THIRD DIVISION
|
VIOLETA ESPINO, Petitioner, - versus - NORMANDY P. AMORA and
NELIA B. AMORA, doing business under the name of NBA Enterprises, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 172816
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: March 3,
2008 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This
petition for review on certiorari
assails the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision in CA–G.R. CV No. 62461[1]
which affirmed with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 254, Las Piñas City in Civil Case No. LP-97-0268.[2]
The
facts, fairly summarized by the appellate court, follow.
[Respondents]
[Espino’s]
total purchases on credit amounted to One Million Nine Hundred Ninety-Two Thousand
Eight Hundred Thirty-Nine and 64/100 (P1,992,839.64) Pesos. Although [Espino had] already remitted the
aggregate sum of Two Million Eighty-Five Thousand (P2,085,000.00) Pesos,
[respondents] claim that the former still owe(s) the latter the amount of Nine
Hundred Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Eight and 77/100 (P916,208.77)
Pesos, inclusive of interest at the rate of three percent (3%) per month, as of
For their defense, [Espino] averred full payment of [her] obligation and denied having agreed to the imposition of three percent (3%) interest per month which [she] considered usurious, illegal, and arbitrary as the stipulation in the delivery receipt clearly provided that if the bill is not paid within thirty (30) days from date of receipt, the buyer will pay interest at the rate of only twelve percent (12%) per annum.
Despite
due notice, [Espino] did not file a pre-trial brief nor appear at the pre-trial
hearing of this case. Thus, the trial
court allowed [respondents] to present their evidence ex-parte. On
WHEREFORE, [respondents] having
satisfactorily proven the outstanding obligation of [Espino] in the amount
of P1,109,716.94 as of March 31,
1998, [Espino is] hereby ordered to pay [respondents] said amount and
attorney’s fees amounting to 25% of the sum collectible. [Espino’s] collectibles from the DPWH having
been under garnishment, the DPWH is hereby ordered to release the amount or sum
so much as to satisfy the judgment against [Espino] in the amount of P1,109,716.94. With cost.
In
its order dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
assailed Decision is RECONSIDERED and the amount of P65,000.00 is
ordered deducted from the amount of P1,109,716.64.[3]
On
appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s holding as to the subsisting obligation of
Espino and the imposition of interest rates thereon. However, the CA limited
the imposable rate of interest to twelve percent (12%) per annum. The award of
attorney’s fees was, likewise, modified to ten percent (10%) of Espino’s
outstanding balance as the CA deemed the trial court’s award of twenty-five
percent (25%) iniquitous and unconscionable. It disposed of the case, thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision and resolution of Branch 254, Regional Trial Court, Las Piñas City in Civil Case No. LP-97-0268 are MODIFIED that the interest rate is reduced to twelve percent (12%) per annum and the award of attorney’s fees is reduced to ten percent (10%) of the amount collectible. In all other respects, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED.[4]
Consequently,
Espino filed a Motion for Clarification and Reconsideration of the CA decision
questioning the finding and computation of the outstanding balance plus the
imposition of interest rates thereon. Espino maintains that she has fully
settled and has, in fact, even paid over and above the total amount of her
obligation to NBA Enterprises. In the alternative, Espino argues that the
computation of her outstanding balance should not include the three percent
(3%) per month interest rate unilaterally imposed by NBA Enterprises. Thus,
Espino’s actual obligation is simply equivalent to the value of the purchased
goods plus the reduced rate of interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum as
declared by the CA. However, the CA denied the Motion.
Undaunted,
Espino comes to this Court positing the following issues:
1. Whether the CA erred in sustaining
Espino’s outstanding obligation to NBA Enterprises notwithstanding the P2,085,000.00 already remitted to
the latter.
2. Corollarily, whether Espino’s
outstanding obligation pegged at P1,044,716.64
by the RTC is the correct base for applying the twelve percent (12%) reduced
rate of interest imposed by the CA.
The
petition is bereft of merit. We find no reason to depart from the finding of
the RTC, and affirmed by the CA, that Espino has an outstanding obligation to
NBA Enterprises for various purchases of construction materials.
We
uphold the well-entrenched rule that factual findings of the trial court,
especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are accorded the highest
degree of respect and are considered conclusive between the parties.[5]
The rule, however, is not absolute and admits of exceptions upon a showing of
highly meritorious circumstances, such as: (1) when the findings of a trial
court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when a
lower court’s inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken,
absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the
appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond
the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if
properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a
misappreciation of facts; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without
mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the
absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[6]
None of the laid down exceptions which would warrant a reversal of the assailed
decision obtain herein.
Espino
anchors her petition and assails the CA decision, on two grounds: (1) the
original amount of the obligation set at P1,992,839.64 and undisputed by
the parties which had, supposedly, already been offset against the installment
payments totaling P2,085,000.00 effected by Espino as of September 1,
1997, resulting in a surplus of P92,160.64 to be considered as accrued
interest on the obligation; and (2) the final computation of Espino’s
outstanding balance, if any, applying the twelve percent (12%) rate of interest
imposed by the CA.
We do not subscribe to Espino’s
simplistic computation of her outstanding obligation to NBA Enterprises.
Contrary to her assertion, the records reveal that the established arrangement
between the parties afforded Espino a continuing credit line with NBA
Enterprises for the purchase of construction materials which the former then
pays through an installment scheme. For these purchases paid on installment,
NBA Enterprises charged a monthly interest of three percent (3%) on the
remaining balance of the obligation. The total purchases minus the tendered
installment payments, plus the accrued interest, are all reflected in a
statement of account for a given period prepared by NBA Enterprises. Unarguably, from 1994, Espino acquiesced and
conformed to this arrangement. She did not dispute or question how NBA
Enterprises arrived at her outstanding obligation. In fact, Espino even
certified as correct the statement of account dated P977,215.46.[7]
She likewise acknowledged this same amount of liability and obligation to NBA
Enterprises in a Deed of Assignment[8]
covering her collectibles from the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH). Consequently, although this Deed of Assignment is not notarized and remains
ineffective against third persons, it does not detract from Espino’s explicit
acknowledgment of her debt.[9]
And in yet another categorical
acknowledgment of her obligation and the amount thereof, Espino signed her
conformity to the declarations and statements in respondent Normandy Amora’s
Affidavit[10] dated
Significantly, the amount of P1,992,839.64
which Espino does not dispute, not only covers the purchases for the period of
July to October 1995, but it also includes the outstanding balance of P90,000.00
for previous purchases she had made plus interest thereon.[11]
We note that Espino’s Answer[12]
failed to specifically deny paragraph 6 of the Complaint[13]
which reads:
6. Sometime between July and October 1995, [Espino] purchased from [NBA Enterprises] various construction materials, such as reinforcing steel bars, cement in bags and other related materials, in the sum of ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND (PHP1,900,000.00) PESOS. As there was a previous balance of NINETY THOUSAND (PHP90,000.00) PESOS, more or less, due from [Espino] to [NBA Enterprises], the liability of [Espino] rose to a total of ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY-TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE & 64/100 (PHP1,992,839.64) PESOS.
Evidently, Espino’s belated challenge
to NBA Enterprises’ computation of her outstanding obligation and its
imposition of interest thereon is unavailing given her prior unequivocal
acquiescence thereto.
Moreover, Espino’s contention of
excess payment on a supposed principal obligation of P1,992,839.64 fails
to take into account additional purchases on credit she had made. The adduced
installment payments were effected not only for the purchases in 1995, but to
diminish Espino’s outstanding obligation and, thereby, continue to benefit from
the credit arrangement.
Clearly, Espino cannot now inveigle
out of the established arrangement after having been allowed continuous
purchases on credit by NBA Enterprises without paying up front the entire
amount of her outstanding obligation. Both the trial and appellate courts
uniformly held, thus:
As correctly ruled by the court a quo, the parties entered into a contract of sale on credit and, thus, Article 1589 of the Civil Code applies, to wit:
Art. 1589. The vendee shall owe interest for the period between the delivery of the thing and the payment of the price, in the following three cases:
(1) Should it have been so stipulated;
(2) Should the thing sold and delivered produce fruits or income;
(3) Should he be in default, from the time of judicial or extrajudicial demand for the payment of the price.
Clearly, the law makes the buyer liable to pay interest on the unpaid purchase price. Considering the amount of appellants’ obligation and the period of time that had elapsed between the delivery of the construction materials and the payment of the purchase price, this Court disagrees with appellants that the amount of Ninety Two Thousand One Hundred Sixty and 64/100 (92,160.64) Pesos is already enough to cover the interest which have (sic) accrued on their unpaid obligation.
It stands to reason, therefore, that
Espino remains obligated to NBA Enterprises.
Coming now to the actual amount of
Espino’s obligation and applying the reduced interest rate of twelve percent
(12%) thereon, it is apparent from the records that as of July 1996 the
undisputed amount of the obligation was P977,215.46. Espino
categorically acknowledged this amount on three (3) separate occasions: (1) the
statement of account dated P245,239.64 which, curiously,
remains a bare-faced unsubstantiated assertion.
We are not unmindful of the fact that
as of June 1997, NBA Enterprises’ demand for payment was reduced from the
undisputed amount of P977,215.46 to only P818,342.56 as it
deducted some payments made by Espino.[16]
However, NBA Enterprises continued to charge compounded interest even against
Espino’s protestations. Thereafter, from the filing of the Complaint on P916,208.77,[17]
exclusive of the claim for damages and attorney’s fees, computed by NBA
Enterprises at an interest rate of three percent (3%) per month.[18]
In short, from the principal obligation of P977,215.46 which, to
reiterate, Espino acquiesced to, NBA Enterprises simply claims a principal
obligation of P818,342.56, exclusive of unilaterally imposed interest
rate.
It is on this point that a palpable
conflict arises between the RTC and the CA decisions, which reduced the
imposable rate of interest to twelve percent (12%) per annum. In this connection, we affirm the appellate court’s
reduction of the applicable interest rate.[19]
We likewise sustain the CA’s reduction of the RTC’s award of attorney’s fees
from twenty-five percent (25%) to ten percent (10%) of the amount collectible.[20]
Nevertheless, we observe that the CA
decision and its subsequent resolution denying Espino’s Motion for
Clarification and Reconsideration, failed to specify the actual amount owed by
Espino to NBA Enterprises, applying the reduced interest rate of twelve percent
(12%) per annum. It was incumbent
upon the appellate court, considering that Espino had already moved for
clarification, to explain the modification in the RTC decision as stated in the
dispositive portion of the CA decision.
In fine, for clarity and to obviate
confusion, we hold that Espino’s outstanding obligation is P818,342.56
which shall earn interest at twelve percent (12%) per annum from the date of judicial demand or from the filing of the
complaint on P818,342.56.
WHEREFORE, the
Petition is DENIED. Petitioner
Violeta Espino is ordered to pay respondents Normandy P. Amora and Nelia B.
Amora, doing business under the name of NBA Enterprises, the following amounts:
(1) P818,342.56 plus interest
at 12% per annum from judicial demand
on
(2) Legal interest of 12% per annum on the total amount due from
the finality of this decision until fully paid;[22]
(3) The amount equivalent to 10% of
the amount due as attorney’s fees; and
(4) Costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Dated
[2] Dated
[3] Rollo, pp. 24-25.
[4] Rollo, p. 29.
[5] Titan Construction Corporation v. Uni-Field Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 153874, March 1, 2007, 517 SCRA 180, 186; Sigaya v. Mayuga, G.R. No. 143254, August 18, 2005, 467 SCRA 341, 353.
[6] Ilao-Quianay v. Mapile, G.R. No. 154087, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 246, 253; See Child Learning Center, Inc. v. Tagorio, G.R. No. 150920, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 236, 241-242.
[7] Rollo, p. 44.
[8]
[9] See Title VI, Chapter 8 on Assignment of Credits and other Incorporeal Rights by the Civil Code.
Article 1625 of the Civil Code provides:
An assignment of a credit, right or action shall
produce no effect as against third persons, unless it appears in a public
instrument, or the instrument is recorded in the Registry of Property in case
the assignment involves the real property.
[10] Rollo,
p. 45.
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] NBA Enterprises’ demand letter dated
[15] Espino’s letter dated
[16] Rollo,
pp. 56-57.
[17] As of
[18] NBA Enterprises’ prayer in its
Complaint dated
[19] See
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 97412,
[20] See Titan Construction Corporation v. Uni-Field Enterprises, Inc., supra note 5; Manzano v. Despabiladeras, G.R. No. 148786, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 123, 135.
[21] Eastern
Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 19.
[22] See
Cuyco v. Cuyco, G.R. No. 168736,