Premium Content

You accessing premium content on FREE trial.

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. CA

This case has been cited 161 times or more.

2016-01-13
REYES, J.
On March 11, 2011, the CA rendered the assailed judgment ruling that "[t]he jurisdiction of the HLURB to regulate the real estate trade is broad enough to include jurisdiction over complaints for annulment of mortgage."[22] The CA further noted Banco de Oro-EPCI, Inc.'s argument that Mover's obligation was more than the principal amount of P1,700,000.00. While the CA could not give credence to Banco de Oro-EPCI, Inc.'s allegations of expenses it incurred, it acknowledged that Mover was indebted to Banco de Oro-EPCI, Inc. in the amount of P1,700,000.00 as pointed out in the decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners. Inasmuch as the amount represents a loan, Mover must also be held liable for the payment of interest at the rate stipulated in the mortgage contract. In the absence thereof, the legal rate of 12% per annum in accordance with Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. CA[23] shall be imposed.[24]
2016-01-11
BERSAMIN, J.
The CA properly imposed compensatory interest to offset the delay in the respondents' performance of their obligation. Nonetheless, the imposition of the legal rate of interest should be modified to conform to the prevailing jurisprudence. The rate of 12% per annum imposed by the CA was the rate set in accordance with Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., v. Court of Appeals.[22] In the meanwhile, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board Resolution No. 796 dated May 16, 2013, amending Section 2 of Circular No. 905, Series of 1982, and Circular No. 799, Series of 2013, has lowered to 6% per annum the legal rate of interest for a loan or forbearance of money, goods or credit starting July 1, 2013. This revision is expressly recognized in Nacar v. Gallery Frames.[23] It should be noted, however, that imposition of the legal rate of interest at 6% per annum is prospective in application.
2015-09-16
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Verily, the Court has repeatedly recognized that liabilities arising from construction contracts do not partake of loans or forbearance of money but are in the nature of contracts of service. In Federal Builders, Inc. v. Foundation Specialists, Inc.,[48] the Court ruled that the liability arising from the non-payment for the construction works, specifically the construction of a diaphragm wall, capping beam, and guide walls of the Trafalgar Plaza in Makati City, do not partake of a loan or forbearance of money but is more in the nature of a contract of service.[49] The Court, therefore, sustains the CA's ruling that the rate of legal interest imposable on the liability of the Province of Cebu to WTCI is 6% per annum, in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[50] (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc.), viz.: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:
2015-09-08
BRION, J.
Third, in Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA,[150] the Court pronounced that unliquidated claims are not subject to legal interest, such as the present case.
2015-09-08
BRION, J.
With respect to the amount of interest on just compensation, we decisively ruled in Republic v. Court of Appeals[342] that the just compensation due to the property owner is effectively a forbearance of money, and not indemnity for damages.[343] Citing Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[344] we awarded a legal interest of 12% per annum on just compensation. The Court upheld the imposition of the 12% interest rate in just compensation cases, as ruled in Republic, in Reyes v. National Housing Authority,[345] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco,[346] Republic v. Court of Appeals,[347] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Imperial,[348] Philippine Ports Authority v. Rosales-Bondoc,[349] and Curata v. Philippine Ports Authority.[350] The Court reiterated the Republic ruling in Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[351] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rivera,[352] Department of Agrarian Reform v. Goduco,[353] and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Santiago, Jr.[354]
2015-07-08
LEONEN, J.
Security Bank also refers to Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, which, in turn, stated:[38]
2015-06-22
REYES, J.
As clarified in Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[42] pursuant to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas-Monetary Board (BSP-MB) Circular No. 799 (Series of 2013), the legal rate of interest is currently at six percent (6%) regardless of the source of obligation.[43] Such new rate should be applied prospectively,[44] and the twelve percent (12%) legal interest shall apply only until June 30, 2013. Thereafter, the new rate of six percent (6%) per annum shall be the prevailing rate of interest. Nacar, thus, modified the previous guidelines laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[45] on the imposition of interest, to wit: 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: 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, 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 6% 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.
2015-04-21
PERALTA, J.
