Cabarroguis vs. Vicente
Cabarroguis vs. Vicente
L-14304
same article, are: (1) when the contrary is stipulated; (2) when the debtor refuses to pay the penalty imposed in
the obligation, in which case the creditor is entitled to interest on the amount of the penalty, in accordance with
Article 2209; and (3) when the obligor is guilty of fraud in the fulfillment of the obligation.
Applying the law, it is evident that no interest can be awarded on the principal obligation of defendant, the penalty
of P200.00 agreed upon having taken the place of the payment of such interest and the indemnity for damages.
No stipulation to the contrary was made, and while defendant was sued for breach of the compromise agreement,
the breach was not occasioned by fraud.
The case, however, takes a different aspect with respect to the penalty attached to the principal obligation. It has
been held that in obligations for the payment of a sum of money when a penalty is stipulated for default, both the
principal obligation and the penalty can be demanded by the creditor. (Government vs. Lim, et al., 61 Phil., 737;
Luneta Motor Co. vs. Moral, 73 Phil., 80.) Defendant having refused to pay when demand was made by plaintiff,
the latter clearly is entitled to interest on the amount of the penalty. It is well to observe that Article 2210 of the new
Civil Code also provides that in the discretion of the court, interest may be alleged upon damages awarded for
breach of contract. This interest is recoverable from the time of delay, that is to say, from the date of demand,
either judicial or extrajudicial. There being no showing as to when demand for payment was made, plaintiff must
be considered to have made such demand only from the filing of the complaint.
Wherefore, with the modification that the interest shall be allowed only on the amount of the penalty, the decision
appealed from is hereby affirmed. Without costs.
FACTS:
Plaintiff Cabarroguis, a registered nurse and midwife, sustained physical injuries as a result of an accident
when the AC jeepney of which she was a passenger hit another vehicle at a street corner. To avoid court
litigation, defendant Vicente, owner and operator of the jeepney entered a compromise agreement with the
plaintiff, obligating himself to pay 2,500 as actual and compensatory, exemplary and moral damages suffered
by plaintiff. Defendant has paid a total amount of 1,500 leaving a balance of 1,000. It was stipulated in the
agreement that should defendant fail to complete payment within 60 days, he would pay an additional
amount of 200.00 as liquidated damages.
As defendant failed to pay, notwithstanding repeated demands, plaintiff brought a suit in the Municipal
Court of Davao and rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appealed to the Court of First Instance
which ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of 1,200 with interest at legal rate from the date
of the filing of the complaint until full payment.
ISSUE:
Did the lower court err in sentencing the defendant to pay interest from the date of the filing of the
complaint until full payment?
RULING:
No. As a rule, if the obligation consists in a sum of money, the only damage a creditor may recover, if
the debtor incurs in delay, is the payment of the interest agreed upon or the legal interest, unless contrary is
stipulated (Article 2209). However, the creditor may also claim other damages. Such as moral or exemplary
damages, in addition to interest, the award of which is left to the discretion of the court.
In obligations with a penal clause, as provided in Article 1226 of the Civil Code, the penalty shall
substitute the indemnity for damages and the payment of interests. The exceptions to this rule, according to
the same article, are: (1) when the contrary is stipulated; (2) when the debtor refuses to pay the penalty
imposed in the obligation, in which case the creditor is entitled to interest on the amount of the penalty, in
accordance with article 2209; and (3) when the obligor is guilty of fraud in the fulfillment of the obligation.
Applying the law, it is evident that no interest can be awarded on the principal obligation of defendant,
the penalty of 200.00 agreed upon having taken the place of the payment of such interest and the indemnity
for damages. No stipulation to the contrary was made and while defendant was sued for breach of the
compromise agreement, the breach was not occasioned by fraud.
This case, however, takes a different aspect with respect to the penalty attached to the principal
obligation. It has been held that in obligations for the payment of a sum of money when a penalty is
stipulated for default, both the principal obligation and the penalty can be demanded by the creditor.
Defendant having refused to pay when demand was made by plaintiff, the latter clearly is entitled to interest
on the amount of the penalty. It is well observe that Article 2210 of the Civil Code provides that in the
discretion of the court, interest may be alleged upon damages awarded for breach of contract. This interest is
recoverable from the time of delay that is to say, from the date of demand, either judicial or extrajudicial. And
if there is no showing as to when demand for payment was made, plaintiff must be considered to have made
such demand only from the filing of the complaint.
Wherefore, with the modification that the interest shall be allowed on the amount of the penalty, the
decision appealed from is affirmed.