G.R. No. L-28297 March 30, 1970
ELPIDIO JAVELLANA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. D. O. PLAZA ENTERPRISES, INC., defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellant Elpidio Javellana filed a complaint for collection of P43,017.32, representing the balance due on purchases of wire ropes, tractors, and diesel parts made by defendant-appellee D. O. Plaza Enterprises, Inc. The complaint prayed for legal interest, attorney’s fees of P5,000.00, and a writ of preliminary attachment, which the court granted. Defendant moved to discharge the attachment, which was denied. Defendant filed an answer with a counterclaim for damages arising from the attachment. Years later, the attachment was dissolved upon defendant’s filing of a counterbond. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, reducing the principal balance to P39,117.32 and alleging that the invoices stipulated a 12% per annum interest and 25% attorney’s fees. Defendant did not answer the amended complaint. After trial, the court rendered a decision ordering defendant to pay plaintiff P39,117.32 with 12% interest per annum from the filing of the complaint and 25% attorney’s fees, and dismissed the counterclaims. Upon defendant’s motion for reconsideration, the court modified its decision by reducing the interest to legal interest, reducing attorney’s fees to P5,000.00, and ordering plaintiff to pay defendant P16,190.00 as damages on account of the preliminary attachment. Plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in reducing the stipulated interest from 12% per annum to legal interest.
2. Whether the trial court erred in reducing the stipulated attorney’s fees from 25% of the principal to P5,000.00.
3. Whether the trial court erred in awarding damages to the defendant arising from the preliminary attachment.

RULING

1. Yes, the trial court erred in reducing the interest. The reduction was based on estoppel, as the original complaint only prayed for legal interest. However, the original complaint, having been amended, lost its character as a judicial admission and became merely an extrajudicial admission. It was not formally offered in evidence, so there was no proof of estoppel. The stipulation for 12% interest appeared on the invoices, and defendant could not claim it was misled by the pleadings.
2. Yes, the trial court erred in reducing the attorney’s fees. The same reasoning applies. The original complaint’s prayer for P5,000.00 attorney’s fees was superseded by the amended complaint, which alleged a 25% stipulation based on the invoices. The prayer for relief does not give character to the cause of action, and plaintiff is entitled to relief as the facts warrant.
3. No, the trial court did not err in awarding damages for the attachment. Although defendant was found in bad faith for issuing two sets of bouncing checks, this bad faith related to its failure to perform the obligation, not to incurring the obligation itself. Therefore, there was no ground for attachment on the basis of fraud. Plaintiff’s good faith in securing the attachment does not relieve him from liability for damages caused by an attachment to which he was not entitled in the first place.
The appealed order was reversed insofar as it reduced the interest and attorney’s fees, but affirmed in all other respects.