Title
Luzon Brokerage Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-43619
Decision Date
Aug 16, 1989
LUZON, operating as PACOCO's dummy, claimed lien rights over 42 tons of copra mortgaged to MANILABANK. Courts ruled against LUZON, affirming PACOCO's ownership and MANILABANK's chattel mortgage rights, ordering LUZON to pay damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-43619)

Contractual Arrangements

Under the Field Warehouse Storage Agreement, Luzon Brokerage Corporation (LUZON) operated two warehouses leased from PACOCO, receiving copra resecada from PACOCO, which was documented through Field Warehouse Receipts. The relevant receipts indicated that the copra would be delivered upon the orders of specified banks without the need to surrender the receipts, highlighting the pledging of the copra as collateral for loans.

Indebtedness and Auction

After approximately four years under the terms of their agreement, LUZON discovered that Manila Banking Corporation (MANILABANK) had initiated proceedings to auction off 42 tons of copra from the LUZON-PACOCO warehouse to settle PACOCO's debts. This indebtedness stemmed from an Overdraft Agreement and a Deed of Assignment of Inventory, which had collateralized PACOCO’s copra, including the copra stored in the Mati warehouse.

Legal Proceedings Initiated by LUZON

In response to the impending auction, LUZON filed a case against MANILABANK, PACOCO, and the Davao Provincial Sheriff, asserting rights over the copra via the warehouse receipts and alleging that they had an obligation to satisfy their lien before any sale could occur. LUZON sought both a preliminary and a perpetual injunction against the auction.

Initial Court Decision

Initially, the Court of First Instance of Davao ruled in favor of LUZON, prohibiting the sale of the copra without addressing LUZON's lien rights. The court found that the 42 tons of copra auctioned did not belong to PACOCO and thus could not be sold to satisfy PACOCO's obligations to MANILABANK. LUZON was eventually declared entitled to the proceeds from the auction.

Appellate Court's Reversal

Upon appeal by MANILABANK, the Court of Appeals overturned the initial ruling, determining that PACOCO was indeed the owner of the copra, and there was insufficient evidence to support any pledge agreements between PACOCO and the banks mentioned in the warehouse receipts. They concluded that LUZON was not a bona fide warehouseman but merely a representative of PACOCO.

Final Findings and Consequences

The Court of Appeals' findings were based on the review of evidence that suggested PACOCO was the rightful owner of the copra, and that the copra in question was covered under the chattel mortgage with MANILABANK. The court categorized LUZON as lacking any legitimate claim and ordered LUZON to

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.