Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 128567 -

G.R. No. 128567 - HUERTA ALBA RESORT, INC., VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SYNDICATED MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Cited Laws

RA 337RA 1308,RA 337,RA 513RA 378,RA 37RA 826,RA 87RA 19,
Share:

TL;DR — Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the following: (1) P8,500,000.00 representing the principal of the amount due; (2) P850,000.00 as penalty charges with interest at 6% per annum, until fully paid; (3) 22% per annum interest on the above principal from September 6, 1998, until fully paid; (4) 5% of the sum total of the above amounts, as reasonable attorney’s fees; and, (5) Costs.

Decision

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the following: (1) P8,500,000.00 representing the principal of the amount due; (2) P850,000.00 as penalty charges with interest at 6% per annum, until fully paid; (3) 22% per annum interest on the above principal from September 6, 1998, until fully paid; (4) 5% of the sum total of the above amounts, as reasonable attorneys fees; and, (5) Costs. All the above must be paid within a period of not less than 150 days from receipt hereof by the defendant. In default of such payment, the four parcels of land subject matter of the suit including its improvements shall be sold to realize the mortgage debt and costs, in the manner and under the regulations that govern sales of real estate under execution. [1] Petitioner appealed the decision of the trial court to the Court of Appeals, the appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 39243 before the Sixth Division of the appellate court, which dismissed the case on June 29, 1993 on the ground of late payment of docket fees. Dissatisfied with the dismissal of CA-G.R. No. 39243, petitioner came to this Court via a petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 112044, which this court resolved to dismiss on December 13, 1993, on the finding that the Court of Appeals erred not in dismissing the appeal of petitioner. Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of its petition in G.R. No. 112044 was denied with finality in this Courts Resolution promulgated on February 16, 1994. On March 10, 1994, leave to present a second motion for reconsideration in G.R. No. 112044 or to submit the case for hearing by the Court en banc was filed, but to no avail. The Court resolved to deny the same on May 11, 1994. On March 14, 1994, the Resolution dated December 13, 1993, in G.R. No. 112044 became final and executory and was entered in the Book of Entries of Judgment. On July 4, 1994, private respondent filed with the trial court of origin a motion for execution of the Decision promulgated on April 30, 1992 in Civil Case No. 89-5424. The said motion was granted on July 13, 1994. Accordingly, on July 15, 1994 a writ of execution issued and, on July 20, 1994, a Notice of Levy and Execution was issued by the Sheriff concerned, who issued on August 1, 1994 a Notice of Sheriffs Sale for the auction of subject properties on September 6, 1994. On August 23, 1994, petitioner filed with the same trial court an Urgent Motion to Quash and Set Aside Writ of Execution ascribing to it grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned Writ of Execution. To support its motion, petitioner invited attention and argued that the records of the case were still with the Court of Appeals and therefore, issuance of the writ of execution was premature since the 150-day period for petitioner to pay the judgment obligation had not yet lapsed and petitioner had not yet defaulted in the payment thereof since no demand for its payment was made by the private respondent. In