THIRD DIVISION
G.R.
No. 149241 – DART PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner versus SPOUSES FRANCISCO AND
ERLINDA CALOGCOG, Respondents.
Promulgated:
August
24, 2009
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
I concur with the ponencia with respect to the
reimbursement of payment of professional fees in favor of respondent
spouses. However, I dissent with respect
to the imposition of 12% interest per
annum on the reimbursable amount which the ponencia regards as “com[ing] in the nature of a forbearance of
money.”
“Forbearance,”
in the context of the usury law, is a contractual obligation of lender or
creditor to refrain, during a given period of time, from requiring the borrower
or debtor to repay a loan or debt then due and payable.[1] With this standard, the obligation in this
case is not a forbearance of money.
In
similar or analogous cases involving reimbursements or refunds, the
interest of 6% per annum was imposed,
viz:
Heirs of Aguilar-Reyes v. Spouses
Mijares,[2] JL Invesetment & Development v. Tendon
Phils.,[3] Spouses Alinas v. Spouses Alinas[4]
and ICTSI v. FGU Insurance.[5]
I
thus submit that the proper interest to be imposed on the reimbursable amount is
6% per annum from the time of
judicial demand to the finality of the decision, and 12% per annum from the finality of the decision until full
satisfaction, conformably with Eastern
Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals.[6]
WHEREFORE, I concur with the ponencia insofar as it reverses the
appealed decision, but I dissent with respect to the rate of interest to be
imposed on the judgment award in light of my foregoing submission.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice