Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

1/23/2015 G.R.No.194507,September08,2014FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Petitioner,v.FOUNDATIONSPECIALISTS,INC.,Respondent.G.R.NO.

194621

ChanRobles VirtualLawLibrary

Like

Tweet

|chanrobles.com
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2014 > September 2014 Decisions > G.R. No. 194507,
September08,2014FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Petitioner,v.FOUNDATIONSPECIALISTS,INC.,Respondent.
G.R.NO.194621FOUNDATIONSPECIALISTS,INC.,Petitioner,v.FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Respondent.:

Search

ChanRoblesOnLineBarReview

G.R.No.194507,September08,2014FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Petitioner,v.FOUNDATION
SPECIALISTS,INC.,Respondent.G.R.NO.194621FOUNDATIONSPECIALISTS,INC.,Petitioner,v.
FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Respondent.

THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.194507,September08,2014
FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Petitioner,v.FOUNDATIONSPECIALISTS,INC.,Respondent.
G.R.NO.194621
FOUNDATIONSPECIALISTS,INC.,Petitioner,v.FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Respondent.
DECISION
PERALTA,J.:

DebtKollectCompany,Inc.

BeforetheCourtaretwoconsolidatedcases,namely:(1)PetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule
45oftheRulesofCourt,docketedasG.R.No.194507,filedbyFederalBuilders,Inc.,assailing
the Decision1 and Resolution,2 dated July 15, 2010 and November 23, 2010, respectively, of the
CourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CVNo.70849,whichaffirmedwithmodificationtheDecision3 dated
May3,2001oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)inCivilCaseNo.92075and(2)Petitionforreviewon
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, docketed as G.R. No. 194621, filed by Foundation
Specialists, Inc., assailing the same Decision4 and Resolution,5 dated July 15, 2010 and November
23, 2010, respectively, of the CA in CA G.R. CV No. 70849, which affirmed with modification the
Decision6datedMay3,2001oftheRTCinCivilCaseNo.92075.
Theantecedentfactsareasfollows:

Ch a n Ro b le s Vir t u a la wlib r a r y

On August 20, 1990, Federal Builders, Inc. (FBI) entered into an agreement with Foundation
Specialists, Inc. (FSI) whereby the latter, as subcontractor, undertook the construction of the
diaphragm wall, capping beam, and guide walls of the Trafalgar Plaza located at Salcedo Village,
Makati City (the Project), for a total contract price of Seven Million Four Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P7,400,000.00).7 Under the agreement,8 FBI was to pay a downpayment equivalent to twenty
percent (20%) of the contract price and the balance, through a progress billing every fifteen (15)
days,payablenotlaterthanone(1)weekfrompresentationofthebilling.
OnJanuary9,1992,FSIfiledacomplaintforSumofMoneyagainstFBIbeforetheRTCofMakatiCity
seekingtocollecttheamountofOneMillionSixHundredThirtyFiveThousandTwoHundredSeventy
Eight Pesos and NinetyOne Centavos (P1,635,278.91), representing Billings No. 3 and 4, with
accruedinterestfromAugust1,1991plusmoralandexemplarydamageswithattorneysfees.9Inits
complaint, FSI alleged that FBI refused to pay said amount despite demand and its completion of
ninetysevenpercent(97%)ofthecontractedworks.

ChanRoblesIntellectualProperty
Division

In its Answer with Counterclaim, FBI claimed that FSI completed only eightyfive percent (85%) of
the contracted works, failing to finish the diaphragm wall and component works in accordance with
the plans and specifications and abandoning the jobsite. FBI maintains that because of FSIs
inadequacy, its schedule in finishing the Project has been delayed resulting in the Project owners
defermentofitsownprogressbillings.10Itfurtherinterposedcounterclaimsforamountsitspentfor
theremedialworksontheallegeddefectsinFSIswork.
On May 3, 2001, after evaluating the evidence of both parties, the RTC ruled in favor of FSI, the
dispositiveportionofitsDecisionreads:
Ch a n Ro b le s Vir t u a la wlib r a r y

WHEREFORE,onthebasisoftheforegoing,judgmentisrenderedorderingdefendantto
payplaintiffthefollowing:
1. The sum of P1,024,600.00 representing billings 3 and 4, less the amount of
P33,354.40plus12%legalinterestfromAugust30,1991
2. ThesumofP279,585.00representingthecostofundeliveredcement
3. ThesumofP200,000.00asattorneysfeesand
4. Thecostofsuit.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=689

1/9

1/23/2015 G.R.No.194507,September08,2014FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Petitioner,v.FOUNDATIONSPECIALISTS,INC.,Respondent.G.R.NO.194621
Defendantscounterclaimisdeniedforlackoffactualandlegalbasis.
SOORDERED.11

c r a la wr e d

On appeal, the CA affirmed the Decision of the lower court, but deleted the sum of P279,585.00
representingthecostofundeliveredcementandreducedtheawardofattorneysfeestoP50,000.00.
InitsDecision12datedJuly15,2010,theCAexplainedthatFSIfailedtosubstantiatehowandinwhat
manner it incurred the cost of cement by stressing that its claim was not supported by actual
receipts. Also, it found that while the trial court did not err in awarding attorneys fees, the same
shouldbereducedforbeingunconscionableandexcessive.
OnFBIsrejectionofthe12%annualinterestrateontheamountofBillings3and4,theCAruledthat
thelowercourtdidnoterrinimposingthesameinthefollowingwise:
Ch a n Ro b le s Vir t u a la wlib r a r y

xxxTheruleiswellsettledthatwhenanobligationisbreached,anditconsistsinthe
payment of a sum of money, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the
timeitisjudiciallydemanded(BPIFamilySavingsBank,Inc.vs.FirstMetroInvestment
Corporation,429SCRA30).Whenthereisnorateofintereststipulated,suchasinthe
presentcase,thelegalrateofinterestshallbeimposed,pursuanttoArticle2209ofthe
NewCivilCode.Intheabsenceofastipulatedinterestrateonaloandue,thelegalrate
ofinterestshallbe12%perannum.13
BothpartiesfiledseparateMotionsforReconsiderationassailingdifferentportionsoftheCADecision,
buttonoavail.14Undaunted,theysubsequentlyelevatedtheirclaimswiththisCourtviapetitionsfor
reviewoncertiorari.
On the one hand, FSI asserted that the CA should not have deleted the sum of P279,585.00
representingthecostofundeliveredcementandreducedtheawardofattorneysfeestoP50,000.00,
sinceitwasanundisputedfactthatFBIfailedtodelivertheagreedquantityofcement.Ontheother
hand,FBIfaultedtheCAforaffirmingthedecisionofthelowercourtinsofarastheawardofthesum
representing Billings 3 and 4, the interest imposed thereon, and the rejection of his counterclaim
were concerned. In a Resolution15 dated February 21, 2011, however, this Court denied, with
finality,thepetitionfiledbyFSIinG.R.No.194621forhavingbeenfiledlate.
Hence,thepresentpetitionfiledbyFBIinG.R.No.194507invokingthefollowingarguments:

Ch a n Ro b le s Vir t u a la wlib r a r y

I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A CLEAR, REVERSABLE ERROR WHEN IT
AFFIRMEDTHETRIALCOURTSJUDGMENTTHATFEDERALBUILDERS,INC.WASLIABLE
TO PAY THE BALANCE OF P1,024,600.00 LESS THE AMOUNT OF P33,354.40
NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE DIAPHRAGM WALL CONSTRUCTED BY FOUNDATION
SPECIALIST, INC. WAS CONCEDEDLY DEFECTIVE AND OUTOFSPECIFICATIONS AND
THATPETITIONERHADTOREDOITATITSOWNEXPENSE.

II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS, REVERSABLE ERROR WHEN IT
IMPOSEDTHE12%LEGALINTERESTFROMAUGUST30,1991ONTHEDISPUTEDCLAIM
OF P1,024,600.00 LESS THE AMOUNT OF P33,354.40 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE
WAS NO STIPULATION IN THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES WITH REGARD TO
INTEREST AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEIR AGREEMENT WAS NOT A LOAN OR
FORBEARANCEOFMONEY.
III.

September2014Jurisprudence

G.R. No. 205800, September 10, 2014 MICROSOFT


CORPORATION AND ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,
Petitioners, v. SAMIR FARAJALLAH, VIRGILIO D.C.
HERCE,RACHELP.FOLLOSCO,JESUSITOG.MORALLOS,
AND MA. GERALDINE S. GARCIA (DIRECTORS AND
OFFICERS OF NEW FIELDS (ASIA PACIFIC), INC.),
Respondents.
G.R. No. 201237, September 03, 2014 PHILIPPINE
TOURISTERS, INC. and/or ALEJANDRO R. YAGUE, JR.,
Petitioners,v.MASTRANSITWORKERSUNIONANGLO
KMU* AND ITS MEMBERS, REPRESENTED BY ABRAHAM
TUMALA,JR.,Respondents.
G.R. No. 199388, September 03, 2014 OMNI
HAULING SERVICES, INC., LOLITA FRANCO, and
ANICETO FRANCO, Petitioners, v. BERNARDO BON,
ROBERTO TORTOLES, ROMEO TORRES, RODELLO*
RAMOS, RICARDO DELOS SANTOS, JUANITO BON,
ELENCIO ARTASTE,** CARLITO VOLOSO, ROMEL
TORRES,ROBERTAVILA,EDUARDOBAUTISTA,MARTY
VOLOSO, OSCAR JABEL, RICKY AMORANTO, BERNARD
OSINAGA, EDUARDO BON, JERRY EDUARCE, and
FEDERICOBRAZIL,Respondents.
G.R. No. 197329, September 08, 2014 NATIONAL
POWERCORPORATION,Petitioner,v.LUISSAMARAND
MAGDALENASAMAR,Respondents.

THECOURTOFAPPEALSCOMMITTEDGRAVEANDSERIOUSREVERSABLEERRORWHEN
IT DISMISSED THE COUNTERCLAIM OF PETITIONER NOTWITHSTANDING
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE SUPPORTING ITS CLAIM OF P8,582,756.29 AS ACTUAL
DAMAGES.
Thepetitionispartlymeritorious.
We agree with the courts below and reject FBIs first and third arguments. Wellentrenched in
jurisprudence is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the
appellate court, are accorded the highest degree of respect and considered conclusive between the
parties, save for the following exceptional and meritorious circumstances: (1) when the factual
findingsoftheappellatecourtandthetrialcourtarecontradictory(2)whenthefindingsofthetrial
court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures (3) when the lower courts
inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible (4) when there is
graveabuseofdiscretionintheappreciationoffacts(5)whenthefindingsoftheappellatecourtgo
beyond the issues of the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered,
willjustifyadifferentconclusion(6)whenthereisamisappreciationoffacts(7)whenthefindings
offactarethemselvesconflictingand(8)whenthefindingsoffactareconclusionswithoutmention
of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are
contradictedbyevidenceonrecord.16
c r a la wr e d

None of the aforementioned exceptions are present herein. In the assailed Decision, the RTC
meticulously discussed the obligations of each party, the degree of their compliance therewith, as
wellastheirrespectiveshortcomings,allofwhichwereproperlysubstantiatedwiththecorresponding
documentaryandtestimonialevidence.
Undertheconstructionagreement,FSIsscopeofworkconsistedin(1)theconstructionoftheguide
walls, diaphragm walls, and capping beam and (2) the installation of steel props.17 As the lower
courts aptly observed from the records at hand, FSI had, indeed, completed ninetyseven percent
(97%) of its contracted works and the noncompletion of the remaining three percent (3%), as well
astheallegeddefectsinthesaidworks,areactuallyattributabletoFBIsownfaultsuchas,butnot
limitedto,thefailuretodelivertheneededcementasagreeduponinthecontract,towit:
Ch a n Ro b le s Vir t u a la wlib r a r y

G.R. No. 205298, September 10, 2014 LEOPOLDO


QUINTOS Y DEL AMOR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,Respondent.
A.C. No. 7474, September 09, 2014 PRESIDING
JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY, Complainant, v. ATTY.
JUANS.DEALCA,Respondent.

On March 8, 1991, plaintiff had finished the construction of the guide wall and
diaphragm wall (Exh. R) but had not yet constructed the capping beam as of
April 22, 1991 for defendants failure to deliver the needed cement in
accordancewiththeiragreement(ExhibitI).Thediaphragmwallhadlikewisebeen
concrete tested and was found to have conformed with the required design strength
(Exh.R).

G.R. No. 199139, September 09, 2014 ELSIE S.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=689

2/9

1/23/2015 G.R.No.194507,September08,2014FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Petitioner,v.FOUNDATIONSPECIALISTS,INC.,Respondent.G.R.NO.194621
CAUSING, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
ANDHERNAND.BIRON,SR.,Respondents.
G.R. No. 197336, September 03, 2014
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ROLANDO CORDERO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 195549, September 03, 2014 WILLAWARE
PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. JESICHRIS
MANUFACTURINGCORPORATION,Respondent.
G.R.No.183360,September08,2014ROLANDOC.
DE LA PAZ,*, Petitioner, v. L & J DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY,Respondent.
G.R. No. 196182, September 01, 2014 ECE REALTY
AND DEVELOPMENT INC., Petitioner, v. RACHEL G.
MANDAP,Respondent.
G.R.No.178837,September01,2014COLEGIODE
SAN JUAN DE LETRAN, Petitioner, v. ISIDRA DELA
ROSAMERIS,Respondent.
G.R. No. 198139, September 08, 2014 NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FELICISIMO
TARCELOANDHEIRSOFCOMIASANTOS,Respondents.
A.C. No. 10196, September 09, 2014 MELODY R.
NERY, Complainant, v. ATTY. GLICERIO A. SAMPANA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 194507, September 08, 2014 FEDERAL
BUILDERS,
INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
FOUNDATION
SPECIALISTS, INC., Respondent. G.R. NO. 194621
FOUNDATION SPECIALISTS, INC., Petitioner, v.
FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Respondent.
G.R. No. 204233, September 03, 2014 RICARDO A.
DALUSONG, Petitioner, v. EAGLE CLARC SHIPPING
PHILIPPINES, INC., NORFIELD OFFSHORE AS, AND/OR
CAPT. LEOPOLDO T. ARCILLAR, AND COURT OF
APPEALS,Respondents.
G.R.No.197174,September10,2014FRANCLERP.
ONDE, Petitioner, v. THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL
REGISTRAROFLASPIASCITY,Respondent.
A.C. No. 8637, September 15, 2014 IMELDA CATO
GADDI, Complainant, v. ATTY. LOPE M. VELASCO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 178733, September 15, 2014 ELISA
ANGELES, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
OFFICERINCHARGE MARILOU C. MARTIN, DEPUTY
SHERIFF JOSELITO SP ASTORGA, MARCO BOCO, AND
JOHN DOES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG,
BRANCH268,Respondents.
G.R. No. 194946, September 03, 2014 PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. ECO YABA Y
BASAA.K.A.PLOK,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 205357, September 02, 2014 GMA
NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT. SENATOR ALAN PETER
COMPAERO S. CAYETANO, PetitionerIntervenor.
G.R. NO. 205374 ABC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS,
Respondent.
G.R.
NO.
205592

MANILA
BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC. AND NEWSOUNDS
BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. G.R. NO.
205852 KAPISANAN NG MGA BRODKASTER NG
PILIPINAS (KBP) AND ABSCBN CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
v.
COMMISSION
ON
ELECTIONS,
Respondent. G.R. NO. 206360 RADIO MINDANAO
NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS,Respondent.
G.R. No. 199898, September 03, 2014 PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. LEO DE LA
TRINIDADYOBALLES,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 157583, September 10, 2014 FRUMENCIO
E.PULGAR,Petitioner,v.THEREGIONALTRIALCOURT
OF MAUBAN, QUEZON, BRANCH 64, QUEZON POWER
(PHILIPPINES)
LIMITED,
CO.,
PROVINCE
OF
QUEZON,ANDDEPARTMENTOFFINANCE,Respondents.
G.R. No. 198656, September 08, 2014 NANCY S.
MONTINOLA, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 9925, September 17, 2014 MARIANO R.
CRISTOBAL,Complainant,v.ATTY.RONALDOE.RENTA,
Respondent.
G.R.No.212705,September10,2014ROBERTOCO,
Petitioner, v. KENG HUAN JERRY YEUNG AND EMMA
YEUNG,Respondents.
A.C. No. 7184, September 17, 2014 FELIPE B.
ALMAZAN, SR., Complainant, v. ATTY. MARCELO B.
SUERTEFELIPE,Respondent.

Subsequently,plaintiffwaspaidtheaggregateamountofP5,814,000.00.ButasofMay
30,1991,plaintiffsbillingsnumbers3and4hadremainedunpaid(Exhs.L,M,and
M1).
xxxx
On the misaligned diaphragm wall from top to bottom and inbetween panels, plaintiff
explainedthatintheexcavationofthesoilwheretherebarcagesareloweredandlater
poured with concrete cement, the characteristics of the soil is not the same or
homogenousallthroughout.Becauseofthispropertyofthesoil,intheprocessof
excavation,itmayerodeinsomeplacesthatmaycausespacesthatthecement
may fill or occupy which would naturally cause bulges, protrusions and
misalignment in the concrete cast into the excavated ground (tsn., June 1,
2000, pp 1418). This, in fact was anticipated when the agreement was
executedandincludedasprovision6.4thereof.
The construction of the diaphragm wall panel by panel caused misalignment and the
chippingoffoftheportionsmisalignedisconsideredamatterofcourse.Defendant, as
the main contractor of the project, has the responsibility of chopping or
chippingoffofbulges(tsn.,ibid,pp2021).
Wrong location of rebar dowels was anticipated by both contractor and
subcontractorasthelattersubmittedaplancalledDetailofSheerConnectors
(Exh T) which was approved. The plan provided two alternatives by which the
wrong location of rebar dowels may be remedied. Hence, defendant, aware of the
possibility of inaccurate location of these bars, cannot therefore ascribe the
sametotheplaintiffasdefectivework.
Constructionofthecappingbeamrequiredtheuseofcement.Records,however,show
that from September 14, 1990 up to May 30, 1991 (Exhs. B to L), plaintiff had
repeatedlyrequesteddefendanttodelivercement.Finally,onApril22,1991,plaintiff
notifieddefendantofitsinabilitytoconstructthecappingbeamforthelatters
failure to deliver the cement as provided in their agreement (Exh. I). Although
records show that there was mention of revision of design, there was no evidence
presentedtoshowsuchrevisionrequiredlessamountofcementthanwhatwasagreed
onbyplaintiffanddefendant.
Theseventhphaseoftheconstructionofthediaphragmwallistheconstruction
of the steel props which could be installed only after the soil has been
excavated by the main contractor. When defendant directed plaintiff to install
the props, the latter requested for a site inspection to determine if the
excavation of the soil was finished up to the 4th level basement. Plaintiff,
however, did not receive any response. It later learned that defendant had
contracted out that portion of work to another subcontractor (Exhs. O and P).
Nevertheless,plaintiffinformeddefendantofitswillingnesstoexecutethatportionofits
work.18
It is clear from the foregoing that contrary to the allegations of FBI, FSI had indeed completed its
assignedobligations,withtheexceptionofcertainassignedtasks,whichwasduetothefailureofFBI
tofulfilitsendofthebargain.
It can similarly be deduced that the defects FBI complained of, such as the misaligned diaphragm
wallandtheerroneouslocationoftherebardowels,werenotonlyanticipatedbytheparties,having
stipulated alternative plans to remedy the same, but more importantly, are also attributable to the
veryactionsofFBI.Accordingly,consideringthattheallegeddefectsinFSIscontractedworkswere
notsomuchduetothefaultornegligenceoftheFSI,butweresatisfactorilyproventobecausedby
FBIs own acts, FBIs claim of P8,582,756.29 representing the cost of the measures it undertook to
rectify the alleged defects must necessarily fail. In fact, as the lower court noted, at the time when
FBIhadevaluatedFSIsworks,itdidnotcategoricallyposeanyobjectionthereto,viz:
Ch a n Ro b le s Vir t u a la wlib r a r y

Defendant admitted that it had paid P6 million based on its evaluation of


plaintiffs accomplishments (tsn., Sept. 28, 2000, p. 17) and its payment was
madewithoutobjectiononplaintiffsworks,themajorityofwhichwereforthe
accomplishmentsintheconstructionofthediaphragmwall(tsn.,ibid,p.70).
xxxx
While there is no evidence to show the scope of work for these billings, it is safe to
assume that these were also works in the construction of the diaphragm wall
consideringthatasofMay16,1991,plaintiffhadonlytheinstallationofthesteelprops
and welding works to complete (Exh. H). If defendant was able to evaluate the
work finished by plaintiff the majority of which was the construction of the
diaphragm wall and paid it about P6 million as accomplishment, there was no
reason why it could not evaluate plaintiffs works covered by billings 3 and 4.
In other words, defendants did not have to excavate in order to determine and
evaluateplaintiffsworks.Hence,defendantsrefusaltopaywasnotjustifiedand
the alleged defects of the diaphragm wall (tsn, Sept. 28, 2000, p. 17) which it
claimstohavediscoveredonlyafterJanuary1992weremereafterthoughts.19
Thus,intheabsenceofanyrecordtootherwiseproveFSIsneglectinthefulfilmentofitsobligations
underthecontract,thisCourtshallrefrainfromreversingthefindingsofthecourtsbelow,whichare
fully supported by and deducible from, the evidence on record. Indeed, FBI failed to present any
evidencetojustifyitsrefusaltopayFSIfortheworksitwascontractedtoperform.Assuch,Wedo
notseeanyreasontodeviatefromtheassailedrulings.
Anent FBIs second assignment of error, however, We find merit in the argument that the 12%
interestrateisinapplicable,sincethiscasedoesnotinvolvealoanorforbearanceofmoney.Inthe
landmark case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,20 We laid down the following
guidelinesincomputinglegalinterest:
Ch a n Ro b le s Vir t u a la wlib r a r y

II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and
compensatorydamages,therateofinterest,aswellastheaccrualthereof,isimposed,
asfollows:
Ch a n Ro b le s Vir t u a la wlib r a r y

G.R. No. 190198, September 17, 2014


COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v.
CE LUZON GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC.,
Respondent.
G.R.No.184000,September17,2014PUERTOAZUL

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=689

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
should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore,
theinterestdueshallitselfearnlegalinterestfromthetimeitisjudicially

3/9

1/23/2015 G.R.No.194507,September08,2014FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Petitioner,v.FOUNDATIONSPECIALISTS,INC.,Respondent.G.R.NO.194621
demanded.Intheabsenceofstipulation,therateofinterestshallbe12%
per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or
extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169
oftheCivilCode.

LAND, INC., Petitioner, v. PACIFIC WIDE REALTY


DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION,Respondent.
G.R. No. 197857, September 10, 2014 SPOUSES
FRANCISCO SIERRA (SUBSTITUTED BY DONATO,
TERESITA, TEODORA, LORENZA, LUCINA, IMELDA,
VILMA, AND MILAGROS SIERRA) AND ANTONINA
SANTOS, SPOUSES ROSARIO SIERRA AND EUSEBIO
CALUMA LEYVA, AND SPOUSES SALOME SIERRA AND
FELIX
GATLABAYAN
(SUBSTITUTED
BY
BUENAVENTURA, ELPIDIO, PAULINO, CATALINA,
GREGORIO, AND EDGARDO GATLABAYAN, LORETO
REILLO,FERMINAPEREGRINA,ANDNIDAHASHIMOTO),
Petitioners, v. PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK,
INC.,Respondent.
A.M. No. P133102 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07
2562P], September 08, 2014 JOSE S. VILLANUEVA,
Complainant,v.ATTY.PAULINOI.SAGUYOD,CLERKOF
COURT VI, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6,
PANIQUI,TARLAC,Respondent.

2.Whenanobligation,notconstitutingaloanorforbearanceofmoney,is
breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be
imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No
interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages
except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable
certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable
certainty,theinterestshallbegintorunfromthetimetheclaimismade
judiciallyorextrajudicially(Art.1169,CivilCode)butwhensuchcertainty
cannotbesoreasonablyestablishedatthetimethedemandismade,the
interestshallbegintorunonlyfromthedatethejudgmentofthecourtis
made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to
havebeenreasonablyascertained).Theactualbaseforthecomputation
oflegalinterestshall,inanycase,beontheamountfinallyadjudged.

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
underparagraph1orparagraph2,above,shallbe12%perannumfrom
such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be
bythenanequivalenttoaforbearanceofcredit.21

G.R. No. 176121, September 22, 2014 SPOUSES


TEODORICOANDPACITAROSETE,Petitioners,v.FELIX
AND/OR MARIETTA BRIONES, SPOUSES JOSE AND
REMEDIOS ROSETE, AND NEORIMSE AND FELICITAS
CORPUZ,Respondents.
G.R. No. 206912, September 10, 2014 PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. DEMOSTHENES
BONTUYAN,AccusedAppellant.

In line, however, with the recent circular of the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
(BSPMB)No.799,wehavemodifiedtheguidelinesinNacarv.GalleryFrames,22asfollows:

G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014 PEOPLE OF


THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. REYNALDO
TORRES, JAY TORRES, BOBBY TORRES @ ROBERTO
TORRES Y NAVA, BRION, AND RONNIE TORRES,
Accused,BOBBYTORRES@ROBERTOTORRESYNAVA,
AccusedAppellant.

I. When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasicontracts,


delicts or quasidelicts is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for damages.
TheprovisionsunderTitleXVIIIon"Damages"oftheCivilCodegovernindetermining
themeasureofrecoverabledamages.

G.R. No. 174353, September 10, 2014 NESTOR


CHING AND ANDREW WELLINGTON, Petitioners, v.
SUBIC BAY GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., HU HO
HSIU LIEN ALIAS SUSAN HU, HU TSUNG CHIEH ALIAS
JACKHU,HUTSUNGHUI,HUTSUNGTZUANDREYNALD
R.SUAREZ,Respondents.

Ch a n Ro b le s Vir t u a la wlib r a r y

II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and
compensatorydamages,therateofinterest,aswellastheaccrualthereof,isimposed,
asfollows:
Ch a n Ro b le s Vir t u a la wlib r a r y

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
should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore,
theinterestdueshallitselfearnlegalinterestfromthetimeitisjudicially
demanded.Intheabsenceofstipulation,therateofinterestshallbe6%
per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or
extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169
oftheCivilCode.

G.R. No. 188773, September 10, 2014 HEIRS OF


VALENTIN
BASBAS,
ANSELMA
B.
ENDRINAL,
GERTRUDES BASBAS, RUFINA BASBAS, CEFERINA B.
CARTECIANO, ANACLETO BASBAS, ARSENIA BASBAS,
ANASTACIO BASBAS, BEDACIO BASBAS, TEODOCIA B.
OCAMPO,SEGUNDOC.BASBAS,MARIAB.RAMOSAND
EUGENIO BASBAS IN REPRESENTATION OF PEDRO
BASBAS HERINO T. BASBAS AND NESTOR T. BASBAS
INREPRESENTATIONOFLUCASBASBASADELAIDAB.
FLORENTINO, RODRIGO BASBAS, FELIX BASBAS, JR.,
TEODULO BASBAS, ANDRESITO BASBAS, LARRY
BASBAS AND JOEY BASBAS IN REPRESENTATION OF
FELIX BASBAS, SR., VICTOR BEATO, ALIPIO BEATO,
EUTIQUIO BEATO, JULIANA B. DIAZ, PABLO BEATO
AND ALEJANDRO BEATO IN REPRESENTATION OF
REMIGIA B. BEATO, AS REPRESENTED BY RODRIGO
BASBAS, Petitioners, v. RICARDO BASBAS AS
REPRESENTEDBYEUGENIOBASBAS,Respondents.

2.Whenanobligation,notconstitutingaloanorforbearanceofmoney,is
breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be
imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No
interest,however,shallbeadjudgedonunliquidatedclaimsordamages,
except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable
certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable
certainty,theinterestshallbegintorunfromthetimetheclaimismade
judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code), but when such
certaintycannotbesoreasonablyestablishedatthetimethedemandis
made,theinterestshallbegintorunonlyfromthedatethejudgmentof
the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be
deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the
computationoflegalinterestshall,inanycase,beontheamountfinally
adjudged.

G.R. No. 176697, September 10, 2014 CESAR V.


AREZAANDLOLITAB.AREZA,Petitioners,v.EXPRESS
SAVINGS BANK, INC. AND MICHAEL POTENCIANO,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 197486, September 10, 2014 RENATO L.
DELFINO, SR. (DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY HIS
HEIRS, NAMELY: GRACIA DELFINO, GREGORIO A.
DELFINO, MA. ISABEL A. DELFINO, RENATO A.
DELFINO, JR., MA. REGINA DELFINO ROSELLA, MA.
GRACIAA.DELFINO,MARIANOA.DELFINO,MA.LUISA
DELFINO GREGORIO AND REV. FR. GABRIEL A.
DELFINO, Petitioners, v. AVELINO K. ANASAO AND
ANGEL K. ANASAO (DECEASED AND REPRESENTED BY
HISSOLEHEIR,SIXTOC.ANASAO),Respondents.
G.R. No. 193426, September 29, 2014 SUBIC BAY
LEGEND RESORTS AND CASINOS, INC., Petitioner, v.
BERNARDC.FERNANDEZ,Respondent.
G.R. No. 176020, September 29, 2014 HEIRS OF
TELESFORO JULAO, NAMELY, ANITA VDA. DE
ENRIQUEZ, SONIA J. TOLENTINO AND RODERICK
JULAO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ALEJANDRO AND
MORENITADEJESUS,Respondents.

