Title
Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines vs. Roblett Industrial Construction Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 139290
Decision Date
May 19, 2006
Philguarantee sued Roblett, Abieras, and Paramount over unpaid obligations under a surety bond. Supreme Court upheld Paramount’s liability, reduced interest from 18% to 12%, and affirmed joint liability.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 139290)

Factual Background

The Court examined motions for reconsideration submitted by Paramount Insurance Corporation concerning a prior decision made on November 11, 2005. The earlier ruling reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, ordering the respondents jointly and severally to pay significant amounts to the petitioner, including P11,775,611.25 with various interest rates applied from June 5, 1990, the time of judicial demand. The decision ordered various payments, including attorney’s fees, and mandated reimbursement among the respondents.

Arguments of Paramount Insurance Corporation

In its motions for reconsideration, Paramount raised several points: (1) it asserted that it issued a bidder’s bond, releasing it from liability upon the execution of a subcontract; (2) claimed misrepresentation by the petitioner in securing Paramount’s commitment; (3) argued that a rehabilitation program with Roblett novated the obligation, discharging Paramount; (4) contended that the surety bond expired without claims; and (5) disputed the imposition of attorney's fees on the grounds of liability.

Court's Analysis on Interest Charges

The Court noted that Paramount's arguments largely consisted of issues already considered in the prior decision. An essential aspect addressed was the validity of the interest charged on the principal amount. Paramount’s liability was found to originate from its surety bond commitment, which stipulated interest at 18% per annum from the date of judicial demand. The decision reaffirmed that none of the parties questioned the stipulated interest rate, thus deeming it legal.

Ruling on Excessive Interest Rates

While the Court upheld the stipulated interest rate as valid, it expressed concern over the excessively high resultant amount of interest, which could reach approximately P48 million—a figure significantly greater than the principal debt. The Court invoked principles from previous rulings, asserting the power to adjust interest rates deemed unconscionable or excessive, noting that st

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.