Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > July 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 201712 ; July 02, 2012] MIGUEL DY MIRANDA, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE MIRANDA AND SONS -VERSUS- LUDO Y LUYM CORPORATION. :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 02 July 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 201712 - MIGUEL DY MIRANDA, doing business under the name and style MIRANDA AND SONS -versus- LUDO Y LUYM CORPORATION.

We review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court the decision^[1] dated April 26, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB-CV No. 02957. The assailed CA ruling affirmed the decision^[2]  of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, Cebu City. The RTC held Miguel Miranda liable to pay Ludo & Luym Corporation (LLC) a sum of money.

Miranda was engaged in a retail business under the name of Miranda and Sons, while LLC was engaged in the business of manufacturing Anchor Vegetable Oil.

On March 10, 2004, Miranda ordered cartloads of vegetable oil from LLC. As payment thereof, Miranda issued several postdated checks. LLC subsequently delivered the products, as evidenced by delivery receipts.

On April 27, 2004, LLC presented the postdated checks to the bank; but they were dishonored. Despite repeated demands, Miranda failed to honor the checks that amounted to the total sum of P460,173.20. Thus, LLC filed a collection suit with the RTC.

Proceedings in the RTC and the CA 

At the trial before the RTC, the Sales Manager of LLC presented documentary evidence (delivery receipts, sales invoices) to prove that the products had actually been sold and delivered. The Sales Manager also presented the Security Guard's logbook to prove that the cargo truck of Miranda entered and exited LLC's premises.

Miranda, in his defense, offered the testimonies of the checker of the stocks, and the driver of the cargo truck of Miranda and Sons. Both employees testified that the products were not delivered; although they could not recall when this was nor were they able to present any evidence to rebut the evidence of LLC.

On February 4, 2009, the RTC ruled in favor of LLC, ordering Miranda to pay the value of the postdated checks, plus 12% legal interest, exemplary damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC.

Miranda cites three issues to support this petition, namely: 1) that the CA erred in finding that the goods were actually delivered; 2) that the award of 12% interest per annum was improper, and 3) that the awards of damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses were also improper.

We find that the CA committed no reversible error in reviewing the case. 

It was established during trial that the products had actually been delivered. This finding is supported by several pieces of documentary evidence, as well as by the testimony of LLC's Sales Manager. The RTC also did not find credible the testimonies of Miranda's witnesses. Thus, both the RTC and the CA ruled against Miranda on question of facts. These factual findings are generally binding upon this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal,^[3] unless they can be shown to have no basis in the evidence presented, a circumstance that the petitioner failed to prove.

There is also no error in imposing a 12% interest per annum. In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,^[4] we held that when the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be the interest that was stipulated in writing. Furthermore, this stipulated interest shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded.

Exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good. Consistent with recent jurisprudence,^[5] exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 is reasonable. The award of attorney's fees is likewise in order since LLC was compelled to litigate to protect its interest.^[6]cralaw

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition for failure to show any reversible error in the Court of Appeals' decision. No costs.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 14-24. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, and concurred in by Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.

^[2] Id. at 25-30. 

^[3] Lubos v. Galupo, 424 Phil. 665, 671 (2002); Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, 358 Phil. 806, 817 (1998); and Xentrex Automotive, Inc. v. CA 353 Phil. 258, 263 (1998). 

^[4] G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78, 96. 

^[5] People of the Philippines v. Conrado Laog Y Rainin, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011. 

^[6] Terminal Facilities and Services Corporation v. Philippine Ports Authority, et al., G.R. No. 135639, and Philippine Ports Authority, et al. v. Terminal Facilities and Services Corporation, G.R. No. 135825, February 27, 2002.