LEOVILLO C. AGUSTIN vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and FILINVEST FINANCE CORPORATION

Both appeals were consolidated and modified order of RTC Branch 40 was affirmed. Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration, but to no avail. Hence this petition. Petitioner contends: Award of repossession expenses to private respondent as mortgagee is contrary to the letter, intent and spirit of Article 1484 of the Civil Code. He asserts that private respondents repossession expenses have been amply covered by the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage, hence he could no longer be held liable.

Appeal by certiorari from the decision of CA which affirmed the order of RTC Branch 40, Manila. FACTS: Dispute stemmed from an unpaid promisory note executed by petitioner in favor of ERM Commercial for P43, 480.80. Note was payable in monthly installments and secured by chattel mortgage over Isuzu diesel truck, assigned to public respondent, Filinvest Finance Corporation. Petitioner defaulted in paying installments. Private respondent demanded the payment or in lieu thereof, possession of mortgaged vehicle. Neither payment nor surrender was made. Private respondent filed a complaint with RTC Branch 26 praying for issuance or writ of replevin or payment of P32, 723.97 plus interest. RTC Branch 26 issued a writ of replevin. Private

ISSUE: WON petitioner can raise the issue on repossession expenses which was already settled by the CA and which ruling has long acquired finality. HELD: NO. Petition Denied, CA order affirmed in toto. The CA ruling was the law of the case, the established and controlling rule. Law of the case principle: a term applied to an established rule that when an appellate courts passes on a question and remands the cause to a lower court for further proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law pf the case upon subsequent appeal.

respondent acquired possession of vehicle. Vehicle was no longer in running condition and several parts were missing which private respondent replaced. Vehicle was foreclosed and sold at public auction. Private respondent filed supplemental complaint claiming additional reimbursement for the value of replacement parts and the expense of transporting the vehicle from Cagayan to Manila. Petitioner moved to dismiss arguing RTC lost jurisdiction because of earlier extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage. Lower court granted motion and dismissed the case. Private respondent elevated the matter to CA, which set aside order of dismissal and ruled that repossession expenses should be reimbursed. Decision was final and executory. Case was remanded to RTC Branch 40 for reception of evidence to determine amount due from petitioner. RTC found petitioner liable for repossession expenses, attorneys fees, liquidated damages, bonding fees and other expenses in seizure of vehicle amounting to P18,547.38. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. RTC modified decision by lowering monetary award to P8,852.76, amount originally prayed for in the supplemental complaint. Private respondent appealed. Petitioner appealed impugning trial courts order.

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.