Title
Government Service Insurance System vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 103590
Decision Date
Jan 29, 1993
QRSI contracted Valencia for land development; GSIS held funds for QRSI. Trial court ordered GSIS to pay Valencia, but SC ruled GSIS liable only for retained funds at 6% interest, rejecting higher rates and attorney’s fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 103590)

Facts

  1. GSIS loaned QRSI funds for the development of 4,493 housing units in Molino, Bacoor, Cavite.
  2. QRSI contracted with Valencia for construction phases and failed to pay upon completion.
  3. Valencia sued QRSI and GSIS in Civil Case No. BCV-78-33, prayed for preliminary attachment, and proved his claim at trial.
  4. On March 2, 1982, the RTC rendered judgment ordering QRSI to pay Valencia specified sums with legal interest and directing GSIS to hold retained funds as payment on QRSI’s obligation, without personal liability beyond those retentions.

Procedural History

– Valencia moved for execution pending appeal but no appeal or reconsideration was filed by QRSI or GSIS.
– Writs of execution returned unsatisfied; Valencia filed for examination of GSIS debtors and contempt proceedings against GSIS officials.
– GSIS partially paid ₱154,476.14 on November 26, 1982, pending resolution of its motion for reconsideration.
– Multiple alias writs and garnishment notices were issued (1983–1986); GSIS contended it owed QRSI funds, not vice versa.
– RTC in July 1985 and May 1986 ordered GSIS to pay retained funds to Valencia and a co-claimant, denying GSIS’s claims of set-off.
– GSIS appealed by certiorari to the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 09956); CA dismissed GSIS’s petition, holding the March 1982 decision final and GSIS’s compensation defense waived by partial payment.
– SC denied GSIS’s Rule 45 petition (G.R. No. 87980) in November 1989 and January 1990 resolutions.
– Valencia moved for another writ of execution; RTC on June 7 and September 10, 1990 set interest rates at 12–21% p.a. per Central Bank circulars and imposed attorney’s fees.
– GSIS petitioned the CA again (CA-G.R. SP No. 24021) via certiorari under Rule 65, challenging the tenor of the execution orders.

Issues

  1. Whether the CA’s resolution of January 15, 1992 improperly applied res judicata and estoppel to bar GSIS’s petition.
  2. Whether the RTC orders of June 7 and September 10, 1990 varied the tenor of the original judgment by imposing higher interest rates and attorney’s fees beyond the scope of its March 2, 1982 disposition.
  3. Whether the legal rate of interest on the March 1982 judgment is six percent (6%) per annum under Article 2209 of the Civil Code and not the ceilings prescribed by Central Bank Circulars.
  4. Whether GSIS’s partial payment estops it from contesting interest rates or its liability beyond retention funds.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

  1. Res judicata and estoppel do not apply. Prior CA Decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 09956) and SC Resolution (G.R. No. 87980) did not address the interest-rate issue or the variation of the judgment’s tenor; they only confirmed finality, the availability of GSIS funds, and waiver of set-off. Identity of issues is lacking.
  2. The June 7/September 10, 1990 orders varied the dispositive tenor of the March 2, 1982 decision by:
    a. Imposing interest and attorney’s fees not directed in the original judgment.
    b. Extending GSIS’s liability beyond the “retained and obtained” funds for QRSI, contrary to the proviso that GSIS “shall not be personally liable…except as herein above-ordered.”
    c. Neglecting to inquire into the exact amount of retentions GSIS held before enforcing beyond that limit.
  3. The legal interest rate on the sums adjudged against QRSI is six percent (6%) per annum under Article 2209, Civil Code. Central Ba








...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.