This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-06-08 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| clarifying the original Decision. Respondent's Motion for Clarification did not really partake of the nature of a motion for reconsideration, as to amend the December 20, 2001 Decision. There was nothing substantial to vary, considering that the issues between the parties were deemed resolved and laid to rest. It is unmistakably clear that petitioners do not deny the execution of the Contracts to Sell and, in fact, admit their liability for the unpaid amortizations of the lots purchased. The persistent violations of the contracts and the continuous delay in petitioners' payments cannot simply be overlooked. There was a compelling reason for the CA to clarify its original Decision to include the payment of all penalties and interest due on the unpaid amortizations, as provided in the contracts. Considering that the validity of the contracts was never put in question, and there is nothing on record to suggest that the same may be contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, there is nothing unlawful in the stipulation requiring the payment of interest/penalty at the rate agreed upon in the contract of the parties. [18] The Court further notes that petitioners are in actual/physical possession of the properties and enjoying the beneficial use thereof, despite the payment of only P133,872.76, as of January 30, 1979.[19] It would be grossly unfair for respondent to be | |||||
|
2010-03-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 2209 of the Civil Code, the appropriate measure for damages in case of delay in discharging an obligation consisting of the payment of a sum of money is the payment of penalty interest at the rate agreed upon in the contract of the parties. In the absence of a stipulation of a particular rate of penalty interest, payment of additional interest at a rate equal to the regular monetary interest becomes due and payable. Finally, if no regular interest had been agreed upon by the contracting parties, then the damages payable will consist of payment of legal interest which is 6%, or in the case of loans or forbearances of money, 12% per annum. [34] It is only when the parties to a contract have failed to fix the rate of interest or when such amount is unwarranted that the Court will apply the 12% interest per annum on a loan or forbearance of money. [35] | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The established doctrine is that when the dispositive portion of a judgment, which has become final and executory, contains a clerical error or an ambiguity arising from an inadvertent omission, such error or ambiguity may be clarified by reference to the body of the decision itself.[8] | |||||
|
2001-10-26 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| While in truth the last pleading filed by petitioner in connection with Civil Case No. 6030 was the compliance manifestation as narrated above,[22] we will nonetheless assume that the trial court consulted all relevant circumstances and acted in compliance with law[23] when it ruled that the memorandum was indeed the last pleading filed by him. It must be stressed that under Sec. 24, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court the trial court has wide discretion to ordain the payment of reasonable legal fees of a lawyer. | |||||