d2015member

Soriamont Steamship v. Sprint Transport (2009) Chico-Nazario, J. Soriamont is a corporation providing services as a receiving agent for line load contractor vessels. o Ronas is its general manager Sprint is a corporation engaged in transport services. o Its co-respondent Ricardo Papa (Papa) is engaged in the trucking business under the business name Papa Transport Services (PTS)

SPRINT files COMPLAINT Sprint filed with the RTC a complaint against Soriamont and Ronas. Sprint alleged: a) Soriamont rented from Sprint some chassis units for the transport of container vans; b) With authorization by Ronas, PTS and another trucker, Rebson Trucking, were able to withdraw from the container yard of Sprint, two chassis units c) Soriamont and Ronas failed to pay rental fees for the subject d) Sprint was informed by Ronas of the purported loss of the equipment e) Despite demands, Soriamont and Ronas failed to pay the rental and to replace or return the equipment. Sprint wants from Soriamont: o Some amount (about P53k) as interest and penalties o Actual damages (unpaid rentals + replacement of lost equipment) o Some amount equivalent to 25% of the total amount claimed for (why 25%? Case didnt say) o Atty fees o Costs of the suit SORIAMONT files COUNTERCLAIM Admitted to the lease agreement but only on certain dates ( Oct 1993 to Jan 1994) and not anymore on some dates (Dec 1993) as alleged in Sprints complaint Soriamont is not a party in interest since it was PTS and Rebson Trucking that withdrew the equipment from the container yard SORIAMONT files THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against PTS rd Filed a 3 party complaint because PTS and Rebson were the ones who withdrew the equipment RTC:

Papa failed to answer so it was declared in default Soriamont liable for claim of Sprint Ronas and Papa both have no liability Reason: Soriamont authorized PTS to withdraw the equipment

RTC awards to Sprint: Value of the 2 chasis equipment with INTEREST at the legal rate from filing of the complaint The unpaid rentals with INTEREST at the legal rate from the filing of the complaint Atty fees Rate of INTEREST increased to 12% per annum once decision becomes final and executor CA: Affirmed with MODIFICATION: Rate of legal INTEREST per annum on both the value of the two chassis equipment, and on the unpaid rentals, is 6% to be increased to 12% from finality of decision (sorry, I dont get how that modified the RTC decision they both said 12%)

-------------------------------------------------------------Issue: Is Soriamont liable?? -------------------------------------------------------------Held: Yes -------------------------------------------------------------Ratio: Re: Interest Adjustment of the applicable rate of legal interest on the value of the equipment, and on the unpaid rentals is proper and with legal basis. Under NCC 2209 when an obligation not constituting a loan or forbearance of money is breached, then an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. The monetary judgment in favor of Sprint does not involve a loan or forbearance of money; hence, the proper imposable rate of interest is 6% percent.

d2015member

As in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. CA, the interim period from the finality of the judgment awarding a monetary claim until payment, is deemed to be equivalent to a forbearance of credit.

Rules as explained by the Eastern Shipping case: When an obligation is breached, the contravenor can be held liable for damages . With regard to an award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual, is imposed, as follows: When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money: I.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. The interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of NCC 1169 of the Civil Code. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money: An interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest on unliquidated claims or damages except when or until the demand can be established. Where the demand is established, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (NCC 1169) BUT when such certainty cannot be reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executor: Rate of legal interest shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, Interim period being deemed to be an equivalent to a forbearance of credit. ---- Consistent with the jurisprudence, and affirmed in more recent cases, when the judgment awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, o Interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent of a forbearance of credit. o From the time the judgment becomes final until its full satisfaction, the applicable rate of legal interest shall be 12%

Re: Evidence Soriamont anchors its defense on its denial that it authorized PTS to withdraw the equipment from the container yard of Sprint Soriamont admits that the authorization letter dated was under its letterhead, however, letter was actually meant for and sent to Harman Foods as shipper. And Harman was the one who tasked PTS to withdraw SC says: Soriamont is essentially challenging the sufficiency of the evidence that PTS withdrew the subject equipment. In effect, it is raising questions of fact. Only questions of law blah blah.. But given that Soriamont is precisely that the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record, SC accommodatea Soriamont by going over the same evidence considered by the CA and RTC The burden is on Soriamont to prove its allegation that PTS acted in any manner in excess of its authority as agent, thus, resulting in the loss of the equipment. BUT as the CA and the RTC found Soriamont did not adduce any evidence to prove that allegation. The only thing proven was that Soriamont, through PTS, withdrew the two chassis units from Sprint, and that these have never been returned to Sprint. Petition denied.