Law, Rule and Regulations, BSP Issuances Date of Effectivity Interest Rate Act No. 2655 May 1, 1916 6% CB Circular No. 416 July 29, 1974 12% CB Circular No. 905 December 22, 1982 12% CB Circular No. 799 July 1, 2013 6% It is important to note, however, that interest shall be compounded at the time judicial demand is made pursuant to Article 2212[30] of the Civil Code of the Philippines, and sustained in Eastern Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals,[31] then later on in Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[32] save for the reduction of interest rate to 6% for loans or forbearance of money, thus: 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, 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 6% 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.[33]
2015-03-25
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
On the strength of the foregoing jurisprudence, the Court likewise finds the interest rate of 3% per month or 36% per annum stipulated in the Promissory Note herein for the balance of P275,562.00 as excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable, and exorbitant. Following the guidelines set forth in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[39] and Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[40] the Court imposes instead legal interest in the following rates: (1) legal interest of 12% per annum from date of extrajudicial demand on January 29, 1997 until June 30, 2013; and (2) legal interest of 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully paid.
2015-01-12
PERALTA, J.
All told, We find reason to overturn the findings of the CA and affirm the decision of the trial court. Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered to pay petitioner the sum of Seven Hundred Sixty Thousand Pesos (P760,000.00), representing overdue accounts plus interest from the first demand on October 27, 1999 until fully paid in accordance with the doctrine laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals,[71] then later on in Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[72] as well as attorney's fees.[73]
2014-12-10
LEONEN, J.
Considering that Voluntary Arbitrator Jimenez's decision awarded sums of money, Lipio and Ignacio, Sr. are entitled to legal interest on their training allowances. Voluntary Arbitrator Jimenez's decision having become final and executory on August 22, 2000, PHILEC is liable for legal interest equal to 12% per annum from finality of the decision until full payment as this court ruled in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals:[125]
2014-09-08
PERALTA, J.
Anent FBI's second assignment of error, however, We find merit in the argument that the 12% interest rate is inapplicable, since this case does not involve a loan or forbearance of money. In the landmark case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[20] We laid down the following guidelines in computing legal interest: 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:
2014-08-20
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Nonetheless, the Court finds that the award of legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of P68,150.00 representing the retirement pay differentials due Filipinas should be reckoned from the rendition of the LA's Decision on March 26, 2002 and not from the filing of the illegal dismissal complaint as ordered by the CA,[40] in accordance with the ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. CA[41] (Eastern Shipping). Unlike in MLQU v. NLRC, where the retired teachers sued for the payment of the deficiency in their retirement benefits, Filipinas' complaint was for illegal (constructive) dismissal, and the obligation to provide retirement pay was only determined upon the rendition of the LA's Decision, which also found the same to be deficient vis-à-vis those provided under RA 7641. As such, it is only from the date of the LA's Decision that GCHS' obligation to pay Filipinas her retirement pay differentials may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained and its payment legally adjudged to be due, although the actual base for the computation of legal interest shall be on the amount finally adjudged. As held in the Eastern Shipping case:[42]
2014-08-11
REYES, J.
On the imposition of six percent (6%) interest, the appellate court cites Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[14] and in Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Spouses Go,[15] the amount to be refunded being neither a loan nor a forbearance of money, goods or credit.
2014-08-04
MENDOZA, J.
Petitioner Lim also argues that in accordance with the rules laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals,[16] the monetary awards should be subject to interest. He prays that the respondents be made to pay, jointly and severally, additional moral and exemplary damages on account of their bad faith in delaying the payment and reinstatement of the petitioner, which prompted him to file the present petition.
2014-07-18
BRION, J.
Finally, we impose an interest rate of 6% per annum on temperate damages pursuant to the guidelines enunciated in Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA,[64] as modified by Nacar v. Gallery Frames.[65] The interest rate shall commence to run from the promulgation of this decision, the date when the amount of temperate damages has been determined with certainty.
2014-06-30
BRION, J.
With respect to the award of 12% legal interest accruing from the finality of judgment, the case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[111] cannot be any clearer: 3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest x x x 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.[112]
2014-06-25
LEONEN, J.
Nacar effectively amended the guidelines stated in Eastern Shipping v. Court of Appeals,[60] and we have laid down the following guidelines with regard to the rate of legal interest: To recapitulate and for future guidance, the guidelines laid down in the case of Eastern Shipping Lines are accordingly modified to embody BSP-MB Circular No. 799, as follows:
2014-04-07
SERENO, C.J.
With regard to the interest rate to be imposed, we take cue from Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[62] which modified the guidelines established in Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA[63] in relation to Bangko Sentral-Monetary Board Circular No. 799 (Series of 2013), to wit: 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, 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 6% 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.
2014-02-24
BERSAMIN, J.
The CA further held that PNB could not unilaterally increase the rate of interest considering that the credit agreements specifically provided that prior notice was required before an increase in interest rate could be effected. It found that PNB did not adduce proof showing that the Spouses Manalo had been notified before the increased interest rates were imposed; and that PNB's unilateral imposition of the increased interest rate was null and void for being violative of the principle of mutuality of contracts enshrined in Article 1308 of the Civil Code. Reinforcing its "contract of adhesion" conclusion, it added that the Spouses Manalo's being in dire need of money rendered them to be not on an equal footing with PNB. Consequently, the CA, relying on Eastern Shipping Lines, v. Court of Appeals,[19] fixed the interest rate to be paid by the Spouses Manalo at 12% per annum, computed from their default.
2014-01-15
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Land Bank's argument that the lower courts erred in imposing 12% per annum rate of interest is likewise devoid of merit.  The unilateral offsetting of funds without legal justification and the undocumented withdrawals are tantamount to forbearance of money. In the analogous case of Estores v. Supangan,[97] we held that "[the] unwarranted withholding of the money which rightfully pertains to [another] amounts to forbearance of money which can be considered as an involuntary loan."  Following Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[98] therefore, the applicable rate of interest in this case is 12% per annum.  Besides, Land Bank is estopped from assailing the award of 12% per annum rate of interest.  In its Complaint, Land Bank arrived at P8,222,687.89 as the outstanding indebtedness of Oñate by using the same 12% per annum rate of interest.  It was only after the lower courts rendered unfavorable decisions that Land Bank started to insist that the applicable rate of interest is 6% per annum.
2013-10-23
BRION, J.
Pursuant to these changes, this Court modified the guidelines in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[50] in the case of Dario Nacar v. Gallery Frames, et al.[51] (Nacar). In Nacar, we established the following guidelines: When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasi- contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for damages. The provisions under Title XVIII on "Damages" of the Civil Code govern in determining the measure of recoverable damages.
2013-10-23
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Except for the award for the loss of earning capacity,the Court concurs with the findings of the CA and sustains the other awards made in so far as they are in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. In addition, pursuant to this Court's ruling in Del Carmen, Jr. v. Bacoy[54] citing Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[55] an interest of 6% per annum on the amounts awarded shall be imposed, computed from the time of finality of this Decision until full payment thereof.
2013-10-16
REYES, J.
In Sunga-Chan v. Court of Appeals,[48] the Court, citing Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[49] reiterated the rule on the rates and application of interests, viz: Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. synthesized the rules on the imposition of interest, if proper, and the applicable rate, as follows: The 12% per annum rate under CB Circular No. 416 shall apply only to loans or forbearance of money, goods, or credits, as well as to judgments involving such loan or forbearance of money, goods, or credit, while the 6% per annum under Art. 2209 of the Civil Code applies "when the transaction involves the payment of indemnities in the concept of damage arising from the breach or a delay in the performance of obligations in general," with the application of both rates reckoned "from the time the complaint was filed until the [adjudged] amount is fully paid." In either instance, the reckoning period for the commencement of the running of the legal interest shall be subject to the condition "that the courts are vested with discretion, depending on the equities of each case, on the award of interest."
2013-09-18
ABAD, J.
In keeping with this Court's ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[43] the Court deems it proper to impose legal interest of 6% per annum on the amount finally adjudged, reckoned from October 22, 2004, the date the CIAC rendered judgment until the same is wholly satisfied.[44]
2013-09-11
REYES, J.
Article 2209 of the Civil Code provides that "[i]f the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six percent per annum." Pursuant to the said provision, then, since there is no finding of a stipulation by the parties as to the imposition of interest, only the amount of 12% per annum[47] may be awarded by the court by way of damages in its discretion, not two percent (2%) per month, following the guidelines laid down in the landmark case of Eastern Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals,[48] to wit: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:
2013-08-13
PERALTA, J.
Finally, anent the payment of legal interest. In the landmark case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[32] the Court laid down the guidelines regarding the manner of computing legal interest, to wit: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:
2013-07-03
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In line with current jurisprudence, the award of back wages shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of petitioner's dismissal until the finality of this decision.[42]  Thereafter, it shall earn 12% legal interest until fully paid[43] in accordance with the guidelines in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.[44]
2013-06-03
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Since this amount is neither a loan nor forbearance of money, we set the interest rate at 6% per annum computed from the time of the filing of the Answer[48] to the Complaint on May 19, 1998[49] until finality of judgment and thereafter at 12% per annum until fully paid in accordance with our ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.[50]  Petitioners are, thus, ordered to pay respondent Rowena the sum of P327,442.00 with an interest of 6% per annum computed from May 19, 1998 until finality of judgment and thereafter of 12% per annum until fully paid.
