Case Digest (G.R. No. L-33438)
Facts:
Republic Resources and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals and United Geophysical Company, S.A. (Costa Rica), G.R. No. L-33438, October 28, 1991, Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.
The plaintiff‑appellee, United Geophysical Company, S.A. (Costa Rica), successor‑in‑interest to United Geophysical Company, S.A. (Venezuela), entered into a seismograph service contract dated December 15, 1959 with Republic Resources and Development Corporation (the defendant/petitioner). Under the contract (effective January 1960 for a minimum of 12 months) the contractor was to perform geophysical surveys for a fee of US$23,000 per month, one‑half payable in U.S. dollars and one‑half in Philippine pesos; the defendant also agreed to reimburse return costs at cost plus 5%.
The defendant paid in full the peso portion for 1960 and paid dollar fees from January to July 1960 and part of August 1960, but failed to pay the remaining dollar obligations and certain return costs; the unpaid balance was stated as U.S.$38,622.66, of which U.S.$10,000 was paid on November 8, 1963 and further settlement overtures failed, leaving a balance alleged to be U.S.$28,622.66. On January 11, 1965 the plaintiff sued to recover the balance.
At trial (Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XVI) the plaintiff presented its evidence after the defendant and its counsel repeatedly failed to appear on scheduled dates (April 2, 1966; December 8, 1966) and after unsuccessful postponement attempts to secure a foreign deposition; the trial court reopened the case once but ultimately ordered the case submitted on the plaintiff’s evidence. On March 20, 1967 the court rendered judgment ordering defendant to pay U.S.$28,622.66 converted into Philippine pesos at the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of payment, with legal interest from November 8, 1962, plus bank transmission charges, P5,000 and 20% of the amount due as attorney’s fees; the counterclaim was dismissed.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on January 26, 1971 affirmed the trial court’s judgment except that it reduced attorney’s fees to P10,000 (C.A.-G.R. No. 41351‑R). Petitioner received the CA decision on January 27, 1971; its motions for reconsideration were denied and it filed a petition for review under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May a petitioner raise before the Supreme Court issues that were not assigned as errors in the lower courts?
- Should petitioner’s U.S. dollar obligation be converted into Philippine pesos at the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of payment?
- Did the Court correctly fix interest on the unpaid obligation as runn...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)