Northern Motors vs Coquia NORTHERN MOTORS, INC., petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE JORGE R.

COQUIA, Executive Judge of the Court of First In- stance of Manila, HONESTO ONG, THE SHERIFF OF MANILA, DOMINADOR Q. CACPAL, The Acting Executive Sheriff of Manila, and/or his duly authorized deputy sheriff or representative, FILINVEST CREDIT CORPORATION, intervenor. Emergency Recit: Two things happened: (1) Manila Yellow Taxicab Co. purchased taxicabs from Northern Motors. Chattel mortgage over these taxicabs for security of payment. (2) Tropical Commercial obtained a judgment against Manila Yellow and assigned a portion of this right to Honesto Ong. To satisfy the judgement credit, sheriff levied taxicabs. Northern Motors filed third-party claims. Tropical Commercial paid an indemnity bond and auction sale pushed through. Note: Lower court cancelled indemnity bonds. More taxicabs were levied. Petition for certiorari to nullify lower court resolution in favor of judgement creditor (Tropical and Ong) and TRO on sale by sheriff. HELD of Orig case: Petition denied and TRO lifted. MR Issues: Whether or not Nothern Motors as chattel mortgagee and unpaid vendor has the better right of possession of the mortgaged taxicabs. YUP THEY DO! Whether or not the lower court gravely abused its discrection in cancelling the indemnity bonds. CORRECT AGAIN! HELD: We hold, under the facts of this case, that Northern Motors, as chattel mortgagee and unpaid vendor, should not be required to vindicate in a separate action. In this case what the sheriff could have sold at public auction was merely the mortgagor's right or equity of redemption. If the judgment creditor, Tropical Commercial, or the assignee, Ong, bought the mortgagor's equity of redemption at the auction sale, then it would step into the shoes of the mortgagor, Manila Yellow and be able to redeem the vehicles from Northern Motors, the mortgagee, by paying the mortgage debt. We hold that there was grave abuse of discretion in cancelling the said bonds without notice to Northern Motors and Filinvest Credit Corporation. A chattel mortgagee, as a third-party claimant, comes within the purview of the following provisions of Rule 39, Sec. 17.