MAXIMO PLENO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND MANILA GAS CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition to review and reverse the decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 64767-R promulgated on January 22, 1981, which absolved the
Manila Gas Corporation from paying interest on a money claim to the plaintiff
who is the petitioner herein.

The factual and legal
antecedents are stated in the decision sought to be reviewed.  They are:

“The basic action in the instant case was filed by Maximo Pleno, hereinafter
referred to as the plaintiff, against Manila Gas Corporation, hereinafter
referred to as defendant, for sum of money. 
Plaintiff had been an employee of the Manila Gas Corporation and was
separated from the service effective July
16, 1954 following an administrative case instituted by the de­fendant
against the plaintiff.  He appealed the
decision to the Office of the President and on October 10, 1956, the
defendant’s decision was modified in the sense that the plaintiff was merely
considered resigned with right to salary on date of his suspension to the date
of receipt of the money value of his accumulated vacation and sick leave.  Following receipt of such decision from the
Of­fice of the President, plaintiff made motions for the implementation thereof
to no avail until finally he filed the basic complaint on November 15, 1976.  The defendant in their answer denied the
material allegations of the plaintiff and in the trial before the court a
quo, it pleaded as its principal defense the fact that the cause of
plaintiff against the defendant had already prescribed.  After the issues were joined, trial proceeded
and the court a quo dismissed the complaint on April 22, 1977.  Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was
also denied on July 5, 1977.

“The petitioners challenged the foregoing order in a Petition
for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. No. SP-06926.  In the resolution thereof, this Court found
that the cause of the plaintiff did not prescribe.  It consequently annulled and set aside the
challenged orders ‘insofar as they dismiss petitioners’ action to enforce the
decision of the Office of the President dated October 10, 1956.’ Upon the remand of the records to the
court of origin, the de­fendant immediately complied by paying the plaintiff
the sum of P24,672.83. 
The check representing the amount was received by the plaintiff in open
court on November 21, 1978.  The plaintiff, however, reserved the right to
demand interest which the defendant denied. 
After the matter was sufficiently discussed before the court of origin,
the court a quo rendered judgment for the plaintiff as follows:

‘Interest at the rate of 6% per annum commenced to accrue upon the
principal of P24,672.83 on May 30, 1957, until July 29, 1974, when legal
interest became 12% in ac­cordance with Central Bank Circular No. 416 issued pursuant to Presidential Decrees Nos.
116 and 858.  The interest at 6% for a
period of from May 30, 1957 to July 29, 1974 a period of 17 years, 1 month and 29 days, amounts to P25,408.90, while interest of 12% from July 29, 1974, up to the
filing of the complaint on November 15, 1976, a period of 2 years, 3 months,
and 16 days, totals P6,793.19.  The
amount due the plaintiff on interest alone on the date of the institution of
this suit was P32,202. 09.

‘Award of attorney’s fees as damages is a matter of discretion on the part of the Court ( De la Cruz v.
Cruz, 32 SCRA 307, Kalao v. Luz, 34 SCRA 337).  Where a party prosecutes or defends a case not unfounded or
maliciously but in good faith, as the defendant had done in contesting
the claim of the plaintiff on its
in­terpretation of the law, the Court is
justified in refusing assessment of attorney’s fees (Ramos v. Ramos, 61 SCRA 284,306).

‘Premises considered, the Court
hereby sentences the Manila Gas Corporation to pay Maximo
Pleno an additional amount of P32,202.09 with interest
at 12% from November 15, 1976,
until same is paid.

‘SO ORDERED.’

“From the said judgment, both parties–litigants appealed x x x.

“Upon the foregoing, the principal, issue to be resolved is whether
the court a quo erred in awarding interest in favor of Pleno.

“It did.  The decision of this Court in CA-G.R. No.
SP-06926 clearly stated that –

‘WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby ren­dered annulling and setting
aside the questioned orders of respondent Court, dated April 22, 1977 and July 5, 1977, insofar as
they dismiss petitioner’s action
to enforce the decision of the Office of the President dated October 10,
1956.’

“From the said dispositive portion of the decision the appellant Manila
Gas Corporation contends that since the
Court a quo did not
assess any interest payment, there should
have been no interest assessment in the judgment appealed from.  We agree. 
The decision of the Court of Appeals required the enforcement of the
decision of the Office of the President dated October 10, 1956.  The
said decision sought to be enforced categorically states – ‘In view thereof,
you are hereby considered resigned effective upon receipt hereof, with right to
salary from date of your suspension to the date of receipt hereof and to the
money value of your accumulated vacation and sick-leaves.’ The de­cision of the
Court of Appeals was silent regarding interest. 
The decision became final and executory.  The modification sought is substantial.  It cannot be done.  The appellant Pleno
should have sought re­consideration of this Court’s decision.  His failure to do so is waiver on his part.

“The alleged delay in his payment of the obligation is of no
moment considering that the decision of this court acquired finality without it having been modified on
time.  Our Supreme Court in Robles vs. Timario, 107 Phil. 809, held that no interest payment could be enforced on the judgment sought
to be executed since the judgement of the
Court of Appeals did not advert to
the payment of such interest. x x x.
“

We cannot accept the rationale
and decision of the Court of Appeals. 
The rationale is that since its decision in CA-G.R. No. SP-06926 “was silent regarding interest” and the same
having become “final and executory” without the petitioner (Maximo Pleno) therein filing a motion for reconsideration, an award of interest would substantially modify the final judgment something which cannot be done under the doctrine laid down in Robles vs. Timario, 107 Phil. 809 [1960].

We do not believe that Robles vs. Timario
is applicable to the case at bar and that
the award of interest to the petitioner Pleno
will have the effect of modifying the judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-06926 because the only issue decided in that case was whether or not Pleno’s
claim against Manila Gas Corporation had prescribed.  The Court of Appeals was not asked to
determine and in fact did not determine whether or not Pleno
was entitled to the amount claimed by him and for this reason the same court
could not have made any pronouncement with respect to interest due on his claim.  The Court of Appeals’ judgment which attained finality merely reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered annulling and setting
aside the questioned orders of „respondent Court, dated April 22, 1977 and July 5, 1977, insofar as they dismiss petitioner’s action
to enforce the decision of the Office of the President dated October
10, 1956.”

It is indubitable that
as early as October 10, 1956,
the Office of
the President had ordered the payment of the petitioner’s salary and the money value of his vacation and sick leaves.  For reasons of its own, the Manila
Gas Corporation refused to comply with the order of the Office of the President.  It was
only after the petitioner had
resorted to judicial relief that
the Manila Gas Corporation paid on
November 21, 1978 the amount due to him or after the lapse of more than
twenty-two (22) years. 
What the Manila Gas
Corporation did is contrary to
compassion and humanism so ably expounded and practiced by the First Lady –
Madame Imelda R. Marcos.

WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be well-taken, the same is hereby granted; the decision of the
Court of Appeals is reversed and
that of the Court of First Instance of Manila awarding interest to the petitioner is affirmed, with costs against the private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez,* and
De Castro, JJ., concur.

*
Justice Ramon C. Aquino did not take part because
Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino of the Court of Appeals
concurred in the decision under review and Justice Ramon C. Fernandez was
designated to take part accordingly.