Title
Source: Supreme Court
Lara's Gifts and Decors, Inc. vs. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 225433
Decision Date
Sep 20, 2022
Lara's Gifts purchased materials from Midtown, issued dishonored checks, and claimed substandard quality. Courts upheld Midtown's claim, validating 24% interest but removed legal interest on compensatory interest as excessive.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 225433)

Petitioner

Lara’s Gifts & Decors, Inc., purchaser of industrial and construction materials.

Respondent

Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc., seller and creditor.

Key Dates

• Purchases: January–December 2007 (P 1,263,104.22 on 60-day credit)
• Demand letter: January 21, 2008
• Complaint filed (Judicial demand): February 5, 2008
• RTC Decision: January 27, 2014
• CA Decision: April 21, 2016
• SC Decision: August 28, 2019 (denying petition, adding legal interest)
• Motion for Reconsideration filed thereafter
• SC Resolution: September 20, 2022

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution (SC appellate jurisdiction)
• Civil Code (Arts. 1169, 1306, 1308, 1956, 1959, 2209, 2212)
• Usury Law (Act 2655, as amended by P.D. 116)
• Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular 799 (6% p.a. legal rate post-July 1, 2013)

Factual Background

Lara’s Gifts purchased on 60-day credit various materials from Midtown, agreeing to 24% p.a. interest on overdue accounts. Payment by post-dated checks failed. Midtown demanded payment and sued for sum of money with prayer for attachment.

Procedural History

• RTC: Held invoices genuine, materials conformed; granted Midtown P1,263,104.22 + 24% p.a. from Feb 5, 2008 + P50,000 attorney’s fees + costs.
• CA: Affirmed RTC decision.
• SC (2019): Denied petition; affirmed CA but added legal interest (12% until June 30, 2013; 6% thereafter) on the 24% conventional interest.
• Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration challenges the general denial rule, demand requirement, substandard-materials claim, validity of 24% interest, and the added legal interest.

Issues

  1. Whether petitioner’s general denial admitted invoices.
  2. Whether petitioner proved materials substandard.
  3. Whether 24% stipulated interest is void for unconscionability.
  4. Whether legal interest on conventional interest may be imposed.

Supreme Court Resolution

• On issues 1–3: Reiterated that (a) general denial equates to admission of invoices; (b) substandard-materials allegation unproven; (c) 24% p.a. interest valid and binding.
• On issue 4: Deleted the additional award of legal interest on the 24% conventional interest as ultra vires—Midtown did not appeal the RTC decision which did not award such interest; the added award was not put at issue below.

Doctrinal Clarification (Civil Code under 1987 Constitution)

• Conventional (stipulated) vs. compensatory (legal) interest must be distinguished.
• Civil Code Art. 2209 provides 6% p.a. legal indemnity for delay in payment of any sum of money in absence of valid stipulation.
• Civil Code Art. 2212 (“interest on interest”) applies when there is a valid stipulation of interest and judicial demand, but its application must respect final and executory awards.
• Loans/forbearances fall under Usury


    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.