1

G.R. No. 74730 August 25, 1989 CALTEX vs IAC CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE INTER E!IATE APPELLATE C"#RT $%& HER'ERT respondents.

)an-ana appealed the trial "ourt9s de"ision to the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court raisin# the followin# issues (p. 37, Rollo)* 1. T,AT +/AI4TI'' A++0//00 CA442T A?AI/ 82T, 2' A +0(:24A/ ACTI24 (T,I: CA:0) A43 A4 01T(AJ@3ICIA/ '2(0C/2:@(0 AT T,0 :A)0 TI)0 AAAI4:T T,0 30'043A4T 30'043A4T6A++0//A4TB A43, $. T,AT +/AI4TI''6A++0//00 CA442T A?AI/ 2' A 30'ICI04CC J@3A)04T A'T0( ,0 ,A3 01T(AJ@3ICIA//C '2(0C/2:03 24 T,0 +(2+0(TC 2' 30'043A4T6A++0//A4T. It was the opinion of the respondent "ourt that Da readin# of the issues raised &y the defendant6appellant shows that the Euestion that needs resolution is whether or not plaintiff6appellee "an still avail of the "omplaint for the re"overy of the &alan"e of inde&tedness after havin# already fore"losed the property se"urin# the sameD (p. 37, Rollo).lwph1.t 2n June $9, 19 %, the respondent "ourt rendered a de"ision (pp. 3!639, Rollo) affirmin# in toto the appealed de"ision after Dfindin# no reversi&le errorD therein. 2n July 19, 19 %, )an-ana filed a motion for re"onsideration of said de"ision. In its "omment to the motion for re"onsideration, CA/T01 prayed that Dthe <ud#ment sou#ht to &e re"onsidered &e modified &y dedu"tin# the amount of +$5,555.55 (fore"losure amount) from +3;3,$1 .!! there&y leavin# a &alan"e of +333,$1 .!! representin# the defi"ien"y that plaintiff6appellee is entitled to re"over from defendant6appellant plus interest, attorney9s fees and "osts of suitD (p. %1, Rollo). A"tin# on the motion for re"onsideration, the respondent "ourt issued a resolution dated January 31, 19 !, the dispositive portion of whi"h reads (p. ;9, Rollo)* F,0(0'2(0, in the interest of <usti"e the de"ision of this Court promul#ated June $9, 19 % is va"ated and the re"ords are ordered remanded for purposes of determinin# the defi"ien"y due the plaintiff6appellee and for the trial "ourt to render another and proper <ud#ment &ased on the eviden"e addu"ed &y all the parties. Fithout pronoun"ement as to "osts. :2 2(30(03.

AN(ANA

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the resolution of respondent Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) dated January 31, 19 ! va"atin# its prior de"ision dated June $9, 19 % and orderin# that the re"ords of the "ase &e remanded to the Court of 'irst Instan"e (now (e#ional Trial Court) of )anila, and its resolution dated )ay 19,19 ! denyin# the motion for re"onsideration. The ante"edent fa"ts are as follows* +rivate respondent ,er&ert )an-ana pur"hased on "redit petroleum produ"ts from petitioner Calte. +hilippines, In". (CA/T01, for short). As of Au#ust 31, 19!9, his inde&tedness to CA/T01 has amounted to +3!1,$1 .!!. 2n 2"to&er %, 19!9, )an-ana e.e"uted a 3eed a 'irst )ort#a#e in favor of CA/T01 over a par"el of land "overed &y 2CT 4o. 56$7% of the (e#ister of 3eeds of the +rovin"e of Camarines 4orte to se"ure his de&ts to the latter. 2n various o""asions, CA/T01 sent to )an-ana statements of a""ount and later demanded payment of his entire de&ts. 8e"ause of )an-ana9s failure and refusal to pay, CA/T01 filed a "omplaint on Au#ust 17, 1975 &efore the trial "ourt for the re"overy of the whole amount of +3!1,$1 .!!. )eanwhile, on :eptem&er 1;, 1975, CA/T01 fore"losed e.tra<udi"ially the mort#a#ed property. 2n 2"to&er 35, 1975, the mort#a#ed property was sold at au"tion to CA/T01, &ein# the only &idder, for +$5,555.55 as shown &y the :heriff s Certifi"ate of :ale. The fore"losure was alle#edly =nown &y )an-ana only on 2"to&er %, 19 5 when su"h fa"t was manifested &y CA/T01 in its reply to the opposition of )an-ana to the motion for e.e"ution pendin# appeal. 2n July $3, 19 5, the trial "ourt rendered <ud#ment orderin# )an-ana to pay CA/T01 the amount of +3;3,$1 .!! after dedu"tin# + ,555.55 paid &y Traders Insuran"e and :urety Company on its surety &ond, with interest thereon at 1$> per annum from Au#ust 17, 1975, plus $5> thereof as attorney9s fees (p. 11;, Rollo).

