Case Summary (G.R. No. 159622)
Factual Background
Petitioner corporation procured imported welding rods under Commercial Letter of Credit No. 4998 for US$19,606.77, equivalent to P218,733.92, and placed a marginal deposit of P50,414 from a separate clean loan. As condition for the letter of credit, petitioners Llaban and Lucente executed a Continuing Suretyship Agreement for P400,000 and Lucente executed a Deed of Assignment for P35,000 in favor of respondent bank. A Trust Receipt was executed to secure the indebtedness, requiring petitioners to hold the goods in trust, to sell them if possible and to remit proceeds, or to return unsold goods by November 23, 1983. The goods arrived in the Philippines and petitioners took possession and custody. Petitioners defaulted on November 23, 1983 and failed to return the goods. The bank demanded turnover on July 24, 1984; petitioners delivered the goods on September 24, 1984. The bank sold the goods at public auction on July 31, 1985 for P30,000, bidding as highest bidder. The auction proceeds were insufficient to satisfy petitioners’ indebtedness and the bank applied Lucente’s time deposit but still claimed a deficiency.
Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment
Respondent bank sued for sum of money. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment on March 31, 1997 in favor of the plaintiff. The dispositive portion ordered petitioners to pay P292,172.23 representing the obligation as of April 17, 1986; interest at 19% per annum from April 18, 1986 until paid; service charge at 2% per annum from April 18, 1986; attorneys fees equivalent to 10% per annum of the total amount due; litigation expenses of P3,000; costs of suit; and penalty charge of 12% per annum.
Court of Appeals Disposition
Petitioners appealed on three grounds: whether respondent could recover the deficiency after retaining possession and selling the goods; entitlement to P3,000 litigation expenses and costs; and entitlement to attorneys fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision in toto on February 13, 2003.
Issues Presented in the Petition for Review
Petitioners advanced two assignments of error to the Supreme Court: first, that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that respondent had the right to claim deficiency notwithstanding the turnover and repossession of the goods; and second, that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s awards of principal obligation, interest, attorneys fees, and penalty.
Petitioners’ Legal Contentions
Petitioners contended that Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 115 offers two distinct and alternative remedies upon entrustee default: (1) demand the return of the goods, whereby the entruster acquires ownership and the debtor’s obligation is extinguished; or (2) cancel the trust, take possession and sell the goods, in which case the entruster does not acquire ownership and may claim any deficiency. Petitioners argued that the bank chose the first remedy when it demanded and received the return of the goods, thereby extinguishing petitioners’ liability.
Respondent’s Position and Statutory Text
Respondent relied on Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 115 and the trust receipt’s contractual clauses, which mirror the statutory provision. Section 7 entitles the entruster to proceeds from sale to the extent of the amount owing, or to the return of goods in case of non-sale, and expressly permits the entruster to cancel the trust, repossess the goods on default, give notice of intended sale, sell after at least five days’ notice, and become purchaser at public sale. The statute directs application of sale proceeds to sale expenses, re-taking and storage expenses, and satisfaction of the entrustee’s indebtedness, and provides that the entrustee is liable for any deficiency.
Legal Analysis Rejecting Petitioners’ Theory
The Court held that petitioners’ argument was untenable because a trust receipt is a security agreement collateral to the loan and creates a security interest in the goods for the indebtedness. Possession by the entruster as security does not amount to payment, foreclosure, or dacion en pago. The Court reiterated binding precedent, including Abad v. Court of Appeals and Vintola v. Insular Bank of Asia and America, that the trust receipt secures an obligation and that repossession does not transfer ownership in satisfaction of the debt. The statutory remedy in Section 7 authorizes repossession and sale and expressly makes the entrustee liable for any deficiency after application of proceeds. Consequently, respondent bank’s repossession and auction sale were lawful remedies upon default and did not extinguish petitioners’ obligation.
