This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-01-07 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Neither can the grant of the 5% monthly interest be considered subsumed by petitioner's general prayer for "[o]ther reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the premises x x x."[42] To repeat, the court's grant of relief is limited only to what has been prayed for in the Complaint or related thereto, supported by evidence, and covered by the party's cause of action.[43] Besides, even assuming that the awarded 5% monthly or 60% per annum interest was properly alleged and proven during trial, the same remains unconscionably excessive and ought to be equitably reduced in accordance with applicable jurisprudence. In Bulos, Jr. v. Yasuma,[44] this Court held: In the case of Ruiz v. Court of Appeals, citing the cases of Medel v. Court of Appeals, Garcia v. Court of Appeals, Spouses Bautista v. Pilar Development Corporation and the recent case of Spouses Solangon v. Salazar, this Court considered the 3% interest per month or 36% interest per annum as excessive and unconscionable. Thereby, the Court, in the said case, equitably reduced the rate of interest to 1% interest per month or 12% interest per annum. (Citations omitted) | |||||
|
2011-01-12 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In any case, Section 2 (c), Rule 7 of the Rules of Court provides that a pleading shall specify the relief sought, but may add a general prayer for such further or other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable. Under this rule, a court can grant the relief warranted by the allegation and the proof even if it is not specifically sought by the injured party; the inclusion of a general prayer may justify the grant of a remedy different from or together with the specific remedy sought, if the facts alleged in the complaint and the evidence introduced so warrant.[32] | |||||