GR L 20218; (August, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20218 August 8, 1967
FORTUNATO HALILI, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MARIA LLORET and RICARDO GONZALES LLORET as Administrator of the Estate of the late FRANCISCO GONZALES, defendants-appellants.
FACTS
This case involves the implementation of a final judgment from G.R. No. L-6306 (May 26, 1954), which ordered defendant Ricardo Gonzales Lloret to pay plaintiff Fortunato Halili the sum of P100,000, “which should be adjusted in accordance with the Ballantyne scale of values.” When execution was sought in 1957, defendant opposed, arguing the judgment was incomplete for not specifying the date for applying the Ballantyne scale. The trial court initially stayed execution. Plaintiff then filed a motion before the Supreme Court for clarification, but it was denied as the judgment was final. The trial court later issued an order on September 6, 1958, adopting the Ballantyne scale of June 1944 for conversion, making the amount P6,666.33. Upon defendant’s motion for reconsideration, the court modified its order on October 24, 1958, adopting the scale as of August 1944, reducing the amount to P4,000.00. Both parties appealed: plaintiff insists on June 1944, while defendant argues for January 1945 (which would make the amount only P833.33). The underlying facts from the 1954 decision show that the P100,000 was a partial payment/deposit from plaintiff to defendant in June 1944 for a land sale negotiation that later fell through. Defendant attempted to return the money to plaintiff’s representative on August 2, 1944, but it was refused.
ISSUE
What is the correct date for applying the Ballantyne scale of values to convert the P100,000 awarded in the final judgment?
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s amendatory order of October 24, 1958, which adopted the Ballantyne scale as of August 1944. The Court held that defendant’s duty to consign the money in court arose in August 1944 when his offer to return it was refused. His failure to perform that duty at that time made him liable to plaintiff, and it was this liability as of August 1944 that should be adjusted under the Ballantyne scale. Applying June 1944 was incorrect because no liability had yet attached then. Applying January 1945 would be unjust and inequitable, as defendant knew the currency was depreciating and presumably used/benefited from the money in August 1944 when it was more valuable.