CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ PCI LEASING & FINANCE INC. VS. TROJAN META INDUSTRIES, INC., GR NO. 176381, 15 DECEMBER 2010
PCI LEASING & FINANCE INC. VS. TROJAN META INDUSTRIES, INC.,
GR NO. 176381, 15 DECEMBER 2010
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Section 14 of the Chattel Mortgage Law expressly entitles
the debtor-mortgagor to the balance of the proceeds, upon satisfaction of the
principal loan and costs. Prevailing jurisprudence also holds that the Chattel
Mortgage Law bars the creditor-mortgagee from retaining the excess of the sale
proceeds.
Financing leasing contemplates
the extension of credit to assist a buyer in acquiring movable property which
he can use and eventually own, but if the movable property already belonged to
the borrower-lessee, the transaction between the parties is a loan with
mortgage in the guise of a lease.
FACTS
Sometime in 1997, Trojan Metal
Industries, Inc. (TMI) came to PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. (PCILF) to seek a
loan. Instead of extending a loan, PCILF offered to buy various equipment TMI
owned. Hard-pressed for money, TMI agreed. PCILF and TMI immediately executed
deeds of sale evidencing TMIs sale to PCILF of the various equipment.
PCILF and TMI then entered into a lease agreement,
whereby the latter leased from the former the various equipment it previously
owned. Pursuant to the lease agreement, TMI issued postdated checks
representing 24 monthly installments. The lease agreement required TMI to give PCILF a guaranty deposit which
would serve as security for the timely performance of TMIs obligations under
the lease agreement, to be automatically forfeited should TMI return the leased
equipment before the expiration of the lease agreement. Further, spouses Dizon,
as TMIs President and Vice-President, executed in favor of PCILF a Continuing
Guaranty of Lease Obligations. Under the continuing guaranty, the Dizon spouses
agreed to immediately pay whatever obligations would be due PCILF in case TMI
failed to meet its obligations under the lease agreement.
To obtain additional loan from another financing
company, TMI used the leased equipment as temporary collateral. PCILF
considered the second mortgage a violation of the lease agreement. PCILF sent
TMI a demand letter for the payment of the latters outstanding obligation.
PCILFs demand remained unheeded. RTC
ruled that the lease agreement must be presumed valid as the law between the
parties even if some of its provisions constituted unjust enrichment on the
part of PCILF. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTCs decision.
ISSUE
Whether the sale with lease agreement
the parties entered into was a financial lease or a loan secured by chattel
mortgage.
Is TMI entitled to refund?
RULING
The court held that in a true
financial leasing, whether under RA 5980 or RA 8556, a finance company
purchases on behalf of a cash-strapped lessee the equipment the latter wants to
buy but, due to financial limitations, is incapable of doing so, then the
finance company leases the equipment to the lessee in exchange for the latter’s
periodic payment of a fixed amount of rental. Financing leasing contemplates
the extension of credit to assist a buyer in acquiring movable property which
he can use and eventually own, but if the movable property already belonged to
the borrower-lessee, the transaction between the parties is a loan with
mortgage in the guise of a lease.
Here, the court held that the
finance company then leases the equipment to the lessee in exchange for the
latter’s periodic payment of a fixed amount of rental. In this case, however,
TMI already owned the subject equipment before it transacted with PCILF.
Therefore, the transaction between the parties in this case cannot be deemed to
be in the nature of a financial leasing as defined by law.
Yes, as to the second issue.
The court held that Section 14
of the Chattel Mortgage Law expressly entitles the debtor-mortgagor to the balance
of the proceeds, upon satisfaction of the principal loan and costs. Prevailing
jurisprudence also holds that the Chattel Mortgage Law bars the
creditor-mortgagee from retaining the excess of the sale proceeds.
Here, the court held that TMIs right to the refund
accrued from the time PCILF received the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged
equipment. However, since TMI never made a counterclaim or demand for refund
due on the resulting overpayment after offsetting the proceeds of the sale against
the remaining balance on the principal loan plus applicable interest, no
interest applies on the amount of refund due. Nonetheless, in accord with
prevailing jurisprudence, the excess amount PCILF must refund to TMI is subject
to interest at 12% per annum from finality of this Decision until fully paid.