ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 130218. May 17, 1999]

SPS. GENERALAO vs. SPS. JACINTO

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 17 1999.

G.R. No. 130218 (Spouses Antonio and Analiza Generalao, petitioner vs. Spouses James and Angeli Jacinto, respondents.)

This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Court of Appeal's decision1 [CA-G.R. C.V. No. 50042, promulgated on May 30, 1997, Justice Artemio G. Tuquero, ponente, Justices Artemon D. Luna and Hector L. Hofile�a, concurring. Rollo, pp. 18-22.] affirming in toto the Regional Trial Court's decision, and the resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.2 [Promulgated on August 8, 1997, Justice Artemio G. Tuquero, ponente, Justices Hector L. Hofile�a and Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., concurring. Rollo, p. 23.]

In August 1993, respondents Jacinto agreed to sell, and petitioners Generalao agreed to but, the former's Nissan Sentra SGX, 1990 model, and its taxi franchise, for P330,000.00, payable as follows: P50,000.00, on or before December 31, 1993; P15,000.00, on or before February 15, 1994; and for respondents to assume the loan balance of P215,000.00 with BP Family Bank. On August 24, 1993, respondents made the initial payment of P50,000.00 and petitioners delivered the car to them.

Respondents later learned that the taximeter of the car had no seal, the license plate was colored green, instead of yellow as prescribed for taxicabs, and there was no taxi sticker. The mortgagee-bank, BPI Family Bank, did not authorized the use of the vehicle as a taxicab. Petitioners failed to remedy the deficiencies, thus, on November 17, 1993, respondents returned the vehicle and demanded the restitution of the P50,000.00 downpayment.

Petitioners failed to return the amount. Hence respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 18, Manila, an action for a sum of money. The trial court ruled in favor of respondents, ordering the petitioners to return the sum of P50,000.00, plus 12% per annum interest from November 17, 1993 (date of respondents' extrajudicial demand). P10,000.00 as nominal damages, and P20,000.00 as attorney's fees, plus costs.

Petitioners filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals On May 30, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered decision affirming in toto the trial court's decision.

On June 16, 1997, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' decision, which was denied in a resolution dated August 8, 1997.

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Petitioners claimed that the Court of Appeals erred in allowing the amendment of the complaint. They maintained that the trial court should have determined first if the evidence sought to be introduced would prejudice them before allowing the amendment. Petitioners denied that there was an agreement to rescind the contract of sale. They alleged that the car was returned for safekeeping only while respondents' garage was under construction. On the contrary, petitioners claimed that respondents were liable for damages for backing out from a valid contract and failing to pay the balance as agreed upon. They questioned the award of 12% interest, stating that the transaction was not a loan or forbearance of money.

The Court of Appeals committed no error in allowing the amendment of the complaint. The trial court given the discretion to decide whether or not to accept an amended complaint. The appellate court ruled that the admission of the amended complaint enabled respondents to ventilate the factual issue of the case, and petitioners were given ample opportunity to controvert the same. Hence, there is no prejudice to the substantial right of petitioners.

As regards the factual issues of the case, it is well-settled that factual findings of the lower courts, the trial court and the Court of Appeals, are, as a general rule, binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.3 [Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 432.]

The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.4 [David-Chan v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 677.]

However, there is merit to petitioner's contention that only 6% per annum interest is chargeable against him. The transaction is neither a loan nor forbearance of money. For any other obligation, the interest is 6% per annum form the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially. But when the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, since it is already deemed to be equivalent to a forbearance of credit.5 Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 78.5

The award of P10,000.00 nominal damages and P20,000.00 attorney's fees is sustained.

WHEREFORE, the Court partly grants the petition. The appealed decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the legal interest to be paid is SIX PERCENT (6%) of P50,000.00 from the date of extrajudicial demand on November 17, 1993. A TWELVE PERCENT (12%), interest shall be imposed on total amount due upon finality of this decision until payment thereof.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE