Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > February 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-46953 February 29, 1988 - JOSE N. MAYUGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-46953. February 29, 1988.]

JOSE N. MAYUGA, substituted by SIMONA L. MAYUGA, SYLVIA MAYUGA-YUSON, JOSE L. MAYUGA, JR., ABELARDO MAYUGA, RAMON MAYUGA, JOSEFINA MAYUGA-FINK, CRISTINA MAYUGA and ROBERTO MAYUGA, MANUEL N. MAYUGA, CARMEN MAYUGA, LOURDES MAYUGA, CONSOLACION MAYUGA, HILARIO FUSILERO, LILIA FUSILERO, and MARIA MAYUGA VDA. DE CAILLES, AGRIPINO MAYUGA, MANUEL MAYUGA, AURORA MAYUGA, MILAGROS M. HIPOLITO, and PURIFICACION MAYUGA, substituted by SERAFIN CAILLES, NARCISO CAILLES, LEON CAILLES and CARMEN C. MAYUGA, Petitioners-Appellants, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, MACONDRAY FARMS, INC., REALTY SALES ENTERPRISE, INC., as assignee of MACONDRAY FARMS, INC., DOMINADOR MAYUGA, DONATO CIRIACO, RAFAEL GREY JR., CLARO Y. SULIT, EMILIO ESTEBAN, THE LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSIONER and THE TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SUPREME COURT, NOT A TRIER OF FACTS; AWARD OF DAMAGES MUST BE BASED ON A FINDING OF MALICE AND BAD FAITH. — Realty has a mistaken concept of the nature of the interest being claimed. It is not based on contract nor on law. More properly the interest being claimed is in the concept of damages arising from Realty’s maliciously evading its contractual obligation. The claimed interest is just one of three suggested bases for computing the award of damages being prayed for by petitioners. This Court cannot award the damages prayed for. The award of damages would have to be based on a finding of malice and bad faith which this Court cannot make as it is not a trier of facts.

2. ID.; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENIAL THEREOF WARRANTED; GROUNDS. — Realty’s motion for reconsideration must likewise be denied. Firstly, the period fixed by the Court is subsequent to the promulgation of the decision which fixes the period. It is clearly prospective. Secondly, the facts cited by Realty as grounds for the fixing of another period are not valid reasons for allowing Realty to further delay fulfillment of its obligation. To grant Realty’s motion for reconsideration would run counter to the clear intent of the parties in entering into a compromise agreement.


R E S O L U T I O N


CORTES, J.:


Before the Court are two motions for reconsideration, one filed by petitioners Mayuga, Et. Al. and the other by respondent Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc.

1. The Motion for Reconsideration of

Petitioners Mayuga, Et. Al.

Petitioners seek a reconsideration of the decision insofar as the same does not award damages in their favor. It is argued that Realty had acted in bad faith and with malice in trying to renege on the agreement. Since the purchasing power of the peso has steadily declined while the value of the disputed property has quadrupled, it is claimed that justice and equity demand that Realty should not be allowed to profit, but should instead be made to pay petitioners the losses they had sustained, and the profits they failed to realize. They pray for damages based on either: (1) the increase in the value of the property from its value in 1977, when the compromise agreement was entered into, to its present market value; (2) the difference in the purchasing power of the peso; or (3) legal interest (12%) computed from 1977 to the end of October 1987.

In its comment to Petitioners’ Motion, respondent Realty contends that since the compromise has the effect and authority of res judicata, it has become conclusive between the parties and no one can add anything to it, such as the Mayugas’ claim for interest (citing Urtula v. Republic, L-22061, January 31, 1968, 22 SCRA 477.)

Realty has a mistaken concept of the nature of the interest being claimed. It is not based on contract nor on law. (See Urtula v. Republic, supra.) More properly the interest being claimed is in the concept of damages arising from Realty’s maliciously evading its contractual obligation. The claimed interest is just one of three suggested bases for computing the award of damages being prayed for by petitioners.

However, this Court cannot award the damages prayed for. The award of damages would have to be based on a finding of malice and bad faith which this Court cannot make as it is not a trier of facts.

2. The Motion for Reconsideration of Realty.

Realty contends that this Court erred in ordering it to pay petitioners P4.25M upon finality of judgment, thereby defeating the purpose and intent of Art. 1197 of the Civil Code in allowing the Court to fix a period which must be prospective and not retroactive, in view of the peculiar circumstances attendant to the case at bar. It is asserted that the period fixed by the Court was not the one contemplated by the parties when they entered into the compromise agreement.

It must be emphasized that Realty concedes that it is liable to petitioners. What is being sought to be considered is the period fixed by the Court. The size of the corporation, its financial resources and the suit commenced by Carpo (See G.R. No. 67451) are the "peculiar circumstances attendant to the case at bar" invoked as grounds for the motion for reconsideration praying that Realty be given six (6) months from finality of the decision in G.R. 67451 within which to pay the amount.

