ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 146942.
RUIZ vs. CA
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 146942 (Corazon G. Ruiz, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Consuelo Torres, respondents.)
For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration [1] cralaw dated June 2, 2003 filed by petitioner Corazon G. Ruiz, of the Decision [2] cralaw of this Court dated April 22, 2003, where we held:
(1) The promissory note of P750,000.00 dated
(2) The real property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. RT-96686, registered in the name of petitioner, and subject of the
deed of mortgage dated
(3) The 10% compounded monthly interest, the 10% surcharge per
month stipulated in the promissory notes dated May 23, 1995 and December 1,
1995, and the 1% compounded monthly interest stipulated in the promissory note
dated April 21, 1995 are invalid. The legal rate of interest of 12% per annum
shall apply after the maturity dates of the notes until full payment of the
entire amount due. The only permissible rate of surcharge is 1% per month,
without compounding. The amount of attorney's fees is reduced from the
stipulated 25% (in the
The
1. Principal of loan under promissory note dated
a. 1% interest per month on principal from
b. 1 % surcharge per month on principal from May 1996 until fully paid
2. Principal of loan under promissory note dated
a. 1% interest per month on principal from
b. 1% surcharge per month on principal from September 1995 until fully paid
3. Principal of loan under promissory note dated
a. 1 % interest per month on principal from
b. 1% surcharge per month on principal from December 1995 until fully paid
4. Principal of loan under promissory note dated
December 1, 1995................................................P100,000.00
a. 1% interest per month on principal from
b. 1% surcharge per month on principal from April 1996 until fully paid
5. Attorney's fees........................................................P 50,000.00
In its Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner insists that:
(1) The promissory note of P750,000.00 dated
(2) The real property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. RT-96686, registered in the name of petitioner, and subject of the
deed of mortgage dated
(3) The rates of interests and surcharges on the obligation of petitioner to private respondent as recomputed and resolved by this Court should start to apply only upon finality of the decision of this Court.
With regard to the first two issues, no substantial arguments
have been raised by petitioner. These issues have been thoroughly discussed by
this Court in its
The petitioner invokes the benevolent authority of this Court to allow payment of the loan with one percent (1%) reduced rate of interest per month, to be computed from the date of finality of the decision that will be rendered in this case. Petitioner alleges that as far back as October 1996, she offered to pay the above principal loans plus accumulated interest in the total sum of P1,500,000.00. However, petitioner claims that respondent insisted on collecting the sum of P1,800,000.00 and the P571,000.00 worth of jewelry entrusted to her by petitioner. [3] cralaw
In the case at bar, the fact of delay is never disputed. Petitioner failed to pay the principal loan on the date the subject note fell due and upon demand by respondent, as well as the interest payments thereafter. If it were true that petitioner tendered payment in the amount of P1,500,000.00 to respondent and that the latter refused to accept payment, then petitioner should have instead consigned [4] cralaw his payment in court to prevent the further accumulation of interest. This the petitioner failed to do.
As regards the matter of legal interest, this Court, in the case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals [5] cralaw laid down the following guidelines:
"xxx
II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is imposed, as follows:
1. 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 is that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.
XXX
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit."
To apply the foregoing rules, an additional legal interest at the
rate of 12% per annum should still have been imposed on petitioner's total
obligation, on top of the recomputed rates of interest and surcharge imposed by
this Court in its
IN VIEW THEREOF, the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 191-224.
[2] cralaw Id. at 170-189.
[3] cralaw Id. at 197.
[4] cralaw Art. 1256, Civil Code. If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made refuses without just cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released from responsibility by the consignation of the thing or sum due.
xxx
[5] cralaw 234 SCRA 78 (1994).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
