Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 164159 July 17, 2007
HONORIO C. BULOS, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
OJI !"SUM", Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
CHICO#N"$"RIO, J.:
This is a Petition for Revie" on !ertiorari
#
under Rule $% of the #&&' Revised Rules of
!ivil Procedure see(in) to set aside and to declare null and void *#+ the Decision,
,
dated
% -anuar. ,//$, of the !ourt of 0ppeals in !012.R. !V No. %$&3&, "hich affir4ed the
Decision,
5
dated 5/ 0u)ust #&&3, of the Ma(ati !it. Re)ional Trial !ourt *RT!+, 6ranch
#$7, in !ivil !ase No. &/1#/%58 and *,+ the Resolution
$
of the !ourt of 0ppeals, dated ##
-une ,//$, "hich denied the petitioner9s Motion for Reconsideration.
Herein petitioner Honorio !. 6ulos *petitioner+ "as one of the defendants in a !o4plaint
for collection of su4 of 4one. plus da4a)es "ith pra.er for a "rit of preli4inar.
attach4ent, doc(eted as !ivil !ase No. &/1#/%5, entitled, :;o<i =asu4a v. Ra4on R.
>i4, Honorio !. 6ulos and 6ede S. Tabalin)cos,: filed "ith the RT! b. herein
respondent ;o<i =asu4a, a -apanese national.
The controvers. in the present case arose fro4 the follo"in) antecedents?
Petitioner, to)ether "ith Dr. Ra4on R. >i4 *Dr. >i4+ and 0tt.. 6ede S. Tabalin)cos
*0tt.. Tabalin)cos+, obtained a loan fro4 ;o<i =asu4a *respondent+ in the a4ount of
P,,%//,///.//, as evidenced b. a pro4issor. note,
%
dated ## October #&77, si)ned solel.
b. Dr. >i4 per a)ree4ent a4on) the petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt.. Tabalin)cos.
3
The said
pro4issor. note provides for the follo"in) conditions? *#+ pa.4ent of interest at the rate
of $@ for a period of three 4onths or until #/ -anuar. #&7&8 *,+ in case of a :roll over:
for failure of the borro"ers to pa. on the a)reed period, the eAtension "ill be considered
runnin) 4onthl. under the sa4e ter4s and rate of interest until the principal a4ount has
been full. paid8 and *5+ should the said pro4issor. note be brou)ht to court for
collection, the borro"ers a)ree to pa. an additional a4ount eBuivalent to #/@ of the
principal a4ount plus attorne.9s fee, "hich in no case shall be less than P#/,///.//. 0s a
securit. for the said loan, both petitioner and Dr. >i4 eAecuted Real state Mort)a)es
'

over their respective properties.
On #3 Dece4ber #&77, petitioner and Dr. >i4 eAecuted a Deed of 0ssu4ption,
7
to the
effect that petitioner assu4ed the loan obli)ation of Dr. >i4 due respondent "ith the
condition that Dr. >i4 shall first secure the respondent9s consent to and approval of the
said Deed of 0ssu4ption. Ho"ever, the confor4it. of respondent to the said Deed of
0ssu4ption "as not obtained b. Dr. >i4. Chen the loan obli)ation beca4e due and
de4andable on #/ -anuar. #&7&, respondent de4anded pa.4ent fro4 the petitioner, Dr.
>i4 and 0tt.. Tabalin)cos, but the. failed and refused to pa. the sa4e. Respondent then
4ade a de4and in "ritin) and throu)h telephone calls to 0tt.. Tabalin)cos. 0tt..
Tabalin)cos <ust told respondent that he "ould tal( first to the petitioner and Dr. >i4 and
he "ill then infor4 the respondent of their response, but 0tt.. Tabalin)cos never called
bac(.
0fter painsta(in) efforts to collect the loan fro4 the petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt..
Tabalin)cos, respondent reBuested 0tt.. Tabalin)cos, "ho happened to be his le)al
adviser at that ti4e, to foreclose the Real state Mort)a)es eAecuted b. the petitioner and
Dr. >i4 over their respective properties. 0tt.. Tabalin)cos failed to do so. Instead, he
4ade a proposal to respondent that the petitioner had certain properties in ParaDaBue !it.