Realty’s motion for reconsideration must likewise be denied. Firstly, the period fixed by the Court is subsequent to the promulgation of the decision which fixes the period. It is clearly prospective. Secondly, the facts cited by Realty as grounds for the fixing of another period are not valid reasons for allowing Realty to further delay fulfillment of its obligation. As stated in the decision now subject of reconsideration:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

It has been more than ten years since the compromise agreement was entered into. By entering into a compromise agreement, the party-litigants could have only intended to put an end a litigation commenced in 1959 as soon as possible and not to prolong it much longer, at least, not for another ten years.

To grant Realty’s motion for reconsideration would run counter to the clear intent of the parties in entering into a compromise agreement.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners on November 5, 1987 and the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc. on November 10, 1987 are both DENIED. This denial is FINAL.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano and Bidin, 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






February-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-46585 February 8,1988

    ANGELA V. GINSON v. MUNICIPALITY OF MURCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28896 February 17, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALGUE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75377 February 17, 1988 - CHUA KENG GIAP v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77716 February 17, 1988 - HEIRS OF THE LATE DOCTOR CORAZON DIAZ-LEUS v. HERNANI MELVIDA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3135 February 17, 1988 - MIGUEL CUENCO v. MARCELO B. FERNAN

  • G.R. No. L-37736 February 23, 1988 - ANTONIO L. EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 39084 February 23, 1988 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. EMILIO V. SALAS

  • G.R. No. L-59621 February 23, 1988 - MAXIMILIANO ALVAREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60578 February 23, 1988 - PATERNO D. ESCUDERO, ET AL. v. CEFERINO E. DULAY

  • G.R. No. L-65114 February 23, 1988 - RENE KNECHT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69844 February 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO M. POLICARPIO

  • G.R. No. 72870 February 23, 1988 - TEODORO R. PULIDO v. MANUEL M. LAZARO

  • G.R. No. 74517 February 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY DY

  • A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON

  • G.R. No. L-59514 February 25, 1988 - PACIANO REMALANTE v. CORNELIA TIBE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30360 February 26, 1988 - NICOLAS SALAMANCA, ET AL. v. FAUSTINO RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30852 February 26, 1988 - CITY OF ILIGAN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32055 February 26, 1988 - REYNALDO BERMUDEZ, SR., ET AL. v. A. MELENCIO-HERRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32600 February 26, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO BELMONTE

  • G.R. No. L-34978 February 26, 1988 - ANGELES C. VDA. DE LAT, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35647 February 26, 1988 - INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL FACTORS, INC. v. AURORA S. MARASIGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38892 February 26, 1988 - BENITO LEGARDA, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO SAVELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43766 February 26, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44301 February 26, 1988 - MERARDO A. VELASQUEZ v. ROMEO D. MAGAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49808 February 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54223 February 26, 1988 - BABY BUS INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55062 February 26, 1988 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75067 February 26, 1988 - PUMA SPORTSCHUHFABRIKEN RUDOLF DASSLER, K.G. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76597 February 26, 1988 - TOMAS LAO v. LETICIA TO-CHIP, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 76648 February 26, 1988 - HEIRS OF THE LATE MATILDE MONTINOLA-SANSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76954-55 February 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIANO RENEJANE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31426 February 29, 1988 - LUZ CARO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34344 February 29, 1988 - RICARDO AGUIRRE, ET AL. v. JOSE DUMLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35512 February 29, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO

  • G.R. No. L-36021 February 29, 1988 - PASTOR DE CASTRO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36527 February 29, 1988 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39013 February 29, 1988 - FRANCISCO BUNAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41979 February 29, 1988 - MATILDE SANCHEZ LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-42624 February 29, 1988 - ANA C. BARCENAS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44822 February 29, 1988 - ESPIRITA B. BUENDIA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46953 February 29, 1988 - JOSE N. MAYUGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48112 February 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO B. MONTON

  • G.R. No. L-48546 February 29, 1988 - SUMMIT GUARANTY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. GREGORIA C. ARNALDO

  • G.R. No. L-48969 February 29, 1988 - BELEN L. VDA. DE GUIA, ET AL. v. ROSARIO R. VELOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51983 February 29, 1988 - ADORACION VALERA BRINGAS v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55397 February 29, 1988 - TAI TONG CHUACHE & CO. v. INSURANCE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59266 February 29, 1988 - SILVESTRE DIGNOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60007 February 29, 1988 - NOE C. BAJA v. ANTONIA CORPUZ MACANDOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60443 February 29, 1988 - CONSTANTINO ALVAREZ, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68636 February 29, 1988 - NORTHERN CEMENT CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71177 February 29, 1988 - ERECTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73116 February 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO AVANZADO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 73867 February 29, 1988 - TELEFAST COMMUNICATIONS/PHILIPPINE WIRELESS, INC. v. IGNACIO CASTRO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76464 February 29, 1988 - TESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANA MALOTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76690 February 29, 1988 - CLAUDIA RIVERA SANCHEZ v. MARIANO C. TUPAS

  • G.R. No. 78299 February 29, 1988 - G & G TRADING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS