0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
16 vues2 pages
This document discusses two cases regarding the appropriate interest rate to apply in different situations. The first case involves a contract for sewing services where the court ruled the 6% legal interest rate applied, not 12%, because it did not involve a loan or forbearance of money. The second case involves an action for damages where the court clarified that the 6% rate under the Civil Code applies, not the 12% rate for loans, as the obligation arose from a contract of purchase, not loan. However, the 12% rate would apply once a monetary judgment becomes final and executory, as that is deemed equivalent to forbearance of credit.
This document discusses two cases regarding the appropriate interest rate to apply in different situations. The first case involves a contract for sewing services where the court ruled the 6% legal interest rate applied, not 12%, because it did not involve a loan or forbearance of money. The second case involves an action for damages where the court clarified that the 6% rate under the Civil Code applies, not the 12% rate for loans, as the obligation arose from a contract of purchase, not loan. However, the 12% rate would apply once a monetary judgment becomes final and executory, as that is deemed equivalent to forbearance of credit.
This document discusses two cases regarding the appropriate interest rate to apply in different situations. The first case involves a contract for sewing services where the court ruled the 6% legal interest rate applied, not 12%, because it did not involve a loan or forbearance of money. The second case involves an action for damages where the court clarified that the 6% rate under the Civil Code applies, not the 12% rate for loans, as the obligation arose from a contract of purchase, not loan. However, the 12% rate would apply once a monetary judgment becomes final and executory, as that is deemed equivalent to forbearance of credit.
Court Of Appeals Applying the said doctrine in the case at bar,
the Court ruled that since the amount due in the Petitioner contracted the services of the present case arose from a contract for a piece of respondent, to sew for the petitioner of 20,762 pieces work, not from a loan or forbearance of money, the of assorted girls denims to the amount of P76,410.00. legal rate of six percent (6%) interest per annum At first, the respondent was told that the sewing of should be applied. Private respondents contention some of the pants was defective. She offered to take that the twelve percent (12%) interest per annum delivery of the defective pants. However, she was should be imposed because the obligation arose from later told by [petitioner]'s representative that the a forbearance of money was found by the Court goods were already good. She was told to just return erroneous because a forbearance in the context of for her check of P76,410.00. the Usury Law is a contractual obligation of lender or creditor to refrain, during a given period of time from However, the petitioner failed to pay her the aforesaid requiring the borrower or debtor to repay a loan or amount. This prompted her to hire the services of debt then due and payable. Using the said standard counsel who, on November 12, 1979, wrote a letter to in case at bar, the Court concluded that the obligation the petitioner demanding payment of the aforesaid was obviously not a forbearance of money, goods or amount within ten days from receipt thereof. On credits. February 7, 1990, the petitioner's vice-president- comptroller, wrote a letter to respondent's counsel, PNB vs. Ibarrola averring, inter alia, that the pairs of jeans sewn by her, numbering 6,164 pairs, were defective and that As payments for the purchase of medicines, the she was liable to the petitioner for the amount of Province of Isabela issued several checks drawn P49,925.51 which was the value of the damaged against its accounts with petitioner Philippine National pairs of denim pants and demanded refund of the Bank (PNB) in favor of the seller, private respondent Ibarrola. Ibarrola failed to receive the full payment, aforesaid amount. thus she filed an action for a sum of money and damages against ISSUE: the Province of Isabela and PNB among others. Whether or not it is proper to impose interest RTC ruled in her favor ordering that she be paid “with at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum for an interest thereon at the legal rate from the date of the obligation that does not involve a loan or forbearance filing of money in the absence of stipulation of the parties. of the complaint until the entire amount is fully paid”. CA and SC affirmed. However, the three courts did HELD: not specify whether the legal rate of interest referred to in the judgment is 6% or 12%. The Supreme Court found petitioners contention tenable. The Court had previously ruled ISSUE: Whether in an action for damages, the legal that the interest rate under CB Circular No. 416 rate of interest is 6% as provided by Article 2209of the applies to (1) loans; (2) forbearance of money, goods New Civil Code or 12% as provided by CB Circular or credits; or (3) a judgment involving a loan or 416 series of 1974 forbearance of money, goods or credits. Cases HELD: beyond the scope of said circular are governed by The case at bench does not involve a loan. When an Article 2209 of the Civil Code, which considers obligation arises from a contract of purchase and sale interest a form of indemnity for the delay in the and not from a contract of loan or mutuum, the performance of an obligation. applicable rate is 6% per annum as provided in Article 2209 of the NCC and not the rate of 12% per annum as provided in (CB) Cir. No. 416. The rate of 12% interest referred to in Cir. 416 applies only to: Loan or forbearance of money, or to cases where money is transferred from one person to another and the obligation to return the same or a portion thereof is adjudged. Any other monetary judgment which does not involve or which has nothing to do with loans or forbearance of any money, goods or credit does not fall within its coverage for such imposition is not within the ambit of the authority granted to the Central Bank.
Therefore, the proper rate of interest referred to in the
judgment under execution is only 6%. However, once the judgment becomes final and executory, the "interim period from the finality of judgment awarding a monetary claim and until payment thereof, is deemed to be equivalent to a forbearance of credit. Thus, the rate of 12% p.a. should be imposed, and to be computed from the time the judgment became final and executory until fully satisfied.