The respondent "ourt was "onvin"ed that the followin# "onsideration <ustified a re"onsideration of its prior de"ision (pp. ;;6;!, Rollo)* D..., the a"tion (&efore the trial "ourt) "annot &e said to &e one for re"overy of defi"ien"y <ud#ment &e"ause ... (it) see=s re"overy of the whole amount of inde&tedness totallin# +3!1,$15.!!D (should &e +3!1,$1 .!!). The motion for re"onsideration filed &y CA/T01 was denied. ,en"e, the present petition. The issues may &e limited to the followin#* 1) Fhether or not the respondent "ourt "ommitted an error in #ivin# due "ourse to the Euestion whether CA/T01 "an avail at the same time of a personal a"tion in "ourt for "olle"tion of a sum of money and the e.tra<udi"ial fore"losure of the deed of first mort#a#e, whi"h was only raised for the first time on appealB $) Fhether or not the mere filin# of a "olle"tion suit for the re"overy of the de&t se"ured &y real estate mort#a#e "onstitutes waiver of the other remedy of fore"losureB 3) Fhether or not the filin# of the "omplaint for re"overy of the amount of inde&tedness and the su&seEuent e.tra<udi"ial fore"losure of the deed of first mort#a#e "onstitutes splittin# of a sin#le "ause of a"tion. 'I(:T I::@0 CA/T01 alle#es that the only issue su&mitted for resolution &efore the trial "ourt is whether or not )an-ana was inde&ted and lia&le to it in the sum of +3!1,$1 .!!. The issue whether or not CA/T01 "an avail at the same time of a personal a"tion in "ourt for "olle"tion of a sum of money and the e.tra<udi"ial fore"losure of the 3eed of 'irst )ort#a#e, and the issue whether or not CA/T01 "an avail of a defi"ien"y <ud#ment were never raised in the pleadin#s of the parties nor at any sta#e of the pro"eedin#s &efore the trial "ourt. These were only raised &y )an-ana for the first time on appeal &efore the respondent "ourt. Fe rule that the respondent "ourt did not "ommit any error in ta=in# "o#ni-an"e of the aforestated issues, althou#h not raised &efore the trial "ourt. The presen"e of

stron# "onsideration of su&stantial <usti"e has led this Court to rela. the well6 entren"hed rule that, e."ept Euestions on <urisdi"tion, no Euestion will &e entertained on appeal unless it has &een raised in the "ourt &elow and it is within the issues made &y the parties in their pleadin#s (Cordero v. Ca&ral, A.(. 4o. /6 3!7 9, July $;, 19 3, 1$3 :C(A ;3$). The "ompassionate spirit &ehind this rule will eEually apply to the other alle#ation of CA/T01 that )an-ana9s inde&tedness of + 3!1,$1 .!! was se"ured up to the e.tent of +1$5,555.55 only althou#h it appears that this issue is raised for the first time in this present petition. Thus, the li&eral appli"ation of the rule will favor &oth parties. 2n the &asis of the first "ondition enumerated in the 3eed of 'irst )ort#a#e, CA/T01 su&mits that )an-ana9s inde&tedness of + 3!1,$1 .!! was se"ured up to the e.tent of +1$5,555.55 only, to wit (p. ;5, Rollo)* This )ort#a#e is su&<e"t to the followin# terms and "onditions* l) The aforementioned inde&tedness of T,(00 ,@43(03 :I1TC6240 T,2@:A43 TF2 ,@43(03 0IA,T004 G !!H155 (+3!1,$1 .!!) of the )2(TAAA2( shall &e paid upon demand &y the )2(TAAA00B it &ein# e.pressly understood that the limit or ma.imum amount se"ured &y this mort#a#e is 240 ,@43(03 TF04TC T,2@:A43 +0:2: (+1$5,555.55) only. 2n the other hand, on the &asis of the fourth para#raph of the deed and the fourth "ondition therein, )an-ana "ontends that the whole outstandin# o&li#ation of +3!1,$1 .!! was se"ured &y the mort#a#e, to wit (pp. %96;5, Rollo)* 42F, T,0(0'2(0, for and in "onsideration of the said overdue, paya&le and demanda&le inde&tedness of the )2(TAAA2( to the )2(TAAA00 in the sum of T,(00 ,@43(03 :I1TC6 240 T,2@:A43 TF2 ,@43(03 0IA,T004 +0:2: G !!H155 (+3!1,$1 .!!), +hilippine Curren"y, the fore#oin# premises and other . . . and valua&le "onsiderations, and to se"ure the faithful performan"e &y the )2(TAAA2( of all the terms and "onditions hereinafter set forth, parti"ularly the payment of the o&li#ations here&y se"ured, the )2(TAAA2( does here&y "onvey 8C FAC 2' 'I(:T )2(TAAA0. ... . . ..

%) This mort#a#e shall remain in for"e to "over the afore6 mentioned mentioned outstandin# inde&tedness of the )2(TAAA2( to the )2(TAAA00 in the amount of T,(00 ,@43(03 :I30 240 T,2@:A43 TF2 ,@43(03 0IA,T004 +0:2: G !!H155 (+3!1,$1 .!!). Arti"le 137% of the Civil Code, re#ardin# interpretation of "ontra"ts, provides* A(T. 137%. The various stipulations of a "ontra"t shall &e interpreted to#ether, attri&utin# to the dou&tful ones that sense whi"h may result from all of them ta=en <ointly. The 3eed of 'irst )ort#a#e seems to "ontain provisions that "ontradi"t one another. ,owever, "onsiderin# all the provisions to#ether, the first "ondition "ited &y CA/T01 is a"tually a spe"ifi" provision while the fourth para#raph and the fourth "ondition "ited &y )an-ana are #eneral provisions. This interpretation is &olstered &y the third F,0(0A: "lause and the penultimate para#raph of the deed, to wit (pp. %96;5, Rollo)* F,0(0A:, the )2(TAAA2( has offered to e.e"ute, si#n and deliver a 'irst )ort#a#e over his property ..., only as partial security for the aforementioned overdue, paya&le and demanda&le inde&tedness of the )2(TAAA2( to the )2(TAAA00, whi"h offer of the )2(TAAA2( is a""epted &y the )2(TAAA00. (emphasis supplied) . . .. The )2(TAAA2( &inds himself to complete the securities reEuired &y the )2(TAAA00 and shall permit any authori-ed representative of the )2(TAAA00 to inspe"t the mort#a#ed property and all the properties offered to &e mort#a#ed to complete the required security.9 (emphasis supplied) Fe therefore hold that )an-ana9s inde&tedness of + 3!1,$1 .!! was se"ured up to the extent of P120 000.00 only. The re"ords show that CA/T01 e.tended to )an-ana a "ontinuin# "redit line, with the result that ea"h transa"tion "onstituted a separate o&li#ation. Fe affirm the trial "ourt9s rulin# with respe"t to the lia&ility of )an-ana to CA/T01 in the amount of

