Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SEBASTIAN SIGA-AN v. ALICIA VILLANUEVA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 160408 2016-01-11	SPS. ROBERTO v. SPS. SANTOS BERSAMIN, J.
Interest that is the compensation fixed by the parties for the use or forbearance of money is referred to as monetary interest. On the other hand, interest that may be imposed by law or by the courts as penalty or indemnity for damages is called compensatory interest. In other words, the right to recover interest arises only either by virtue of a contract or as damages for delay or failure to pay the principal loan on which the interest is demanded.[20]
	GR No. 201892 2015-07-22	NORLINDA S. MARILAG v. MARCELINO B. MARTINEZ 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.
	GR No. 210831 2014-11-26	SPS. TAGUMPAY N. ALBOS AND AIDA C. ALBOS v. SPS. NESTOR M. EMBISAN AND ILUMINADA A. EMBISAN VELASCO JR., J.
As mandated by the foregoing provision, payment of monetary interest shall be due only if: (1) there was an express stipulation for the payment of interest; and (2) the agreement for such payment was reduced in writing. Thus, We have held that collection of interest without any stipulation thereof in writing is prohibited by law.[13]
	GR No. 183272 2014-10-15	SUN LIFE OF CANADA v. SANDRA TAN KIT DEL CASTILLO, J.
"Monetary interest refers to the compensation set by the parties for the use or forbearance of money."[25] No such interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing.[26] "On the other hand, compensatory interest refers to the penalty or indemnity for damages imposed by law or by the courts."[27] The interest mentioned in Articles 2209 and 2212[28] of the Civil Code applies to compensatory interest.[29]
	GR No. 183360 2014-09-08	ROLANDO C. DE LA PAZ v. L & J DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DEL CASTILLO, J.
Here, it is undisputed that the parties did not put down in writing their agreement. Thus, no interest is due. The collection of interest without any stipulation in writing is prohibited by law.[22]
	GR Nos. 198729-30 2014-01-15	CBK POWER COMPANY LIMITED v. CIR SERENO, C.J.
Also devoid of merit is the applicability of the principle of solutio indebiti to the present case. According to this principle, if something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises. In that situation, a creditor-debtor relationship is created under a quasi-contract, whereby the payor becomes the creditor who then has the right to demand the return of payment made by mistake, and the person who has no right to receive the payment becomes obligated to return it.[21] The quasi-contract of solutio indebiti is based on the ancient principle that no one shall enrich oneself unjustly at the expense of another.[22]
	GR No. 183987 2012-07-25	ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK v. CARMELO H. TUBLE SERENO, J.
While Article 2209 allows the recovery of interest sans stipulation, this charge is provided not as a form of monetary interest, but as one of compensatory interest.[42]
	GR Nos. 191138-39 2011-10-19	MAGDALA MULTIPURPOSE v. KILUSANG MANGGAGAWA NG LGS VELASCO JR., J.
Besides, jurisprudence instructs that for the award of attorney's fees to be granted, there must be factual, legal and equitable justification.[27] As the Court held in Filipinas Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Ago Medical and Educational Center-Bicol Christian College of Medicine (AMEC-BCCM): It is an accepted doctrine that the award thereof as an item of damages is the exception rather than the rule, and counsel's fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal and equitable justification, without which the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture. In all events, the court must explicitly state in the text of the decision, and not only in the decretal portion thereof, the legal reason for the award of attorney's fees.[28]
	GR No. 169975 2010-03-18	PAN PACIFIC SERVICE CONTRACTORS v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK CARPIO, J.
(2) the agreement for the payment of interest was reduced in writing. The concurrence of the two conditions is required for the payment of monetary interest. [33]