G.R. No. 100644 September 10, 1993
FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FELIX ANGELES, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Felix Angeles purchased an Isuzu passenger jeepney from Armark Motor Works and Body Builders, payable in monthly installments, and executed a promissory note and chattel mortgage to secure payment. The seller assigned these documents to Filinvest Finance & Leasing Corporation, which later assigned them to petitioner Filinvest Credit Corporation. Due to alleged failures in payment, Filinvest Credit Corporation filed an action for replevin and seized the vehicle. Angeles filed an action for replevin with damages against Filinvest Finance and Leasing Corporation. He later amended his complaint to implead Filinvest Credit Corporation as a defendant, alleging it was the party that wrongfully seized the vehicle. The Regional Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of Angeles, but its dispositive portion was ambiguously worded, referring only to “the defendant” in most parts and specifically naming “defendant Filinvest Credit Corporation” only in the award for attorney’s fees. Believing it was only liable for attorney’s fees, Filinvest Credit Corporation did not appeal. Filinvest Finance and Leasing Corporation, believing it was the “defendant” held liable, appealed. The Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint against Filinvest Finance and Leasing Corporation but affirmed the trial court’s judgment against Filinvest Credit Corporation, with a modification increasing the monetary award in case the vehicle could not be returned. Filinvest Credit Corporation filed this petition, arguing the Court of Appeals could not increase its liability when it did not appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming and modifying the trial court’s judgment against Filinvest Credit Corporation, which did not appeal, by clarifying the ambiguous decision and holding it liable for all damages.

RULING

The petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The general rule that an appellate court’s reversal or modification binds only the parties to the appeal does not apply where, as here, the appellate court affirms and clarifies an ambiguous decision instead of reversing it. The ambiguity in the trial court’s decision stemmed from its careless drafting. Given the entire record, including the pleadings and evidence which clearly established that Filinvest Credit Corporation was the assignee of the obligation and the party that seized the vehicle, the Court of Appeals properly clarified the judgment. The remedy for ambiguity was to seek clarification from the trial court, but since an appeal was taken, the Court of Appeals had the authority to resolve the ambiguity. A judgment should be read in connection with the entire record and construed accordingly when ambiguous.