196 SCRA 107



Serrano bought some jewelry from Ribaya.  Due to need of finances, she decided to have the jewelry pawned.  She instructed her secretary to do so for  her,  which  the  secretary  did  but  absconded  after  receiving  the proceeds. It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  pawnshop  ticket  indicated  that  the jewelry  was  redeemable  “by  presentation  by  the  bearer.”  Afterwards, there was a lead on where the jewelry was pawned.  An investigation was done to verify the suspicion.  The jewelry was to be sold in a public auction then.  The petitioner and police authorities informed the pawnshop owner not  to  sell  the  jewelry  as  she  was  the  rightful  owner  thereof. Despite  of this  however,  the  jewelry  was  redeemed  by  a  Tomasa  de  Leon  who presented the pawnshop ticket.  


Having been informed by the petitioner and the police that jewelry pawned to it was either stolen or involved in an embezzlement of the proceeds of the pledge, pawnbroker became duty bound to hold the things pledged and to  give  notice  to  the  petitioner  and  authorities  of  any  effort  to  redeem them.  Such a duty was imposed by Article 21 of the CC.  The circumstance that the pawn ticket stated that the pawn was redeemable by the bearer, didn’t dissolve this duty.  The pawn ticket wasn’t a negotiable instrument under the NIL, nor was it a negotiable document of title under Article 1507of the CC.