Case Digest (G.R. No. 83086)
Facts:
The case is Reynaldo C. Honrado, Jr. v. Court of Appeals and Jardine‑Manila Finance, Inc., G.R. No. 83086, June 19, 1991, the Supreme Court Third Division, Fernan, C.J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Reynaldo C. Honrado, Jr.; respondents are the Court of Appeals (as appellee tribunal) and private respondent Jardine‑Manila Finance, Inc. (later referred to as MB Finance).On August 21, 1978, Hadd Construction and Trading Corporation (HCTC), represented by petitioner Honrado as its president, purchased on installment a 1978 Toyota Corolla from Cressida Sales Corporation. HCTC executed a promissory note for P49,120.20 payable in 36 monthly instalments beginning September 25, 1978. Petitioner signed the promissory note both as president of HCTC and again as co‑maker; a chattel mortgage on the vehicle was likewise executed. On September 4, 1978, Cressida assigned the promissory note to Jardine‑Manila Finance, Inc. for P30,985.54; petitioner again signed the deed of assignment in both capacities.
For HCTC’s failure to pay, Jardine‑Manila filed a replevin and damages action before the Regional Trial Court, Branch CXL, Makati (Civil Case No. 2096), docketed May 22, 1979, seeking return of the vehicle or alternatively P41,011.34 with 14% interest. Petitioner answered with a compulsory counterclaim; pretrial followed. On September 14, 1983, Jardine‑Manila waived recovery of the vehicle and elected monetary relief; it moved to dismiss the case against HCTC without prejudice for lack of service, which the trial court granted on October 3, 1983. The trial court thereafter rendered judgment against petitioner (decision dated January 22, 1986), ordering payment to Jardine‑Manila of amounts derived from the creditor’s statement of account.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on August 5, 1987 affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Petitioner then filed this petition...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner Reynaldo C. Honrado, Jr. a co‑maker of the promissory note and therefore solidarily liable?
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in the quantum and composition of the award made against...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)