8/12/2019 Cruz vs. Lee (1929)

1/3

8/12/2019 Cruz vs. Lee (1929)

2/3

and apparentl" the ri$ht of rede%ption on onl" one piece of *ewelr" had beenforeclosed b" sale when the decision was rendered in the sa%e case at the end ofMarch. The record does not show whether or not the earrin$s pawned to !ldefonsoTa%buntin$ were in fact sold after the tic(ets lapsed on Ma" +0, +/01, but it isproved that the *ewelr" was not forthco%in$ when a in

8/12/2019 Cruz vs. Lee (1929)

3/3

the" are to be collected, but as a $eneral rule not onl" is it the ri$ht of theholder of collateral securit" to collect the %one" thereon and appl" it to theprincipal debt but his duties in this respect are active and he is bound toordinar" dili$ence to preserve the le$al validit" and pecuniar" value of thepled$e, and if b" ne$li$ence, wron$ful act or o%ission on his part loss issustained, it %ust be borne b" hi%. :Pled$e, sec. 63.;!a"phil.net

The application of the doctrine above e5pounded to the case in hand leads theconclusion that the defendant Chua A. &. 'ee in the case before us in liable for the

value of the securities lost b" his failure to (eep the pled$es alive in the e5tent oftheir actual value over the a%ounts for which the sa%e were pled$ed8 and the trialcourt, in our opinion, co%%itted no error is so holdin$.

There re%ains to be considered the