Title
Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 127997
Decision Date
Aug 7, 1998
Felix Villanueva contested his P167,600 liability from a dishonored check, claiming only P23,420 was owed; SC upheld CA's ruling, applying 12% interest per annum.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 127997)

Factual Background

On June 30, 1991, Villanueva issued a check amounting to P167,600.00 to Manuel, allegedly as payment for loans previously availed from Manuel to support Villanueva's mining and fertilizer business. After the check bounced, Manuel demanded payment, which Villanueva failed to fulfill. Consequently, Manuel initiated a civil suit for recovery of the amount and also filed a criminal complaint against Villanueva for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Villanueva contested the amount owed, asserting his principal obligation was only P23,420.00.

Trial Court Decision

The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Manuel on July 27, 1992, ordering Villanueva to pay the full amount of P167,600.00 with costs against Villanueva, while dismissing the case against Melchora Villanueva. Both parties subsequently appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, with Villanueva challenging the awarded amount and Manuel seeking additional claims for attorney’s fees and damages.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals dismissed Villanueva’s appeal and upheld the trial court's ruling, modifying it to include an award of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses at ten percent of the principal amount, along with accruing interest at six percent per annum from the filing of the complaint. Villanueva subsequently sought further review from the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised

In his petition, Villanueva raised several issues: (a) the enforceability of the interests awarded due to the lack of a written stipulation; (b) the assertion that his liability should be limited to P23,420.00; and (c) the assertion that the Central Bank and Monetary Board lack the authority to repeal the usury law.

Supreme Court’s Approach to Review

The Supreme Court noted that its jurisdiction over cases from the Court of Appeals is typically confined to matters of law, while findings of fact are generally conclusive. However, several exceptions allow for a review of factual findings if they are deemed erroneous based on certain criteria, such as a misapprehension of facts or conflicting conclusions among courts.

Findings on Legal Interest

In reviewing the case, the Supreme Court determined that Villanueva did not raise substantial issues warranting the reversal of the lower court's findings. According to established jurisprudence, when an obligation for the payment of money is breached, the interest rate is typically governed by contractual stip

...continue reading

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