Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1996 > September 1996 Decisions > G.R. No. 120097 September 23, 1996 - FOOD TERMINAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 120097. September 23, 1996.]

FOOD TERMINAL, INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and TAO DEVELOPMENT, INC., Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT; ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT AND RESPECT; EXCEPTIONS. — Well-established is the rule that factual findings or the trial court and the CA are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal save in exceptional circumstances. [The circumstances are: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the judgment is premises on a misapprehension of facts. (5) when the findings are conflicting; and (6) when the Court of Appeals in making its findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee (Verendia v. CA, 217 SCRA 417)].

2. COMMERCIAL LAW; CENTRAL BANK CIRCULAR NO. 416; REFERS TO LEGAL INTEREST ON LOAN OR FORBEARANCE OF MONEY. — The Central Bank Circular No. 416 refers to legal interest in a loan or forbearance of money, or to cases where money is transferred from one person to another and the obligation to return the same or a portion thereof is adjudged. Any one monetary judgment which does not involve or which has nothing to do with loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credit does not fall within its coverage for such imposition is not within the ambit of the authority granted to the Central Bank.

3. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; PROPER IMPOSABLE RATE OF INTEREST. — When an obligation not constituting a loan or forbearance of money is breached then an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the Court at the rate of 68 per annum in accordance with Art. 2209 of the Civil Code. Indeed, the monetary judgment in favor of private respondent does not involve a loan or forbearance of money, hence the proper imposable rate of interests is six (6%) per cent. However, as declared in the case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. CA., 234 SCRA 78 the interim period from the finality of the judgment awarding a monetary claim and until payment thereof, is deemed to be equivalent to a forbearance of credit. Thus, from the time the judgment becomes final until its full satisfaction, the applicable rate of legal interest shall be twelve percent (12%).


R E S O L U T I O N


FRANCISCO, J.:


Petitioner Food Terminal, Inc. (FTI) is a government owned and controlled corporation engaged in the business of providing storage services and bonded warehousing to the public for a fee. Sometime in the first quarter of 1904, petitioner FTI and herein private respondent entered into a contract of storage whereby private respondent deposited in petitioner’s cold storage 22,716 bags (approximately 567,900 kilos) of yellow granex onions and 2,853 bags (approximately 71,300 kilos) of red creole onions. These onions were intended for export to Japan. During the first week of May, an ammonia leak penetrated through petitioner’s storage facilities and caused damage on private respondent’s goods, as a consequence of which, the onions were rendered unfit for export.

Private respondent filed a complaint for damages demanding payment of the actual value of the goods, unrealized profits, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Finding petitioner negligent in the performance of its duties, the lower court rendered judgment in favor of private respondents as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Ordering defendant Food Terminal, Inc. to pay plaintiff TAO Development, Inc. the amount of P2,429,055.00 as actual damages representing the loss sustained by plaintiff;

2. Ordering said defendant to pay said plaintiff the amount of P800,000.00 as damages it sustained in paying interest on the cash advance of US$100,000.00 from plaintiff’s Japanese buyer;

3. Ordering said defendant to pay said plaintiff the amount of P1,534,005.00 as unearned profits; and

4. Ordering said defendant to pay said plaintiff the amount of P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

The above amounts shall earn interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from May 15, 1984 until fully satisfied.

In addition, defendant is, likewise, ordered to pay the costs of the suit.

SO ORDERED." 1

On appeal, public respondent Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the lower court with modification, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) Ordering the defendant Food Terminal, Inc. to pay appellee TAO Development, Inc. the amount of P2,400,168.00 as actual damages representing the loss sustained by the appellee;

b) Ordering said appellant to pay said appellee the amount of P1,534,005.00 as unearned profits; and

c) Ordering said appellant to pay said appellee the amount of P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

The above amounts shall earn interest at the rate of 12% per annum from May 15, 1984 until fully satisfied."cralaw virtua1aw library

No costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED." 2

Hence, this petition on both questions of fact and law.

It is contended that the lower court and public respondent CA erred in finding petitioner negligent. Petitioner alleges that the damage to the onions was due to their poor quality, their propensity to deteriorate rapidly, and private respondent’s delay in their disposal.

The contention, we note, is premised on a review of the factual findings of the CA and the lower court, matters not ordinarily reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari. Well-established is the rule that factual findings of the trial court and the CA are entitled to great weight and respect 3 and will not be disturbed on appeal save in exceptional circumstances, 4 none of which obtains in the case at bench. On the contrary, the finding of the trial court and the CA that the damage caused to private respondent’s goods is due to petitioner’s negligence is sufficiently supported by the evidence on record. Hence, on this ground, the petitioner’s contention must fail.

