Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > June 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 57576 June 6, 1989 - NATIONAL ONION GROWERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 57576. June 6, 1989.]

NATIONAL ONION GROWERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (NINTH DIVISION), VICENTE F. GOQUIOLAY, and SALUD CHONG, Respondents.

Candido G. Del Rosario & Associates for Petitioner.

Jose F. Aguirre for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS, GENERALLY ENTITLED TO GREAT RESPECT. — Upon examination of the evidence, we agree with the express conclusions arrived at, apart from the consideration that the findings of fact made by lower Courts are generally entitled to great respect if not conclusive on this Court. We need only invoke what has been reiterated in a long line of decisions, the exceptions to which do not obtain in this case.

2. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; USURY, NOW LEGALLY UNEXISTENT. — "For sometime now, usury has been legally non-existent. Interest can now be charged as lender and borrower may agree upon. The rules of Court in regard to allegations of usury, procedural in nature, should be considered repealed with retroactive effect" (Liam Law v. Olympic Sawmill Co., L-30771, May 28, 1984, 129 SCRA 439).


D E C I S I O N


MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:


This Petition for Review on Certiorari challenges the Decision of respondent Court of Appeals 1 in CA-G.R. No. 57290-R, affirming the Decision of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XIV, at Caloocan City 2 in Civil Case No. C-2407.

The undisputed facts follow:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On 2 October 1969, Petitioner, National Onion Grower Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. (NOGROCOMA) obtained a loan of P300,000.00 from private respondent, Vicente Goquiolay, payable within one (1) year, with interest at twelve (12%) per annum, payable in advance.

As security for the loan, petitioner executed in Goquiolay’s favor a real estate mortgage on its two (2) parcels of land located in Malabon, Rizal, together with the improvements thereon. The mortgage was registered with the Register of Deeds on 3 October 1969.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On 2 December 1970, the loan having been unpaid on maturity date, Goquiolay demanded payment in writing from Petitioner. As the latter failed to pay, Goquiolay proceeded to foreclose the mortgage extrajudicially.

On 24 February 1971, Petitioner filed suit before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, at Caloocan City, seeking to: (a) declare the mortgage contract void ab initio for being usurious; (b) recover from Goquiolay the usurious interest on the loan; and (c) obtain a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to enjoin foreclosure and sale at public auction.

The Trial Court had earlier granted the prayer for Preliminary Injunction but since, in Goquiolay’s Answer, he had abandoned the extrajudicial foreclosure and had, instead, claimed for judicial foreclosure, the restraint was rendered moot and academic.

The crucial issue is whether or not Petitioner had, in fact, received the total consideration of P300,000.00 as stipulated in the loan document. Petitioner maintains that of the said amount it had received only the sum of P195,000.00 inasmuch as P105,000.00 thereof was withheld as advance payment of interest, or actually 35% of the loan, which is clearly usurious for being beyond the maximum allowed by the Usury Law.

On the other hand, Goquiolay asserts that Petitioner received the entire proceeds of the loan of P300,000.00 except for the amount of P36,000.00, which was applied to the payment of interest at twelve (12%) percent.

Both the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found, as established fact, that the different amounts released to Petitioner (Exhibits "3", "4", "5", "6" and "7") aggregated P300,000.00 or the full amount of the loan proceeds.

As the Trial Court had observed, in Petitioner’s reply to Goquiolay’s letter of demand, dated 4 December 1970, "it had promised to pay within 15 days the amount of P300,000.00 with the corresponding interest" (Exhibit "11"), no mention whatsoever having been made of any usurious charges. Thus, the disposition of the case by the Trial Court as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the instant action is hereby dismissed and the plaintiff, the National Onion Growers Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. is hereby ordered to pay the defendant Vicente F. Goquiolay, the sum of P300,000.00 with 12% interest per annum from October 2, 1970, within a period of ninety (90) days from receipt hereof, and in default of such payment the mortgaged properties shall be sold at public auction in accordance with the law and proceeds thereof applied to the satisfaction of this judgment.

"There is no pronouncement as to the payment of other interests, as well as damages" (p. 52, Record on Appeal).

The Court of Appeals also found "no clear, positive and convincing evidence to prove appellant’s (petitioner’s) allegations of usury," and fully affirmed the aforequoted judgment.chanrobles law library : red

Upon examination of the evidence, we agree with the express conclusions arrived at, apart from the consideration that the findings of fact made by lower Courts are generally entitled to great respect if not conclusive on this Court. We need only invoke what has been reiterated in a long line of decisions, the exceptions to which do not obtain in this case.

"This court cannot set aside the express finding of the Court of Appeals. Time and again we have ruled that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the lower court" (Tiongco v. de la Merced, L-24426, July 25, 1974, 58 SCRA 89; Corona v. CA, L-62482, April 28, 1983, 121 SCRA 865; Baniqued v. CA, L-47531, February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA 596).

"It has been well-settled that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law imputed to it, its findings of fact being conclusive" (Chan v. CA, L-27488, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 737; Knecht v. CA, L-65114, February 23, 1988, 158 SCRA 80).

The full amount of the loan of P300,000.00 having been proven to have been received by Petitioner, the Usury Law finds no application in this case besides the fact that it is no longer in force.chanrobles law library : red

"For sometime now, usury has been legally non-existent. Interest can now be charged as lender and borrower may agree upon. The rules of Court in regard to allegations of usury, procedural in nature, should be considered repealed with retroactive effect" (Liam Law v. Olympic Sawmill Co., L-30771, May 28, 1984, 129 SCRA 439).

