This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2012-01-18 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Both parties impugn the computation by the CA of interest on the judgment awards. On the one hand, Reynoso claims that its computation was deficient, because two items in the judgment pertain to money market placements. These placements were subject to "roll overs" in this case, pertaining to the reinvestment of the principal together with its earned interest of 14% per annum, which shall earn another 14% per annum, and so forth. Reynoso further alleges that the resulting amount should be subjected to the 12% per annum legal interest on the judgment awards after finality of the judgment, pursuant to the rule laid down in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals [34] and Crismina Garments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.[35] On the other hand, CCC claims that the CA's computation was excessive, because the judgment award should be subject to a 12% interest rate only. | |||||