Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Acme Shoe, Rubber and Plastic Corporation v.

G.R. No. 103576, Aug. 22, 1996

Contracts of Security: Chattel Mortgage

The rule on after-incurred obligations

Is a corporation entitled to moral damages?

Chua Pac, president and general manager of Acme Shoe, Rubber and Plastic Corporation,
executed a chattel mortgage in favor of Producers Bank of the Philippines, as a security for a
corporate loan in the amount of P3M. The chattel mortgagecontained a clause that provided for
the mortgage to stand as security for all other obligations contracted before, during and after the
constitution of the mortgage.
The P3M was paid. Subsequently, the corporation obtained additional
financial accommodations totalling P2.7M. This was also paid on the due date. Again, the bank
extended another loan to the corporation in the amount of P1M, covered by four promissory
notes. However, the corporation was unable to pay this at maturity. Thereupon, the bank applied
for an extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage.
For its part, the corporation filed an action for injunction with prayer for damages. The lower
court ultimately dismissed the case and ordered the extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage.
Hence, this appeal.

W/N extra-judicial foreclosure of the chattel mortgage is proper

If not proper, W/N the corporation is entitled to damages as a result of the extrajudicial foreclosure

Contracts of Security
Contracts of security are either personal or real. In contracts of personal security, such as a
guaranty or suretyship, the faithful performance of the obligation by the principal debtor is
secured by the personal commitment of another (the guarantor or surety). In contracts of real

security, such as a pledge, a mortgage or an antichresis, that fulfillment is secured by an

encumbrance of property -- in pledge, the placing of movable property in the possession of the
creditor; inchattel mortgage by the execution of the corresponding and substantially in teh form
prescribed by law; in real estatemortgage, by the execution of a public instrument encumbering
the real property covered thereby; and in antichresis, by a written instrument granting to the
creditor the right to receive the fruits of an immovable property with the obligation to apply such
fruits to the payment of interest, if owing, and thereafter to the principal of his credit -- upon the
essential condition that if the obligation becomes due and the debtor defaults, then the property
encumbered can be alienated forthe payment of the obligation, but that should the obligation be
duly paid, then the contract is automatically extinguished proceeding from the accessory
character of the agreement. As the law so puts it, once the obligation is complied with, then the
contract of security becomes, ipso facto, null and void.
After-incurred Obligations
While a pledge, real estate mortgage, or antichresis may exceptionaly secure after-incurred
obligations so long as these future debts are accurately described, a chattel mortgage, however,
can only cover obligations existing at the time themortgage is constituted. Although a promise
expressed in a chattel mortgage to include debts that are yet to be contracted can be a binding
commitment that can be compelled upon, the security itself, however, does not come into
existence or arise until after a chattel mortgage agreement covered the newly contracted debt is
executed either by concluding a fresh chattel mortgage or by amending the old contract
conformably with the Chattel Mortgage Law. Refusal on the part of borrower to execute the
agreement so as to cover the after-incurred obligation can constitute as an act of default on the
part of the borrower of the financing agreement wherein the promise is written, but, of course,
the remedy of foreclosure can only cover the debts extant at the time of constitution and during
the life of the chattel mortgage sought to be foreclosed.
In the case at bar, the chattel mortgage was terminated when payment for the P3M loan was
made so there was nochattel mortgage to even foreclose at the time the bank instituted the extrajudicial foreclosure.
In its complaint, the corporation asked for moral damages sustained "as a result of the unlawful
action taken by the respondent bank against it." The court said -"Moral damages are granted in recompense for physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury. A corporation, being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation,
has no feelings, no emotions, no senses; therefore it cannot experience physical suffering and
mental anguish. Mental suffering can be experienced only by one having a nervous system and it
flows from real ills and sorrows and griefs of life -- all of which cannot be suffered by
respondent bank as an artificial person.

"Although Chua Pac was included in the case, he was only so named as a party in representation
of the corporation."