the Promissory Note and Chattel
Mortgage, Union Bank demanded from the petitioner the voluntary surrender
of the mortgaged vehicle, together with all its accessories; but petitioner not
only failed to settle its auto loan account amounting to Pl,033,402.00, 5 it also
refused to turn over possession in favor of Union Bank.
(232)URES - more -
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 24 1962
This prompted the Union Bank to file an action for Sum of Money with
Prayer for a Writ of Replevin6 against the petitioner before Branch 112 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City.
In their Answer, 7 petitioner denied liability for the car loan as it claimed
that it never received any demand from Union Bank for its alleged defau lt in
the payment of car loan am01iizations. 8 Likewise, it denied the execution of
the subject Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage9 as it averred that
Dalupang had no authority to execute the same in its behalf. 10 Hence, such
being the case, Union Bank clearly does not have cause of action against
them. 11
SO ORDERED. 14
As stated at the outset, when elevated to the CA, the latter dismissed
Id. at 5 1-56.
7
Id. at 57-60.
Id. at 58.
9
Id. at 57.
10 Id. at 3 1.
11
Id. at 59.
12 Id. at 63-64; penned by Judge Jesus B. Mupas.
13
Id. at 64 .
t4 Id.
15 Id. at 65-70.
16
Id. at 7 1.
(232)URES - more -
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 241962
the appeal in a Decision 17 dated August 9, 2017, and upheld the liability of the
petitioner to Union Bank. The CA disposed:
SO ORDERED. 18
Now, petitioner is before the Court arguing that the CA erred when it
upheld the RTC Decision finding it liable to pay Union Bank for the car loan
obtained by Dalupang. It remain firm in its stance that it cannot be made to
pay for the said loan as Dalupang did not even have the authority to execute
the subject Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage.
First, assuming that Dalupang, indeed, acted without authority, the fact
that the petitioner had caused the registration of the subject vehicle under its
name is an act of acquiescence that renders it estopped from denying the
existence and consequences of the Promissory Note.
17
Supra note 2.
18
Rollo, p. 36.
19
Supra note 3.
°
2 Calubad v. Ricarcen Development Corp., 8 17 Phil. 509, 532 (201 7), citing Yao Ka Sin Trading v. Court
ofAppeals, 285 Phil. 345, 367 ( 1992).
(232)URES - more -
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 241962
All told, the Court finds no reversible error on the paii of the CA for
rendering the assailed Decision finding the petitioner liable to Union Bank.
SO ORDERED."
By:
(232)URES - more -
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 24 1962
November 10, 202 1