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
underparagraph1orparagraph2,above,shallbe6%perannum from
such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be
bythenanequivalenttoaforbearanceofcredit.
And,inadditiontotheabove,judgmentsthathavebecomefinalandexecutorypriorto
July1,2013,shallnotbedisturbedandshallcontinuetobeimplementedapplyingthe
rateofinterestfixedtherein.23
It should be noted, however, that the new rate could only be applied prospectively and not
retroactively.Consequently,thetwelvepercent(12%)perannumlegalinterestshallapplyonlyuntil
June 30, 2013. Come July 1, 2013, the new rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be the
prevailing rate of interest when applicable. Thus, the need to determine whether the obligation
involvedhereinisaloanandforbearanceofmoneynonethelessexists.
In S.C. Megaworld Construction and Development Corporation v. Engr. Parada,24 We clarified the
meaningofobligationsconstitutingloansorforbearanceofmoneyinthefollowingwise:
Ch a n Ro b le s Vir t u a la wlib r a r y

A.C. No. 7337, September 29, 2014 ROLANDO


VIRAY, Complainant, v. ATTY. EUGENIO T. SANICAS,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 204160, September 22, 2014 SPOUSES
MICHELLE M. NOYNAY AND NOEL S. NOYNAY,
Petitioners,
v.
CITIHOMES
BUILDER
AND
DEVELOPMENT,INC.,Respondent.
G.R. No. 202701, September 10, 2014 PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. EDILBERTO
BALIBAY Y LABIS AND MARICEL BALIBAY BIJAAN,
DefendantAppellants.
G.R.No.178911,September17,2014EDUARDOD.
MONSANTO,DECOROSOD.MONSANTO,SR.,ANDREV.
FR. PASCUAL D. MONSANTO, JR., Petitioners, v.
LEONCIOLIMANDLORENZODEGUZMAN,Respondents.

AsfurtherclarifiedinthecaseofSungaChanv.CA,aloanorforbearanceofmoney,
goods or credit describes a contractual obligation whereby a lender or creditor
has refrained during a given period from requiring the borrower or debtor to
repaytheloanordebtthendueandpayable.Thus:
Ch a n Ro b le s Vir t u a la wlib r a r y

In Reformina v. Tomol, Jr., the Court held that the legal interest at 12% per annum
underCentralBank(CB)CircularNo.416shallbeadjudgedonlyincasesinvolvingthe
loan or forbearance of money. And for transactions involving payment of
indemnitiesintheconceptofdamagesarisingfromdefaultintheperformance
of obligations in general and/or for money judgment not involving a loan or
forbearanceofmoney,goods,orcredit,thegoverningprovisionisArt.2209of
theCivilCodeprescribingayearly6%interest.Art.2209pertinentlyprovides:

G.R.No.195289,September24,2014ROBINSONS

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=689

Ch a n Ro b le s Vir t u a la wlib r a r y

Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money,


and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being
nostipulationtothecontrary,shallbethepaymentoftheinterestagreed

4/9

1/23/2015 G.R.No.194507,September08,2014FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Petitioner,v.FOUNDATIONSPECIALISTS,INC.,Respondent.G.R.NO.194621
BANKCORPORATION(FORMERLYTHEROYALBANKOF
SCOTLAND[PHILS.],INC.),Petitioner,v.HON.SAMUEL
H. GAERLAN, HON. HAKIM S. ABDULWAHID AND HON.
RICARDO R. ROSARIO, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES RESPECTIVELY OF THE TENTH
DIVISIONOFTHECOURTOFAPPEALS,ANDTRADEAND
INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES,Respondents.
G.R.No.181921,September17,2014INTERORIENT
MARITIMEENTERPRISES,INC.,Petitioner,v.VICTORM.
CREERIII,Respondent.
A.M. No. 201021SC, September 30, 2014 Re:
ANONYMOUS LETTERCOMPLAINT ON THE ALLEGED
INVOLVEMENT AND FOR ENGAGING IN THE BUSINESS
OFLENDINGMONEYATUSURIOUSRATESOFINTEREST
OF MS. DOLORES T. LOPEZ, SC CHIEF JUDICIAL STAFF
OFFICER, AND MR. FERNANDO M. MONTALVO, SC
SUPERVISING JUDICIAL STAFF OFFICER, CHECKS
DISBURSEMENT DIVISION, FISCAL MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGETOFFICE.
G.R. No. 207950, September 22, 2014 PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. MARK JASON
CHAVEZYBITANCORALIASNOY,AccusedAppellant.
A.M.No.200823SC,September30,2014ALLEGED
LOSS OF VARIOUS BOXES OF COPY PAPER DURING
THEIR TRANSFER FROM THE PROPERTY DIVISION,
OFFICEOFADMINISTRATIVESERVICES(OAS),TOTHE
VARIOUS ROOMS OF THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL
ACADEMY. [A.M. No. 2014025Ret.] RELEASE OF
COMPULSORY RETIREMENT BENEFITS UNDER R.A. NO.
8291 OF MR. ISIDRO P. AUSTRIA, FORMER SUPPLY
OFFICERII,PHILIPPINEJUDICIALACADEMY,SUPREME
COURT.
G.R. No. 202733, September 30, 2014
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, JANEL D. NACION,
DIRECTOR IV, LEGAL SERVICES SECTOR OF COA, AND
THE SUPERVISING AUDITOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT
BANKOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondents.
A.M.No.P143260(FormerlyA.M.No.12238RTC
), September 16, 2014 OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EDGAR S. CRUZ,
CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 52,
GUAGUA,PAMPANGA,Respondent.
G.R. No. 210658, September 17, 2014 PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. PRIMO P.
JAPSONALIASLONGLONG,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 187144, September 17, 2014 CARMEN T.
GAHOL, SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, RICARDO T.
GAHOL, MARIA ESTER GAHOL PEREZ, JOSE MARI T.
GAHOL,LUISITOT.GAHOLANDALCREJCORPORATION,
Petitioners,
v.
ESPERANZA
COBARRUBIAS,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 191712, September 17, 2014 EDITA S.
BUENO AND MILAGROS E. QUINAJON, Petitioners, v.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, NAPOLEON S.
RONQUILLO, JR., EDNA G. RAA AND ROMEO G.
REFRUTO,Respondents.
G.R. No. 204755, September 17, 2014 SOLEDAD
TRIA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 189863, September 17, 2014 PEDRO
LIBANG, JR., Petitioner, v. INDOCHINA SHIP
MANAGEMENT INC., MR. MIGUEL SANTOS AND
MAJESTICCARRIERS,INC.,Respondents.
A.C.No.9115,September17,2014REBECCAMARIE
UY YUPANGCONAKPIL, Complainant, v. ATTY.
ROBERTOL.UY,Respondent.
G.R. No. 201644, September 24, 2014 PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE C. GO AND AIDA
C.DELAROSA,Respondents.

upon,andintheabsenceofstipulation,thelegalinterest,whichissixper
centperannum.
The term "forbearance," within the context of usury law, has been described as a
contractual obligation of a lender or creditor to refrain, during a given period of time,
from requiring the borrower or debtor to repay the loan or debt then due and
payable.25
Forbearance of money, goods or credits, therefore, refers to arrangements other than loan
agreements,whereapersonacquiescestothetemporaryuseofhismoney,goodsorcreditspending
thehappeningofcertaineventsorfulfilmentofcertainconditions.26Consequently,ifthoseconditions
arebreached,saidpersonisentitlednotonlytothereturnoftheprincipalamountpaid,butalsoto
compensationfortheuseofhismoneywhichwouldbethesamerateoflegalinterestapplicabletoa
loansincetheuseordeprivationoffundsthereinissimilartoaloan.27
c r a la wr e d

Thiscase,however,doesnotinvolveanacquiescencetothetemporaryuseofapartysmoneybuta
performance of a particular service, specifically the construction of the diaphragm wall, capping
beam,andguidewallsoftheTrafalgarPlaza.
A review of similar jurisprudence would tell us that this Court had repeatedly recognized this
distinctionandawardedinterestatarateof6%onactualorcompensatorydamagesarisingfroma
breachnotonlyofconstructioncontracts,28suchastheonesubjectofthiscase,butalsoofcontracts
wherein one of the parties reneged on its obligation to perform messengerial services,29 deliver
certain quantities of molasses,30 undertake the reforestation of a denuded forest land,31 as well as
breachesofcontractsofcarriage,32andtruckingagreements.33Wehaveexplainedthereinthatthe
reason behind such is that said contracts do not partake of loans or forbearance of money but are
moreinthenatureofcontractsofservice.
Thus, in the absence of any stipulation as to interest in the agreement between the parties herein,
thematterofinterestawardarisingfromthedisputeinthiscasewouldactuallyfallunderthesecond
paragraph of the abovequoted guidelines in the landmark case of Eastern Shipping Lines, which
necessitates the imposition of interest at the rate of 6%, instead of the 12% imposed by the courts
below.
The 6% interest rate shall further be imposed from the finality of the judgment herein until
satisfactionthereof,inlightofourrecentrulinginNacarv.GalleryFrames.34
c r a la wr e d

Note,however,thatcontrarytoFBIsassertion,WefindnoerrorintheRTCsrulingthattheinterest
shall begin to run from August 30, 1991 as this is the date when FSI extrajudicially made its claim
againstFBIthroughaletterdemandingpaymentforitsservices.35
c r a la wr e d

Inviewoftheforegoing,therefore,Wefindnocompellingreasontodisturbthefactualfindingsofthe
RTCandtheCA,whicharefullysupportedbyanddeduciblefrom,theevidenceonrecord,insofaras
thesumrepresentingBillings3and4isconcerned.Astotherateofinterestduethereon,however,
We note that the same should be reduced to 6% per annum considering the fact that the obligation
involvedhereindoesnotpartakeofaloanorforbearanceofmoney.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution,
datedJuly15,2010andNovember23,2010,respectively,oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.
70849 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Federal Builders, Inc. is ORDERED to pay
FoundationSpecialists,Inc.thesumofP1,024,600.00representingbillings3and4,lesstheamount
ofP33,354.40,plusinterestatsixpercent(6%)perannumreckonedfromAugust30,1991untilfull
paymentthereof.
SOORDERED.

c r a la wla wlib r a r y

Peralta,(ActingChairperson),Villarama,Jr.,Reyes,Leonen,*andJardeleza,JJ.,concur.
Endnotes:
*DesignatedMemberperRaffledatedSeptember8,2014.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., with Associate Justices Ramon M.

Bato, Jr. and Florito S. Macalino, concurring Annex B to Petition, rollo (G.R. No.
194507),pp.6069.
2AnnexCtoPetition,id.at7072.
3

Penned by Judge Estela PerlasBernabe, Annex D to Petition, rollo (G.R.


No.194621),pp.6978.
4Supranote1.

G.R. No. 206555, September 17, 2014 ATTY.


FORTUNATO PAGDANGANAN, JR., ATTY. ABIGAIL D.
SUAREZ,ANDEUGENIOA.VILLANUEVA,Petitioners,v.
FLORENTINOP.SARMIENTO,Respondent.

5Supranote2.

G.R.No.188909,September17,2014REPUBLICOF
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF
THEPRESIDENT,DEPARTMENTOFPUBLICWORKSAND
HIGHWAYS
AND
PRESIDENTIAL
ANTIGRAFT
COMMISSION, Petitioners, v. FLORENDO B. ARIAS,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF EQUIPMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS,
Respondent.

7Rollo(G.R.No.194507),p.62.

G.R. No. 158583, September 10, 2014 ROSALIE L.


GARGOLES, Petitioner, v. REYLITA S. DEL ROSARIO,
DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE JAY
ANNE'SONEHOURPHOTOSHOP,Respondent.

11Rollo(G.R.No.194621),p.78.

G.R.No.158150,September10,2014AGRIEXCO.,
LTD., Petitioner, v. HON. TITUS B. VILLANUEVA,
COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS (NOW
REPLACED BY HON. ANTONIO M. BERNARDO), AND
HON. BILLY C. BIBIT, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PORT
OF SUBIC (NOW REPLACED BY HON. EMELITO
VILLARUZ),Respondents.

13Id.at67.(Italicsintheoriginal)

6Supranote3.

8Id.at7882.
9Id.at62.
10Id.at63.

12Rollo(G.R.No.194507),pp.6168.

14Id.at7172.
15Id.at107108.SeealsoEntryofJudgment,rollo(G.R.No.194621),pp.9192.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=689

5/9

1/23/2015 G.R.No.194507,September08,2014FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Petitioner,v.FOUNDATIONSPECIALISTS,INC.,Respondent.G.R.NO.194621
G.R. No. 182794, September 08, 2014 PEOPLE OF
THEPHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,v.BOBBYBELGAR,
AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014 MOST REV.
PEDRO D. ARIGO, Vicar Apostolic of Puerto Princesa
D.D.MOSTREV.DEOGRACIASS.INIGUEZ,JR.,Bishop
Emeritus ofCaloocan, FRANCES Q. QUIMPO, CLEMENTE
G.BAUTISTA,JR.,KalikasanPNE,MARIACAROLINAP.
ARAULLO, RENATO M. REYES, JR., BagongAlyansang
Makabayan, HON. NERI JAVIER COLMENARES,
BayanMuna Partylist, ROLAND G. SIMBULAN, PH.D.,
Junk VFAMovement, TERESITA R. PEREZ, PH.D., HON.
RAYMONDV.PALATINO,KabataanPartylist,PETERSJ.
GONZALES,Pamalakaya,GIOVANNIA.TAPANG,PH.D.,
Agham, ELMER C. LABOG, Kilusang Mayo Uno, JOAN
MAYE.SALVADOR,Gabriela,JOSEENRIQUEA.AFRICA,
THERESA A. CONCEPCION, MARY JOAN A. GUAN,
NESTOR T. BAGUINON, PH.D., A. EDSEL F. TUPAZ,
Petitioners, v. SCOTT H. SWIFT in his capacity as
CommanderoftheU.S.7thFleet,MARKA.RICEinhis
capacity as Commanding Officer of the USS Guardian,
PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III in his capacity as
CommanderinChief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, HON. ALBERT F. DEL ROSARIO, Secretary,
DepartmentofForeignAffairs,HON.PAQUITOOCHOA,
JR.,ExecutiveSecretary,OfficeofthePresident,HON.
VOLTAIRE T. GAZMIN, Secretary, Department of
National Defense, HON. RAMON JESUS P. PAJE,
Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, VICE ADMIRAL JOSE LUIS M. ALANO,
PhilippineNavyFlagOfficerinCommand,ArmedForces
of the Philippines, ADMIRAL RODOLFO D. ISORENA,
Commandant, Philippine Coast Guard, COMMODORE
ENRICO EFREN EVANGELISTA, Philippine Coast Guard
Palawan, MAJOR GEN. VIRGILIO O. DOMINGO,
Commandant of Armed Forces of the Philippines
Commandand LT. GEN. TERRY G. ROBLING, US Marine
Corps Forces, Pacific and Balikatan 2013 Exercise Co
Director,Respondents.

16MalayanInsuranceCo.,Inc.v.PhilippinesFirstInsuranceCo.,Inc.,G.R.No.184300,

July 11, 2012, citing Philippine HealthCare Providers, Inc. (Maxicare) v. Estrada, G.R.
No. 171052, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 616, 621, citing IlaoQuianay v. Mapile, 510
Phil.736,744745(2005)Fuentesv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.109849,February26,
1997,268SCRA703,709.
17Rollo(G.R.No.194621),p.74.
18Id.at7477.(Emphasisours)
19Id.(Emphasisours)
20G.R.No.97412,July12,1994,234SCRA78.
21EasternShippingLines,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,supra,at9597.(Citationsomitted

italicsintheoriginal)

22G.R.No.189871,August13,2013.
23Nacarv.GalleryFrames,supra,at9697.(Emphasisours)
24G.R.No.183804,September11,2013.
25S.C.

Megaworld Construction and Development Corporation v. Engr.Parada, supra.


(Emphasisours)
26Estores v. Spouses Supangan, G.R. No. 175139, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 95, 105

106.

27Id.at106.
28

Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd. v. Dynamic Planners and
ConstructionCorp,G.R.Nos.169408&170144,April30,2008JPlusAsiaDevelopment
Corporationv.UtilityAssuranceCorporation,G.R.No.199650,June26,2013Philippine
Charter Insurance Corporation v. Central Colleges of the Philippines and Dynamic
PlannersandConstructionCorporation,G.R.Nos.18063133,February22,2012.

A.C. No. 10438, September 23, 2014 CF SHARP


CREW MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED, Complainant, v.
NICOLASC.TORRES,Respondent.

29RadioCommunicationsofthePhilippines,Inc.v.CourtOfAppeals,G.R. No. 139762,

G.R. No. 209286, September 23, 2014 LINA DELA


PEA JALOVER, GEORGIE A. HUISO AND VELVET
BARQUIN ZAMORA, Petitioners, v. JOHN HENRY R.
OSMEAANDCOMMISSIONONELECTIONS(COMELEC),
Respondents.

30

April26,2006.

San Fernando Regala Trading, Inc. v. Cargill Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 178008,
October9,2013.
31BataanSeedlingAssociation,Inc.v.RepublicofthePhilippines,G.R.No.141009,July

2,2002.

G.R. No. 182424, September 22, 2014 NENITA


CARGANILLO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,Respondent.

32International Container Terminal Services, Inc. v. FGU Insurance Corporation, G.R.

G.R.No.192957,September29,2014EMMANUELB.
MORAN, JR., (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS
WIDOW, CONCORDIA V. MORAN, Petitioner, v. OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS
REPRESENTED BY THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARYEDUARDOR.ERMITAANDPGACARS,INC.,
Respondents.

33SwiftFoods,Inc.v.SpousesMateo,G.R.No.170486,September12,2011,657SCRA

G.R. No. 199133, September 29, 2014 ESPERANZA


TUMPAG,SUBSTITUTEDBYHERSON,PABLITOTUMPAG
BELNAS, JR., Petitioner, v. SAMUEL TUMPAG,
Respondent.

No. 161539, April 24, 2009 Air France Philippines/KLM Air France v. John Anthony De
Camilis, G.R. No. 188961, October 13, 2009, 603 SCRA 684 Asian Terminals, Inc. v.
PhilamInsuranceCo.,Inc.(NowChartisPhilippinesInsurance,Inc.), G.R. No. 181163,
July24,2013.

394.

34Supranote22.
35Rollo(G.R.No.194621),pp.75.

G.R. No. 179654, September 22, 2014 HACIENDA


LEDDY/RICARDOGAMBOA,JR.,Petitioner,v.PAQUITO
VILLEGAS,Respondent.

LawCases GRVS
LawGR CourtCase
CaseVS CivilCase
Appeal
DigestGR
Law22
ELaw TheFederal ClaimCourt

G.R. No. 206599, September 29, 2014 680 HOME


APPLIANCES, INC., Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE MARYANN E.
CORPUSMAALAC, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE
PRESIDINGJUDGEOFTHEREGIONALTRIALCOURTOF
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 141, ATTY. ENGRACIO
ESCASINAS,JR.,INHISCAPACITYASTHEEXOFFICIO
SHERIFF/CLERKOFCOURTVII,OFFICEOFTHECLERK
OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY,
FIRST SOVEREIGN ASSET MANAGEMENT (SPVAMC),
INC.ANDALDANCOMERLMAR,INC.,Respondents.

BacktoHome|BacktoMain

QUICKSEARCH

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

G.R. No. 192398, September 29, 2014


COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v.
PILIPINAS
SHELL
PETROLEUM
CORPORATION,
Respondent.

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

A.M. No. SB1421J [Formerly A.M. No. 131006


SB], September 23, 2014 RE: ALLEGATIONS MADE
UNDER OATH AT THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON
COMMITTEE HEARING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2013
AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE GREGORY S. ONG,
SANDIGANBAYAN

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

G.R. No. 204369, September 17, 2014 ENRIQUETA


M. LOCSIN, Petitioner, v. BERNARDO HIZON, CARLOS
HIZON, SPS. JOSE MANUEL & LOURDES GUEVARA,
Respondents.

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2013

2014

G.R. No. 198538, September 29, 2014 EXOCET


SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES CORPORATION
AND/OR MA. TERESA MARCELO, Petitioner, v.
ARMANDOD.SERRANO,Respondent.

2012

G.R.No.202666,September29,2014RHONDAAVE
S.VIVARESANDSPS.MARGARITAANDDAVIDSUZARA,
Petitioners,v.ST.THERESASCOLLEGE,MYLENERHEZA
T.ESCUDERO,ANDJOHNDOES,Respondents.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=689

6/9

1/23/2015 G.R.No.194507,September08,2014FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Petitioner,v.FOUNDATIONSPECIALISTS,INC.,Respondent.G.R.NO.194621
G.R.No.157633,September10,2014NORTHWEST
AIRLINES,INC.,Petitioner,v.MA.CONCEPCIONM.DEL
ROSARIO,Respondent.

MainIndicesoftheLibrary>

Go!

G.R. No. 202066, September 30, 2014 CBK POWER


COMPANY LIMITED, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. G.R. NO. 205353
CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE,Respondent.
G.R.No.152334,September24,2014H.H.HOLLERO
CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner, v. GOVERNMENT
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM AND POOL OF
MACHINERYINSURERS,Respondents.
G.R. No. 200077, September 17, 2014 PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. ADEL RAMOS Y
ABELLANA,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 208716, September 24, 2014 PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. ELADIO B.
LUMAHOALIASATTUMPANG,AccusedAppellant.
G.R.No.199780,September24,2014GOVERNMENT
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. JOSE M.
CAPACITE,Respondent.
A.M. No. P133130 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11
3668P],September22,2014OFFICEOFTHECOURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, v. MAY F. HERNANDEZ,
CLERKIII,REGIONALTRIALCOURT,BRANCH199,LAS
PIASCITY,Respondent.
G.R. No. 182770, September 17, 2014 WPM
INTERNATIONAL TRADING, INC. AND WARLITO P.
MANLAPAZ, Petitioners, v. FE CORAZON LABAYEN,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 192973, September 29, 2014 PEDRITO
DELA TORRE, Petitioner, v. DR. ARTURO IMBUIDO,
DRA.NORMAIMBUIDOintheircapacityasownersand
operators of DIVINE SPIRIT GENERAL HOSPITAL
AND/ORDR.NESTORPASAMBA,Respondents.
G.R. No. 202354, September 24, 2014 AMADA C.
ZACARIAS, Petitioner, v. VICTORIA ANACAY, EDNA
ANACAY,
CYNTHIA
ANACAYGUISIC,
ANGELITO
ANACAY, JERMIL ISRAEL, JIMMY ROY ISRAEL AND ALL
OTHER PERSONS CLAIMING AUTHORITY UNDER THEM,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 173168, September 29, 2014 PHILIPPINE
AMANAH
BANK
(NOW
ALAMANAH
ISLAMIC
INVESTMENTBANKOFTHEPHILIPPINES,ALSOKNOWN
AS ISLAMIC BANK), Petitioner, v. EVANGELISTA
CONTRERAS,Respondent.
G.R. No. 200065, September 24, 2014 CAPITAL
SHOES FACTORY, LTD., Petitioner, v. TRAVELER KIDS,
INC.,Respondent.
G.R. No. 195889, September 24, 2014 PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EDUARDO
ANDMA.ROSARIOTAJONERAANDEDUAROSAREALTY
DEVELOPMENT,INC.,Respondents.
G.R.No.211356,September29,2014CRISOSTOMO
B. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY,
AKLAN, REPRESENTED BY HON. MAYOR JOHN P. YAP,
SANGGUNIANG
BAYAN
OF
MALAY,
AKLAN,
REPRESENTED BY HON. EZEL FLORES, DANTE
PASUGUIRON, ROWEN AGUIRRE, WILBEC GELITO,
JUPITER GALLENERO, OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL
ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER,
BORACAY PNP CHIEF, BORACAY FOUNDATION, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY NENETTE GRAF, MUNICIPAL
AUXILIARY POLICE, AND JOHN AND JANE DOES,
Respondents.
G.R.No.205561,September24,2014DIONISIOB.
COLOMA, JR., Petitioner, v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN
(THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 209195, September 17, 2014 MANUEL J.
JIMENEZ, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. G.R. NO. 209215 PEOPLE
OFTHEPHILIPPINES,Petitioner,v.MANUELJ.JIMENEZ,
JR.,Respondent.
G.R.No.195594,September29,2014REPUBLICOF
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL
IRRIGATIONADMINISTRATION,Petitioner,v.SPOUSES
ROGELIOLAZOANDDOLORESLAZO,Respondents.
G.R. No. 200566, September 17, 2014 JEBSEN
MARITIME INC., APEX MARITIME SHIP MANAGEMENT
CO.LLC.,AND/ORESTANISLAOSANTIAGO,Petitioners,
v.WILFREDOE.RAVENA,Respondent.
G.R. No. 180290, September 29, 2014
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v.
PHILIPPINENATIONALBANK,Respondent.
G.R. No. 167454, September 24, 2014 EMERITU C.
BARUT, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R.No.191237,September24,2014ROBERTKUA,
CAROLINE N. KUA, AND MA. TERESITA N. KUA,

