Title
Tan Boon Bee and Co., Inc. vs. Jarencio
Case
G.R. No. L-41337
Decision Date
Jun 30, 1988
A dispute over the sale of a printing machine leads to a court ruling that third-party claims over levied properties should be decided in a separate action, and that a corporation's separate legal personality can be disregarded when used to shield itself from obligations.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-41337)

Facts:

  • The case involves Tan Boon Bee & Co., Inc. v. Jarencio (G.R. No. L-41337) concerning a sale of a printing machine.
  • Tan Boon Bee & Co., trading as Anchor Supply Co., sold paper products on credit to Graphic Publishing, Inc. (GRAPHIC) for P55,214.73.
  • GRAPHIC made a partial payment of P24,848.74 on December 20, 1972, and executed a promissory note for the remaining balance of P30,365.99 on December 21, 1972.
  • The promissory note stipulated monthly installments at a 12% interest rate, which GRAPHIC failed to pay.
  • Tan Boon Bee initiated a case for a sum of money against GRAPHIC in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
  • On January 18, 1974, the court declared GRAPHIC in default and ruled in favor of Tan Boon Bee.
  • A sheriff levied a printing machine owned by the Philippine American Drug Company (PADCO) but located at GRAPHIC's premises.
  • Despite PADCO's claim of ownership, the sheriff auctioned the machine to Tan Boon Bee.
  • PADCO filed a motion to nullify the sale, which the judge granted on March 26, 1975, ordering the return of the machine to PADCO.
  • Tan Boon Bee's motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting a petition for certiorari.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tan Boon Bee & Co., Inc., annulling the March 26, 1975 order of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
  • The Court determined that claims from third-party claimants like PADCO should be litigated in a separate action, not within the execution case.
  • The Court found that the respo...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court highlighted that under Section 17 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, third-party claims on levied properties must be resolved in a separate action.
  • This principle is designed to prevent confusion and maintain focus on the original parties involved in the case.
  • The Court referenced Bayer Philippines, Inc. vs. Agana...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.