Petitioner likewise argues that the CA erred in affirming the rate of interest imposed by the lower court in its decision. This contention is well-taken. The CA incorrectly applied the provisions of Central Bank Circular No. 416 which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"By virtue of the authority granted to it under Section 1 of Act 2655, as amended known as the ‘Usury Law’, the Monetary Board in its Resolution No. 1622 dated July 29, 1974, has prescribed that the rate of interest for the loan, or forbearance of any money, goods, or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be twelve (12%) per cent per annum. This circular shall take effect immediately."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above circular refers to legal interest in a loan or forbearance of money, or to cases where money is transferred from one person to another and the obligation to return the same or a portion thereof is adjudged. 5 Any other monetary judgment which does not involve or which has nothing to do with loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credit does not fall within its coverage for such imposition is not within the ambit of the authority granted to the Central Bank. 6 When an obligation not constituting a loan or forbearance of money is breached then an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum 7 in accordance with Art. 2209 8 of the Civil Code. Indeed, the monetary judgment in favor of private respondent does not involve a loan or forbearance of money, hence the proper imposable rate of interest is six (6%) per cent. However, as declared in the case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. CA 9 , the interim period from the finality of the judgment awarding a monetary claim and until payment thereof, is deemed to be equivalent to a forbearance of credit. Thus, from the time the judgment becomes final until its full satisfaction, the applicable rate of legal interest shall be twelve percent (12%).

ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the following modification:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

a) Ordering petitioner Food Terminal, Inc. to pay private respondent TAO Development, Inc. the amount of P2,400,168.00 as actual damages representing the loss sustained by the private respondent;

b) Ordering petitioner to pay private respondent the amount of P1,534,005.00 as unearned profits; and

c) Ordering petitioner to pay private respondent the amount of P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

These amounts shall earn interest at the rate of SIX PER CENT (6%) per annum from May 15, 1984 until fully satisfied, but before judgment becomes final. From the date of finality of the judgment until the obligation is totally paid, A TWELVE PER CENT (12%) interest, in lieu of the SIX PER CENT (6%) interest, shall be imposed.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Davide Jr., Melo and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Decision dated December 16, 1991, pp. 13-14; Rollo. pp. 56-57.

2. Decision dated April 28, 1995, p. 13; Rollo, p. 69.

3. Tay Chun Suy v. CA, 229 SCRA 151.

4. The circumstances are: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly absurd, mistaken, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the judgment is premised on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings are conflicting; and (6) when the Court of Appeals in making its findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee (Verendia v. CA, 217 SCRA 417).

5. Pilipinas Bank v. CA, 225 SCRA 268.

6. GSIS v. CA, 218 SCRA 233.

7. Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. CA, 234 SCRA 78.

8. "If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six percent per annum."cralaw virtua1aw library

9. Supra, Note 7.




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






September-1996 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-773 September 3, 1996 - JOSE A. BERSALES v. DIOSDADO C. ARRIESGADO

  • G.R. Nos. 96259 & 96274 September 3, 1996 - LUIS J. GONZAGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106962 September 3, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ATUEL

  • G.R. No. 109767 September 3, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO Q. MONTEREY

  • G.R. No. 118696 September 3, 1996 - RAMON S. OROSA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1218 September 4, 1996 - ERLINDA C. ABERGAS v. MERLITA V. BAGOLBAGOL

  • G.R. No. 105006 September 4, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO VILLARUEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110187 September 4, 1996 - JOSE G. EBRO III v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111173 September 4, 1996 - PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 123026 September 4, 1996 - JAIME R. RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-720 September 5, 1996 - SIMEON BENJAMIN, SR. v. EUGENIO C. ALABA

  • G.R. No. 115005 September 5, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO FABRIGAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117488 September 5, 1996 - SANTIAGO IBASCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118509 September 5, 1996 - LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. P-95-1171 & 8733-Ret September 6, 1996 - CLARA BEEGAN v. TEOTIMO BORJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108179 September 6, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO MALAZARTE

  • G.R. No. 116122 September 6, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD M. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 117983 September 6, 1996 - RIZALINO P. UY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118633 September 6, 1996 - LAPULAPU DEV’T. & HOUSING CORP. v. TEODORO K. RISOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63528 September 9, 1996 - ATOK BIG-WEDGE MINING CO. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91619 September 9, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAVINO L. PASAYAN

