Premium Content

You accessing premium content on FREE trial.

DARIO NACAR v. GALLERY FRAMES

This case has been cited 74 times or more.

2016-02-10
PEREZ, J.
In addition, the Court finds that an award of interest is in order. In Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[42] the Court clarified 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.
2016-01-20
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Pursuant to Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[51] the applicable rate of legal interest due on petitioner Diaz's withheld salaries - (/) from July 1, 1988 to October 31, 1988, the period corresponding to the first semester of AY 1988-89, when her name was removed from the final list of class schedule without her prior knowledge and consent, less the amount she had received in June 1988 - will be from April 17, 1996, the date of the Decision of the RTC, up to the full satisfaction thereof, is 6% per annum; and (ii) from November 1, 1988 to May 31, 1989, and July 16, 1989 to May 31, 1990, the periods when she was refused payment of her salaries for not accomplishing a Report for Duty Form - will be from the time petitioner Diaz submits the required Report for Duty Form up to the full satisfaction thereof, is 6% per annum.
2016-01-13
JARDELEZA, J.
The Contract of Lease shows that the parties did not stipulate an applicable interest rate in case of default in the payment of rentals. Thus, and following this Court's ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[82] the foregoing amount of rental arrearages shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum computed from October 18, 1996, the date of LMI's extrajudicial demand,[83] until the date of finality of this judgment. The total amount shall thereafter earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from such finality of judgment until its satisfaction.
2016-01-11
LEONEN, J.
However, we modify the rates in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Nacar v. Gallery Frames:[118]
2016-01-11
REYES, J.
In accordance with Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[45] the Court now imposes an interest on the monetary awards at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until full payment.
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.
2015-12-09
JARDELEZA, J.
P4,771,222.59 - unpaid balance under the Agreement + 141,944.93 - unpaid balance for change orders P4,913,167.52 - total amount due to BFC Less: 788,400.00 - liquidated damages by BFC Php 4,124,767.52   Less: 1,050,000.00 - expenses for repainting job due to Werdenberg Php 3,074,767.52 - amount due to BFC Less: 307,476.752 - 10% retention fee by Werdenberg Php 2,767,290.768 - amount due to BFC The amount due BFC shall be with interest of 6% interest per annum from the filing of the complaint until full payment.[127]
2015-12-07
JARDELEZA, J.
Following this Court's ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[86] the foregoing amount of P9,563,900.00 shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum computed from October 25, 1995, the date of Chua's extrajudicial demand, until the date of finality of this judgment. The total amount shall thereafter earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from such finality of judgment until its satisfaction.
2015-12-02
REYES, J.
Fifth. LA Magbanua failed to impose an interest on the monetary award at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, from the date of finality of this decision until full payment in accordance with Nacar v. Gallery Frames.[51]
2015-12-02
PERALTA, J.
The rate of interest on the amount due, however, should be changed from twelve percent (12%) to six percent (6%) per annum, pursuant to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799, Series of 2013.[21]
2015-11-11
JARDELEZA, J.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.  The Court of Appeals' Decision dated October 18, 2006 in CA G.R. CV No. 82686 is SET ASIDE. The respondent is ORDERED to pay petitioner the balance of the car loan in the amount of P310,638.00 plus interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum computed from January 23, 199971 until the date of finality of this judgment. The total amount shall thereafter earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum[72] until fully paid. The trial court's Decision dated November 22, 2002 is AFFIRMED in all other respects.
2015-10-21
PERALTA, J.
The damages awarded shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum to be reckoned from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.[73]
2015-10-19
JARDELEZA, J.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The December 22, 2004 Decision and August 30, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV 50550 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. UNAM is ORDERED to pay Solidbank the amount of Four Million Eight Hundred Sixty-Six Thousand Two Hundred Eleven Pesos and Sixteen Centavos (P4,866,211.16) to earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from February 6, 1995[87] until the finality of this Decision. Thereafter, the total amount due shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum[88] until fully paid. No pronouncement as to costs.
2015-09-21
PERALTA, J.
Lastly, the CA correctly ordered the award of P25,000.00 as temperate damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. An award of temperate damages in lieu of actual damages is warranted because it is reasonable to presume that when death occurs, the family of the victim suffered pecuniary loss for the wake and funeral of the victim although the exact amount was not shown. Also, the award of exemplary damages is proper considering the attendance of treachery or alevosia that qualified the killing to murder.[13] However, the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages should be reduced to P50,000.00 each.[14] Further, consistent with present jurisprudence, the legal rate of 6% per annum is imposed on all monetary awards from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.[15]
2015-09-16
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The foregoing guidelines have been updated in Nacar v. Gallery Frames[52] (Nacar), pursuant to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Circular No. 799, series of 2013, which reduced the rate of legal interest for loans or transactions involving forbearance of money, goods, or credit from 12% to 6% per annum.[53] Nevertheless, the rate of legal interest for obligations not constituting loans or forbearance such as the one subject of this case remains unchanged at 6% per annum.