+$33,$1 .!! (+3;3,$1 .!! less +1$5,555.55) with interest thereon at 1$> per annum from Au#ust 17, 1975, plus $5> thereof as attorney9s fees. The eviden"e on re"ord, &oth testimonial and do"umentary, "learly support su"h amount of inde&tedness. The trial "ourt said (pp. 11%6 11;, Rollo)* +laintiffs "laim that as at (si") termination of a#reement on July $7, 1975, )an-ana had an outstandin# a""ount totallin# +3!1,$1 .!!, appears to &e "onfirmed &y the followin#* (1) 2n :eptem&er , 1975, defendant )an-ana, &y a letter, a"=nowled#ed his inde&tedness, &ut as=ed for time to pay the unpaid &alan"e (0.h. 9lD and D)D). ($) To se"ure as o&li#ation of + 3!1,$1 .!!, said defendant e.e"uted, on 2"to&er %, 19!9, a 3eed of 'irst )ort#a#e on a pie"e of land "overed &y 2.C.T. 4o. 5$7% of the (e#istry of 3eeds for Camarines 4orte (0.h. D4D) (arely "an a "onfirmation of an a""ount &e more definitive than the fore#oin#. 3efendant )an-ana9s defenses, set up in his answer, do not appear to have merit. In the first pla"e, the supposed la"= of liEuidation is &elied &y the periodi"al statements of a""ount showin# the "orrespondin# runnin# &alan"e thru the years 19! to 19!9 (0.hs. D4D to D267D inclusi!e), effe"tively "onstitutin# a form of liEuidation. :e"ondly, the very terms used repeatedly in the 3ealer A#reement I neither pleaded nor in any manner assailed as am&i#uous6are pe"uliar to pur"hase and sale transa"tions and to the relationship of the parties thereto as de&tor and "reditor. There is no reasona&le way under the provisions thereof that )an-ana "an &e deemed to &e either an a#ent or a mere "olle"tor with plaintiff &earin# the ris= of non6payment.D 'urthermore, this "ase has &een pendin# sin"e Au#ust 17,1975 and to order its remand to the trial "ourt will ne"essarily entail additional e.penses and unduly delay its disposition and the administration of <usti"e to the parties. (emand of the "ase to the lower "ourt for re"eption of eviden"e is not ne"essary if the :upreme Court "an resolve the dispute on the re"ords &efore it. The "ommon

denominator in "ases holdin# that remand of a "ase is not ne"essary is the fa"t that the trial "ourt had re"eived all the eviden"e intended to &e presented &y &oth parties (,e"hanova v. Court of Appeals, A.(. 4o. /6% 7 7 4ovem&er 1%, 19 !, 1%; :C(A ;;5). T,0 :@CC003I4A 3I:C@::I24 FI// C24C0(4 T,0 :0C@(03 I4308T0340:: 2' +1$5,555.55. CA/T01, in effe"t, has made a mo"=ery of our <udi"ial system when it initially filed a "olle"tion suit then, durin# the penden"y thereof fore"losed e.tra<udi"ially the mort#a#ed property whi"h se"ured the inde&tedness and still pursued the "olle"tion suit to the end. In this li#ht, the a"tuations of CA/T01 are deservin# of severe "riti"ism, to say the least. 2f importan"e is the do"trine laid down &y this "ourt in the leadin# "ase of "achrach #otor $nc. !. $caran%al et al., ! +hil. $ 7, whi"h was applied &y the respondent Court in resolvin# the "ase, where Fe ruled thatB ... in the a&sen"e of e.press statutory provisions, a mort#a#e "reditor may institute a#ainst the mort#a#e de&tor either a personal a"tion for de&t or a real a"tion to fore"lose the mort#a#e. In other words, he may pursue either of the two remedies, &ut not &oth. 8y su"h ele"tion, his "ause of a"tion "an &y no means &e impaired, for ea"h of the two remedies is "omplete in itself. Thus, an ele"tion to &rin# a personal a"tion will leave open to him all the properties of the de&tor for atta"hment and e.e"ution, even in"ludin# the mort#a#ed property itself. And, if he waives su"h personal a"tion and pursues his remedy a#ainst the mort#a#ed property, an unsatisfied <ud#ment thereon would still #ive him the ri#ht to sue for a defi"ien"y <ud#ment, in whi"h "ase, all the properties of the defendant, other than the mort#a#ed property, are a#ain open to him for the satisfa"tion of the defi"ien"y. In either "ase, his remedy is "omplete, his "ause of a"tion undiminished, and any advanta#es attendant to the pursuit of one or the other remedy are purely a""idental and are all under his ri#ht of ele"tion. ... Thus, where a de&t is se"ured &y a mort#a#e and there is a default in payment on the part of the mort#a#or, the mort#a#ee has a "hoi"e of one (1) of two ($) remedies, &ut he "annot have &oth. The mort#a#ee may* 1) fore"losure the mort#a#eB or

