8/6/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 350http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f00e0e4d0c74b10e7000a0094004f00ee/p/AKE298/?username=Guest 1/8VOL. 350, JANUARY 29, 2001 427Calibo, Jr. vs. Court of AppealsG.R. No. 120528. January 29, 2001.*ATTY. DIONISIO CALIBO, JR., petitioner, vs. COURT OFAPPEALS and DR. PABLO U. ABELLA, respondents.Pledge;Requisites;WordsandPhrases;Inacontractofpledge, the creditor is given the right to retain his debtors movableproperty in his possession, or in that of a third person to whom ithas been delivered, until the debt is paid.In a contract of pledge,thecreditorisgiventherighttoretainhisdebtorsmovableproperty in his possession, or in that of a third person to whom ithasbeendelivered,untilthedebtispaid.Forthecontracttobevalid,itisnecessarythat:(1)thepledgeisconstitutedtosecurethefulfillmentofaprincipalobligation;(2)thepledgorbetheabsoluteownerofthethingpledged;and(3)thepersonconstitutingthepledgehasthefreedisposalofhisproperty,andintheabsencethereof,thathebelegallyauthorizedforthepurpose.Agency; Foranagencyrelationshiptobedeemedasimplied,theprincipalmustknowthatanotherpersonisactingonhisbehalfwithoutauthority.Therealsodoesnotappeartobeanyagency in this case. We agree with the Court of Appeals that: Asindicated in Article 1869, for an agency relationship to be deemedas implied, the principal must know that another person is actingonhisbehalfwithoutauthority.Here,appelleecategoricallystated that the only purpose for his leaving the subject tractor inthecareandcustodyofMikeAbellawasforsafekeeping,anddefinitelynotforhimtopledgeoralienatethesame.Ifitweretrue that Mike pledged appellees tractor to appellant, then Mikewasactingnotonlywithoutappelleesauthoritybutwithoutthelattersknowledgeaswell.Article1911,ontheotherhand,mandatesthattheprincipalissolidarilyliablewiththeagentifthe former allowed the latter to act as though he had full powers.Again,inviewofappelleeslackofknowledgeofMikespledging8/6/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 350http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f00e0e4d0c74b10e7000a0094004f00ee/p/AKE298/?username=Guest 2/8thetractorwithoutanyauthorityfromhim,itstandstoreasonthattheformercouldnothaveallowedthelattertopledgethetractor as if he had full powers to do so.Deposit; Words and Phrases; In a contract of deposit, a personreceives an object belonging to another with the obligation of safelykeepingitandofreturningthesamethereisnodepositiftheprincipal purpose for________________* SECOND DIVISION.428428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDCalibo, Jr. vs. Court of Appealsreceiving the object is not safekeeping.There is likewise no validdeposit in this case. In a contract of deposit, a person receives anobject belonging to another with the obligation of safely keeping itandofreturningthesame.Petitionerhimselfstatesthathereceived the tractor not to safely keep it but as a form of securityforthepaymentofMikeAbellasobligations.Thereisnodepositwheretheprincipalpurposeforreceivingtheobjectisnotsafekeeping.Actions; Certiorari; Courts; Apetitionforreviewoncertiorariis not the proper vehicle for allegations concerning irregularities inthe raffle and disposition of the case at the trial court.We do nothere pass upon the other assignment of errors made by petitionerconcerningallegedirregularitiesintheraffleanddispositionofthe case at the trial court. A petition for review on certiorari is notthe proper vehicle for such allegations.PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of theCourt of Appeals.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.Dionisio A. Calibo, Jr. for and his own behalf.Delfin M. Quijano for private respondent.QUISUMBING, J.:8/6/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 350http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f00e0e4d0c74b10e7000a0094004f00ee/p/AKE298/?username=Guest 3/8Beforeusisthepetitionforreviewoncertioraribypetitioner Dionisio Calibo, Jr., assailing the decision of theCourt of Appeals in CAG.R. CV No. 39705, which affirmedthedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofCebu,Branch11, declaring private respondent as the lawful possessor ofatractorsubjectofareplevinsuitandorderingpetitionertopayprivaterespondentactualdamagesandattorneysfees.Thefactsofthecase,assummarizedbyrespondentcourt, are undisputed....onJanuary25,1979,plaintiffappellee[hereinpetitioner]PabloU.AbellapurchasedanMF210agriculturaltractorwithSerial No. 00105 and Engine No. P126M00199 (Exhibit A; Record,p. 5) which he used in his farm in Dagohoy, Bohol.429VOL. 350, JANUARY 29, 2001 429Calibo, Jr. vs. Court of AppealsSometime in October or November 1985, Pablo Abella's son, MikeAbellarentedforresidentialpurposesthehouseofdefendantappellant Dionisio R. Calibo, Jr., in Tagbilaran City.InOctober1986,PabloAbellapulledouthisaforementionedtractorfromhisfarminDagohoy,Bohol,andleftitinthesafekeeping