G.R. No. 107345 January 27, 1994
BA FINANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND WILSON SIY, respondents.

FACTS

On June 15, 1976, Yanky Hardware Company, Inc. (YANKY) was granted a credit accommodation by BA Finance Corporation (petitioner), secured by a chattel mortgage over its stock-in-trade and a continuing suretyship agreement from its President. YANKY subsequently defaulted on its obligations. On October 21, 1981, petitioner filed a complaint for replevin with damages. The trial court ordered the seizure of the mortgaged chattels. The sheriff seized properties from YANKY’s premises on October 26, 1981, issuing a receipt with a list. On November 5, 1981, the sheriff filed a new report stating it superseded the earlier list, containing a reinventory conducted at petitioner’s warehouse. Due to YANKY’s financial difficulties, creditor banks intervened. The trial court, upon motion, ordered the public auction of the replevied chattels. After a failed first auction, a second auction was held on May 31, 1984, where respondent Wilson Siy was declared the highest bidder. Petitioner moved to cancel the sale, alleging it was deprived of a chance to bid. The trial court initially cancelled the sale but, upon Siy’s motion for reconsideration, reinstated it in an order dated June 20, 1984, and later directed the delivery of the chattels to Siy. A dispute arose because not all chattels listed in the sheriff’s notice of sale were delivered to Siy. The trial court, after commissioner reports, issued an order on January 22, 1986, directing petitioner to deliver to Siy the properties listed in the inventory attached to the Sheriff’s Report of November 5, 1981, minus those already delivered, or pay their equivalent value. Petitioner’s appeal to the Court of Appeals was initially dismissed for late filing but was later allowed by the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order. Petitioner now seeks review by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not allowing petitioner’s appeal from the trial court’s June 20, 1984 order which permitted the intervention of respondent Siy and ordered the release of the properties to him.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s January 22, 1986 order directing petitioner to deliver to respondent Siy the properties listed in the inventory attached to the Sheriff’s Report of November 5, 1981.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that the order of June 20, 1984 was interlocutory, not a final order, as it did not dispose of the case on the merits but merely concerned the procedure for the auction sale’s implementation. An interlocutory order is not appealable until a final judgment is rendered. Petitioner’s remedy was not an appeal but to wait for the final judgment and raise it as an error therein. The Court of Appeals correctly considered this assigned error moot and academic.
2. On the second issue, the Court found the factual conclusions of the Court of Appeals to be fully supported by the record and thus conclusive. The Court of Appeals found that: (a) the Sheriff’s Report of November 5, 1981 expressly stated it superseded the earlier list of October 26, 1981; (b) the reinventory was conducted at petitioner’s warehouse with its representatives participating and preparing the list; (c) petitioner did not question this report for almost three years; and (d) the trial court’s order for auction and the subsequent sheriff’s notice of sale referred to the properties listed in the November 5, 1981 inventory. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in such cases is limited to reviewing errors of law, and the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding absent a showing of being devoid of support or glaringly erroneous. No such showing was made.