G.R. No. 110776 - Maranaw Hotel and Resort Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

On December 20, 1991, respondents Spouses Alejo Salvador and Virginia Salvador (Salvadors) obtained a loan of ₱7,650.00 from petitioner Ever Pawnshop, managed by co-petitioner Enrico B. Villanueva.
On January 23, 1992, the Salvadors took out a second loan of ₱5,400.00 from Ever Pawnshop, again pledging jewelry items as security.
Pawnshop Ticket No. 29919 covered the first loan, with a redemption deadline of April 10, 1992; Pawnshop Ticket No. 30792 covered the second loan, with a redemption deadline of May 22, 1992.

The Salvadors failed to redeem the pledged jewelry by the respective redemption dates.
On June 1, 1992, the Salvadors' son paid ₱7,000.00 to Ever Pawnshop, intended as partial payment for the first loan.
Pawnshop Ticket No. 29919 was canceled and replaced with Ticket No. 34932 to reflect this payment.
Ever Pawnshop extended the maturity date of the second loan to June 30, 1992, contingent on payment of 20% of the loan by June 4, 1992; no new pawn ticket was issued for this extension.
Ever Pawnshop published a notice in the Manila Bulletin on June 4, 1992, announcing a public auction sale scheduled on that same day for unpaid pledges for January 1–31, 1992.
On July 1, 1992, the Salvadors attempted to renew the second loan by paying the 20% but were informed the items had already been auctioned.
CA found some of the pawned jewelry still remained in the pawnshop, indicating either repurchase by Ever Pawnshop or incomplete auction sale.
On August 7, 1992, Mr. Salvador tendered payment on both loans and demanded the return of the jewelry, but Ever Pawnshop refused.

On August 11, 1992, the Salvadors filed a complaint for damages against Villanueva and Ever Pawnshop for the unauthorized sale of pledged jewelry.
Shortly after summons was served, petitioners offered to accept payment and return the jewelry related to the first loan, which the Salvadors rejected.
Petitioners claimed they sent notices regarding maturity dates and auction sales, supported by letters dated March 23 and May 5, 1992, and a published notice in the Manila Bulletin.
The RTC ruled in favor of the Salvadors, ordering petitioners to pay ₱20,000.00 in moral damages, ₱5,400.00 as value of the second loan’s jewelry, ₱5,000.00 attorney’s fees, and costs of suit, and to return the jewelry covered by the first loan upon payment.
Petitioners appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

Whether the jewelry under the first loan was actually sold by petitioners.
Whether valid notice of sale of the pledged jewelry was given.
Whether the awards of ₱20,000.00 as moral damages and ₱5,000.00 as attorney’s fees are proper.
Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in ordering petitioners to pay damages.