2013-03-20
VELASCO JR., J.
As the NLRC's Decision dated May 29, 2008 and Resolution dated July 22, 2008 are vague as to the nature of Transocean, et al.'s liability, the Court rules that they are jointly and solidarity liable to Inocencio for the payment of his sickness allowance and medical expenses. In view of the unjustified refusal of Transocean, et al. to reimburse the medical expenses to Inocencio after they agreed to such obligation, interests of 6% per annum shall be imposed on said medical expenses and sickness allowance of USD 4,616 from June 15, 2006 up to the finality of this Decision and 12o/o per annum from finality of this Decision until paid.[25]
2013-03-13
REYES, J.
Thereafter, it shall earn 12% legal interest until fully paid[42] in accordance with the guidelines in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., v. Court of Appeals.[43]
2013-02-18
BERSAMIN, J.
Considering that the credit line agreement was entered into in 1978, the rate of interest was still governed by the Usury Law. The 16% per annum interest imposed by the RTC was erroneous, therefore, because the loan was secured by the Trust Receipt/SCS. In view of this, 12% per annum is the legal rate of interest that should apply, to be reckoned from the filing of the action. This rate accords with Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[58] whereby the Court has defined the following formula for the computation of legal interest for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar, viz: TOTAL AMOUNT DUE = [principal partial payments made] + [interest + interest on interest], where
2013-01-30
REYES, J.
Having said that, it must however be clarified that the imposition of 12% interest is still warranted in the case at bar, not from the date of sale on November 9, 1994, as the respondents insist; but from the finality of the decision up to the satisfaction of judgment in line with the doctrine laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.[46]  The records disclose that the September 29, 2006 Decision  of the CA modifying that of the RTC became final and executory when this Court affirmed the same in G.R. No. 178648 and denied with finality the motion for reconsideration thereof in the Resolution dated February 28, 2009.  The Court notes that the petitioners also concede that the payment of 12% interest from the finality of judgment is in order pursuant to Eastern Shippings Lines, Inc. where the Court held that: "When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, 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, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained).  The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.
2013-01-30
REYES, J.
Nonetheless, the CA found the respondent's second contention meritorious. The CA awarded legal interest accruing from the time the RTC Order dated December 27, 1996 awarding just compensation was affirmed with finality by the Supreme Court up to the time of full payment thereof in line with the ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[6] that when a court judgment awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, it shall earn legal interest of 12% per annum reckoned from such finality until satisfaction.
2012-11-21
CARPIO, J.
Consistent with Alcaraz, Ledda must also pay interest on the total unpaid credit card amount at the rate of 12% per annum since her credit card obligation consists of a loan or forbearance of money.[21] In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[22] the Court explained: 1. When an 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, 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.
2012-11-21
PEREZ, J.
Anent the imposition of legal interest, the Court of Appeals is correct in stating that the award of damages was warranted under the facts of the  case and the imposition of legal interest was necessary consequence thereof. We find applicable the pertinent guidelines provided in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[15] thus: 2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, 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, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged.
2012-10-24
PERALTA, J.
of P58,333.30 shall earn an interest of six percent  (6% ) per annum[57]  from the  filing of the Complaint on June 8, 1995[58] until the award is final and executory, after which the interest rate shall be 12 percent (12%) per annum from the date the award becomes final and executory until fully paid.[59]
2012-10-23
BRION, J.
In a certiorari petition, the scope of review is limited to the determination of whether a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction; such grave abuse of discretion can exist when the ruling entity used the wrong considerations and thereby acted outside the contemplation of law. In justifying the return to and adoption of the LA's execution order, the CA solely relied on the doctrine of immutability of judgment which it considered to the exclusion of other attendant and relevant factors. This is a fatal error that amounted to grave abuse of discretion, particularly on the award of 12% interest. The seminal case of Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[22] cannot be clearer on the rate of interest that applies: 3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest x x x 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.[23]  (emphasis ours)
2012-10-03
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court, in Republic, recognized that "the just compensation due to the landowners for their expropriated property amounted to an effective forbearance on the part of the State."[61]  In fixing the interest rate at 12%, it followed the guidelines on the award of interest that we enumerated in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[62] to wit: I. When an obligation, regardless of its source, i.e., law, contracts, quasi-contracts, delicts or quasi-delicts  is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for damages.  The provisions under Title XVIII on "Damages" of the Civil Code govern in determining the measure of recoverable damages.
2012-09-18
MENDOZA, J.
[55] Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97412, July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78, 97.