THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 107846. April 18, 1997.]

LEOVILLO C. AGUSTIN , petitioner, vs . COURT OF APPEALS and

FILINVEST FINANCE CORP. , respondents.

Leovillo C. Agustin Law Offices for petitioners.

Nelson A. Loyola for private respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; FINAL JUDGMENT; APPLICABILITY OF "LAW

OF THE CASE" DOCTRINE IN CASE AT BENCH. — The appellate court had already settled
the propriety of awarding repossession expenses in favor of private respondent. The
remand of the case to RTC Branch 40 was for the sole purpose of threshing out the
correct amount of expenses and not relitigating the accuracy of the award. Thus, the
ndings of RTC Branch 40, as a rmed by the appellate court in CA-G.R. No. 24684, were
con ned to the appreciation of evidence relative to the repossession expenses for the
query or issue passed upon by the respondent court in CA-G.R. No. 56718-R (propriety of
the award for repossession expenses) has become the "law of the case." This principle is
de ned as "a term applied to an established rule that when an appellate court passes on a
question and remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings, the question
there settled becomes the law of the case upon subsequent appeal." Having exactly the
same parties and issues, the decision in the former appeal (CA-G.R. No. 106718-R is now
the established and controlling rule. Petitioner may not therefore be allowed in a
subsequent appeal (CA- G.B. No. 24684) and in this petition to resuscitate and revive
formerly settled issues. Judgment of courts should attain nality at some point in time, as
in this case otherwise there will be no end to litigation.
2. CIVIL LAW; CIVIL CODE; ARTICLE 1484(3) THEREOF; RECOVERABLE EXPENSES
ABOVE VALUE RECEIVED FROM FORECLOSURE SALE; CASE AT BENCH. — At any rate,
even if we were to brush aside the "law of the case" doctrine we nd the award for
repossession expenses still proper. In Filipinas Investment & Finance Corporation v. Ridad,
the Court recognized an exception to the rule stated under Article 1484(8) upon which
petitioner relies. "Recoverable expenses would, in our view, include expenses properly
incurred in effecting seizure of the chattel and reasonable attorney's fees in prosecuting
the action for replevin."
3. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT GENERALLY
BINDING ON APPEAL; CASE AT BENCH. — Anent the denial of the award for attorney's
fees, we nd the same in order. The trial court, as well as respondent court, found no
evidence to support the claim for attorney's fees which factual nding is binding on us. We
find no compelling reason and none was presented, to set aside this ruling.

RESOLUTION

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 FRANCISCO , J : p

This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of respondent Court of Appeals in

CA-G.R. No. 24684 1 which a rmed the order of Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Manila, in
Civil Case No. 84804. 2
The dispute stemmed from an unpaid promissory note dated October 28, 1970,
executed by petitioner Leovillo C. Agustin in favor of ERM Commercial for the amount of
P43,480.80. The note was payable in monthly installments 3 and secured by a chattel
mortgage over an Isuzu diesel truck, 4 both of which were subsequently assigned to
private respondent Filinvest Finance Corporation. 5 When petitioner defaulted in paying the
installments, private respondent demanded from him the payment of the entire balance or,
in lieu thereof, the possession of the mortgaged vehicle. Neither payment nor surrender
was made. Aggrieved, private respondent led a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 26 (RTC Branch 26) against petitioner praying for the issuance of a writ of
replevin or, in the alternative, for the payment of P32,723.97 plus interest at the rate of 14%
per annum from due date until fully paid. 6 Trial ensued and, thereafter, a writ of replevin
was issued by RTC Branch 26. By virtue thereof, private respondent acquired possession
of the vehicle. Upon repossession, the latter discovered that the vehicle was no longer in
running condition and that several parts were missing which private respondent replaced.
The vehicle was then foreclosed and sold at public auction. casia

Private respondent subsequently led a "supplemental complaint" claiming

additional reimbursement worth P8,852.76 as value of replacement parts 7 and for
expenses incurred in transporting the mortgaged vehicle from Cagayan to Manila. In
response, petitioner moved to dismiss the supplemental complaint arguing that RTC
Branch 26 had already lost jurisdiction over the case because of the earlier extra-judicial
foreclosure of the mortgage. The lower court granted the motion and the case was
dismissed. 8 Private respondent elevated the matter to the appellate court, docketed as
CA-G.R. No. 56718-R, which set aside the order of dismissal and ruled that repossession
expenses incurred by private respondent should be reimbursed. 9 This decision became
nal and executory, hence the case was accordingly remanded to the Regional Trial Court
of Manila, Branch 40 (RTC Branch 40) for reception of evidence to determine the amount
due from petitioner. 1 0 After trial, RTC Branch 40 found petitioner liable for the
repossession expenses, attorney's fees, liquidated damages, bonding fees and other
expenses in the seizure of the vehicle in the aggregate sum of P18,547.38. Petitioner
moved for reconsideration. Acting thereon, RTC Branch 40 modi ed its decision by
lowering the monetary award to P8,852.76, the amount originally prayed for in the
supplemental complaint. 1 1 Private respondent appealed the case with respect to the
reduction of the amount awarded. Petitioner, likewise, appealed impugning the trial court's
order for him to pay private respondent P8,852.76, an amount over and above the value
received from the foreclosure sale. Both appeals were consolidated and in CA-G.R. No.
24684, the modi ed order of RTC Branch 40 was a rmed. Petitioner led a motion for
reconsideration, but to no avail. 1 2 Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner contends that the award of repossession expenses to private respondent
as mortgagee is "contrary to the letter, intent and spirit of Article 1484 1 3 of the Civil
Code". 1 4 He asserts that private respondent's repossession expenses have been amply
covered by the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage, hence he could no longer be held
liable. The arguments are devoid of merit.
Petitioner's contentions, we note, were previously rejected by respondent court in its
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 decision in CA-G.R. No. 56718-R the dispositive portion of which provides as follows:
"WHEREFORE, the order dismissing the case is hereby set aside and the
case is remanded to the lower court for reception of evidence of 'expenses
properly incurred in effecting seizure of the chattel (and) of recoverable attorney's
fees in prosecuting the action for replevin' as 'repossession expenses' prayed for
in the supplemental complaint, without pronouncement as to costs." 1 5

which ruling has long acquired nality. It is clear, therefore, that the appellate court had
already settled the propriety of awarding repossession expenses in favor of private
respondent. The remand of the case to RTC Branch 40 was for the sole purpose of
threshing out the correct amount of expenses and not for relitigating the accuracy of
the award. Thus, the ndings of RTC Branch 40, as a rmed by the appellate court in
CA-G.R. No. 24684, were con ned to the appreciation of evidence relative to the
repossession expenses for the query or issue passed upon by the respondent court in
CA-G.R. No. 56718-R (propriety of the award for repossession expenses) has become
the "law of the case". This principle is de ned as "a term applied to an established rule
that when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the cause to the lower
court for further proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law of the case
upon subsequent appeal." 16 Having exactly the same parties and issues, the decision in
the former appeal (CA-G.R. No. 56718-R) is now the established and controlling rule.
Petitioner may not therefore be allowed in a subsequent appeal (CA-G.R. No. 24684)
and in this petition to resuscitate and revive formerly settled issues. Judgment of
courts should attain nality at some point in time, as in this case, otherwise, there will
be no end to litigation.
At any rate, even if we were to brush aside the "law of the case" doctrine we nd the
award for repossession expenses still proper. In Filipinas Investment & Finance
Corporation v. Ridad, 17 the Court recognized an exception to the rule stated under Article
1484(3) upon which petitioner relies. Thus:
". . . Where the mortgagor plainly refuses to deliver the chattel subject of
the mortgage upon his failure to pay two or more installments, or if he conceals
the chattel to place it beyond the reach of the mortgagee, what then is the
mortgagee expected to do? . . . It logically follows as a matter of common sense,
that the necessary expenses incurred in the prosecution by the mortgagee of the
action for replevin so that he can regain possession of the chattel, should be
borne by the mortgagor. Recoverable expenses would, in our view, include
expenses properly incurred in effecting seizure of the chattel and reasonable
attorney's fees in prosecuting the action for replevin." 1 8

Anent the denial of the award for attorney's fees, we nd the same in order. The trial
court, as well as respondent court, found no evidence to support the claim for attorney's
fees which factual nding is binding on us. 1 9 We nd no compelling reason, and none was
presented, to set aside this ruling.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit, and the decision of the
Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. prcd

SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Davide, Jr., Melo and Panganiban, JJ ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Footnotes
1. Promulgated on August 18, 1992, penned by Justice Pedro A. Ramirez with Justices Cesar D.
Francisco and Pacita Canizares-Nye concurring; (Annex "A", Petition; Rollo, p. 50).
2. Promulgated on March 31, 1989, with Judge Felicidad Carandang-Villalon, presiding. (RTC
records; Vol. II, p. 63).
3. RTC Records, Vol. I, Record on Appeal; Annex "A", Promissory Note, p. 7.

4. Id.; Annex "B", Chattel Mortgage; p. 8.

5. Id.; Annex "C", Deed of Assignment; p. 9.
6. Supra 1 at 51.

7. RTC Records, Vol. I; Supplemental Complaint, p. 65.

8. Supra 1 at 52.

9. Decision promulgated on May 31, 1976, penned by Justice Ramon C. Fernandez with
Justices Ricardo Puno and Del n Batacan, concurring; (RTC Records, Vol. I, pp. 214-
224).
10. Supra 1 at 8; Rollo, p. 58.
11. Supra 1 at 55.

12. Id., Annex "B", p. 60.

13. ART. 1484. In a contract of sale of personal property the price of which is payable in
installments the vendor may exercise any of the following remedies:
(1) Exact fulfillment of the obligation, should the vendee fail to pay;

(2) Cancel the sale, should the vendee's failure to pay cover two or more installments;
(3) Foreclose the chattel mortgage on the thing sold, if one has been constituted, should the
vendee's failure to pay cover two or more installments. In this case, he shall have no
further action against the purchaser to recover any unpaid balance of the price. Any
agreement to the contrary shall be void.

14. Petition, p. 23; Rollo, p. 41.

15. Supra 10 at 8.

16. Trinidad v . Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 63 PHIL 881,913, citing Ballentine Law
Dictionary; Rodriguez v. COMELEC and Marquez, G.R. No. 120099, July 24, 1996.

17. 30 SCRA 564.

18. Id, 572-573.
19. Margolles vs. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 97, 106; Go Ong v. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA
270, 275.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com