2015-08-19
PERALTA, J.
Lastly, in conformity with current policy and pursuant to the case of Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[50] we impose on "the monetary award for temporary total disability benefit an interest at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until full satisfaction.
2015-08-05
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Finally, the Court finds a need to partially modify the interest accruing from the finality of the Decision, which should be imposed at the lower rate of 6% p.a., and not 12% p.a. as imposed by the CA, in line with the amendment introduced by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board in BSP-MB Circular No. 799,[46] series of 2013, and the ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames.[47]
2015-07-22
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Principal P160,000.00   Add: Interest from 07/30/1992 to 01/30/1998     (P160,000.00 X 12% X 5.5 yrs.) 105,600.00   Amount due on the loan P265,600.00   Less: Payment made on 01/30/98 ( 300,000.00)   Overpayment as of 01/30/98 (P 34,400.00)[56]   Thus, as of January 30, 1998, only the amount of P265,600.00 was due under the loan contract, and the receipt of an amount more than that renders petitioner liable for the return of the excess. Respondent, however, made further payment in the amount of P100,000.00[57] on the belief that the subject loan obligation had not yet been satisfied. Such payments were, therefore, clearly made by mistake, giving rise to the quasi-contractual obligation of solutio indebiti under Article 2154[58] in relation to Article 2163[59] of the Civil Code. Not being a loan or forbearance of money, an interest of 6% p.a. should be imposed on the amount to be refunded and on the damages and attorney's fees awarded, if any, computed from the time of demand[60] until its satisfaction.[61] Consequently, petitioner must return to respondent the excess payments in the total amount of P134,400.00, with legal interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the filing of the Answer on August 6, 1998[62] interposing a counterclaim for such overpayment, until fully settled.
2015-07-13
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Chua's acquittal, however, does not entail the extinguishment of his civil liability for the dishonored checks.[46] "An acquittal based on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not preclude the award of civil damages."[47] For this reason, Chua must be directed to restitute See the total amount of the face value of all the checks subject of the case with legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum reckoned from the time the said checks became due and demandable up to June 30, 2013 and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully paid.[48]
2015-07-08
LEONEN, J.
Our intervening Decision in Nacar v. Gallery Frames[41] recognized that the legal rate of interest has been reduced to 6% per annum:Recently, however, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board (BSP-MB), in its Resolution No. 796 dated May 16, 2013, approved the amendment of Section 2 of Circular No. 905, Series of 1982 and, accordingly, issued Circular No. 799, Series of 2013, effective July 1, 2013, the pertinent portion of which reads:
2015-07-08
LEONEN, J.
So, too, Nacar states that "the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded."[53]
2015-07-08
LEONEN, J.
Nacar provides that "[w]hen 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."[67] This applies to obligations arising from quasi-contracts such as solutio indebiti.
2015-07-08
LEONEN, J.
Finally, pursuant to this court's pronouncement in Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[92] the interest rate should be 6% per annum on the amount owing to petitioner representing respondent Morning Star's unpaid air transport tickets availed on credit.
2015-06-22
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Finally, the Court, in Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[49] modified the guidelines in imposing interests, taking into account Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas-Monetary Board Resolution No. 796 dated May 16, 2013 and Circular No. 799, series of 2013, which fixed the legal rate at 6% per annum effective July 1, 2013. In the absence of stipulated interest in the present case, the Court imposes upon the amounts covered by the Surety and Performance Bonds the legal rate of 12% per annum from September 15, 1989, the date of demand, until June 30, 2013; and then the legal rate of 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment of the same.
2015-06-17
REYES, J.
The interest charges on the principal monetary awards must be upheld as DPWH is deemed to have defaulted in its contractual obligation to pay the costs incurred by FSI during the period of delay. The rate of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the date of filing of the request for arbitration until receipt by the parties of the CIAC judgment was correct. However, pursuant to the prevailing jurisprudence,[39] the twelve percent (12%) interest rate imposed after the date of the parties' receipt of the CIAC decision shall apply only until June 30, 2013. Thereafter, or beginning July 1, 2013, a six percent (6%) interest rate per annum, shall apply until the judgment award is fully satisfied.
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]
2015-04-08
PERALTA, J.
There is now a need to modify the penalty imposed by the lower court and affirmed by the CA.  Verily, the proper penalty imposable is, thus, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, but it was incorrect for the RTC to sentence the accused to the penalty of reclusion perpetua for forty (40) years without pardon because that would be a limitation on the part of the power of the Chief Executive.  The exercise of the pardoning power is discretionary in the President and may not be controlled by the legislature or reversed by the court, save only when it contravenes the limitations set forth by the Constitution.[31]  Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum is likewise imposed from date of finality of this Decision until full payment pursuant to Nacar v. Gallery Frames.[32]
2015-04-08
REYES, J.
(c) In accordance with Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[45] the NET INCOME to be RETURNED to Medical Center Parañaque, Inc., plus P200,000.00 awarded as ATTORNEY'S FEES, shall be subject to INTEREST at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, to be reckoned sixty days from notice of this Resolution until full satisfaction thereof.
