PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs.
Se (1996) refused to comply with the demand alleging
J. Hermosisima
TOPIC Warehouse Receipts Law
DOCTRINE The unconditional presentment of the
receipts by the petitioner for payment
against private respondents on the
strength of the provisions of the
Warehouse Receipts Law (R.A. 2137)
carried with it the admission of the
existence and validity of the terms,
conditions and stipulations written on
the face of the Warehouse Receipts,
including the unqualified recognition
of the payment of warehouseman's
lien for storage fees and preservation
expenses.
Imperative is the right of the
warehouseman to demand payment
of his lien at this juncture, because, in
accordance with Section 29 of the
Warehouse Receipts Law, the
warehouseman loses his lien upon
goods by surrendering possession
thereof. In other words, the lien may
be lost where the warehouseman
surrenders the possession of the
goods without requiring payment of
his lien, because a warehouseman's
lien
is possessory in nature.
I. FACTS
In accordance with Act No. 2137, the Warehouse
Receipts Law, Noah's Ark Sugar Refinery issued
warehouse receipts on several dates. The receipts are
substantially in the form, and contains the terms,
prescribed for negotiable warehouse receipts by Section
2 of the law.
These receipts were endorsed and were then used as
security for two loan agreements obtained by the
endorsees from the Philippine National Bank.
When the endorsees failed to pay their loans upon
maturity, the Philippine National Bank wrote to Noah's
Ark Sugar Refinery demanding delivery of the sugar
stocks covered by the quedans. Noah's Ark Sugar
Refinery
ownership thereof, for which reason the Philippine
National Bank filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Manila a verified complaint for "Specific Performance
with Damages and Application for Writ of Attachment"
against Noah's Ark Sugar Refinery, Alberto T. Looyuko,
Jimmy T. Go and Wilson T. Go, the last three being
identified as the sole proprietor, managing partner, and
Executive Vice President of Noah's Ark, respectively.
On January 31, 1991, the PNB filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment in favor of the plaintiff as against
the defendants for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.
On May 2, 1991, the RTC issued an order denying the
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Upon appeal to the CA, the CA reversed the decision of
the RTC. It found that Noah’s Ark’s affirmative defenses
does not show material questions of fact as to the
alleged nonpayment of purchase price by the
vendees/first endorsers, and which nonpayment is not
disputed by PNB as it does not materially affect PNB's
title to the sugar stocks as holder of the negotiable
quedans. Thus, Motion for Summary Judgment is
proper. This was then affirmed by the Supreme Court.
During the execution of the Decision, Noah’s Ark filed
before the trial court an Omnibus Motion seeking among
others the deferment of the proceedings until private
respondents are heard on their claim for
warehouseman's lien. The trial court granted private
respondents' Omnibus Motion on December 20, 1994
and set reception of evidence on their claim for
warehouseman's lien.
In response to PNB’s manifestation with Urgent Motion
to Nullify Court Proceedings, RTC issued an order
denying the same on the ground that there exists a valid
warehouseman's lien under Section 27 of Republic Act
2137, which entitles Noah’s Ark the full payment of the
same prior to its delivery of the sugar stocks.
Hence, this petition.
II. ISSUE
Whether a warehouseman can enforce his
warehouseman’s lien before delivering the sugar stocks
as ordered by the Court of Appeals? YES.
III. RATIONALE
After carefully examining its Resolution, the SC affirmed
the decision of the RTC. The SC was not persuaded by
petitioner's argument that the Court’s resolution carried
with it the denial of the warehouseman's lien over the
sugar stocks covered by the subject Warehouse
Receipts.
According to the Court, it simply resolved and upheld in
its decision, dated September 1, 1993, the propriety of
summary judgment which was then assailed by private
respondents. In effect, it rule therein that, considering
the circumstances obtaining before the trial court, the
issuance of the Warehouse Receipts not being disputed
by the private respondents, a summary judgment in
favor of PNB was proper. Therefore, it affirmed the
finding that Noah's Ark is a warehouseman which was
obliged to deliver the sugar stocks covered by the
Warehouse Receipts pledged to the petitioner pursuant
to the pertinent provisions of Republic Act 2137.
Thus, the Court could not contemplate the matter of
warehouseman's lien because the issue to be finally
resolved then was the claim of private respondents for
retaining ownership of the stocks of sugar covered by
the endorsed quedans. Stated otherwise, there was no
point in taking up the issue of warehouseman's lien since
the matter of ownership was as yet being determined.
Neither could storage fees be due then while no one has
been declared the owner of the sugar stocks in question.
It is not disputed, that under the subject Warehouse
Receipts provision, storage fees are chargeable. After
being declared not the owner, but the warehouseman,
by the Court of Appeals, the decision having been
affirmed by the Court on December 1, 1993, private
respondents cannot legally be deprived of their right to
enforce their claim for warehouseman's lien, for
reasonable storage fees and preservation expenses.
Moreover, pursuant Section 31 of the law, the goods
under storage may not be delivered until said lien is
satisfied. Considering that petitioner does not deny the
existence, validity and genuineness of the Warehouse
Receipts on which it anchors its claim for payment
against private respondents, it cannot disclaim liability
for the payment of the storage fees stipulated therein.
The unconditional presentment of the receipts by the
petitioner for payment against private respondents on
the strength of the provisions of the Warehouse Receipts
Law (R.A. 2137) carried with it the admission of the
existence and validity of the terms, conditions and
stipulations written on the face of the Warehouse
Receipts, including the unqualified recognition of the
payment of warehouseman's lien for storage fees and
preservation expenses. Petitioner may not now retrieve
the sugar stocks without paying the lien due private
respondents as warehouseman.
In view of the foregoing, the rule may be simplified thus:
While the PNB is entitled to the stocks of sugar as the
endorsee of the quedans, delivery to it shall be
effected only upon payment of the storage fees.
Imperative is the right of the warehouseman to demand
payment of his lien at this juncture, because, in
accordance with Section 29 of the Warehouse Receipts
Law, the warehouseman loses his lien upon goods by
surrendering possession thereof. In other words, the lien
may be lost where the warehouseman surrenders the
possession of the goods without requiring payment of his
lien, because a warehouseman's lien is possessory in
nature.
IV. DISPOSITIVE
PETITION DISMISSED.
V. NOTES