Notice: Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 5

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

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 :

"G.R. No. 241962 (Western Visayas Daily Informer, Inc. v. Union


Bank of the Philippines). - This Petition for Review 1 filed by petitioner
Western Visayas Daily Informer, Inc. under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of
Court challenges the Decision2 dated August 9, 201 7 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) and its Resolution 3 dated May 2, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 101628.

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).

However, petit10ner defaulted in the payment of amortization in


violation of the terms and conditions of the Promissory Note and Chattel
M011gage, leaving an unpaid balance of Pl,290,129.76 due on June 10, 2003.
Repeated demands were given by Union Bank to the petitioner to settle the
entire outstanding balance, plus interest accruing therefrom until fully paid,
but the latter still continuously failed to pay its overdue loan.

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.

Rollo, pp. 14-26.


Id. at 30-36. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. with Associate Justices Priscilla .I.
Baltazar-Padi lla (retired Member of this Court) and Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurring.
fd. at 39-42.
Id. at 30.
Id. at 63.

(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

On August I 0, 2011, the RTC rendered a Decision 12 in favor of Union


Bank. According to the RTC, Union Bank is entitled to its claims arising from
the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage executed by the petitioner.
Likewise, the RTC took note of the fact that the subject vehicle was already
registered in the name of the petitioner company which, thus, supersedes the
latter's denial of the promissory note without any document to support its
claim. 13 Hence, having established that petitioner, indeed, defaulted in the
payment of its obligation, it was only apt to grant the relief prayed for by
Union Bank. The RTC decreed:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff


and against the defendant, ordering the defendants to pay, to wit:

1. To sunender or pay the total balance of its obligation in the


amount of Phpl,033,402.10, inclusive of penalties and exclusive of other
charges at the rate stipulated on the note from June 10, 2003 until fully paid;

2. To collect the P l S,000.00 as attorney' s fees and the cost of the


suit.

SO ORDERED. 14

Unsatisfied, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration 15 of the RTC


Decision. However, this was denied by the RTC in an Order 16 dated June 14,
2013.

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:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the instant


APPEAL is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED. 18

Petitioner then moved for reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision, but


the CA denied its motion via a Resolution 19 dated May 2, 2018.

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.

The Court is not convinced.

Basically, petitioner are relying on the argument that Dalupang acted


without authority when she executed the subject Promissory Note with Chattel
Mortgage. However, as pointed out by the RTC and the CA, there are
circumstances in this case that would readily debunk the petitioner's claim.

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.

Indeed, while the principal is not bound if an agent acts without or


outside his authority, such acts, however, may be expressly or impliedly
ratified through the principal' s conduct and this produces the same effects as
though the agent acted out with authority.

Likewise, as the CA discussed in its Decision, an agent's apparent


authority from the principal may be ascertained through: (1) the general
manner by which the corporation holds out an officer or agent as having power
to act or, in other words, the apparent authority with which it clothes him to
act in general, or (2) the acquiescence in his acts of a particular nature, with
actual or constructive knowledge thereof, whether within or without the scope
of his ordinary powers. 20

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

Undeniably, by petitioner's actions which can only be deemed as its


acceptance of Dalupang's actions, he is liable to pay his loan obligation to
Union Bank pursuant to the Promissory Note.

Second, petitioner failed to allege how it acquired the subject vehicle.


While petitioner's arguments zeroed in on its denial of the Promissory Note,
it, however, never made any claim as to how the vehicle came into its
possession. Its silence on the matter casts doubt as regards its denial of
execution of the Promissory Note which, coincidentally, has the same vehicle
as subject of the chattel mortgage.

Lastly, it is noteworthy that petitioner did not even do anything to


contest the existence of the loan from Union Bank at the earliest opportunity,
even at the time when Union Bank first sent petitioner a demand letter to settle
his unpaid amortization. Petitioner only started to question the transaction
when a complaint was already filed against it. Other than merely denying the
execution of the Promissory Note and the authority of Dalupang to execute
the same, petitioner never made any categorical statement to deny the
existence of the car loan.

It is well settled that a notarized document, such as the subject


Promissory Note with Chattel M01igage, enjoys the presumption of regularity,
and the only way to contradict this presumption is by presenting a clear and
convincing evidence. 2 1 Sadly, petitioner failed to present any evidence to
overcome this presumptive authenticity.

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.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 9, 2017 and the Resolution


dated May 2, 2018 of the Comi of Appeals in CA-G .R. CV No. 101628 are
hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON


Division Clerk of Court

By:

MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADA


Deputy Division Clerk of Court/Ir,/.,
11 JUN 2022

- 21 Catanv. Vinarao, 820Phil. 257, 271 (2017).

(232)URES - more -
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 24 1962
November 10, 202 1

VILLASIS SONTILLANO LAW OFFICE (reg)


Counsel for Petitioner
No. 92-A Maginoo St., Brgy. Central
Diliman, 110 I Quezon City

CORTEL LAW OFFICE (reg)


Counsel for Respondent
th
Suite 1015, 10 Floor, Cityland Condominium 10
Tower I, Ayala Ave. cor. H.V. Dela Costa St.
1229 Makati City

HON. PRESIDING JUDGE (reg)


Regional Trial Court, Branch 112
Pasay City
(Civil Case No. 03-0302)

JUDGMENT DIVISION (x)


Supreme Court, Manila

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)


LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
[For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-SC]

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ATTORNEY (x)


OFFICE OF THE REPORTER (x)
PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY (x)
Supreme Court, Manila

COURT OF APPEALS (x)


Ma. Orosa Street
Ermita, 1000 Manila
CA-G.R. CV No. 101628

Please notify tile Court of any clla11ge i11 your address.


l{P
r
GR241962. l l/10/2021(232)URES

You might also like