Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > July 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-12984 July 26, 1960 - WARNER, BARNES & CO., LTD. v. EDMUNDO YASAY, ET AL.

108 Phil 1005:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-12984. July 26, 1960.]

WARNER, BARNES & CO., LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EDMUNDO YASAY, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Hilado & Hilado for Appellant.

Villanueva & Villanueva for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. CONDITIONAL OFFER TO WAIVE INTEREST; EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION. — A conditional offer to condone stipulated interest does not become effective where the debtors failed to comply with the condition of payment in consideration for which the offer was made.

2. OBLIGATIONS; MORATORIUM LAW; INTEREST; PAYMENT OF INTEREST NOT CONDONED BY MORATORIUM. — The law on debt moratorium did not have the effect of condoning the debts or the payment of obligations. Inasmuch as the interest is but an accessory to the obligation, it must be affected in the same manner because the accessory necessarily follows the principal.

3. COURTS; EQUITY; POWER OF COURT TO REGULATE LIABILITY ARISING FROM NEGLIGENCE OF DEBTOR; ABSENCE OF BAD FAITH; ARTICLE 1172, NEW CIVIL CODE. — Considering that no bad faith is imputed to the debtor’s failure to pay his obligation during the war years, and that the creditor was indirectly benefited by the debtor’s inaction, having avoided payment in military scrip, the court, both under Article 1172 of the new Civil Code and Article 1103 of the old Code, has the power to regulate or moderate the liability arising from negligence of a debtor.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Sometime in October, 1940, Edmundo Yasay purchased on credit from Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd. fertilizer valued at P8,320.25, payable during the milling season of the 1941-42 sugar crop, with 8% annual interest compounded quarterly. To secure the payment of this obligation, Yasay executed a deed of chattel mortgage, hypothecating 2,368 piculs of sugar of the crop year 1941-42 of the Haciendas "Libertad" and "Pangulayan." The obligation was still unpaid when the war broke out, and the indebtedness had amounted to P9,500.49 as of April 30, 1942. The sugar mortgaged was lost in the war before it could be sold to pay for the obligation for which it was given as security.

After the war, Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd. made repeated demands upon Edmundo Yasay to pay the obligation in question, but the obligation was not paid. Whereupon, on September 20, 1954, Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd. filed against Yasay Civil Case No. 3171 in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, for the collection of the obligation in question, which had reached the amount of P16,388.08 including accrued interests, plus 8% annual interest from September 1, 1954, plus 20% of the total indebtedness as attorney’s fees.

In his answer to the complaint, defendant Yasay claimed that he contracted the obligation sued upon not in his personal capacity but as manager of Araneta Bros., a general co-partnership which was then leasing Haciendas "Libertad" and "Pangulayan." Consequently, plaintiff Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd. amended its complaint to include as co- defendants former members of the dissolved partnership Araneta Bros., and increasing the principal demand to P17,602.67.

On May 15, 1957, the court below rendered judgment sentencing defendants Edmundo Yasay, Et Al., to pay said plaintiff the sum of P9,500.49, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the filing of the second amended complaint, April 26, 1956, plus 20% of the total amount due as attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation. From this judgment, plaintiff Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd. appealed to this Court against that part thereof exempting defendants from the payment of interests except from the date of the filing of the second amended complaint.

The reasons of the court a quo in not holding defendants- appellees liable for the payment of interests on the principal claim except from the date of the filing of the second amended complaint were explained thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"However, all things considered, taking into view Exhibit ‘10’, letter of the plaintiff dated March 8, 1953 and signed by F. A. Whitney, wherein the willingness was expressed not only to waive accrued interest and accept the principal amount of P9,500.49 in full settlement of the plaintiff’s claim but also to allow payment by installments over a period of even three years; and remembering further that this case could not have been filed sooner without the fault of any of the parties; the court feels that it would be in consonance with equity not to charge the defendants interest at least up to the filing of the second amended complaint."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is appellant’s contention, however, that neither its letter Exhibit 10, nor the fact that this action could not have been filed sooner without the fault of the parties because of the Moratorium Law, justifies the conclusion of the trial court that it would be inequitable to make defendants-appellees pay the accrued interests due on their obligation except from the date of the filing of the second amended complaint.

We find merit in the appeal.

Firstly, as to the letter Exhibit "10", the same reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Company is still agreeable to make a compromise settlement with you. That is, if the account can be adjusted by not later than March 31, 1953, the accrued interests will be waived, and the principal amount of P9,500.49 will be accepted in full settlement; and moreover, if it is necessary, the account may be paid by installments over a period of time, say two or three years, with interests at 6%, per annum."cralaw virtua1aw library

". . . The compromise offer made herein will stand good until March 31, 1953."cralaw virtua1aw library

As correctly pointed out by appellant, the above offer to condone interest due was made in consideration of an early settlement of the principal obligation; that is, the offer was subject to the condition that defendants-appellees either liquidate the account not later than March 31, 1953, or pay the same in installments over a period of two or three years at 6% per annum interest. The fact that the obligation in question has remained unpaid up to this time shows that the offer to waive interests was not at all accepted by the debtors or, having been initially accepted, did not become effective for failure of the debtors to comply with the condition of payment in consideration for which the offer was made. In either case, the offer to waive interests did not become binding upon appellant, and the latter has the perfect right to enforce the obligation in its original tenor, namely, with 8% annual interest compounded quarterly until paid.

As for the effect of the Moratorium Law on the right of appellant to collect interests that had accrued on the obligation in question during the effectivity of said law, again appellant is correct in arguing that under our doctrine in De Guzman v. Fernando, 90 Phil., 251, said law did not have the effect of condoning these interests. In said case, we ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Interpreting the effect of moratorium law on a monetary obligation, this Court in a recent case said:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The law on debt moratorium does not condone debts or the payment of obligations. It merely suspends collection and payment. The right to such suspension may be invoked by the debtor; but he may also waive or renounce it.’ (Araneta v. Marta Ciu Vda. de Samson, 85 Phil., 142; 47 Off. Gaz., 2849.

It, therefore, appears that the moratorium law has merely the effect of suspending the collection or payment of the obligation. It does not condone the debt. Inasmuch as the interest is but an accessory to the obligation, the same must be deemed affected in the same manner. The accessory follows the principal. The moratorium order is couched in clear terms. It says that the enforcement of the payment of a debt or other monetary obligation ‘is temporarily suspended pending action by the Commonwealth Government.’ When the law is clear there is no room for interpretation."cralaw virtua1aw library

If appellees had wanted to avoid liability for all the interests that had fallen due on their debt to appellant during the time that the Moratorium Law was in effect, they could have renounced the benefits of said law and pay the obligation, or, in the very least, paid the interests as they accrued. Not having done either, they are legally bound to pay not only the principal obligation but all interests that had fallen due thereon pursuant to the terms of their contract with Appellant.

As neither the letter Exhibit "10" nor the debt moratorium law operated to excuse or exempt appellees from their contractual obligation to pay appellant all the interests that had accrued on the obligation in question, appellees should abide by their obligation voluntarily assumed to pay said interests.

Considering, however, that no bad faith is imputed to the debtors; that payment could not be made during the war years, even if the debtor had so desired, because the creditor was a British company and an enemy vis a vis the belligerent occupant of the Islands at the time; that the creditor was indirectly benefited by the debtor’s inaction, thereby avoiding payment in military scrip; and that both under Article 1172 of the new Civil Code and Article 1103 of the old Code, the Courts have power to regulate or moderate the liability arising from negligence of a debtor, we think it equitable to reduce the interest by eliminating that which accrued during the war years, as well as to limit the attorneys’ fees to 10% of the total amount of the judgment, this case presenting no unusual difficulty.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is modified in the sense that in addition to the P9,500.49 already awarded, appellees are ordered to pay the stipulated rate at 8% interest per annum on said amount of P9,500.49, from and after August 6, 1945 until full payment, plus 10% of the total judgment as attorneys’ fees. Costs against defendants-appellees.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12998 July 25, 1960 - BIENVENIDA JOCSON, ET AL. v. MANUEL P. SILOS

    108 Phil 923

  • G.R. No. L-13299 July 25, 1960 - PERFECTO ADRID, ET AL. v. ROSARIO MORGA, ETC.

    108 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-14934 July 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAVENTURA BULAN, ET AL.

    108 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-11241 July 26, 1960 - VALENTIN ILO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    108 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-11834 July 26, 1960 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GREGORIO ABIERA, ET AL.

    108 Phil 943

  • G.R. No. L-11840 July 26, 1960 - ANTONIO C. GOQUIOLAY, ET AL. v. WASHINGTON Z. SYCIP, ET AL.

