G.R. No. 109269 - BAYER PHILIPPINES, INC., VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER THIRTEENTH DIVISION AND CASIMIRO BOMPAT.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: I. On the complaint, sentencing defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P52,500.00 compounded monthly as of March 7, 1984, which amount may be set off from the award in favor of the defendant. II. On the counterclaims, sentencing plaintiff to pay defendant the following sums: P377,600.00 for rental of the drums of bayluscide, with legal interest of 12% per annum from May 4, 1984, until fully paid; P100,000.00 for actual damages, with similar interest; P30,000.00 for moral damages; P10,000.00 for attorney's fees and litigation expenses." Both parties appealed to the respondent Court of Appeals. The respondent Court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, with the modification that: 1) defendant-appellant is ordered to pay plaintiff-appellant the sum of P112,482.13 plus interest thereon at 14% compounded per annum from default (March 7, 1984), until fully paid; and 2) plaintiff-appellant is ordered to pay defendant-appellant the sum of P50,000.00 as and for actual damages, the Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects." Motions for reconsideration filed respectively by both parties were denied by the respondent court in a resolution dated March 3, 1993. Dissatisfied, petitioner Bayer Philippines, Inc. filed this present petition submitting seven assignment of errors which may be simplified into whether or not the respondent court erred: (1) in awarding 14% compounded interest to petitioner only from March 7, 1984, the date of the filing of the complaint; (2) in not awarding attorney's fees which was stipulated upon by the parties in their promissory note; (3) in treating respondent's counterclaim as compulsory in nature which would not require payment of docket fees; and (4) in granting private respondent's counterclaims. Petitioner first contends that since the respondent Court found that private respondent's indebtedness stood at P112,482.13 as of January 31, 1984, the computation of interest at 14% compounded per annum should start from January 31, 1984 and not from March 7, 1984 (the date of filing of the complaint). We do not agree. Private respondent's total outstanding obligation in the amount of P112,482.13 based on the statement of account dated January 31, 1984 prepared by petitioner, took into account among others, the stipulated 14% compounded interest; thus, the interest that accrued prior to the date of the filing of the complaint had been consolidated as of that date with the capital, after which the whole bears interest at the contract rate until the amount is paid. Thus, the respondent court did not err in computing the 14% compounded interest from judicial demand, i.e., the date when the complaint was filed, which was on March 7, 1984. We also do not find merit in petitioner's claim that it is entitled to the award of attorney's fees. We uphold private respondent's contention that peti