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the judgment of respondent Court of Appeals sought to be reviewed is hereby AFFIRMED. Cost against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Sarmiento, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Per Justice Elias B. Asuncion, concurred in by Justice Porfirio V. Sison and Juan A. Sison.

2. Judge Serafin Salvador, presiding.




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-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 78852 June 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO EGLIPA

  • G.R. No. 84148 June 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO A. ESTILLERO

  • G.R. No. 85624 June 5, 1989 - CATHAY INSURANCE CO., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51543 June 6, 1989 - EMILIA VDA. DE INGUILLO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54427 June 6, 1989 - BLUE BAR COCONUT PHILS., INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. 57576 June 6, 1989 - NATIONAL ONION GROWERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63609 June 6, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICIO MASONGSONG

  • G.R. No. 74352 June 6, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO CABADING

  • G.R. No. 81951 June 6, 1989 - ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51283 June 7, 1989 - LOURDES MARIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66039 June 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY VILLAFLORES

  • G.R. No. 74553 June 8, 1989 - SERVICEWIDE SPECIALISTS, INCORPORATED v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74515 June 14, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERTITO TRIGO

  • G.R. No. 83263 June 14, 1989 - UY HOO AND SONS REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83581 June 14, 1989 - PHILIPPINE FEEDS MILLING CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66257 June 20, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICISIMA A. BASILAN

  • G.R. No. 79303 June 20, 1989 - ARCANGEL GENOBLAZO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80435 June 20, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL CACCAM

  • G.R. No. 80778 June 20, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO T. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 81147 June 20, 1989 - VICTORIA BRINGAS PEREIRA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82039 June 20, 1989 - ANTONIO MARTINEZ, ET AL. v. EUFROCINIO S. DE LA MERCED, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85323 June 20, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49834 June 22, 1989 - PAULINO SORIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77969 June 22, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICK DE LUNA

  • G.R. No. 79156 June 22, 1989 - ISIDRO ANIMOS, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80975 June 22, 1989 - RURAL BANK OF COTABATO, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83809 June 22, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAID M. SARIOL

  • G.R. No. 87193 June 23, 1989 - JUAN GALLANOSA FRIVALDO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80160 June 26, 1989 - FELICISIMO T. SAN LUIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-87-120 June 26, 1989 - ADORACION G. ANGELES v. ELIZABETH CASAÑAS

  • G.R. No. 55285 June 28, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO S. BAYOCOT

  • G.R. No. 60705 June 28, 1989 - INTEGRATED REALTY CORPORATION, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71393 June 28, 1989 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 72772-73 June 28, 1989 - RICARDO R. MANALAD, ET AL. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75109-10 June 28, 1989 - BIENVENIDA MACHOCA ARCADIO VDA. DE CRUZO, ET AL. v. GLICERIO V. CARRIAGA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78062 June 28, 1989 - VETERANS PHILIPPINE SCOUT SECURITY AGENCY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80364 June 28, 1989 - JULITA ROBLEZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81953 June 28, 1989 - CANDIDA DE LA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84606 June 28, 1989 - RAMON A. GONZALES, ET AL. v. SUGAR REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION

  • G.R. No. 85343 June 28, 1989 - PHILTRANCO SERVICE ENTERPRISES v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. 36213 June 29, 1989 - FELlX GONZALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48049 June 29, 1989 - EMILIO TAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53824 June 29, 1989 - GELMART INDUSTRIES PHILS., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54079 June 29, 1989 - REMIGIO NILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56679 June 29, 1989 - ROBERTO TUGBANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67858 June 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN E. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 70713 June 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME GALANG

  • G.R. No. 72714 June 29, 1989 - MELECIO V. EMATA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77415 June 29, 1989 - ASIAN DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 79787 June 29, 1989 - APOLONIO EGAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81157 June 29, 1989 - RICARDO M. JAVIER, ET AL. v. LEON MADAMBA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81939 June 29, 1989 - PANAY ELECTRIC CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82467 June 29, 1989 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82761 June 29, 1989 - JOSE DANTE, ET AL. v. MARIA P. SISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82805 & 83225 June 29, 1989 - BRIAD AGRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. DIONISIO DELA SERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82866-67 June 29, 1989 - PHIL. ASSOCIATED SMELTING AND REFINING CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84415 June 29, 1989 - DIONISIA C. SANTE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 84850 June 29, 1989 - RICARDO A. LLAMADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-465 MTJ June 29, 1989 - MAMERTA NIDUA v. CORNELIO LAZARO

  • G.R. No. 38354 June 30, 1989 - BEL AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC. v. VIRGILIO V. DIONISIO

  • G.R. No. 39975 June 30, 1989 - FRANCISCA MADARCOS, ET AL. v. EUFROCINIO S. DE LA MERCED, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62641 June 30, 1989 - CASIANO MAGISTRADO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74522 June 30, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO B. BONEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76733 June 30, 1989 - EASTMAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78909 June 30, 1989 - MATERNITY CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80116 June 30, 1989 - IMELDA MANALAYSAY PILAPIL v. CORONA IBAY-SOMERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83834 June 30, 1989 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83888 June 30, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE C. QUINTANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84502 June 30, 1989 - CHRISTIAN CHILDREN’S FUND v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85475 June 30, 1989 - MANUEL A. RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.