    108 Phil 947

  • G.R. No. L-11994 July 26, 1960 - LUISA A. VDA. DE DEL CASTILLO v. RAFAEL P. GUERRERO

    108 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-12495 July 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO LIDRES

    108 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-12628 July 26, 1960 - IN RE: YU KAY GUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 1001

  • G.R. No. L-12984 July 26, 1960 - WARNER, BARNES & CO., LTD. v. EDMUNDO YASAY, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1005

  • G.R. No. L-12999 July 26, 1960 - PAFLU v. HON. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-13267 July 26, 1960 - SALVADOR CRESPO v. MARIA BOLANDOS, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-13364 July 26, 1960 - HIND SUGAR CO., INC. v. HON. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1026

  • G.R. No. L-13373 July 26, 1960 - LUNETA MOTOR CO. v. MAXIMINO SALVADOR, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1037

  • G.R. No. L-13646 July 26, 1960 - BENITO MANALANSAN v. LUIS MANALANG, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1041

  • G.R. No. L-13684 July 26, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-13953 July 26, 1960 - MONS. CARLOS INQUIMBOY v. MARIA CONCEPCION PAEZ VDA. DE CRUZ

    108 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-14096 July 26, 1960 - CITY OF MANILA v. FORTUNE ENTERPRISES, INC.

    108 Phil 1058

  • G.R. No. L-14229 July 26, 1960 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1063

  • G.R. No. L-14258 July 26, 1960 - NATIONAL DEV’T CO. v. JUAN ARALAR, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1068

  • G.R. No. L-14313 July 26, 1960 - DIONISIO ESGUERRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 1078

  • G.R. No. L-14428 July 26, 1960 - AGATON SEGARRA v. FELIX MARONILLA, JR.

    108 Phil 1086

  • G.R. No. L-14432 July 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO LIM

    108 Phil 1091

  • G.R. No. L-14505 July 26, 1960 - MIGUEL KAIRUZ v. ELENA S. PACIO, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1097

  • G.R. No. L-14519 July 26, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    108 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-14550 July 26, 1960 - IN RE: ONG KUE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    108 Phil 1109

  • G.R. No. L-14689 July 26, 1960 - GENERAL MARITIME STEVEDORES’ UNION OF THE PHILS, ET AL. v. SOUTH SEA SHIPPING LINE, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1112

  • G.R. No. L-14743 July 26, 1960 - GLORIA ABRERA v. LUDOLFO V. MUÑOZ

    108 Phil 1124

  • G.R. No. L-15544 July 26, 1960 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES INC. v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

    108 Phil 1129

  • G.R. No. L-15743 July 26, 1960 - OMBE v. VICENTE DIGA

    108 Phil 1137

  • G.R. No. L-16011 July 26, 1960 - DOMINGO T. PARRAS v. LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION

    108 Phil 1142

  • G.R. No. L-16263 July 26, 1960 - DR. JOSE CUYEGKENG v. DR. PEDRO M. CRUZ

    108 Phil 1147

  • G.R. No. L-16464 July 26, 1960 - VICENTE MALINAO v. MARCOS RAVELES

    108 Phil 1159

  • G.R. No. L-16835 July 26, 1960 - FILEMON SALCEDO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    108 Phil 1164

  • G.R. No. L-13435 July 27, 1960 - EUSEBIO MANUEL v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, SR., ET AL.

    109 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-13632 July 27, 1960 - FEDERICO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL. v. HON. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-13851 July 27, 1960 - DEOGRACIAS F. MALONZO v. GREGORIA T. GALANG, ET AL.

    109 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-15853 July 27, 1960 - FERNANDO AQUINO v. CONCHITA DELIZO

    109 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-13369 July 28, 1960 - RICARDO PALMA v. HON. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, ETC.

    109 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. L-11151 July 30, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. L-12747 July 30, 1960 - RIZAL CEMENT CO., INC. v. RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS’ UNION (FFW), ET AL.

    109 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-13268 July 30, 1960 - LUCIANA SASES, ET AL. v. HON. PASTOR P. REYES, ET AL.

    109 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. L-13760 July 30, 1960 - FILEMON MARIBAO v. LUCIO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-13767 July 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAQUITO PRIAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-14806 July 30, 1960 - ZAMBOANGA COPRA PROCUREMENT CORP. v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA

    109 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-14936 July 30, 1960 - GENERAL SHIPPING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL.

    109 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. L-14970 July 30, 1960 - MARIA B. CASTRO v. GERONIMO DE LOS REYES

    109 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-15093 July 30, 1960 - NARIC v. CELSO HENSON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 81