G.R. No. 111080 - Orosa vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Jose S. Orosa purchased a 1983 Ford Laser 1.5 Sedan on installment from Fiesta Motor Sales Corporation on September 28, 1983.
To secure the installment payments, Orosa executed both a promissory note in the amount of P133,824.00 and a chattel mortgage over the vehicle.
Fiesta Motor Sales Corporation assigned the promissory note and chattel mortgage to private respondent FCP Credit Corporation on the same day.

FCP Credit Corporation filed a complaint for replevin and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila on December 6, 1984.
The complaint claimed that Orosa failed to timely pay the installment due on July 28, 1984 and three consecutive installments due on August 28, September 28, and October 28, 1984.
Based on the alleged delay and default, FCP demanded immediate full payment of the outstanding balance (P106,154.48 with accrued interest) and the surrender of the vehicle.

The trial court dismissed FCP’s complaint, holding that Orosa had, in fact, paid the installments for the months of July to November 1984, thereby negating the basis of the replevin claim.
The court declared that FCP was not entitled to a writ of replevin and was liable for actual damages under the replevin bond it had filed.
On its counterclaim, the RTC ordered FCP to pay Orosa moral damages of P400,000.00, exemplary damages of P100,000.00, and attorney’s fees of P50,000.00.
Additionally, the RTC ordered FCP to return the subject vehicle or its equivalent in cash and to pay the costs of the suit.

On June 7, 1988, the RTC rendered a “Supplemental Decision” holding FCP’s surety, Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc., jointly and severally liable with FCP.
The surety was ordered to return the vehicle (or its equivalent) and pay damages to the extent of the replevin bond value of P210,000.00.

FCP Credit Corporation appealed the RTC decision, while the surety filed a petition for certiorari seeking annulment of the RTC’s order denying its motion for partial reconsideration and the Supplemental Decision.
The Court of Appeals (CA) First Division dismissed the surety’s petition, upholding the RTC’s order of execution pending appeal, a decision later affirmed by the Supreme Court (with a modification removing the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal).
Separately, the CA Eighth Division partially affirmed the RTC’s decision (in a decision dated April 19, 1993) by modifying the award:

Deleting the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Removing the order to return the physical vehicle.
Ordering FCP to pay Orosa an amount equivalent to the value of the fourteen monthly installments actually paid, with interest from either the filing date or December 6, 1984.

Petitioner Orosa challenged the CA Eighth Division’s jurisdiction on the grounds that the matter had already been decided by the CA First Division and upheld by the Supreme Court in cases with identical facts, causes of action, parties, and relief.
Orosa argued that the CA Eighth Division committed grave abuse of discretion by considering matters and causes of action that were not initially raised in the complaint but introduced for the first time on appeal.
Petitioner also contended that the Court of Appeals erroneously applied legal principles from the case of Filinvest Credit Corporation vs. Ivans Mendez, which, according to him, had distinctly different facts.

Whether the CA Eighth Division had the proper appellate jurisdiction when a prior decision on the same matter by the CA First Division existed.
Whether petitioner’s active participation in the appeal precludes an attack on the court’s jurisdiction.

Whether the CA Eighth Division abused its discretion by considering causes of action (such as the default under the promissory note and issues regarding the chattel mortgage) that were not raised in the original complaint.
Whether matters introduced for the first time on appeal should be excluded from appellate review.

Whether FCP Credit Corporation was entitled to the writ of replevin given that Orosa allegedly paid the installments in question.
Whether the orders for moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees were justified based on the evidence and the contractual obligations.
Whether the corrective measure of ordering the return of the vehicle (or its equivalent) was appropriate considering Orosa had not fully paid the purchase price.

Whether the application of the case of Filinvest Credit Corporation vs. Ivans Mendez was proper in the context of the facts presented.
Whether the principles governing the recovery of moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees were correctly applied.