Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Petitioner Chua Pac, the president and general manager of copetitioner "Acme Shoe, Rubber & Plastic Corporation," executed on
27 June 1978, for and in behalf of the company, a chattel mortgage
in favor of private respondent Producers Bank of the Philippines. The
mortgage stood by way of security for petitioner's corporate loan of
three million pesos (P3,000,000.00). A provision in the chattel
mortgage agreement was to this effect -
makes it obvious that the debt referred to in the law is a current, not
an obligation that is yet merely contemplated. In the chattel mortgage
The statement is not called for. The Court invites counsel's attention
to the admonition in Guerrero vs. Villamor;xxii thus:
"(L)awyers x x x should bear in mind their basic duty `to
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and
judicial officers and x x x (to) insist on similar conduct by others.'
This respectful attitude towards the court is to be observed, `not
for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but
for the maintenance of its supreme importance.' And it is `through
a scrupulous preference for respectful language that a lawyer best
demonstrates his observance of the respect due to the courts and
judicial officers x x x.'"xxiii
The virtues of humility and of respect and concern for others must
still live on even in an age of materialism.
SO ORDERED.
respondent bank.
Bellosillo, J., on leave.
i Rollo, p. 45.
ii Ibid., p. 34.
iii Ibid.
iv Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago, ponente, with Associate Justices Ricardo
L. Pronove, Jr. and Nicolas P. Lapea, Jr., concurring.
v In the Court's resolution, dated 27 May 1992, Rollo, p. 91.
vi Sec. 5 (2) (d), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution.
vii See Arts. 2085, 2087, 2093, 2125, 2126, 2132, 2139 and 2140, Civil Code.
viii See Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. vs. Velayo, 21 SCRA 515.
ix See Sec. 3, Act 1508.
x See Mojica vs. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 517; Lim Julian vs. Lutero, 49 Phil. 703.
xi Act No. 1508.
xii See Philippine Refining Co. vs. Jarque, 61 Phil. 229.
xiii Civil Code, Vol. 3, 1990 Edition by Ramon C. Aquino and Carolina C. Grio-Aquino,
pp. 610-611.
xiv 49 Phil. 647.
xv At p. 655. This ruling was reiterated in Jaca vs. Davao Lumber Company, 113 SCRA
107.
xvi Being merely accessory in nature, it cannot exist independently of the principal
obligation.
xvii Petitioner's Memorandum, p. 5; Rollo, p. 119.
xviii Complaint, p. 6; Record, p. 9.
xix 236 SCRA 602.
xx At p. 607.
xxi Rollo, p. 113.
xxii 179 SCRA 355, 362.
xxiii At p. 362.