ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
October-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 3745 October 2, 1995 - CYNTHIA B. ROSACIA v. BENJAMIN B. BULALACAO

  • G.R. No. 94702 October 2, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO ACUÑA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97143 October 2, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO FIGUEROA

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1325 October 4, 1995 - PABLO ESPAÑOLA v. VINCENT EDEN C. PANAY

  • G.R. No. 102672 October 4, 1995 - PANAY ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118533 October 4, 1995 - PABLO R OLIVAREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • Adm. Case No. 4405 October 6, 1995 - BIENVENIDO SANCHEZ v. GALILEO P. BRION

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-972 October 6, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MA. GORGONIA L. FLORES

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1006 October 6, 1995 - LERMA CHUA MARTINEZ v. ALDO MUÑOZ

  • G.R. No. 76490 October 6, 1995 - ISAGANI SABINIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104604 & 111223 October 6, 1995 - NARCISO O. JAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110634 October 6, 1995 - RUFINO O. ESLAO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. Nos. 111206-08 October 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 116183 October 6, 1995 - RICARDO T. GLORIA v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 117092 October 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO C. LAO

  • G.R. Nos. 118712 & 118745 October 6, 1995 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 120319 October 6, 1995 - LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK v. ASS’N. OF LUZON DEV’T. BANK EMPLOYEES, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1033 October 10, 1995 - MARIBETH CORDOVA, ET AL. v. EMMA C. LABAYEN

  • G.R. No. 117732 October 10, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS C. SALILING

  • G.R. No. 93915 October 11, 1995 - AUGUSTO EVANGELISTA v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 99049 October 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO A. BARQUILLA

  • G.R. No. 117009 October 11, 1995 - SECURITY BANK & TRUST COMPANY, ET AL., v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118013-14 October 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMOSTHENES L. MAGALLANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99263 October 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PACIFICO R. LAZARO

  • G.R. Nos. 119987-88 October 12, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO B. VENERACION

  • Adm. Case No. 4380 October 13, 1995 - NICANOR GONZALES, ET AL., v. MIGUEL SABACAJAN

  • G.R. No. 103911 October 13, 1995 - EDGARDO E. LOPEZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL

  • G.R. Nos. 109373 & 112991 October 13, 1995 - PACIFIC BANKING CORP. EMPLOYEES ORG., ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110015 October 13, 1995 - MANILA BAY CLUB CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 107101 October 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLO S. RODICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108515 October 16, 1995 - LUIS BALANTAKBO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110053 October 16, 1995 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110544 October 17, 1995 - REYNALDO V. TUANDA, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 105649 October 18, 1995 - FLORO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111634 October 18, 1995 - KOMATSU INDUSTRIES (PHIL.), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116062 October 18, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTO BANTISIL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 116462 October 18, 1995 - RENO FOODS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116910 October 18, 1995 - INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC., ET. AL. v. CA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 114841-42 October 20, 1995 - ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC CO. OF MANILA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103915 October 23, 1995 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TELEFUNKEN SEMICONDUCTOR PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106477 October 23, 1995 - GLOBE GENERAL SERVICES AND SECURITY AGENCY, ET AL. v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 111837 October 24, 1995 - NEW YORK MARINE MANAGERS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112969-70 October 24, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO PADRE-E

  • G.R. No. 118584 October 24, 1995 - AURELIA S. GOMEZ v. PRESIDING JUDGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120823 October 24, 1995 - HADJI HAMID PATORAY v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-716 October 25, 1995 - MA. BLYTH B. ABADILLA v. JOSE C. TABILIRAN, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-892 October 25, 1995 - SAN MANUEL WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. v. RAMON B. TUPAS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-907 October 25, 1995 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL. v. JOSELITO SD. GENEROSO, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-979 October 25, 1995 - EMERITO M. AGCAOILI v. ADOLFO B. MOLINA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1081 October 25, 1995 - VIRGINIA E. BURGOS v. JOSEFINA R. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 95573 October 25, 1995 - GSIS v. NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99058 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIXBERTO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102976 October 25, 1995 - IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110815-16 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY SINATAO

  • G.R. No. 111688 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO @ "FELITOY" BRIOL, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 112713 October 25, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TAMPARONG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 108115 October 27, 1995 - PHILIPPINE SOAP BOX DERBY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117083 October 27, 1995 - LAZARO V. KAVINTA v. PRUDENCIO ALTRE CASTILLO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112448 October 30, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115455, 115525, 115543, 115544, 115754, 115781, 115852, 115873 & 115931 October 30, 1995 - ARTURO M. TOLENTINO v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. Nos. 114841-42   October 20, 1995 - ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC CO. OF MANILA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. Nos. 114841-42. October 20, 1995.]

    ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA, INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, CARLITO D. CASTILLO, HEIRS OF CRISTETA CASTILLO and CORNELIO CASTILLO, Respondents.

    Arturo A. Alafriz & Associates for Petitioner.

    Melvin A. Arquillo for Private Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CIVIL LAW; EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS; QUASI-DELICTS; DOUBLE RECOVERY OF DAMAGES, NOT VIOLATED IN CASE AT BAR. — It is theorized by petitioner that our affirmance of the judgment of the trial court, which granted damages for both the "damage proper to the land" and "rentals for the same property," runs afoul of the proscription in Article 2177 of the Civil Code against double recovery of damages for the same act. Private respondents, as plaintiffs in the actions filed in the court below, specifically alleged that as a result of petitioner’s dredging operations the soil of the former’s property "became infertile, salty, unproductive and unsuitable for agriculture." They further averred that petitioner’s heavy equipment "used to utilize (private respondent’s) land as a depot or parking lot of these equipment(t) without paying any rent therefor." Petitioner was guilty of two culpable transgressions on the property rights of private respondents, that is, for the ruination of the agricultural fertility or utility of the soil of their property and, further, for the unauthorized use of said property as a dump site or depot for petitioner’s heavy equipment and trucks. Consequently, albeit with differing amounts, damages were correctly awarded both for the destruction of the land and for the unpaid rentals, or more correctly denominated, for the reasonable value of its use and occupation of the premises.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; DAMAGES; INTEREST THEREOF; CASE AT BAR. — When an obligation not constituting a loan or forbearance of money is breached, interest on the amount of the damages awarded may be imposed at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum. No interest shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims unless the same can be established with reasonable certainty. Since the pleadings of herein private respondents in the trial court did not spell out said amounts with certitude, the legal interest thereon shall run only from the promulgation of judgment of said court, it being at that stage that the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained. The actual base for the computation of such legal interest, however, shall be the amount as finally adjudged by this Court. Furthermore, when our judgment herein becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest shall be twelve percent (12%) from such finality until the satisfaction of the total judgment account, the interim period being effectively equivalent to a forbearance of credit. By way of clarification, the judgment rendered by this Court in the instant case shall be understood to mean that the legal interest to be paid by petitioner is six percent (6%) of the amount due computed from September 6, 1990 when judgment was rendered by the trial court. Additionally, interest of twelve percent (12%) shall be imposed on such total amount due upon the finality of the judgment of the Court herein until the full satisfaction thereof.


    R E S O L U T I O N


    REGALADO, J.:


    Petitioner moves for the reconsideration of our judgment promulgated in this case on August 23, 1995 contending that (1) private respondents are permitted thereunder to recover damages twice for the same act or omission, and (2) the interests adjudged on the awarded damages should be reckoned from the date of finality of our aforesaid judgment rendered herein.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    We reject the first submission. It is theorized by petitioner that our affirmance of the judgment of the trial court, which granted damages for both the "damage proper to the land" and "rentals for the same property," runs afoul of the proscription in Article 2177 of the Civil Code against double recovery of damages for the same act.

    Petitioner overlooks the fact that private respondents, as plaintiffs in the actions filed in the court below, specifically alleged that as a result of petitioner s dredging operations the soil of the former’s property "became infertile, salty, unproductive and unsuitable for agriculture." They further averred that petitioner’s heavy equipment "used to utilize (private respondents’) land as a depot or parking lot of these equipment(t) without paying any rent therefor." 1

    Respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court on the nature and cause of the twin items of damages sustained by private respondents, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The main reason why (private respondents’) properties were damaged, as found by the trial court, was due to the dredging operations undertaken by (petitioner) on the area, which findings are supported by the testimony of Carlito Castillo, testifying in Civil Case No. 10276, and Teodora Dimaculangan, in Civil Case No. 10696. . . . Neither has (petitioner) asseverated against (private respondents’) submission that their properties were used by (petitioner) as a dump site for its equipment and trucks, and proof are the photographs of their properties showing tracks left by truck tires on their properties. (Parenthetical indication of the parties concerned are made for easy reference.) 2chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    It is, therefore, clearly apparent that petitioner was guilty of two culpable transgressions on the property rights of private respondents, that is, for the ruination of the agricultural fertility or utility of the soil of their property and, further, for the unauthorized use of said property as a dump site or depot for petitioner’s heavy equipment and trucks. Consequently, albeit with differing amounts, both courts correctly awarded damages both for the destruction of the land and for the unpaid rentals, or more correctly denominated, for the reasonable value of its use and occupation of the premises. There is consequently no merit in said objection of petitioner.

    The second proposition of petitioner is better taken, in light of the reconciliation and clarification undertaken by the Court of the heretofore imprecise and varying pronouncements on the imposition of interest in judgments for a sum of money.

    In the recent case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., 3 the Court adopted interpretative rules on the matter of the imposable interest and the accrual thereof. The rules pertinent to the interest involved in the case at bar are hereunder briefed as applied to the controversy on the computation and the reckoning date thereof. 4chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    When an obligation not constituting a loan or forbearance of money is breached, interest on the amount of the damages awarded may be imposed at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum. No interest shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims unless the same can be established with reasonable certainty. Since the pleadings of herein private respondents in the trial court did not spell out said amounts with certitude, the legal interest thereon shall run only from the promulgation of judgment of said court, it being at that stage that the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained.

    The actual base for the computation of such legal interest, shall be the amount as finally adjudged by this Court. Furthermore, when our judgment herein becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest shall be twelve percent (12%) from such finality until the satisfaction of the total judgment account, the interim period being effectively equivalent to a forbearance of credit.

    ACCORDINGLY, and by way of clarification, the judgment rendered by this Court in the instant case shall be understood to mean that the legal interest to be paid by petitioner is six percent (6%) of the amount due computed from September 6, 1990 when judgment was rendered by the trial court. Additionally, interest of twelve percent (12%) shall be imposed on such total amount due upon the finality of the judgment of the Court herein until the full satisfaction thereof.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Puno, Mendoza and Francisco, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, 20, 21.

    2. Ibid., 14.

    3. G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234, SCRA 78.

    4. The trial court that the legal interest should be imposed "from the time of the filing of (the) complaint," while respondent Court of Appeals held that the same should be computed "from the time of the finality of (its) decision until the same shall have been fully paid."

    G.R. Nos. 114841-42   October 20, 1995 - ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC CO. OF MANILA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED