This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-06-16 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Unfortunately for petitioner, the abovequoted doctrine is not applicable to the instant case for the simple reason that respondents herein do not ask for interest as part of the judgment in an expropriation case, but for interest which is imposed due to the delay in the payment of a money judgment. As stated above, the former is imposed in order to place the owner in a position as good as (but not better than) the position he was in before the taking occurred, while the latter is considered as legal interest, to be computed at 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction,[15] because the interim period is deemed to be equivalent to a forebearance of credit.[16] Consequently, the award of the former needs to be stated in the judgment, while the award of the latter need not.[17] Moreover, the former is computed from the date of possession or filing of the complaint for expropriation,[18] the latter is merely computed from the time the judgment becomes final and executory.[19] Therefore, we find no patent error in the imposition of interest on petitioner. | |||||
|
2007-12-10 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| First, the baseless and exorbitant interest of 3% per month which is shocking to the conscience of man and the court is contrary to the 12% interest per annum set by the Supreme Court in Medel v. Court of Appeals[10] and Eastern Assurance and Surety, Corporation (EASCO) v. Court of Appeals;[11] | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Consequently, by operation of law, the P500,000.00 which petitioner owed respondent is off-set against the P566,000.00 owed by respondent to petitioner, leaving a balance of P66,000.00, which respondent should pay with 12% interest per annum from date of judicial or extrajudicial deed.[32] Since there was no extrajudicial deed in this case, the interest shall be resolved from the date petitioner filed its Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration invoking for the first time legal compensation, that is, May 20, 1992.[33] | |||||
|
2004-11-05 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| When the debtor knows the amount and period when he is to pay, interest as damages is generally allowed as a matter of right.[26] The complaining party has been deprived of funds to which he is entitled by virtue of their compromise agreement. The goal of compensation requires that the complainant be compensated for the loss of use of those funds. This compensation is in the form of interest.[27] In the absence of agreement, the legal rate of interest shall prevail.[28] The legal interest for loan as forbearance of money is 12% per annum[29] 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.[30] | |||||
|
2003-09-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Verily, the enforcement of the Judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 65913-R (originally Civil Case No. 106913) is in order. We observed, however, that both lower courts ordered petitioner to pay respondent P2,006,036.76 with 12% interest per annum. Considering that the said amount is not a loan or forbearance, the interest should only be 6%, not 12% per annum.[16] | |||||
|
2002-01-16 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| However, we are constrained to depart from the conclusion of the lower courts that upon the award of compensatory damages legal interest should be imposed beginning 22 July 1990, i.e. the date of the accident. Upon the provisions of Art. 2213 of the Civil Code, interest "cannot be recovered upon unliquidated claims or damages, except when the demand can be established with reasonable certainty." It is axiomatic that if the suit were for damages, unliquidated and not known until definitely ascertained, assessed and determined by the courts after proof, interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum should be from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to be reasonably ascertained).[14] | |||||