Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
——o0o——
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
276
277
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
Before us is a petition for review under Rule 45, seeking to
nullify and set aside the Decision1 and Resolution dated November
6, 2003 and July 6, 2004, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. SP No. 75688. The impugned CA Decision and
Resolution denied the petition for certiorari interposed by petitioners
assailing the Resolutions2 dated November 6, 2002 and January 7,
2003, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11 in
Sindangan, Zamboanga Del Norte in Civil Case No. S-494, a suit for
winding up of partnership affairs, accounting, and recovery of shares
commenced thereat by respondent Lamberto T. Chua.
The Facts
_______________
278
_______________
279
Via an Order6 dated January 16, 2002, the RTC granted Chua’s
motion for execution. Over a month later, the RTC, acting on
another motion of Chua, issued an amended writ of execution.7
It seems, however, that the amended writ of execution could not
be immediately implemented, for, in an omnibus motion of April 3,
2002, Chua, inter alia, asked the trial court to commission a certified
public accountant (CPA) to undertake the accounting work and
inventory of the partnership assets if petitioners refuse to do it
within the time set by the court. Chua later moved to withdraw his
motion and instead
_______________
5 Id., at p. 38.
6 Id., at p. 72.
7 Id., at pp. 73-76.
280
281
SO RESOLVED.”13
_______________
13 Id.
14 Id., at p. 91.
15 Id., at pp. 93-112.
16 Supra note 1, at p. 45.
282
ers had come to the appellate court at least thrice and to this Court
twice. Petitioners had more than enough time to question the award
and it is now too late in the day to change what had become final
and executory.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was rejected by the
appellate court through the assailed Resolution17 dated July 6, 2004.
Therein, the CA explained that the imposition of the 12% interest for
forbearance of credit or money was proper pursuant to paragraph 1
of the October 7, 1997 RTC decision, as the computation done by
CPA Gahuman was made in “acceptable form under accounting
procedures and standards of the properties, assets, income and
profits of [Shellite].”18 Moreover, the CA ruled that the imposition
of interest is not based on par. 3 of the October 7, 1997 RTC
decision as the phrase “shares and interests” mentioned therein
refers not to an imposition of interest for use of money in a loan or
credit, but to a legal share or right. The appellate court also held that
the imposition of interest on the partnership assets falls under par. 2
in relation to par. 1 of the final RTC decision as the restitution
mentioned therein does not simply mean restoration but also
reparation for the injury or damage committed against the rightful
owner of the property.
Finally, the CA declared the partnership assets referred to in the
final decision as “liquidated claim” since the claim of Chua is
ascertainable by mathematical computation; therefore, interest is
recoverable as an element of damage.
The Issues
_______________
283
I.
Whether or not the Regional Trial Court can [impose] interest on a
final judgment of unliquidated claims.
II.
Whether or not the Sheriff can enforce the whole divisible obligation
under judgment only against one Defendant.
III.
Whether or not the absolute community of property of spouses
Lilibeth Sunga Chan with her husband Norberto Chan can be
lawfully made to answer for the liability of Lilibeth Chan under the
judgment.19
_______________
19 Id., at p. 175.
20 Id., at pp. 304-307.
21 Id., at p. 92, Minutes of Sale.
22 Id., at pp. 256-257.
284
_______________
285
Petitioners, citing Article 221328 of the Civil Code, fault the trial
court for imposing, in the execution of its final judgment, interests
on what they considered as unliquidated claims. Among these was
the claim for goodwill upon which the RTC attached a monetary
value of PhP 250,000. Petitioners also question the imposition of
12% interest on the claimed monthly profits of PhP 35,000,
reckoned from 1988 to October 15, 1992. To petitioners, the
imposable rate should only be 6% and computed from the finality of
the RTC’s underlying decision, i.e., from December 20, 2001.
Third on the petitioners’ list of unliquidated claims is the yet-to-
be established value of the one-half partnership share and interest
adjudicated to Chua, which, they submit, must first be determined
with reasonable certainty in a judicial proceeding. And in this
regard, petitioners, citing Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals,29 would ascribe error on the RTC for adding a 12% per
annum interest on the approved valuation of the one-half share of
the assets, inclusive of goodwill, due Chua.
Petitioners are partly correct.
For clarity, we reproduce the summary valuations and accounting
reports on the computation of claims certified to by the parties’
respective CPAs. Chua claimed the following:
A 50% share on assets (exclusive of goodwill) at
fair market value (Schedule 1) P1,613,550.00
_______________
E Damages 50,000.00
F Attorney’s fees 25,000.00
G Litigation fees 25,000.00
TOTAL AMOUNT P8,733,644.75
287
_______________
288
the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest,
which is six per cent per annum.”
_______________
31 Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., supra note 29, at pp. 93-94; citing Black’s Law Dictionary
644 (1990).
32 Id., at p. 94.
33 Id., at p. 92; citing Florendo v. Ruiz, G.R. No. 60225, May 8, 1992, 208 SCRA 542;
Reformina, supra note 30.
34 Id., at pp. 94-95.
289
_______________
290
291
VOL. 555, JUNE 25, 2008 291
Sunga-Chan vs. Court of Appeals
_______________
292
293
For the other, the duty of petitioners to remit to Chua his half
interest and share of the total partnership assets proceeds from
petitioners’ indivisible obligation to render an accounting and
inventory of such assets. The need for the imposition of a solidary
liability becomes all the more pronounced considering the
impossibility of quantifying how much of the partnership assets or
profits was misappropriated by each petitioner.
And for a third, petitioners’ obligation for the payment of
damages and attorney’s and litigation fees ought to be solidary in
nature, they having resisted in bad faith a legitimate claim and thus
compelled Chua to litigate.
294
_______________
295
(2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the
designated administrator-spouse for the benefit of the community, or by
both spouses, or by one spouse with the consent of the other.
(3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the
consent of the other to the extent that the family may have been
benefited.” (Emphasis ours.)
296