Mambulao Lumber Company v. PNB
Mambulao Lumber Company v. PNB
SUBJECT MATTER: Sec 2. Corporation Defined: Can a Corporation recover moral damages?
DOCTRINE:
Herein appellant's claim for moral damages however, seems to have no legal or factual basis. Obviously, an artificial
person like herein appellant corporation cannot experience physical sufferings, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, wounded feelings, moral shock or social humiliation which are the basis of moral damages. A corporation
may have a good reputation which, if besmirched, may also be a ground for the award of moral damages. The same
cannot be considered under the facts of this case, however, not only because it is admitted that herein appellant had
already ceased in its business operation at the time of the foreclosure sale of the chattels, but also for the reason that
whatever adverse effect the foreclosure sale of the chattels, could have upon its reputation or business standing
would undoubtedly be the same whether the sale was conducted at Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, or in Manila
which is the place agreed upon by the parties in the mortgage contract.
ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT: Appeal from a decision, dated April 2, 1964, of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, dismissing the complaint against both defendants and sentencing the plaintiff to pay to defendant
Philippine National Bank the sum of P3,582.52 with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from December 22,
1961 until fully paid, and the costs of suit.
SUMMARY:
Petitioner Mambulao Lumber applied for an industrial loan with herein respondent PNB and was approved with its
real estate, machinery and equipments as collateral. PNB released the approved loan but petitioner failed to pay and
was later discovered to have already stopped in its operation. PNB then moved for the foreclosure and sale of the
mortgaged properties. The properties were sold and petitioner sent a bank draft to PNB to settle the balance of the
obligation. PNB however alleges that a remaining balance stands and a foreclosure sale would still be held unless
petitioner remits said amount. The foreclosure sale proceeded and petitioner’s properties were taken out of its
compound. Petitioner filed actions before the court and claims among others, moral damages.
Whether petitioner corporation, who has already ceased its operation, may claim for moral damages?
No, Mambulao is NOT ENTITLED to moral damages.
Even if PNB and sheriff committed several infractions:
1. Sheriff’s actual work performed should be compensated pursuant to Sec 4 of Act 3135, which is the
governing law for extrajudicial foreclosure and not Sec 7 of Rule 130, which is applicable for judicial
foreclosure;
2. Atty’s fees was found to be excessive and unconscionable;
3. Foreclosure should be conducted in the City of Manila, as agreed in the contract. Ergo, PNB is guilty of
conversion when he sells under the mortgage but not in accordance with its terms; and
4. The amount of sale of the chattels is spurious and grossly unfair to Mambulao.
However, Mambulao’s claim for moral damages seems to have no legal or factual basis. Obviously, an artificial
person like herein plaintiff corporation cannot experience physical sufferings, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
wounded feelings, moral shock or social humiliation which are basis of moral damages. A corporation may have a
good reputation which, if besmirched, may also be a ground for the award of moral damages. The same cannot be
considered under the facts of this case, however, not only because it is admitted that herein appellant had already
ceased in its business operation at the time of the foreclosure sale of the chattels, but also for the reason that
whatever adverse effects of the foreclosure sale of the chattels could have upon its reputation or business standing
would undoubtedly be the same whether the sale was conducted at Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, or in Manila
which is the place agreed upon by the parties in the mortgage contract.
But for the wrongful acts of PNB and Sheriff of Camarines Norte in proceeding with the sale in utter disregard of the
agreement to have the chattels sold in Manila as provided for in the mortgage contract, to which their attentions were
timely called by herein appellant, and in disposing of the chattels in gross for the miserable amount of P4,200.00,
Mambulao should be awarded exemplary damages in the sum of P10,000.00. The circumstances of the case
also warrant the award of P3,000.00 as attorney's fees for Mambulao.
However, Mambulao’s claim for moral damages seems to have no legal or factual basis. Obviously, an artificial
person like herein plaintiff corporation cannot experience physical sufferings, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
wounded feelings, moral shock or social humiliation which are basis of moral damages. A corporation may have a
good reputation which, if besmirched, may also be a ground for the award of moral damages. The same cannot be
considered under the facts of this case, however, not only because it is admitted that herein appellant had already
ceased in its business operation at the time of the foreclosure sale of the chattels, but also for the reason that
whatever adverse effects of the foreclosure sale of the chattels could have upon its reputation or business standing
would undoubtedly be the same whether the sale was conducted at Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, or in
Manila which is the place agreed upon by the parties in the mortgage contract.
But for the wrongful acts of PNB and Sheriff of Camarines Norte in proceeding with the sale in utter disregard of the
agreement to have the chattels sold in Manila as provided for in the mortgage contract, to which their attentions
were timely called by herein appellant, and in disposing of the chattels in gross for the miserable amount of
P4,200.00, Mambulao should be awarded exemplary damages in the sum of P10,000.00. The circumstances
of the case also warrant the award of P3,000.00 as attorney's fees for Mambulao.
[OTHER ISSUES] Whether the foreclosure of chattels was valid? – NO
RTC made error when it awarded interest on accrued interests, without any agreement to that effect and before
they had been judicially demanded.
Sec 5 of Act No. 2655 expressly provides that in computing the interest on any obligation, promissory note,
or other instrument or contract, compound interest shall not be reckoned, except by agreement, or in
default thereof, whenever the debt is judicially claimed.
Art 2212, NCC provides that interest due shall earn legal interest only from the time it is judicially
demanded…
Art 1959, NCC ordains that interest due and unpaid shall not earn interest.
No evidence to support the conclusion that PNB is entitled to the amount awarded as expenses of the extrajudicial
foreclosure sale. Only the amount of P1,000 would be more than sufficient for the attorney’s fees.
Fees enumerated under paragraphs k and n, Section 7, of Rule 130 (now Rule 141) are demandable only
by a sheriff serving processes of the court in connection with judicial foreclosure of mortgages under Rule
68 of the new Rules, and not in cases of extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages under Act 3135.
The law applicable is Section 4 of Act 3135 which provides that the officer conducting the sale is entitled to
collect a fee of P5.00 for each day of actual work performed in addition to his expenses in connection with
the foreclosure sale.
PNB failed to prove during the trial of the case, that it actually spent any amount in connection with the
said foreclosure sale. Neither may expenses for publication of the notice be legally allowed in the absence
of evidence on record to support it.
Obviously, therefore, the award of P298.54 as expenses of the sale should be set aside.
DISPOSITIVE: Wherefore and considering all the foregoing, the decision appealed from should be, as hereby, it is
set aside. The Philippine National Bank and the Deputy Sheriff of the province of Camarines Norte are ordered to
pay, jointly and severally, to Mambulao Lumber Company the total amount of P56,000.73, broken as follows: P150.73
overpaid by the latter to the PNB, P42,850.00 the value of the chattels at the time of the sale with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from December 21, 1961, until fully paid, P10,000.00 in exemplary damages, and P3,000.00 as
attorney's fees. Costs against both appellees.