Case Digest (G.R. No. 97006)
Facts:
Ernesto F. Roldan and Marietta A. Roldan v. The Court of Appeals and Commercial Credit Corporation of Davao, G.R. No. 97006, February 09, 1993, the Supreme Court Second Division, Nocon, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Ernesto and Marietta Roldan purchased fifteen trucks on installment from private respondent Commercial Credit Corporation of Davao on June 7, 1971 for P1,250,000.00. When the Roldans defaulted, Commercial Credit Corporation sued them on November 21, 1981. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15, Davao City, rendered judgment on July 28, 1987 ordering the defendants to pay various sums, including (4) "Attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of the total amount due in favor of the plaintiff," plus liquidated damages, past due charges, interest and costs.
The Roldans appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in CA-G.R. CV No. 15939, dismissed their appeal for lack of merit on September 28, 1990; their motion for reconsideration was denied on January 7, 1991. The Roldans then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court contesting (a) the purportedly exorbitant attorney's fees awarded, (b) the excessiveness of liquidated damages, and (c) usurious interest charged. The Court noted that, as a Rule 45 petition, issues of fact resolved by the Court of Appeals are generally binding on the Court and confined the controversy primarily to the reasonableness and computation of the attorney's fees.
The record also contained correspondence from November 1990 between counsel for the Roldans and counsel for Commercial Credit Corporation reflecting settlement negotiations: proposals for downpayments and property transfers, and letters from respondent's counsel insisting on immediate pa...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under a Rule 45 petition, are the trial court's and Court of Appeals' factual findings on liquidated damages and usurious interest binding on the Supreme Court?
- Was the attorney's fees award of P577,320.20 (derived by applying 25% to the total amount claimed by respondent's counsel) unconscionable or improperly computed and therefore subject to reduction; and if so, what is th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)