Computation Error and Legal Character of the Amount Owed
Although the Court affirmed the bank’s right to sue for deficiency, it found errors in the computation of petitioners’ indebtedness. The initial trust receipt amount P218,733.92 was reflected as reduced to P192,265.92 as of June 14, 1984 per the bank’s Statement of Past Due Trust Receipt. The Court observed no showing that the P30,000 auction proceeds were applied to the loan and found that the marginal deposit of P50,414 should be set off against the debt in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, including Abad v. Court of Appeals. Applying those adjustments, the Court computed the net obligation as P211,758.23 as of April 17, 1986.
Proper Charges and Modifications to Monetary Awards
The Court determined the correct charges to be imposed up
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 159622)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- LANDL & COMPANY (PHIL.) INC., PERCIVAL G. LLABAN AND MANUEL P. LUCENTE, PETITIONERS, are the importer-borrower and the co-signatory sureties who contracted with a bank under a letter of credit and a trust receipt.
- METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, RESPONDENT, is the entruster bank that opened an irrevocable letter of credit and held a trust receipt as security for the loan.
- The respondent filed Civil Case No. CEB-4895 in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Cebu City, to recover a money claim arising from the trust receipt transaction.
- The trial court rendered judgment on March 31, 1997 in favor of the respondent, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision on February 13, 2003.
- The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court which resolved the case by a decision that PARTIALLY GRANTED the petition.
Key Factual Allegations
- The petitioner corporation opened Commercial Letter of Credit No. 4998 on June 17, 1983 for US$19,606.77, equivalent to P218,733.92, to purchase welding rods and electrodes.
- The petitioner corporation deposited a marginal deposit of P50,414.00 drawn from a separate clean loan as a precondition to the letter of credit.
- Petitioners Llaban and Lucente executed a Continuing Suretyship Agreement for P400,000.00 and petitioner Lucente executed a Deed of Assignment for P35,000.00 in favor of the respondent.
- The respondent required execution of a Trust Receipt covering the amount of the letter of credit, with maturity and an obligation to return unsold goods on or before November 23, 1983.
- The petitioner corporation took actual possession of the goods upon arrival but defaulted on November 23, 1983 and failed to return the goods.
- The respondent demanded turnover on July 24, 1984, the goods were turned over on September 24, 1984, and the respondent sold the goods at public auction on July 31, 1985 for P30,000.00 as the highest bidder.
- The auction proceeds together with the application of Lucente’s time deposit were insufficient to satisfy the indebtedness, prompting the respondent to demand the deficiency and to sue for collection.
Statutory Framework
- Presidential Decree No. 115 (Trust Receipts Law) governs trust receipt transactions and codifies the rights and remedies of entrusters and entrustees.
- Sec. 7, Presidential Decree No. 115 grants the entruster the right to proceeds or return of goods, the right to cancel the trust and take possession upon default, and the right to sell after notice, with prescribed priority of application of sale proceeds.
- Sec. 7, Presidential Decree No. 115 mandates that sale proceeds be applied to sale expenses, expenses of re-taking and storage, then to satisfy the indebtedness, with any surplus to the entrustee and liability for any deficiency remaining with the entrustee.
- CIVIL CODE, Art. 2047 and CIVIL CODE, Art. 1216 supply the rules on suretyship and solidary obligations cited in the decision.
Issues Presented
- Whether an entruster who had taken actual and juridical possession of the goods covered by a trust receipt may still recover a deficiency after selling the goods.
- Whether the respondent was entitled to litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees as awarded by the trial court.
- Whether the trial court and Court of Appeals correctly computed the principal obligation and the attendant interest, penalties, service charges, and attorneys’ fees.
Contentions of Parties
- The petitioners contended that the entruster’s remedies were alternative and that the return of unsold goods extinguished the indebtedness when the entruster had elected the remedy of return rather than sale.
- The petitioners argued that possession and turnover of the goods operated to discharge their obligat