Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1993 > June 1993 Decisions > G.R. No. 93109 June 25, 1993 - MILAGROS LLAMANZARES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 93109. June 25, 1993.]

MILAGROS LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ASSISTANT CITY FISCAL OF QUEZON CITY, ALFREDO ENRIQUEZ AND ELOISA ORTEGA, Respondents.

Emilio Llamanzares for Petitioner.

Agustin Q. Javellana for Private Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS, GENERALLY NOT DISTURBED ON APPEAL. — The two courts found as a fact that petitioner had not paid the said amount of P33,680.00. This finding of fact will not be disturbed (Universal Motors Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 448 [1992]; Gacos v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 8 [1992]).

2. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; ATTORNEY’S FEE; PARTIES NOT ENTITLED THERETO WHERE BOTH WERE IN PARI DELICTO. — We sustain petitioner’s claim that private respondent is not entitled to an award of P25,000.00 as attorney’s fees on her counterclaim. As found by the Court of Appeals and the trial court, private respondent violated the Usury Law by charging usurious interest. On the other hand, petitioner is likewise not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees even after the findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court that the usurious interest were demanded by the contract. In the first place, the usurious interests were not paid to the lender. In the second place, what prompted private respondent to file a criminal complaint against petitioner, which in turn forced petitioner to file the special civil action to enjoin the preliminary investigation against her, was the issuance by petitioner of the bouncing checks.


D E C I S I O N


QUIASON, J.:


This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court from the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 09146 entitled "Milagros Llamanzares, v. Hon. Alfredo Enriquez et. al.", affirming with modification the decision in Civil Case No. Q-34948 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch LXXXIX, Quezon City.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In Civil Case No. Q-34948, plaintiff Milagros Llamanzares sought to enjoin defendant Alfredo Enriquez, an Assistant City Fiscal of Quezon City, from proceeding with the preliminary investigation of the complaint in I.S. No. 82-5244 for violation of the Bouncing Check Law filed by defendant Eloisa Ortega against plaintiff; and to have the agreement between Ortega and her declared null and void with respect to the payment of usurious interest.chanrobles law library : red

After trial, the trial court dismissed the complaint and ordered plaintiff to pay private defendant the sum of P151,620.00 on the counterclaim with "money market" interest thereon at the rate of 45% per annum from judicial demand on May 18, 1982 until fully paid; and the amount of P25,000.00 as attorney’s fees and costs.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court after deleting the "money market" interest on the principal sum of P151,620.00.

In this petition for certiorari, petitioner (plaintiff-appellant in CA-G.R. CV No. 09145) claims that the Court of Appeals erred in not: (1) ordering the refund of the usurious interest paid by her to Eloisa Ortega, the collection of which was prohibited by Section 3 of Act No. 2655 as amended by PD Nos. 116, 585 and 1684; (2) ordering the charging of the legal rate of interest of 12% per annum on the usurious interest to be refunded to her; (3) deleting the sum of P25,000.00 as attorney’s fees ordered to be paid by her; and (4) ordering Eloisa Ortega to pay her the sum of P25,000.00 as attorney’s fees (Petition, p. 6; Rollo, p. 10).chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

The Court of Appeals adopted in toto the findings of fact of the trial court, which are reproduced as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Between the period from January 5, and September 10, 1981, the plaintiff borrowed from the private defendant various loans totalling P880,000.00 (Exhs. B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M and N), subject to the condition that they will be repaid by the plaintiff to the private defendant by depositing with the bank equal daily payments for the account of the private defendant, within a period of 100 days, the last three installments of which were to be deducted and retained by the plaintiff for the salary of her collectors.

"This loan was paid in full by the plaintiff.

"Subsequently, within the period from September 24, 1981 to December 14, 1981, the private defendant extended nine (9) other loans to the plaintiff totalling P560,000.00, also for a period of 100 days every loan, with interest of 20% each loan for the said period, to be paid by the plaintiff by depositing with the Pacific Banking Corporation, for the account of the private defendant, the amount of P600.00 daily until fully paid.

"Out of the nine (9) loans amounting to P560,000.00, plus interest, the plaintiff made certain payments, but left a balance of P381,360,00, still unpaid (Exh. QQ).

"The plaintiff acknowledges an unpaid indebtedness to the private defendant only in the amount of P151,620.00.

"It is the submission of the private defendant that the real balance of plaintiff’s unpaid indebtedness to her is P185,600.00 since the interest payments made by the plaintiff to her is only P142,620.00 not the amount of P176,300.00 claimed by the plaintiff, corresponding to only 97 - day installments, out of the 100 days payment agreed upon. For, it was clear in their agreement that the three-(3)-day installments are to be deducted as commissions for plaintiff’s "collectors, such that the amount of P33,680.00 corresponding to these deductions shall be added to the admitted balance of P151,620.00 which will total P185,300.00.

"It is also the claim of the private defendant that had the plaintiff paid fully this amount of P185,300.00, she could have placed the amount on money market at a competitive rate of 45% and she could have earned from December, 1981 to July 31, 1985 the sum of P491,283.23.

"On the otherhand, the plaintiff acknowledges an outstanding indebtedness to the private defendant in the amount of P151,620.00, only, since, according to her, she is entitled to a return of all the interest payments she had made to the private defendant, considering that the agreed interest of 20%, each loan, for 100 days, is usurious.

"This court is in agreement with the position taken by the plaintiff that she is entitled to a return of all interests paid by her which are usurious (Angel Jose, etc. v. Chelda Enterprises, et. al., 23 SCRA 119).

"This is so, since at the time, the nine (9) loans amounting to P560,000.00 were contracted by the plaintiff between the period from September 24, 1981 to December 14, 1981, the interest rate for unsecured loans had a ceiling of 14% per annum (Section 3, The Usury Law, Act No. 2655, as amended by PD Nos. 116, 585 and 1684), the ceiling on said loans or for bearances, of any money, goods or credits, having been rendered by the Central Bank of the Philippines only on January 1, 1983, under its Circular No. 905 Series of 1982.

"For this reason, there is consequently no valid basis for the claim of the private defendant that the amount of P33,680.00, corresponding to the three (3) days deduction from the 100 day daily installments for collector’s salary, shall be added to the amount of P151,620.00, acknowledged by the plaintiff as her unpaid balance obligation, since, even if the private defendant is correct in her claim that there is a deficiency in the interest payments of the plaintiff, she is not entitled to the payment of this P33,680.00, as it constitutes a part of the usurious interest of which the plaintiff is entitled to a return.

"The actual balance of plaintiff’s indebtedness to the private defendant is, therefore, only P151,620.00, as acknowledged by the plaintiff" (Rollo, pp. 19-22).

There is no question that both the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court found for petitioner: (1) that the allowable interest rate, which private respondent could collect on the unsecured loans of petitioner for the period from September 24, 1981 to December 14, 1981, was only 14% per annum; and (2) that petitioner was entitled to a return of all the usurious interests paid by her.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Petitioner now claims that both courts should have ordered private respondent to refund to her the amount of P33,600.00 representing the amount paid by her in excess of the 14% interest allowed by the Usury Law for unsecured loans.

The threshold issues to be resolved are whether petitioner actually paid the amount of P33,680.00 to private respondent and, if so, whether the said amount was deducted from the amount of P151,620.00, which petitioner admitted and the Court of Appeals found to be the unpaid balance of her indebtedness.

Petitioner contended before the trial court that she paid as interest the amount of P176,300.00, which included the amount of P33,680.00 usurious interest she now seeks to recover. She also claimed that her remaining indebtedness was only P151,620.00 after taking into consideration that she had paid P176,300.00 as interest.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Private respondent, however, claimed that petitioner only paid P142,620.00 inasmuch as the latter had deducted P33,680.00, which, as agreed by them, was set aside to pay petitioner’s collectors. She asked that the said amount be added to P151,620.00, it being a part of the stipulated interest of 20%. According to the computation of private respondent, the remaining indebtedness of petitioner was P185,300.00.cralawnad

Both the Court of Appeals and the trial court held that the sum of P33,680.00 represented usurious interest which could not be collected by private respondent; therefore, it could not be added to the amount of P176,300.00, which petitioner acknowledged as the amount still owed by her.

On the other hand, the two courts found as a fact that petitioner had not paid the said amount of P33,680.00. This finding of fact will not be disturbed (Universal Motors Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 448 [1992]; Gacos v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 6 [1992]).

Petitioner does not deny that she had an agreement with private petitioner that the amount of P33,680.00, corresponding to three-day installments of the interest payments, should be paid to the collectors instead of to private Respondent.

We sustain petitioner’s claim that private respondent is not entitled to an award of P25,000.00 as attorney’s fees on her counterclaim. As found by the Court of Appeals and the trial court, private respondent violated the Usury Law by charging usurious interest. On the other hand, petitioner is likewise not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees even after the findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court that the usurious interest were demanded by the contract. In the first place, the usurious interests were not paid to the lender. In the second place, what prompted private respondent to file a criminal complaint against petitioner, which in turn forced petitioner to file the special civil action to enjoin the preliminary investigation against her, was the issuance by petitioner of the bouncing checks.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals appealed from is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of attorney’s fees in favor of private respondent on her counterclaim be eliminated.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Bellosillo, 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






June-1993 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 70310-11 June 1, 1993 - MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 71998-99 June 2, 1991

    EMILIANO R. DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99866 June 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIDRO D. DORO

  • G.R. No. 105005 June 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITA A. MARCELO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-460 June 3, 1993 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. OSMUNDO M. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93511 June 3, 1993 - CORAZON L. CABAGNOT v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97309-10 June 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO QUEJADA

  • G.R. No. 97426 June 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO APOLINARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97931 June 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105285 June 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO D. FIDER

  • G.R. No. 105884 June 3, 1993 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74298 June 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO PATELLAR SACRISTAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88246 June 4, 1993 - LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97457 June 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO CABALLERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100290 June 4, 1993 - NORBERTO TIBAJIA, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100606 June 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEMI BALACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101216-18 June 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REDENTOR D. DICHOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83902 June 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCADIO MANRIQUE, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84921 June 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO DURAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88291 June 8, 1993 - ERNESTO M. MACEDA v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 96354 June 8, 1993 - LAPERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98177 June 8, 1993 - BARFEL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101292 June 8, 1993 - RICARDO ENCARNACION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102773-77 June 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO SAYAT

  • G.R. No. 103631 June 8, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE C. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 106621 June 8, 1993 - PSBA MANILA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95357 June 9, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO GELAVER

  • G.R. No. 57828 June 14, 1993 - SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94630 June 14, 1993 - SALOME ROSENDO RIVAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95539 June 14, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR B. DATINGGINOO

  • G.R. No. 97835 June 14, 1993 - FIRST GENERAL MARKETING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 100641 June 14, 1993 - FARLE P. ALMODIEL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108957 June 14, 1993 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-92-709 June 14, 1993 - ROGER A. DOMAGAS v. DELIA MALANA

  • G.R. Nos. 94709-10 June 15, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN CABARRUBIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106037 June 15, 1993 - RICARDO C. ROA, ET AL. v. PH CREDIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • B.M. No. 553 June 17, 1993 - MAURICIO C. ULEP v. LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-88-142 June 17, 1993 - ERLINDA A. MENDOZA v. RODOLFO A. MABUTAS

  • A.M. No. P-92-673 June 17, 1993 - LUMEN POLICARPIO, ET AL. v. GALLARDO TOLENTINO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 3694 June 17, 1993 - ALBERTO FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN M. GRECIA

  • G.R. No. 88445 June 17, 1993 - JESUS KHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92492 June 17, 1993 - THELMA VDA. DE CANILANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101730 June 17, 1993 - PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106011 June 17, 1993 - TOWN SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106374 June 17, 1993 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106973 June 17, 1993 - MARIA L. LOPEZ v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108000 June 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-91-657 June 21, 1993 - LOURDES PRESADO v. MANUEL C. GENOVA

  • G.R. No. 104408 June 21, 1993 - METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105607 June 21, 1993 - HECTOR C. VILLANUEVA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99843 June 22, 1993 - Sps. BRAULIO ABALOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104304-05 June 22, 1993 - LUNINGNING LANDRITO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 104732 June 22, 1993 - ROBERTO A. FLORES, ET AL. v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-91-752 June 23, 1993 - JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO, SR. v. BALTAZAR DIZON

  • G.R. No. 90643 June 25, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN G. FORTES

  • G.R. No. 93109 June 25, 1993 - MILAGROS LLAMANZARES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101728 June 25, 1993 - RAMON V. ROXAS v. SPS. ANDRES DY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102206 June 25, 1993 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102958 June 25, 1993 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104175 June 25, 1993 - YOUNG AUTO SUPPLY CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105361 June 25, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ENCISO

  • G.R. No. 105883 June 25, 1993 - LETICIA A. ALIMARIO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • A.M. No. RTJ-86-50 June 28, 1993 - ADELAIDA P. FELONGCO v. JUDGE LUIS D. DICTADO

  • G.R. No. 79760 June 28, 1993 - PERPETUAL SAVINGS BANK, ET AL. v. JOSE ORO B. FAJARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99333 June 28, 1993 - SPS. ANTONIO PAILANO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102980 June 28, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR OSIGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106498 June 28, 1993 - LOLITA DADUBO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-711-P June 29, 1993 - SPS. ALFONSO AQUINO LIM, ET AL. v. OSCAR GUASCH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78631 June 29, 1993 - COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. ALFREDO C. FLORES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97564 June 29, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO CAYETANO

  • G.R. No. 99395 June 29, 1993 - ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. RUBEN O. TORRES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-554 June 30, 1993 - WARLITO ALISANGCO v. JOSE C. TABILIRAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 58057 June 30, 1993 - HEIRS OF MARIANO LAGUTAN, ET AL. v. SEVERINA ICAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72319 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALVERO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72608 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULITO U. ARNAN

  • G.R. No. 86390 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME A. ROSALES

  • G.R. No. 86994 June 30, 1993 - JAIME LOOT v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. 94310 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO ALAY-AY

  • G.R. No. 97212 June 30, 1993 - BENJAMIN YU v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 98000-02 June 30, 1993 - INOCENCIO PEÑANUEVA, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 98321-24 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO S. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100720-23 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CODILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102748 June 30, 1993 - GOULDS PUMPS (PHILS.), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102984 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN TAKBOBO

  • G.R. No. 104609 June 30, 1993 - PHILIP LEE GO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105671 June 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL M. MAGTULOY

  • G.R. No. 105751 June 30, 1993 - BA FINANCE CORPORATION v. RUFINO CO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106646 June 30, 1993 - JAIME LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108284 June 30, 1993 - PERSONNEL SERVICES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.