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=689

7/9

1/23/2015 G.R.No.194507,September08,2014FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Petitioner,v.FOUNDATIONSPECIALISTS,INC.,Respondent.G.R.NO.194621
Petitioners,
v.
GREGORIO
SACUPAYO
MAXIMINIANOPANERIO,Respondents.

AND

A.M. No. MTJ131837 [formerly OCA IPI No. 12


2463MTJ], September 24, 2014 CONRADO ABE
LOPEZ, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. ROMUALDO JUBAY,
Complainant, v. JUDGE ROGELIO S. LUCMAYON,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 1,
MANDAUECITY,CEBU,Respondent.
G.R. No. 198314, September 24, 2014 PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. RICHARD
GUINTOYSANANDRES,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 185345, September 10, 2014 RONNIE L.
ABING, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION,
FACILITATORS GENERAL SERVICES AND MARILAG
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC.,Respondents.
G.R. No. 173632, September 29, 2014 AMBROSIO
ROTAIRO (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SPOUSE MARIA
RONSAYRO ROTAIRO, AND HIS CHILDREN FELINA
ROTAIRO, ERLINDA ROTAIRO CRUZ, EUDOSIA
ROTAIRO CRIZALDO, NIEVES ROTAIRO TUBIG,
REMEDIOS ROTAIRO MACAHILIG, FELISA ROTAIRO
LEGASPI, JOSEFINA ROTAIRO TORREVILLAS, AND
CRISENCIO R. ROTAIRO, MARCIANA TIBAY, EUGENIO
PUNZALAN,ANDVICENTEDELROSARIO,Petitioners,v.
ROVIRA ALCANTARA AND VICTOR ALCANTARA,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 194176, September 10, 2014 LIMUELL C.
NARCISO, OMAR C. MATUGUINA, ERIC MATUGUINA,
AZENITHMAGASO,LILIBETHMASCARIAS,LUTGARDO
OGAMA, LOLITO COLLAMAT, IRIS MATUGUINA AND
ELMERBANILAD,CARLOSB.MATUGUINA,JR.,BIBIANO
ESTRERA, JR., PEDRO LINABOG, BOBBY ALQUEZA,
SANTIAGO ATIS, MARLON DAMAYO, CASINILLO
NESTRO, BERNARDITO DACAN, SABINIANO PATATAG,
JOLLYBOYMONICIT,RODRIGODAYDAY,REYESTRERA,
CRESENCIOCASIO,DOMINICOAVILA,ERVERTRICAZA,
ENRIQUE PANTILGAN, JONARDEN E. GONZAGA,
RENATO CASIO, BENNY BOOC, DUA CORSINO, RANILO
IGOT, NARCISO PATERNO, ROBERTO RABAL, JULITO
MONSALES,LEOPOLDOMONGUEZ,JR.,ROWELNEIGAS,
EPIFANIO PIAMIL, LOUIE JUDILLAS AND MANUEL
CENIZA, Petitioners, v. PACIFIC TRADERS &
MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION
(PTMC)/TABOK
WORKERS MULTI
PURPOSE COOPERATIVE (TWMPC),
Respondents.
G.R.No.195443,September17,2014JUANARIOG.
CAMPIT, Petitioner, v. ISIDRA B. GRIPA, PEDRO
BARDIAGA, AND SEVERINO BARDIAGA, REPRESENTED
BYHISSONROLANDOBARDIAGA,Respondents.
G.R.No.196508,September24,2014LEONARDOA.
VILLALONANDERLINDATALDEVILLALON,Petitioners,
v.AMELIACHAN,Respondent.
G.R. No. 185267, September 17, 2014 CESAR T.
QUIAMBAOANDERICC.PILAPIL,Petitioners,v.PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, ADERITO Z. YUJUICO AND
BONIFACIOC.SUMBILLA,Respondents.
G.R. No. 187621, September 24, 2014 MOUNT
CARMEL
COLLEGE
EMPLOYEES
UNION
(MCCEU)/RUMOLO S. BASCAR, MARIBEL TESALUNA,
ROLANDO TESALUNA, KENNETH BENIGNOS, MARILYN
MANGULABNAN, EMELINA I. NACIONAL, JODELYN
REBOTON,EVERSITAS.BASCAR,MAEBAYLEN,ERNAE.
MAHILUM, EVELYN R. ANTONES, Petitioners, v. MOUNT
CARMELCOLLEGE,INCORPORATED,Respondent.
G.R. No. 183345, September 17, 2014 MA. GRACIA
HAO AND DANNY HAO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,Respondent.
G.R.No.187401,September17,2014MA.ROSARIO
P.CAMPOS,Petitioner,v.PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES
AND FIRST WOMENS CREDIT CORPORATION,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 180144, September 24, 2014 LEONARDO
BOGNOT, Petitioner, v. RRI LENDING CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DARIO J.
BERNARDEZ,Respondent.
G.R. No. 200055, September 10, 2014 STANDARD
INSURANCE CO., INC., Petitioner, v. ARNOLD
CUARESMAANDJERRYB.CUARESMA,Respondents.
G.R. No. 202838, September 17, 2014 PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. JULITO
GERANDOY,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 172843, September 24, 2014 ALFREDO L.
VILLAMOR, JR., Petitioner, v. JOHN S. UMALE, IN
SUBSTITUTION OF HERNANDO F. BALMORES,
Respondent. G.R. NO. 172881 RODIVAL E. REYES,
HANS M. PALMA AND DOROTEO M. PANGILINAN,
Petitioners,v.HERNANDOF.BALMORES,Respondent.
G.R. No. 200729, September 29, 2014 TEMIC
AUTOMOTIVE (PHILIPPINES), INC., Petitioner, v.
RENATOM.CANTOS,Respondent.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=689

8/9

1/23/2015 G.R.No.194507,September08,2014FEDERALBUILDERS,INC.,Petitioner,v.FOUNDATIONSPECIALISTS,INC.,Respondent.G.R.NO.194621

|Disclaimer|EmailRestrictions

Copyright19982015ChanRoblesPublishingCompany

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014septemberdecisions.php?id=689

ChanRobles VirtualLawLibrary |chanrobles.com

RED

9/9

Похожие интересы