$) file an ordinary a"tion to "olle"t the de&t. Fhen the mort#a#ee "hooses the fore"losure of the mort#a#e as a remedy, he enfor"es his lien &y the sale on fore"losure of the mort#a#ed property. The pro"eeds of the sale will &e applied to the satisfa"tion of the de&t. Fith this remedy, he has a prior lien on the property. In "ase of a defi"ien"y, the mort#a#ee has the ri#ht to "laim for the defi"ien"y resultin# from the pri"e o&tained in the sale of the real property at pu&li" au"tion and the outstandin# o&li#ation at the time of the fore"losure pro"eedin#s (:oriano v. 0nriEue-, $% +hil. ; %B 8an"o de Islas 'ilipinas v. Con"ep"ion ,i<os, ;3 +hil. !B 8an"o 4a"ional v. 8arreto, ;3 +hil. 151).lwph1.t 2n the other hand, if the mort#a#ee resorts to an a"tion to "olle"t the de&t, he there&y waives his mort#a#e lien. ,e will have no more priority over the mort#a#ed property. If the <ud#ment in the a"tion to "olle"t is favora&le to him, and it &e"omes final and e.e"utory, he "an enfor"e said <ud#ment &y e.e"ution. ,e "an even levy e.e"ution on the same mort#a#ed property, &ut he will not have priority over the latter and there may &e other "reditors who have &etter lien on the properties of the mort#a#or. CA/T01 su&mits that the prin"iples enun"iated in the "achrach "ase are not appli"a&le nor determinative of the "ase at &ar for the reason that the fa"tual "ir"umstan"es o&tained in the said "ase are totally different from the instant "ase. In the "achrach "ase, the plaintiff instituted an a"tion to fore"lose the mort#a#e after the money <ud#ment in its favor remained unsatisfied whereas in the present "ase, CA/T01 initially filed a "omplaint for "olle"tion of the de&t and durin# the penden"y thereof fore"losed e.tra<udi"ially the mort#a#e. Fe disa#ree. Althou#h the fa"ts in the 8a"hra"h "ase and in the present "ase are not identi"al, there is similarity in the fa"t that the plaintiffs in these two "ases availed of &oth remedies althou#h they are entitled to a "hoi"e of only one. :0C243 I::@0 CA/T01 alle#es ne.t that the mere a"t of filin# a "olle"tion suit for the re"overy of a de&t se"ured &y real estate mort#a#e is not tantamount to an implied waiver of the mort#a#e lien. @nder +hilippine <urisdi"tion, there is no statute whi"h prohi&its or pre"ludes a mort#a#ee from su&seEuently fore"losin# the real estate mort#a#e shortly after the "olle"tion suit has &een filed. The real estate mort#a#e itself does

not "ontain any e.pli"it provision that the filin# of a "olle"tion suit would mean waiver of the remedy of fore"losure. Fe hold otherwise. The mere a"t of filin% a "olle"tion suit for the re"overy of a de&t se"ured &y a mort#a#e "onstitutes waiver of the other remedy of fore"losure. The rationale &ehind this was adeEuately e.plained in the "achrach "ase, supra* ... a rule that would authori-e the plaintiff to &rin# a personal a"tion a#ainst the de&tor and simultaneously or su""essively another a"tion a#ainst the mort#a#ed property, would result not only in multipli"ity of suits so offensive to <usti"e (:oriano vs. 0nriEues, $% +hil. ; %) and o&no.ious to law and eEuity (2sorio vs. :an A#ustin, $; +hil. %5%), &ut also in su&<e"tin# the defendant to the ve.ation of &ein# sued in the pla"e of his residen"e or of the residen"e of the plaintiff, and then a#ain in the pla"e where the property lies. In the present "ase, however, Fe shall not follow this rule to the letter &ut de"lare that it is the "olle"tion suit whi"h was waived andHor a&andoned. This rulin# is more in harmony with the prin"iples underlyin# our <udi"ial system. It is of no moment that the "olle"tion suit was filed ahead, what is determinative is the fa"t that the fore"losure pro"eedin#s ended even &efore the de"ision in the "olle"tion suit was rendered. As a matter of fa"t, CA/T01 informed the trial "ourt that it had already "onsolidated its ownership over the property, in its reply to the opposition of )an-ana to the motion for e.e"ution pendin# appeal filed &y it. A "orollary issue that Fe mi#ht as well resolve now (althou#h not raised as an issue in the present petition, &ut applyin# the rule in Aayos et al. v. Aayos et al., A.(. 4o. /6$7 1$, :eptem&er $!, 197;, !7 :C(A 1%!, that it is a "herished rule of pro"edure that a "ourt should always strive to settle the entire "ontroversy in a sin#le pro"eedin# leavin# no root or &ran"h to &ear the seeds of future liti#ation) is whether or not CA/T01 "an still sue for a defi"ien"y <ud#ment +155,555.55 (se"ured de&t of +1$5,555.55 less the fore"losure amount of +$5,555.55). The "olle"tion suit filed &efore the trial "ourt "annot &e "onsidered as a defi"ien"y <ud#ment &e"ause a defi"ien"y <ud#ment has &een defined as one for the &alan"e of the inde&tedness after applyin# the pro"eeds of the sale of the mort#a#ed property to su"h inde&tedness and is ne"essarily filed after the fore"losure pro"eedin#s. It is si#nifi"ant to note that the <ud#ment rendered &y the trial "ourt was for the full

amount of the inde&tedness and the "ase was filed prior to the fore"losure pro"eedin#s. In #eneral, a defi"ien"y <ud#ment is in the nature of an ordinary money <ud#ment, may "onstitute a "ause of a"tion and is &arred &y the statute of limitations appli"a&le to ordinary <ud#ment (;9 C.J.:. 1%97). The ten (15) year period provided in Arti"les 11%$ and 11%% of the Civil Code applies to a suit for defi"ien"y <ud#ment, to wit* Art. 11%$. A mort#a#e a"tion pres"ri&es after ten years. (19!%a) Art. 11%%. The followin# a"tions must &e &rou#ht with ten years from the time the ri#ht of a"tion a""rues* (1) @pon a written "ontra"tB ($) @pon an o&li#ation "reated &y lawB (3) @pon a <ud#ment. (n) A suit for the re"overy of the defi"ien"y after the fore"losure of a mort#a#e is in the nature of a mort#a#e a"tion &e"ause its purpose is pre"isely to enfor"e the mort#a#e "ontra"tB it is upon a written "ontra"t and upon an o&li#ation of )an-ana to pay the defi"ien"y whi"h is "reated &y law (see 3evelopment 8an= of the +hilippines v. Tomeldan et al., A.(. 4o. ;1$!9, 4ovem&er 17, 19 5, 151 :C(A 171). Therefore, sin"e more than ten (15) years have elapsed from the time the ri#ht of a"tion a""rued, CA/T01 "an no lon#er re"over the defi"ien"y from )an-ana. T,I(3 I::@0 CA/T01 has only one "ause of a"tion a#ainst )an-ana, that is, non6payment of the de&t althou#h two "hoi"es of remedies are availa&le to it. As held in the 8a"hra"h "ase, supra* 'or non6payment of a note se"ured &y mort#a#e, the "reditor has a sin#le "ause of a"tion a#ainst the de&tor. This sin#le "ause of a"tion "onsists in the re"overy of the "redit with e.e"ution of the se"urity. In other words, the "reditor in his a"tion may ma=e two demands, the payment of the de&t and the fore"losure of his mort#a#e. 8ut &oth demands arise from the same "ause, the non6 payment of the de&t, and, for that reason, they "onstitute a sin#le

"ause of a"tion. Thou#h the de&t and the mort#a#e "onstitute separate a#reements, the latter is su&sidiary to the former, and &oth refer to one and the same o&li#ation. ConseEuently, there e.ists only one "ause of a"tion for a sin#le &rea"h of that o&li#ation. +laintiff, then, &y applyin# the rule a&ove stated, "annot split up his sin#le "ause of a"tion &y filin# a "omplaint for payment of the de&t, and thereafter another "omplaint for fore"losure of the mort#a#e. If he does so, the filin# of the first "omplaint will &ar the su&seEuent "omplaint. 8y allowin# the "reditor to file two separate "omplaint simultaneously or su""essively, one to re"over his "redit and another to fore"lose his mort#a#e, we will, in effe"t, &e authori-in# him plural redress for a sin#le &rea"h of "ontra"t at so mu"h "ost to the "ourts and with so mu"h ve.ation and oppression to the de&tor. ACC2(3I4A/C, the resolution of the respondent Intermediate Appellate Court dated January 31,19 ! is :0T A:I30. The de"ision of the trial "ourt is A''I()03 with the )23I'ICATI24 that private respondent ,er&ert )an-ana9s lia&ility to petitioner Calte. +hilippines, In". is only up to the e.tent of +$33,$1 .!! with interest thereon at 1$> per annum from Au#ust 17, 1975, plus $5> thereof as attorney9s fees.