G.R. No. L-25676. March 27, 1968
ROSENDA A. DE NUQUI, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. ILDEFONSO D. YAP, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
Appellant Ildefonso Yap was the
defendant in Civil Case 1907 filed in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental on July 17, 1956 by plaintiffs Rosenda
Nuqui, Sotero Dionisio, Jr., and the spouses Antolin
and Erlinda Diaz for the rescission of a
contract. This case was tried below
jointly with Civil Case No. 1774, which involved the same contract and wherein
Yap was also one of the defendants. On March
31, 1960, a joint decision was promulgated. With particular
reference to Civil Case 1907, the dispositive portion
thereof reads:[1]
x x x
“In Civil Case No. 1907 only –
“(1) Defendant Ildefonso
D. Yap is hereby ordered to restore to the plaintiffs in said case all the
buildings and grounds described in the Mutual Agreement together with all the
permanent improvements thereon;
“(2) To pay to the plaintiffs therein the amount of
P300.00 monthly from July 31, 1956 up to the time he shall have surrendered
the properties in question to the plaintiffs therein, plus P1,000.00 as
attorney’s fees to plaintiffs Antolin and Erlinda D. Diaz.”
x x x
On May 10, 1960,
plaintiffs in both Civil Cases moved for reconsideration requesting that legal
interest be imposed on the sums to be paid by defendant Yap. Sustaining partially this motion, the lower
court on May 14, 1960 n
issued an order, the pertinent portion of which recites:[2]
“The motion for reconsideration dated May 10, 1960 in the
sense that the Court uses its discretion to dispense the paying of interests is
partly granted, to the effect that the dispositive
part of the decision of this Court is hereby amended with respect to Civil Case
No. 1907 only, in the sense that defendant Yap should pay
interests at the legal rate with regard to the payment of the monthly rental of
P300.00 of July 31, 1986 the possession of the property in question therein
shall have been fully surrendered to the plaintiffs, plus attorney’s fee in
the amount of P1,000.000 to plaintiffs Rosenda A.D. Nuqui, Sotero Dionisio,
Jr., Erlinda Dionisio Diaz
and Antolin Diaz.” (Stressed for emphasis)
Subsequently, or on June 25, 1960 to be exact, defendant Yap
perfected his intended appeal in both civil cases to the Supreme Court with the
approval of the record on appeal.[3]
The motion for reconsideration of plaintiffs dated May 10, 1960 and the court
order of May 14, 1960 were included in said record on appeal.[4]
On February 26, 1965, this Court promulgated its decision[5]
in said appeal taken by defendant Yap.
The dispositive portion provides:
“WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified by
eliminating therefrom the award of attorney’s fees of
P1,000.00 in favor of Erlinda
D. Diaz and her husband, plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1907, and the award of
nominal and exemplary damages in Civil Case No. 1774; and making the award of
attorney’s fees in the sum of P2,000.00 payable to counsel for the account of the
Mindanao Academy, Inc., instead of the plaintiff stockholders. In all other
respects the judgment appealed from is affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.”
(Stressed for emphasis)
Thereafter, plaintiffs in Civil Case 1907 only filed on July 25,
1965, a motion for the satisfaction of all money judgments against defendant
Yap alleging that out of a total award of P42,460.75,[6]
defendant had paid only the sum of P32,400.00 thus still leaving an unsatisfied
balance of P10,060.75. Over appellant’s opposition, the lower court on
September 3, 1965, granted the motion but directed that appellant should only
deposit the sum of P1,935.00 as the legal interest on
the total amount of rentals. The request
for attorney’s fees was denied pursuant to the Supreme Court decision.
Plaintiffs and defendant subsequently moved for reconsideration. The lower court, on October 1, 1965, denied
both motions.
Plaintiffs pressed further with a second motion to reconsider
praying that appellant be ordered to pay the sum of P8,748.00
representing the legal interests that had accrued since July 31,,1956 pursuant
to the court order of May 14, 1960. Over
appellant’s opposition again, the lower court on October 21, 1965, granted
plaintiff’s motion and ordered appellant to deposit the sum of P8,740.30 as legal interest within three days from
notification.
Hence, this direct appeal by appellant Yap questioning the court
a quo’s orders of September 3, 1965, October 1, 1965 and October
21, 1965. It is appellant’s principal
submission that the judgment in Civil Case 1907 which became final and executory did not provide for payment of legal interest.
The appeal is without merit.
Appellant would have this Court overlook and disregard the lower court’s
order of May 14, 1960 which expressly amended and modified the judgment
rendered on March 31, 1960 by directing the former to pay legal interest
starting July 31, 1956. Said court’s
authority to modify its judgment is not challenged and it cannot be challenged
for the modification was made before the appeal was perfected. In fact, this order of May 14, 1960 was even included in the record on
appeal submitted in G.R. No. L-17681-82 hut appellant failed to raise any
question regarding the same in said case, although he should have done so. Plaintiffs, as the prevailing parties, could
not be expected to raise any question regarding the same.
Appellant would also refer this Court to Cordovero
v. Villaruz, 46 Phil. 473 and Robles v. Timario, G.R. No. L-13911, April 28, 1960 in support of the proposition that there was no effective
modification of the original judgment since the lower court never set aside nor
revoked the same. We know of no
rule requiring that when a court partially reconsiders its judgment, which is
not yet final or subject of a perfected appeal, the former judgment must first
be totally revoked and a new judgment be rendered. Neither are We
impressed by the cases cited. In Cordovero v. Villaruz, it was
ruled, inter alia, that where a new
trial is granted, the former decision must be revoked. In the case at bar, no new trial was granted
for none was sought. In sustaining
plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider, the lower court therefore did not have to
revoke totally its former judgment. In
Robles v. Timario, the judgment of the lower court,
which inadvertently omitted the imposition of interest, had already become
final and it was only in the order of execution that attempt was made to cure
the oversight. This Court ruled there
that said oversight should have been cured prior to the finality of the
judgment. In the case at bar, however,
the judgment was modified prior to the perfection of the appeal, and while the
lower court still had control over said judgment.
WHEREFORE, the orders appealed from are hereby affirmed,
with treble costs to be paid by appellant Yap’s
counsel.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, Acting C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Castro, J., did not take part.
Concepcion, C.J., on leave.
[1]
Record on Appeal, pp. 36-37.
[2] Record
on Appeal, pp. 39-40.
[3]
See Record on Appeal filed in Mindanao Academy, Inc. v. Yap,
L-17681-82, Feb. 26, 1965,
p. 143.
[4]
See, at pp. 141-143.
[5]
Mindanao Academy, Inc. v. Yap, L-17681-82, Feb. 26, 1965.
[6]
This is the aggregate of the following, items: (1) P32,550,
the monthly rental of P300 for 108.5 months; (2) P8,- 910.75, legal interest
from July 31, 1956 until July 15, 1965; and (3) P1,000 as
attorney’s fees.