"hich he "as "illin) to sell to the respondent to cover the obli)ation of the petitioner, Dr.
>i4 and 0tt.. Tabalin)cos. Out of respondent9s desperation to collect the loan that he had
eAtended to the petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt.. Tabalin)cos, respondent a)reed to the
aforesaid proposal. Thus, on ,$ Eebruar. #&7&, a Deed of Sale,
&
over certain parcels of
land located in ParaDaBue !it. and covered b. Transfer !ertificates of Title *T!Ts+ No.
$3''5$ and 55,5%% in the na4e of petitioner, "as eAecuted in favor of the respondent for
a total consideration of P#,35/,'%/.//, paid via a dacion en pa)o arran)e4ent.
0fter the eAecution of the Deed of Sale, all the parties a)reed that there "as still a
balance of P,,,$/,///.// o"ed to the respondent. In a !ertification
#/
dated ,' Eebruar.
#&7&, "hich the petitioner and Dr. >i4 considered as another Deed of 0ssu4ption,
petitioner assu4ed the P#,%//,///.// obli)ation of Dr. >i4. The consideration for the
said assu4ption of obli)ation is the transfer
##
of the shares of stoc(s of the Rural 6an( of
ParaDaBue to the respondent to offset the obli)ation. Petitioner thus offered the said
shares of stoc(s to the respondent. 0tt.. Tabalin)cos, for his part and in his capacit. as
!hair4an of the 6oard of the said ban(, issued a certification
#,
to the effect that the
respondent holds P#,,%/,///.// "orth of shares of stoc(s, eBuivalent to ,/@
shareholdin)s in the Rural 6an( of ParaDaBue. Ho"ever, durin) that ti4e, the Rural 6an(
of ParaDaBue 4ust first increase its authoriFed capital stoc( sub<ect to the approval of the
Securities and Achan)e !o44ission *S!+ because the ori)inal shares had alread. been
full. subscribed and full. paid. 6ecause of this and of the infor4ation provided b. his
then counsel, the late 0tt.. 6a.ani M. Ti4ario, -r. *0tt.. Ti4ario, -r.+, that a forei)ner
cannot be a stoc(holder of a rural ban(, the respondent absolutel. refused to accept the
shares of stoc(s and de4anded instead an outri)ht pa.4ent of the loan obli)ation. 0s the
shares of stoc(s "ere alread. assi)ned to the respondent via a certification issued b. 0tt..
Tabalin)cos, the latter then issued a chec(
#5
in the a4ount of P,,,$/,///.// to the order
of the respondent, dated ,% Dece4ber #&7&, to bu. the said shares in behalf of an
interested bu.er. Chen the respondent presented the chec( to the ban(, it "as dishonored
for havin) been dra"n a)ainst insufficient funds.
SubseBuentl., the respondent sent a de4and letter
#$
to each of the borro"ers 11 the
petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt.. Tabalin)cos 11 for the full pa.4ent of their outstandin)
obli)ation8 but, to no avail. This pro4pted the respondent to file "ith the RT! a
!o4plaint for Su4 of Mone. "ith Da4a)es and "ith Pra.er for a Crit of Preli4inar.
0ttach4ent a)ainst the petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt.. Tabalin)cos. On ,5 0pril #&&/, the
trial court issued an Order
#%
)rantin) the "rit of preli4inar. attach4ent applied for b. the
respondent upon his filin) of a bond fiAed at P,,,$/,///.//. 6. virtue of the said "rit,
several lots of the petitioner, and the house and lot of Dr. >i4 located in GueFon !it.,
"ere attached. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dissolve Crit of 0ttach4ent "hich "as
)ranted b. the trial court in its Order dated ' October #&&,
#3
conditioned upon
petitioner9s postin) of a counter1bond in the a4ount of P,,,$/,///.//. Petitioner 4oved
for the reduction of his counter1bond to P''/,///.// considerin) that the respondent
4ade an ad4ission that the petitioner partiall. paid the loan obli)ation in the a4ount of
P#,35/,'%/.//. The said 4otion "as )ranted b. the court a Buo in its Order dated #
0u)ust #&&%.
#'
On 5/ 0u)ust #&&3, the trial court rendered a Decision in favor of the respondent and
a)ainst the petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt.. Tabalin)cos, the decretal portion of "hich reads
as follo"s?
CHREOR, pre4ises considered, and findin) that Hherein respondentI has full.
established not onl. b. preponderance of evidence b. co4petent proof of his entitle4ent
to his clai4s in the H!Io4plaint, <ud)4ent is hereb. rendered in favor of HrespondentI
and a)ainst Hherein petitioner, to)ether "ith Dr. >i4 and 0tt.. Tabalin)cosI. Orderin)
Hthe petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt.. Tabalin)cosI to <ointl. and severall. pa. the
HrespondentI the follo"in)?
*#+ The a4ount of P,,,$/,///.// plus interest of ,#@ per annu4 as of 0pril,
#&&/, the ti4e of the filin) of the H!Io4plaint8
*,+ The su4 eBuivalent to ,/@ of P,,,$/,///.// plus P%//.// per appearance in
the case, for and as attorne.9s fees.
*5+ !osts of the suit.
The cross1clai4 filed b. H0tt.. Tabalin)cosI a)ainst the HpetitionerI is hereb.
DISMISSD for reasons stated above.
!osts a)ainst Hpetitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt.. Tabalin)cosI.
#7
0))rieved b. the aforesaid Decision of the trial court, the petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt..
Tabalin)cos appealed to the !ourt of 0ppeals. Ho"ever, 0tt.. Tabalin)cos did not file his
appellant9s brief. On % -anuar. ,//$, the !ourt of 0ppeals rendered a Decision affir4in)
in toto the Decision of the trial court. The petitioner 4oved for its reconsideration, but it
"as denied in a Resolution dated ## -une ,//$ issued b. the appellate court.
Hence, this petition b. petitioner. Ho"ever, Dr. >i4 and 0tt.. Tabalin)cos did not appeal
before this !ourt.
Petitioner sub4its the follo"in) issues for this !ourt9s resolution?
I. Chether or not the obli)ation of petitioner to pa. respondent has alread. *sic+
full. eAtin)uished.
II. Chether or not the offer to purchase shares of stoc( of Rural 6an( of
ParaDaBue a4ountin) to P#,,%/,///.// eAtin)uished petitioner 6ulos9 obli)ation
to pa. the balance of the loan "ith *sic+ respondent.
III. Chether or not petitioner 6ulos is entitled to clai4 for da4a)es.
IV. Chether or not HtheI i4position of ,#@ interest on P,,,$/,///.// and ,/@ of
the said a4ount as attorne.9s fees has no le)al and factual basis *sic+.
Petitioner ar)ues that despite the partial pa.4ent 4ade b. hi4 in the a4ount
P#,35/,'%/.//, and in spite of the respondent9s uneBuivocal ad4ission of the sa4e, still,
the respondent did not deduct the said a4ount fro4 the total a4ount of the obli)ation due
hi4. Instead, the respondent continuousl. clai4ed the a4ount of P,,,$/,///.// as of ,%
Dece4ber #&7&, plus interest at the rate of $@ per 4onth fro4 ,% Dece4ber #&7& "hen
he filed his !o4plaint on ' 0pril #&&/.
The petitioner li(e"ise avers that his obli)ation to pa. the balance of the loan to the
respondent had alread. been eAtin)uished "hen he offered to the respondent the shares of
stoc(s of the Rural 6an( of ParaDaBue a4ountin) to P#,,%/,///.//. Respondent9s
assertion that he did not accept the offer of the shares of stoc(s because of his nationalit.
deserves scant consideration as in fact, he had reli)iousl. follo"ed up "ith petitioner and
0tt.. Tabalin)cos the issuance of the certificate for the said shares of stoc(s.
Petitioner further alle)es that he is entitled to clai4 da4a)es for he had been sub<ected to
ridicule, 4ental an)uish, bes4irched reputation, and eAtre4e anAiet. as a result of the
respondent9s unfounded and 4alicious suit. Petitioner lost business opportunities as a
conseBuence of the attach4ent 4ade on his real properties in Tarlac8 thus, respondent
should be 4ade liable for the pa.4ent of da4a)es for all that he had suffered. 0s to the
i4position of ,#@ interest on the P,,,$/,///.// outstandin) loan obli)ation and ,/@ of
the said a4ount as attorne.9s fees, petitioner asserts that the sa4e has no le)al and factual
bases. The i4position of the said interest is hi)hl. eAcessive and eAorbitant in li)ht of the
dacion en pa)o arran)e4ent and the assi)n4ent of shares of stoc(s of the Rural 6an( of
ParaDaBue.
It is "ell1settled that the findin)s of fact of the trial court, especiall. "hen affir4ed b.
the !ourt of 0ppeals, are accorded the hi)hest de)ree of respect, and )enerall. "ill not
be disturbed on appeal. Such findin)s are bindin) and conclusive to the !ourt.
Eurther4ore, it is not the !ourt9s function under Rule $% of the #&&' Revised Rules of
!ivil Procedure to revie", eAa4ine and evaluate or "ei)h the probative value of the
evidence presented. The <urisdiction of the !ourt in a Petition for Revie" under Rule $%
is li4ited to revie"in) onl. errors of la".
#&
Jnless the case falls under the reco)niFed
eAceptions,
,/
the rule shall not be disturbed.
The follo"in) findin)s of fact, properl. supported b. evidence, 4ade b. both the trial
court and the appellate court can no lon)er be 4odified and are bindin) on this !ourt? *#+
the ori)inal loan obtained b. the petitioner, to)ether "ith Dr. >i4 and 0tt.. Tabalin)cos,
fro4 the respondent a4ounted to P,,%//,///.// "ith $@ interest for three 4onths, or
fro4 ## October #&77 up to #/ -anuar. #&7&, and in case of eAtension of the loan, the
interest of %@ per 4onth "ill be i4posed8 *,+ the obli)ation of the petitioner, Dr. >i4
and 0tt.. Tabalin)cos "as <oint and solidar. as evidenced b. the follo"in) acts?
*a+ the pro4issor. note "as solel. si)ned b. Dr. >i4 per a)ree4ent a4on) the
parties8
*b+ the act of Dr. >i4 in eAecutin) a Deed of Real state Mort)a)e in favor of
respondent to cover the a4ount of the pro4issor. note8
*c+ the act of the petitioner in eAecutin) a second Deed of Real state Mort)a)e as
additional securit. to the loan8 and
*d+ the act of 0tt.. Tabalin)cos in issuin) a chec( in the a4ount of P,, ,$/,///.//
to cover the balance of the obli)ation8
*5+ petitioner failed to pa. the loan b. #/ -anuar. #&7&8 thus, fro4 ## October #&77 up to
Eebruar. #&7&, the loan obli)ation, includin) interest, reached a total a4ount of
P,,'//,///.//8 *$+ petitioner 4ade a partial pa.4ent via a dacion en pa)o, a4ountin) to
P#,35/,'%/.//, "hich "as deducted fro4 the total loan obli)ation of P,,'//,///.//
leavin) a balance of P#,/3&,///.// as of ,$ Eebruar. #&7&8 *%+ b. March #&7&, the
balance of the loan be)an earnin) a %@ interest per 4onth after all the parties a)reed to
an increase in the interest rate durin) the eAtended period8 *3+ ta(in) into consideration
the outstandin) loan balance of P#,/3&,///.//, plus interest, and 4inus a discount
)ranted b. respondent, the a4ount still due respondent "as deter4ined b. the parties to
be P,,,$/,///.//8 and *'+ to pa. the re4ainin) indebtedness, 0tt.. Tabalin)cos issued a
chec( coverin) the a4ount but it "as dishonored, therefore, the indebtedness re4ains at
P,,,$/,///.//.
Chen the eAistence of a debt is full. established b. the evidence contained in the record,
the burden of provin) that it has been eAtin)uished b. pa.4ent devolves upon the debtor
"ho offers such defense. The debtor has the burden of sho"in) "ith le)al certaint. that
the obli)ation has been dischar)ed b. pa.4ent.
,#
In the present case, the petitioner failed
to prove that indeed, his liabilit. to pa. the re4ainin) balance of his obli)ation "ith the
respondent had been eAtin)uished b. his offer to transfer to respondent his shares of
stoc(s in the Rural 6an( of ParaDaBue.
The defense of the petitioner that the offer he 4ade to respondent of his shares of stoc(s
in Rural 6an( of ParaDaBue a4ountin) to P#,,%/,///.// had alread. eAtin)uished his
obli)ation to pa. the balance of the loan stands on hollo" )round.
Section $, Republic 0ct No. '5%5, other"ise (no"n as :The Rural 6an(s 0ct of #&&,,:
provides?
Section. $. A A A. Cith the eAception of shareholdin)s of corporations or)aniFed pri4aril.
to hold eBuities in rural ban(s as provided for under Section #,1! of Republic 0ct No.
55', as a4ended, and of Eilipino1controlled do4estic ban(s, the capital stoc( of an. rural
ban( shall be full. o"ned and held directl. or indirectl. b. citiFens of the Philippines or
corporations, associations or cooperatives Bualified under Philippine la"s to o"n and
hold such capital stoc(? A A A. *4phasis supplied.+
2iven the fore)oin) provision of la", this !ourt a)rees "ith the !ourt of 0ppeals that the
respondent, bein) a forei)ner, is not Bualified to o"n capital stoc( in the Rural 6an( of
ParaDaBue. This renders the assi)n4ent of shares of stoc(s in the Rural 6an( of
ParaDaBue in favor of respondent void. 0s previousl. stated, the assi)n4ent of the shares
of stoc(s in the rural ban( "as not accepted b. the respondent precisel. because of the
prohibition stated under Republic 0ct No. '5%5, "hich "as eAplained
,,
to hi4 b. his
counsel, the late 0tt.. Ti4ario, -r.
Moreover, petitioner 4entioned in his testi4on. before the trial court that all the shares
of stoc(s of the Rural 6an( of ParaDaBue had alread. been full. subscribed and, for
shares to be 4ade available, additional capital should be infused and the S! should
approved the additional shares for subscription. Here "e Buote that part of the petitioner9s
testi4on.?
G? No", .ou have stated a "hile a)o Mr. Citness, that the balance be paid b.
shares of stoc(s and as a 4atter of fact the HrespondentI has accepted that
preposition, "hat happened if an., after"ardsK
0? In 4. case, I transferred 55/ so4ethin) shares of stoc(s in the na4e of Hthe
respondentI and I believe H0tt..I Tabalin)cos have done the sa4e.
G? Did .ou find out for .ourselves "hat happened after"ards if an.K
0? Ho"ever "e have transferred in their na4e ho"ever there are technicalities in
the issuance, !entral 6an( technicalities.
G? Chat are these !entral 6an( technicalitiesK
0? Issuance of shares of stoc(s certificate, durin) that period "e have to increase
our authoriFed capital stoc( "ith the HS!I because the ori)inal one "ere alread.
full. subscribed and full. paid. H4phasis suppliedI.
G? Then "hat happenedK
0? The onl. "a. for us, for the ban( to issue additional shares of stoc(s certificate
is to "ait for the approval of the increase of capitaliFation fro4 the HS!I so that
these assi)ned shares to H0tt..I Tabalin)cos can be lod)e.
G? Chat did .ou do if an. after"ardsK
0? Ce infor4ed the HrespondentI about that.
A A A A.
G? Chat "as his repl. if an.K
0? He started co4plainin) and said, :<ust return to 4e 4. 4one.: that is ho" it
all started.
,5
Ero4 the aforesaid testi4on. of the petitioner, it is hi)hl. i4possible for respondent to
have acBuired b. assi)n4ent an. shares of stoc(s in the Rural 6an( of ParaDaBue. Thus,
the obli)ation of the petitioner to pa. the balance of the loan re4ains subsistin).
In the face of all of the above, this !ourt nevertheless sustains the assertion of the
petitioner that the i4position of ,#@ interest on the outstandin) loan obli)ation of
P,,,$/,///.// has no le)al and factual bases.
0ccordin) to the pro4issor. note eAecuted b. Dr. >i4, and a)reed to b. all the parties, in
case of the borro"er9s failure to pa. the loan obli)ation "ithin the stipulated period, the
eAtended period shall be considered runnin) 4onthl. under the sa4e ter4s and rate of
interest, "hich is $@ per 4onth, until the principal has been full. paid. Thus, the
re4ainin) balance of P,,,$/,///.// is still sub<ect to the interest rate of $@ per 4onth
,$

or $7@ per annu4. To our 4ind such rate of interest is hi)hl. unconscionable and
inordinate.
In the case of RuiF v. !ourt of 0ppeals,
,%
citin) the cases of Medel v. !ourt of 0ppeals,
,3

2arcia v. !ourt of 0ppeals,
,'
Spouses 6autista v. Pilar Develop4ent !orporation
,7
and
the recent case of Spouses Solan)on v. SalaFar,
,&
this !ourt considered the 5@ interest
per 4onth or 53@ interest per annu4 as eAcessive and unconscionable. Thereb., the
!ourt, in the said case, eBuitabl. reduced the rate of interest to #@ interest per 4onth or
#,@ interest per annu4. The !ourt also held that "hile the Jsur. >a" has been
suspended b. !entral 6an( !ircular No. &/%, s. #&7,, effective on # -anuar. #&75, and
parties to a loan a)ree4ent have been )iven "ide latitude to a)ree on an. interest rate,
still stipulated interest rates are ille)al if the. are unconscionable. Nothin) in the said
circular )rants lenders carte blanche authorit. to raise interest rates to levels "hich "ill
either enslave their borro"ers or lead to a he4orrha)in) of their assets.
5/
Surel., it is
4ore consonant "ith <ustice that the rate of interest in the present case, "hich is $@ per
4onth or $7@ per annu4, be reduced eBuitabl.. Ce find, that the reduction of the interest
rate b. the trial court, pe))ed at ,#@ per annu4, "as not proper.
In astern Shippin) >ines, Inc. v. !ourt of 0ppeals,
5#
the !ourt for4ulated the follo"in)
rules of thu4b to )uide the lo"er courts in the i4position of the proper interest on the
a4ounts due, to "it?
I. A A A A.
II. Cith re)ard particularl. to an a"ard of interest in the concept of actual and
co4pensator. da4a)es, the rate of interest, as "ell as the accrual thereof, is i4posed, as
follo"s?
#. Chen the obli)ation is breached, and it consists in the pa.4ent of a su4 of
4one., i.e., a loan or forbearance of 4one., the interest due should be that "hich
4a. have been stipulated in "ritin). Eurther4ore, the interest due shall itself earn
le)al interest fro4 the ti4e it is <udiciall. de4anded. In the absence of stipulation,
the rate of interest shall be #,@ per annu4 to be co4puted fro4 default, i.e., fro4
<udicial or eAtra<udicial de4and under and sub<ect to the provisions of 0rticle
##3& of the !ivil !ode.
,. A A A A.
5. Chen the <ud)4ent of the court a"ardin) a su4 of 4one. beco4es final and
eAecutor., the rate of le)al interest, "hether the case falls under para)raph # or
para)raph ,, above, shall be #,@ per annu4 fro4 such finalit. until its
satisfaction, this interi4 period bein) dee4ed to be b. then an eBuivalent to a
forbearance of credit.
5,
H4phasis suppliedI.
The a)reed interest rate of $@ per 4onth or $7@ per annu4 is unconscionable and 4ust
be 4iti)ated.1avvphi1 Eollo"in) established <urisprudence, the le)al interest rate of #,@
should appl., co4puted fro4 the date of <udicial de4and, that is, ' 0pril #&&/. The
aforeBuoted para)raph 5 of the )uidelines is also appropriate herein, and a #,@ interest
per annu4 is i4posed on petitioner9s 4onetar. liabilit. to respondent fro4 the date of
the finalit. of this Decision until it is full. paid.
0s re)ards the ar)u4ent of the petitioner that the a"ard of attorne.9s fees eBuivalent to
,/@ of P,,,$/,///.// is eAcessive, this !ourt finds the sa4e specious. The lo"er courts
found that b. reason of the acts of the petitioner and his cohorts, the respondent had to
secure the services of counsel in order to preserve and protect his ri)hts. If not for the
refusal of the petitioner to settle his obli)ation, the respondent "ould not have incurred
eApenses in filin) a case "hich dra))ed on for 4ore than a decade in order to recover the
loan "hich he eAtended to the petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt.. Tabalin)cos. Hence, the
a"ard of ,/@ of P,,,$/,///.// as attorne.9s fees is onl. reasonable. !onspicuousl.,
there appears to be a variation as to the percenta)e of attorne.9s fees a"arded in the
dispositive portion and in the bod. of the RT! decision. In the dispositive portion of the
RT! decision, the attorne.9s fees a"arded "as ,/@ of P,,,$/,///.//8 "hile in the bod.
of the sa4e decision, the rate referred to #/@ of P,,,$/,///.//.
55
The )eneral rule is that, "here there is conflict bet"een the dispositive portion or the
fallo and the bod. of a decision, the fallo controls. This rule rests on the theor. that the
fallo is the final order "hile the opinion in the bod. is 4erel. a state4ent orderin)
nothin). Ho"ever, "here the inevitable conclusion fro4 the bod. of the decision is so
clear as to sho" that there "as a 4ista(e in the dispositive portion, the bod. of the
decision prevails.
5$
In his co4plaint before the RT!, the respondent pra.ed for ,/@ of
P,,,$/,///.// as attorne.9s fees. In the bod. of the RT! decision, the trial court a"arded
outri)ht respondent9s pra.er for attorne.9s fees "ithout an. discussion that it found the
,/@ respondent pra.ed for as eAcessive and that it "as reducin) the percenta)e of the
attorne.9s fees to #/@. This court is 4ore inclined to believe that the #/@ attorne.9s fees
in the bod. of the RT! decision is 4erel. a t.po)raphical error. !onseBuentl., the
)eneral rule applies to this case, and the ,/@ attorne.9s fees ordered paid b. the fallo of
the RT! decision controls.
CHREOR, pre4ises considered, the instant Petition is P0RTI0>>= 2R0NTD.
The Decision and Resolution of the !ourt of 0ppeals dated % -anuar. ,//$ and ## -une
,//$, respectivel., in !012.R. !V No. %$&3&, "hich affir4ed the Decision, dated 5/
0u)ust #&&3, of the Ma(ati !it. RT!, 6ranch #$7, in !ivil !ase No. &/1#/%5, are hereb.
0EEIRMD "ith the MODIEI!0TION that an interest rate of #,@ per annu4 shall be
applied to the balance of the loan a4ountin) to P,,,$/,///.//, co4puted fro4 the date of
<udicial de4and, i.e., ' 0pril #&&/8 and of #,@ interest per annu4 on the a4ount due
fro4 the date of the finalit. of this Decision until full. paid. !osts a)ainst the petitioner.
SO ORDRD.
MINIT" %. CHICO#N"$"RIO
0ssociate -ustice
C !ON!JR?
CONSUELO !N"RES&S"NTI"GO
0ssociate -ustice
!hairperson
M". "LICI" "USTRI"#M"RTINE$
0ssociate -ustice
"NTONIO E'U"R'O B.
N"CHUR"
0ssociate -ustice
0 T T S T 0 T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision "ere reached in consultation before the
case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt9s Division.
CONSUELO !N"RES#S"NTI"GO
0ssociate -ustice
!hairperson, Third Division
! R T I E I ! 0 T I O N
Pursuant to Section #5, 0rticle VIII of the !onstitution, and the Division !hairperson9s
0ttestation, it is hereb. certified that the conclusions in the above Decision "ere reached
in consultation before the case "as assi)ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourt9s
Division.
RE!N"TO S. PUNO
!hief -ustice
(oo)*o)+,
#
Rollo, pp. 5#1%%.
,
Penned b. 0ssociate -ustice 0rsenio -. Ma)pale "ith 0ssociate -ustices !onrado
M. VasBueF, -r. and 6ienvenido >. Re.es, concurrin)8 id. at 71#&.
5
Penned b. -ud)e Oscar 6. Pi4entel8 id. at #,31#3'.
$
Id. at #751#7$.
%
Id. at 7#.
3
TSN, ,% Ma. #&&,, pp. '1#,8 TSN, 5# March #&&%, p. 3.
'
Rollo, pp. 7,17%.
7
Records, Vol. II, p. $$$.
&
Rollo, pp. ###1##5.
#/
Id. at ##%.
##
The petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt.. Tabalin)cos are stoc(holders of the Rural
6an( of ParaDaBue. Ho"ever, Dr. >i4 later on decided not to <oin the ban(
an.4ore.
#,
Rollo, p. ##3.
#5
Id. at 73.
#$
Id. at 7'1&5.
#%
Id. at &$1&%.
#3
Id. at #,,.
#'
Id. at #,51#,$.
#7
Id. at #3'.
#&
!ulaba v. !ourt of 0ppeals, 2.R. No. #,%73,, #% 0pril ,//$, $,' S!R0 ',#,
',&.
,/
Reco)niFed eAceptions to this rule are? *#+ "hen the findin)s are )rounded
entirel. on speculation, sur4ises or con<ectures8 *,+ "hen the inference 4ade is
4anifestl. 4ista(en, absurd or i4possible8 *5+ "hen there is )rave abuse of
discretion8 *$+ "hen the <ud)4ent is based on a 4isapprehension of facts8 *%+
"hen the findin) of facts are conflictin)8 *3+ "hen in 4a(in) the findin)s, the
!ourt of 0ppeals "ent be.ond the issues of the case, or its findin)s are contrar. to
the ad4issions of both the appellee and the appellant8 *'+ "hen the findin)s are
contrar. to the trial court8 *7+ "hen the findin)s are conclusions "ithout citation
of specific evidence on "hich the. are based8 *&+ "hen the facts set forth in the
petition as "ell as in the petitioner9s 4ain and repl. briefs are not disputed b. the
respondents8 *#/+ "hen the findin)s of facts are pre4ised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted b. the evidence on record8 and *##+ "hen
the !ourt of 0ppeals 4anifestl. overloo(ed certain relevant facts not disputed b.
the parties, "hich if properl. considered, "ould <ustif. a different conclusion.
*>an)(aan Realt. Develop4ent, Inc. v. Jnited !oconut Planters 6an(, $// Phil.
#5$&, #5%3 H,///I8 No(o4 v. National >abor Relations !o44issions, 5&/ Phil.
#,,7, #,$,1#,$5 H,///I8 !o44issioner of Internal Revenue v. 4broider. and
2ar4ents Industries HPhils.I, Inc., 53$ Phil. %$#, %$31%$' H#&&&I8 Sps. Sta. Maria
v. !ourt of 0ppeals, 5$& Phil. ,'%, ,7,1,75 H#&&7I+.
,#
!oronel v. !apati, 2.R. No. #%'753, ,3 Ma. ,//%, $%& S!R0 ,/%, ,#5.
,,
TSN, ,& -ul. #&&,, pp. #&1,/.
,5
TSN, 5# March #&&%, pp. #31#&.
,$
In the pro4issor. note "hich "as si)ned solel. b. Dr. >i4 per a)ree4ent
a4on) the petitioner, Dr. >i4 and 0tt.. Tabalin)cos, the stipulated rate of interest
"as $@. Chen the loan obli)ation beca4e due and de4andable and the borro"ers
failed to pa. on the a)reed period the. sou)ht eAtension of their loan obli)ation
and pro4ised to increase the rate of interest to %@ to "hich the respondent
a)reed. 6ut, "hen the respondent filed his !o4plaint for collection of su4 of
4one., the rate of interest "hich he pra.ed for "as $@ as "hat "as stated in the
pro4issor. note.
,%
$$& Phil. $#&, $551$5$ *,//5+.
,3
5%& Phil. 7,/, 7,&175/ *#&&7+.
,'
2.R. No. >17,,7,175, ,$ Nove4ber #&77, #3' S!R0 7#%, 75/175#.
,7
5'# Phil. %55, %$51%$$ *#&&&+.
,&
$#, Phil. 7#3, 7,,17,5 *,//#+.
5/
RuiF v. !ourt of 0ppeals, supra note ,% at $5$.
5#
2.R. No. &'$#,, #, -ul. #&&$, ,5$ S!R0 '7.
5,
Id. at &%1&'.
55
Rollo, p. #35.
5$
Poliand Industrial >i4ited v. National Develop4ent !o4pan., 2.R. No.
#$5733, ,, 0u)ust ,//%, $3' S!R0 %//, %%/.