PNB V. Noah'S Ark Sugar Refinery

PNB V.
NOAHS ARK SUGAR REFINERY

G.R. No. 107243 / 226 SCRA 36. 1 September 1993
FACTS:
Present case is on the disposition of the Trial judge who did not put into effect the notice to the final and
executory judgment of the CA, to wit: ...that a summary judgment be rendered forthwith in favor of the
PNB against Noah's Ark Sugar Refinery, et al., as prayed for in petitioner's Motion for Summary
Judgment. Instead he proceeded to render judgment in favor of Noahs Ark. That judgment has been
appealed by PNB to this Court "on pure questions of law."
No dispute exists about the facts (as FOLLOWS) which gave rise to the controversy at bar.
--Noah's Ark Sugar Refinery issued on several dates warehouse receipts (quedans) on different dates
during the early half of 1989 deposited by Rosa Sy or RNS Merchandising (4) and St. Therese
Merchandising (1). The receipts are substantially in the form, and contain the terms, prescribed for
negotiable warehouse receipts by Section 2 of the law.
Subsequently, of said warehouse receipts, two were negotiated and indorsed to Luis T. Ramos and to
three were negotiated and indorsed to Cresencia K. Zoleta. Zoleta and Ramos then used the quedans as
security for loans which they obtained from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in the amounts of P23.5
million and P15.6 million, respectively. These quedans they indorsed to the bank.
Both Zoleta and Ramos failed to pay their loans. PNB demanded delivery of the sugar covered by the
subject quedans but Noah's Ark refused. PNB commenced an action 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, 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."
It will later be found out, from the answer of Rosa Ng Sy and Teresita Ng to the third party complaint
against them filed by the owners of Noahs Ark, was essentially to the effect that the transaction between
them and Jimmy T. Go concerning the quedans and the sugar thereby covered was "bogus and simulated
(being part of the latter's) complex banking schemes and financial maneuvers;" that the simulated
transaction "was just a tolling scheme to
avoid VAT payment and other BIR assessments (considering that) as . . . confidentially intimated (by said
Jimmy Go) . . . Noah's Ark is under sequestration by the PCGG," and that the quedans "were in fact used
by Noah's Ark Executive Director, Luis T. Ramos, and one Cresenciana K. Zoleta as security for their
loans from the bank . . . . (in the aggregate amount) of P39.1 million pesos."
The PNB filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that there is no genuine issue as to a material
fact proper for trial and that plaintiff is entitled as a matter of law ... (to) a summary judgment... to which
the CA agreed:
What is determinative of the propriety of summary judgment is not the
existence of conflicting claims for prior parties but ... the defenses as to the
main issue do not tender material questions of fact ... or the issues thus
tendered are in fact sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad faith or so
unsubstantial as not to constitute genuine issues for trial... The questioned
Orders themselves do not specify what material facts are in issue.
The case was remanded to the Trial Court whose judge decided against the CA ruling.
ISSUE: WON the Trial judge committed grave abuse of discretion.
HELD:
Yes. The dispositive portion of the Courts decision follows:
WHEREFORE, the Trial Judge's Decision in Civil Case No. 90-53023 dated June 18, 1992 is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE and a new one rendered conformably with the final and executory Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 25938, ordering the private respondents, Noah's Ark Sugar Refinery,
Alberto T. Looyuko, Jimmy T. Go and William T. Go, jointly and severally:
a) to deliver to the petitioner Philippine National Bank, "the sugar stocks covered by the Warehouse
Receipts/Quedans which are now in the latter's possession as holder for value and in due course; or
alternatively, to pay (said) plaintiff actual damages in the amount of P39.1 Million," with legal interest
thereon from the filing of the complaint until full payment; and
b) to pay plaintiff Philippine National Bank attorney's fees, litigation expenses and judicial costs hereby
fixed at the amount of one hundred fifty thousand pesos (150,000.00), as well as the costs.
Philippine National Bank v. Producers Warehouse Association, G.R. No. L-16510 / 42Phil 608, 9
January 1922;
Ramon Gonzalez v. Co Thiong, G.R. No. L-11776 / 164 Phil 492, 30 August 1958;
Siy Cong Bieng& Co., Inc. v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, G.R. No. L-34655 / 56 Phil
598, 5 March 1932;
Security Transactions
Aleida Saavedra v. W.S. Price, G.R. No. L-46702 / 68 Phil 699, 6 October 1939;
Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. v. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-12333 / 105
Phil 246, 28 February 1959;

PNB V. Noah'S Ark Sugar Refinery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PNB V. Noah'S Ark Sugar Refinery

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PNB V. Noah'S Ark Sugar Refinery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PNB V.

NOAHS ARK SUGAR REFINERY

You might also like