2015-03-25
DEL CASTILLO, J.
Finally, the imposition of 6% interest per annum is proper.  Indeed, as correctly held by the CA, 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,[51] from the filing of the complaint until its full satisfaction.
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.
2015-03-11
REYES, J.
In Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[34] the Court declared: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:
2015-03-11
PERALTA, J.
Finally, considering that the Court is reducing the penalty imposed on him from dismissal from service to a mere 6-month suspension without pay, and that he is no longer connected with PHILRACOM, petitioner should refund the salaries and all other monetary benefits he had received equivalent to six (6) months with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum (p.a.) from finality of this Decision until fully paid.[46] His earned leave credits for the duration of such suspension are likewise deemed forfeited.[47] The Court stresses that his appointment[48] as a trial court judge should not be viewed as a sort of exoneration from such suspension that he should have served while he was then PHILRACOM's Legal Department Head. Thus, in addition to the refund of salaries and benefits, and forfeiture of earned leave credits during such suspension, the Court sternly warns petitioner not to commit similar acts, otherwise, his conduct may be construed as tainted with impropriety which shall merit the penalty of dismissal from the service.
2015-03-09
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The issue is not novel. In Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[24] we have held that:x x x no essential change is made by a recomputation as this step is a necessary consequence that flows from the nature of the illegality of dismissal declared by the Labor Arbiter in that decision. A recomputation (or an original computation, if no previous computation has been made) is a part of the law specifically, Article 279 of the Labor Code and the established jurisprudence on this provision that is read into the decision. By the nature of an illegal dismissal case, the reliefs continue to add up until full satisfaction, as expressed under Article 279 of the Labor Code. The recomputation of the consequences of illegal dismissal upon execution of the decision does not constitute an alteration or amendment of the final decision being implemented. The illegal dismissal ruling stands; only the computation of monetary consequences of this dismissal is affected, and this is not a violation of the principle of immutability of final judgments.
2015-02-23
SERENO, C.J.
Not constituting a forbearance of money,[44] this amount shall earn interest pursuant to Item II(2)[45] of our pronouncement in Eastern Shipping Lines v. CA.[46] This item remained unchanged by the modification made in Nacar v. Gallery Frames.[47] Interest at the rate of 6% per annum is hereby imposed on the amount of P966,480 from the time of extrajudicial demand on 12 July 2004 until the finality of this Decision.
2015-02-11
LEONEN, J.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated June 24, 2005 and Resolution dated August 10, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 81336 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the amount of backwages to be awarded to respondent Celso E. Fuentes should begin on March 14, 2002 until his actual reinstatement. Petitioner Protective Maximum Security Agency, Inc. is further ordered to pay respondent Celso Fuentes the amount of P30,000.00 as indemnity for violation of respondent's right to procedural due process. Legal interest shall be computed at the rate of 6% per annum of the total award from date of finality of this Decision until full satisfaction.[144] Costs against petitioner.
2015-01-28
REYES, J.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated March 22, 2010 and Resolution dated August 13, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 108483 are hereby SET ASIDE. The respondents, Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. and Celebrity Cruises, Inc. are hereby held jointly and severally liable to the petitioner, AL O. EYANA, for the amounts of (a) US$60,000.00 as total and permanent disability allowance, and (b) US$1,000.00 as attorney's fees, at the prevailing rate of exchange at the time of payment. An interest of six percent (6%) per annum is likewise imposed upon the total monetary award reckoned from the date of finality of this Decision until full satisfaction thereof.[55]
2015-01-28
LEONEN, J.
Petitioners are ordered to PAY respondents their separation pay with 6% legal interest[87] from the finality of this Decision until full payment: Ricardo Ambos P29,250.00 Russell Ambos P7,312.50 Benjamin Putian P5,850.00.
2015-01-14
PEREZ, J.
However, the 12% per annum rate of legal interest is only applicable until 30 June 2013, before the advent and effectivity of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Circular No. 799, Series of 2013 reducing the rate of legal interest to 6% per annum. Pursuant to our ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[30] BSP Circular No. 799 is prospectively applied from 1 July 2013. In short, the applicable rate of legal interest from 1 January 1996, the date when Rivera defaulted, to date when this Decision becomes final and executor is divided into two periods reflecting two rates of legal interest: (1) 12% per annum from 1 January 1996 to 30 June 2013; and (2) 6% per annum FROM 1 July 2013 to date when this Decision becomes final and executory.
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.
The 6% legal interest under Circular No. 799, Series of 2013, of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board shall not apply, Voluntary Arbitrator Jimenez's decision having become final and executory prior to the effectivity of the circular on July 1, 2013. In Nacar v. Gallery Frames,[127] we held that: . . . with regard to those judgments that have become final and executory prior to July 1, 2013, said judgments shall not be disturbed and shall continue to be implemented applying the rate of interest fixed therein.[128]