of his son, Mike Abella, in Tagbilaran City. Mike keptthe tractor in the garage of the house he was leasing from Calibo.SincehestartedrentingCaliboshouse,Mikehadbeenreligiouslypayingthemonthlyrentalstherefore,butbeginningNovemberof1986,hestoppeddoingso.Thefollowingmonth,CalibolearnedthatMikehadneverpaidthechargesforelectricandwaterconsumptionintheleasedpremiseswhichthelatterwasdutyboundtoshoulder.Thus,CaliboconfrontedMikeabouthis rental arrears and the unpaid electric and water bills. Duringthis confrontation, Mike informed Calibo that he (Mike) would bestayingintheleasedpropertyonlyuntiltheendofDecember1986.MikealsoassuredCalibothathewouldbesettlinghisaccount with the latter, offering the tractor as security. Mike evenaskedCalibotohelphimfindabuyerforthetractorsohecouldsooner pay his outstanding obligation.InJanuary1987whenanewtenantmovedintothehouseformerlyleasedtoMike,Calibohadthetractormovedtothegarage of his fathers house, also in Tagbilaran City.Apprehensive over Mikes unsettled account, Calibo visited him8/6/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 350http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f00e0e4d0c74b10e7000a0094004f00ee/p/AKE298/?username=Guest 4/8inhisCebuCityaddressinJanuary,FebruaryandMarch,1987andtriedtocollectpayment.Onallthreeoccasions,CalibowasunabletotalktoMikeasthelatterwasreportedlyoutoftown.On his third trip to Cebu City, Calibo left word with the occupantsof the Abella residence thereat that there was a prospective buyerforthetractor.Thefollowingweek,MikesawCaliboinTagbilaranCitytoinquireaboutthepossibletractorbuyer.Thesale,however,didnotpushthroughasthebuyerdidnotcomebackanymore.Whenagainconfrontedwithhisoutstandingobligation, Mike reassured Calibo that the tractor would stand asa guarantee for its payment. That was the last time Calibo saw orheard from Mike.Afteralongwhile,oronNovember22,1988,Mikesfather,PabloAbella,cametoTagbilaranCitytoclaimandtakepossessionofthetractor.Calibo,however,informedPablothatMikeleftthetractorwithhimassecurityforthepaymentofMikesobligationtohim.PabloofferedtowriteMikeacheckforP2,000.00inpaymentofMikesunpaidleaserentals,inadditionto issuing postdated checks to cover the unpaid electric and waterbills the correctness of which Pablo said he still had to verify withMike. Calibo told Pablo that he would accept the P2,000.00checkonly if the430430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDCalibo, Jr. vs. Court of Appealslatterwouldexecuteapromissorynoteinhisfavortocovertheamountoftheunpaidelectricandwaterbills.Pablowasnotamenable to this proposal. The two of them having failed to cometoanagreement,PabloleftandwentbacktoCebuCity,unsuccessful in his attempt to take possession of the tractor.1OnNovember25,1988,privaterespondentinstitutedanactionforreplevin,claimingownershipofthetractorandseekingtorecoverpossessionthereoffrompetitioner.Asadvertedtoabove,thetrialcourtruledinfavorofprivaterespondent;sodidtheCourtofAppealswhenpetitionerappealed.TheCourtofAppealssustainedtherulingofthetrialcourtthatMikeAbellacouldnothavevalidlypledgedthesubjecttractortopetitionersincehewasnottheownerthereof,norwasheauthorizedbyitsownertopledgethetractor.Respondentcourtalsorejectedpetitioners8/6/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 350http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f00e0e4d0c74b10e7000a0094004f00ee/p/AKE298/?username=Guest 5/8contention that, if not a pledge, then a deposit was created.TheCourtofAppealssaidthatundertheCivilCode,theprimarypurposeofadepositisonlysafekeepingandnot,as in this case, securing payment of a debt.TheCourtofAppealsreducedtheamountofactualdamagespayabletoprivaterespondent,deductingtherefromthecostoftransportingthetractorfromTagbilaran, Bohol, to Cebu City.Hence, this petition.Essentially,petitionerclaimsthatthetractorinquestionwasvalidlypledgedtohimbyprivaterespondentssonMikeAbellatoanswerforthelattersmonetaryobligationstopetitioner.Inthealternative,petitioner asserts that the tractor was left with him, in theconcept of an innkeeper, on deposit and that he may validlyhold on thereto until Mike Abella pays his obligations.PetitionermaintainsthatevenifMikeAbellawerenotthe owner of the tractor, a principalagent relationship maybeimpliedbetweenMikeAbellaandprivaterespondent.Hecontendsthatthelatterfailedtorepudiatetheallegedagency,knowingthathissonisactingonhisbehalfwithoutauthoritywhenhepledgedthetractortopetitioner. Petitioner argues that, under Article 1911 of the____________________1 Rollo, pp. 3335.431VOL. 350, JANUARY 29, 2001 431Calibo, Jr. vs. Court of AppealsCivil Code, private respondent is bound by the pledge, evenifitwerebeyondtheauthorityofhissontopledgethetractor,sinceheallowedhissontoactasthoughhehadfull powers.Ontheotherhand,privaterespondentassertsthatrespondent court had correctly ruled on the matter.In a contract of pledge, the creditor is given the right toretain his debtors movable property in his possession, or inthat of a third person to whom it has been delivered, untilthe debt is paid. For the contract to be valid, it is necessarythat:(1)thepledgeisconstitutedtosecurethefulfillmentofaprincipalobligation;(2)thepledgorbetheabsolute8/6/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 350http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f00e0e4d0c74b10e7000a0094004f00ee/p/AKE298/?username=Guest 6/8owner of the thing pledged; and (3) the person constitutingthe pledge has the free disposal of his property, and in theabsencethereof,thathebelegallyauthorizedforthepurpose.2Asfoundbythetrialcourtandaffirmedbyrespondentcourt,thepledgorinthiscase,MikeAbella,wasnottheabsolute owner of the tractor that was allegedly pledged topetitioner.Thetractorwasownedbyhisfather,privaterespondent,wholefttheequipmentwithhimforsafekeeping.Clearly,thesecondrequisiteforavalidpledge,thatthepledgorbetheabsoluteowneroftheproperty,isabsentinthiscase.Hence,thereisnovalidpledge.He who is not the owner or proprietor of the property pledged ormortgagedtoguaranteethefulfillmentofaprincipalobligation,cannot legally constitute such a guaranty as may validly bind theproperty in favor of his creditor, and the pledgee or mortgagee insuch a case acquires no right whatsoever in the property pledgedor mortgaged.3Therealsodoesnotappeartobeanyagencyinthiscase.We agree with the Court of Appeals that:AsindicatedinArticle1869,foranagencyrelationshiptobedeemed as implied, the principal must know that another personisactingonhisbehalfwithoutauthority.Here,appelleecategorically stated that_____________________2 CIVIL CODE, Article 2085.3 A.M. TOLENTINO V, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, p. 533.432432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDCalibo, Jr. vs. Court of Appealsthe only purpose for his leaving the subject tractor in the care andcustody of Mike Abella was for safekeeping, and definitely not forhimtopledgeoralienatethesame.IfitweretruethatMikepledgedappelleestractortoappellant,thenMikewasactingnotonlywithoutappelleesauthoritybutwithoutthelattersknowledge as well.Article 1911, on the other hand, mandates that the principal is8/6/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 350http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f00e0e4d0c74b10e7000a0094004f00ee/p/AKE298/?username=Guest 7/8solidarity liable with the agent if the former allowed the latter toact as though he had full powers. Again, in view of appellees lackof knowledge of Mikes pledging the tractor without any authorityfromhim,itstandstoreasonthattheformercouldnothaveallowed the latter to pledge the tractor as if he had full powers todo so.4There is likewise no valid deposit in this case. In a contractof deposit, a person receives an object belonging to anotherwith the obligation of safely keeping it and of returning thesame.5 Petitioner himself states that he received the tractornottosafelykeepitbutasaformofsecurityforthepaymentofMikeAbellasobligations.Thereisnodepositwheretheprincipalpurposeforreceivingtheobjectisnotsafekeeping.6Consequently,petitionerhadnorighttorefusedeliveryofthetractortoitslawfulowner.Ontheotherhand,privaterespondent,asowner,hadeveryrighttoseektorepossessthetractor,includingtheinstitutionoftheinstant action for replevin.We do not here pass upon the other assignment of errorsmadebypetitionerconcerningallegedirregularitiesintheraffleanddispositionofthecaseatthetrialcourt.Apetition for review on certiorari is not the proper vehicle forsuch allegations.WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lackofmerit,andthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R. CV No. 39705 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.SO ORDERED. Bellosillo(Chairman),Mendoza,BuenaandDeLeon, Jr., JJ., concur._____________________4 Rollo, pp. 4142.5 CIVIL CODE, Article 1962.6 Ibid.433VOL. 350, JANUARY 29, 2001 433People vs. PlazoPetition denied, judgment affirmed.8/6/2015 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 350http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014f00e0e4d0c74b10e7000a0094004f00ee/p/AKE298/?username=Guest 8/8Notes.Thecontractingpartiestoapledgeagreementmaystipulatethatthesaidpledgewillalsostandassecurity for any future advancements (or renewals thereof)thatthepledgormayprocurefromthepledgee.(ChinaBankingCorporationvs.CourtofAppeals,270SCRA503[1997])Thecreditor,inacontractofrealsecurity,likepledge,cannot appropriate without foreclosure the things given byway of pledge. (Philippine National Bank vs. Sayo, Jr., 292SCRA 202 [1998])Explicit is the applicable provision of Article 1731 of theNewCivilCodethatthepersonwhohasexecutedworkuponamovablecanlegallyretain,bywayofpledge,themovableuponwhichheexecutedhiswork.(Limavs.Transway Sales Corporation, 317 SCRA 208 [1999])o0o Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.