GR 40327; (March, 1934) (Digest)
G.R. No. 40327 ; March 10, 1934
DIONISIO CONSTANTINO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The Panabutan Lumber and Plantation Co., Inc. mortgaged its personal property to the Philippine National Bank (PNB). After default, PNB extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage and purchased the property. PNB later sold the property to Antonio de la Riva. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs obtained a money judgment against Panabutan. When the sheriff attached the same property to execute the judgment, de la Riva filed a third-party claim. The sheriff required the plaintiffs to post a bond to proceed, which they failed to do, leading to the attachment being lifted. The plaintiffs then sued PNB, alleging that PNB’s sale to de la Riva of certain chattels (which were later excluded from the mortgage by a stipulation) prevented them from satisfying their judgment. They sought to hold PNB liable for the judgment amount.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action against PNB for damages arising from their inability to execute their judgment against Panabutan due to PNB’s sale of the chattels to de la Riva.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The plaintiffs had a more adequate and speedy remedy by posting the required bond to proceed with the attachment and sale of the property, but they renounced it. Even assuming the sale by PNB to de la Riva was void, the proper action should be against the purchaser (de la Riva), who was in possession of the chattels, not against PNB. The plaintiffs failed to exhaust their available legal remedy and therefore were not entitled to relief against PNB.
AI Generated by Armztrong.