ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 133877.March 26, 2003]
RCBC vs. ALFA RTW
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 26 2003.
G.R. No. 133877(Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Alfa RTW Manufacturing Corporation, BA Finance Corporation, North American Garments Corporation, Johnny Teng, Ramon Lee, Antonio Lacdao, Ramon Luy and Alfa Integrated Textile Mills.)
For resolution is the motion filed by respondents Alfa RTW Manufacturing Corporation, Johnny Teng, Ramon Lee, Antonio Lacdao, Ramon Luy and Alfa Integrated Textile Mills seeking a reconsideration of our Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED in the sense that the award to petitioner RCBC of P3,060,406.25 is SET ASIDE and substituted with an amount to be computed by the trial court, upon finality of this Decision, in accordance with the formula indicated above (referring to the formula laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 78 [1994]).
"SO ORDERED." (emphasis added)
Respondents' motion is anchored basically on the ground that the Court of Appeals' award of P3,060,406.25 should not have been set aside by this Court since that was what petitioner RCBC prayed for in its complaint. They pray that their earlier payment in the sum of P73,133.70 be considered in reducing the liquidated damages and that interest thereon be no longer imposed as the same would be iniquitous or unconscionable.
Respondents stress that petitioner, in its complaint filed with the trial court, is claiming the total amount of only P3,060,406.25 which includes the stipulated interests, damages or penalties and service charges, and thus could not be entitled to a greater amount.
Petitioner, in its comment on the motion, maintains that both the respondents and the Court of Appeals miscomprehended the essence of its complaint. It argues that, contextually, the word "including" in its prayer is used in its conjunctive sense. It does not only pray for an award of P3,060,406.25, but also for the payment of the interests, liquidated damages and service charges stipulated in the contracts subject of the case.
Petitioner RCBC is correct. It bears stressing that its prayer has to be read in conjunction with the entire pleading. The contracts annexed thereto are the laws between the parties. The courts cannot even vary their stipulations therein unless they are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. [1] cralaw
Moreover, that petitioner's monetary claim in its complaint is not limited to only P3,060,406.25, is further shown in its prayer for the payment of the "stipulated interests, liquidated damages or penalties and service charges thereon from February 15, 1982 until fully paid, plus 10% attorney's fees and expenses of litigation and exemplary or corrective damages." Clearly, the stated amount is not fixed; it increases "until fully paid."
We, however, find merit in respondents' plea that their payment in the sum of P73,133.70 be considered in reducing their liabilities. This was never disputed and opposed by petitioner in its comment on respondents' instant motion for reconsideration. As held by the trial court, the said amount should be deducted from their principal obligation.
As regards respondents' prayer that the interest upon the liquidated damages be likewise reduced as the same is iniquitous or unconscionable, [2] cralaw suffice it to state that whether such interest is indeed unconscionable depends on the outcome of the trial court's computation of the money judgment in accordance with the formula laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, [3] cralaw as ordered by this Court. The said issue, being a question of fact, must be determined by the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED in the sense that the amount of P73,133.70 is deducted from respondents' principal obligation.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Article 1306, New Civil Code.
[2] cralaw Motion for Reconsideration, Rollo at 213-215.
[3] cralaw 234 SCRA 78 (1994).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
