This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-09-16 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In Estores v. Supangan,[46] the Court explained that forbearance of money, goods, or credit refers to arrangements other than loan agreements where a person acquiesces to the temporary use of his money, goods or credits pending the happening of certain events or fulfilment of certain conditions such that if these conditions are breached, the said person is entitled not only to the return of the principal amount given, but also to compensation for the use of his money equivalent to the legal interest since the use or deprivation of funds is akin to a loan.[47] | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Land Bank's argument that the lower courts erred in imposing 12% per annum rate of interest is likewise devoid of merit. The unilateral offsetting of funds without legal justification and the undocumented withdrawals are tantamount to forbearance of money. In the analogous case of Estores v. Supangan,[97] we held that "[the] unwarranted withholding of the money which rightfully pertains to [another] amounts to forbearance of money which can be considered as an involuntary loan." Following Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[98] therefore, the applicable rate of interest in this case is 12% per annum. Besides, Land Bank is estopped from assailing the award of 12% per annum rate of interest. In its Complaint, Land Bank arrived at P8,222,687.89 as the outstanding indebtedness of Oñate by using the same 12% per annum rate of interest. It was only after the lower courts rendered unfavorable decisions that Land Bank started to insist that the applicable rate of interest is 6% per annum. | |||||
|
2013-02-20 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Although attorney's fees are not allowed in the absence of stipulation, the court can award the same when the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his interest or where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and demandable claim."[59] In the instant case, it is beyond cavil that petitioner was constrained to file the instant case to protect his interest because of respondents' unreasonable and unjustified refusal to render an accounting and to remit to the petitioner his rightful share in rents and fruits in the Diego Building. Thus, we deem it proper to award to petitioner attorney's fees in the amount of P50,000.00,[60] as well as litigation expenses in the amount of P20,000.00 and the sum of P1,000.00 for each court appearance by his lawyer or lawyers, as prayed for. | |||||