  • G.R. No. 107545 September 9, 1996 - UNICANE WORKERS UNION-CLUP, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114290 September 9, 1996 - RAYCOR AIRCONTROL SYSTEM, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116222 September 9, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINDES PAYNOR

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1096 September 10, 1996 - ELEAZAR JOSEP v. JOVITO C. ABARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 113224 September 11, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABDUL HADI S. ALSHAIKA

  • G.R. Nos. 118168-70 September 11, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO D. PAULE

  • G.R. No. 120082 September 11, 1996 - MACTAN CEBU INT’L. AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. FERDINAND J. MARCOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120654 September 11, 1996 - MARIA LOURDES PAREDES-GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106345-46 September 16, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO J. TUSON

  • G.R. No. 108733 September 16, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENANTE T. PAREL

  • G.R. No. 113204-05 September 16, 1996 - BARBIZON PHIL., INC. v. NAGKAKAISANG SUPERVISOR NG BARBIZON PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115497 September 16, 1996 - INTERORIENT MARITIME ENTERPRISES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117641 September 16, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGENCIO PADA

  • G.R. No. 118101 September 16, 1996 - EDDIE DOMASIG v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103875 September 18, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE NARSICO

  • G.R. No. 105084 September 18, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE A. VILLAVIRAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112989 September 18, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRITO B. AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 113191 September 18, 1996 - DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119769 September 18, 1996 - BERNARD RAYMOND T. SAULOG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99867 September 19, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO BARERA

  • G.R. No. 111262 September 19, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. EMPLOYEES UNION-PTGWO v. MA. NIEVES D. CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117250 September 19, 1996 - PATRICIA SANDEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99859 September 20, 1996 - PHIL. SCOUT VETERANS SECURITY & INVESTIGATION AGENCY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 105938 & 108113 September 20, 1996 - TEODORO R. REGALA, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106536 September 20, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR LAYAGUIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111267 September 20, 1996 - COLUMBIA PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116624 September 20, 1996 - BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116989 September 20, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 118180 September 20, 1996 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119220 September 20, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO SOLAYAO

  • G.R. Nos. 119964-69 September 20, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORINO DEL MUNDO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-999 September 23, 1996 - TERESITA DYSICO v. EUGENIO A. DACUMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1099 September 23, 1996 - SURIGAO CITIZENS’ MOVEMENT FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT v. FLORDELIZA D. CORO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1225 September 23, 1996 - ANATOLIA A. JUNTILLA v. TERESITA J. CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102692 September 23, 1996 - JOHNSON & JOHNSON (PHILS.) v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118653 September 23, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS VILLEGAS

  • G.R. No. 119957 September 23, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO L. BAWAR

  • G.R. No. 120097 September 23, 1996 - FOOD TERMINAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121433 September 23, 1996 - RAUL H. SESBREÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97425 September 24, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMUALDO G. MIRANDA

  • G.R. No. 106875 September 24, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR BABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111914 September 24, 1996 - JORGE M. RANISES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114007 September 24, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GONZALO GALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97067 September 26, 1996 - HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSO. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115314-23 September 26, 1996 - RODRIGO BORDEOS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116232 September 26, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO G. DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 118882 September 26, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119325 September 26, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SULPICIO R. CAPINIG

  • G.R. No. 119580 September 26, 1996 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121200 September 26, 1996 - GLORIA A. SAMEDRA LACANILAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125416 September 26, 1996 - SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111399 September 27, 1996 - ODON PECHO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115150-55 September 27, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYDANTE A. CALONZO

  • G.R. No. 118918 September 27, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELITO TALLEDO

  • G.R. No. 125672 September 27, 1996 - JESUSA CRUZ v. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN IN MANDALUYONG

  • Adm. Matter No. 96-3-88-RTC September 30, 1996 - IN RE: REPORT ON AUDIT AND INVENTORY OF CASES IN RTC-ALAMINOS, PANGASINAN

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1346 September 30, 1996 - LEO C. TABAO v. WALERICO B. BUTALID

  • G.R. No. 97933 September 30, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ANTONIO T. APAWAN

  • G.R. Nos. 115350 & 117819-21 September 30, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL . v. RESTITUTO C. PABALAN

  • G.R. Nos. 116716-18 September 30, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO F. GABAN

  • G.R. No. 119219 September 30, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO F. LIGOTAN