International Container Terminal Services, Inc. Said shipment was insured by FGU Insurance.
When RAGC's
v. FGU Insurance Corporation customs broker, Desma Cargo Handlers, Inc., was claiming
G.R. No. 161539, June 27, 2008. J. Austria Martinez the shipment, petitioner, which was the arrastre contractor,
Petitioner: International Container Terminal Services, Inc. could not find it in its storage area.
Respondent: FGU Insurance Corporation
At the behest of petitioner, the NBI conducted an investigation.
Summary: Petitioner International Container Terminal Services Inc The AAREMA Marine and Cargo Surveyors, Inc. also
lost a shipment of “14 Cardboards 400kgs of Pure Silver Nitrate” conducted an inquiry. Both found that the shipment was lost
shipped from Germany to Manila. The shipment was insured by while in the custody and responsibility of petitioner.
FGU Insurance. When Republic Asahi Glass Corporation, the
consignee, was claiming the shipment, petitioner could not find it in As insurer, FGU paid RAGC the amount of P1,835,068.88 on
the storage area. The NBI found that the shipment was lost while in January 3, 1995. In turn, FGU sought reimbursement from
the custody and responsibility of petitioner. As insurer, FGU paid petitioner, but the latter refused. This constrained FGU to file
RAGC the amount of P1,835,068.88 and sought reimbursement with the RTC of Manila Civil Case No. 95-73532 for a sum of
from petitioner, but the latter refused. FGU filed a case for sum of money.
money. The RTC held petitioner liable and was ordered to pay
P1,875,068.88 with 12% interest per annum from January 3, 1995 RTC: held petitioner Intarnational liable and ordered to pay
until fully paid. FGU Insurance the following sums: (1) P1,875,068.88 with
12% interest per annum from January 3, 1995 until fully paid;
Ruling: The CA did not commit any error in applying the guidelines (2) P50,000.00 as attorney's fees; and (3) P10,000.00 as
set in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. CA. The interim period from litigation expenses.
the finality of judgment until the satisfaction of the same is deemed
equivalent to a forbearance of credit, hence, the imposition of the CA: Affirmed the RTC Decision. Hence, the present petition.
12% interest.
Issue: WON the CA erred in affirming the award of 12% interest
Doctrine: When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of despite the fact that the obligation purportedly breached does not
money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, constitute a loan of forbearance of money and despite the clear
regardless of whether the obligation involves a loan or forbearance guidelines set in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. CA. (NO)
of money, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its
satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an Ruling: The CA did not commit any error in applying the guidelines
equivalent to a forbearance of credit. set in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. CA.
Facts:
Petitioner questions the imposition of a 12% interest rate, instead of
This case concerns the liability of petitioner International 6%, on its adjudged liability. The ruling in Prudential Guarantee and
Container Terminal Services, Inc. which arose from a lost Assurance Inc. v. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc. is instructive, to wit:
shipment of "14 Cardboards 400 kgs. of Silver Nitrate 63.53
FCT Analytically Pure (purity 99.98 PCT)," shipped by Hapag-
This Court in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
Lloyd AG through the vessel Hannover Express from
inscribed the rule of thumb in the application of interest to be
Hamburg, Germany, with Manila, Philippines as the port of
imposed on obligations, regardless of their source. Eastern
discharge, and Republic Asahi Glass Corporation (RAGC) as
emphasized beyond cavil that when the judgment of the court
consignee.
awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the
rate of legal interest, regardless of whether the obligation
involves a loan or forbearance of money, shall be 12% per
annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim
period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a
forbearance of credit.
We find application of the rule in the case at bar proper, thus,
a rate of 12% per annum from the finality of judgment until the
full satisfaction thereof must be imposed on the total amount of
liability adjudged to PRUDENTIAL. It is clear that the interim
period from the finality of judgment until the satisfaction
of the same is deemed equivalent to a forbearance of
credit, hence, the imposition of the aforesaid interest.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated October
22, 2003 and Resolution dated January 8, 2004 of the Court of
Appeals are AFFIRMED, with the modification that the award in the
RTC Decision dated July 1, 1999 should be P1,835,068.88 instead
of P1,875,068.88.
