G.R. No. 114061 & 113842, August 23, 1995
Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals and Juanito C. Lapuz; Juanito C. Lapuz vs. Court of Appeals and Korean Airlines Co., Ltd.

FACTS

This consolidated resolution stems from a 1980 action for breach of contract of carriage filed by Juanito C. Lapuz against Korean Airlines (KAL). The trial court ruled in favor of Lapuz, awarding damages with legal interest. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which modified the award, including an imposition of 6% interest per annum from the filing of the complaint. The Supreme Court, in a consolidated decision dated August 3, 1994, affirmed with modification, ruling that legal interest should run from the date of the trial court’s decision.
KAL filed a motion for reconsideration, for the first time assailing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to award legal interest, arguing the complaint did not pray for it. The Court denied this motion with finality on September 21, 1994. Notwithstanding this finality, KAL filed subsequent pleadings reiterating its challenge to the interest award. Lapuz, meanwhile, filed motions for execution. KAL admitted the case had been pending for fifteen years but claimed its pleadings were not intended for delay.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court’s award of legal interest was rendered without jurisdiction and in violation of due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied KAL’s motion and upheld the award. The challenge to jurisdiction is devoid of merit. Lapuz’s complaints prayed for all reliefs available in law and equity. The award of legal interest is a discretionary relief sanctioned by Article 2210 of the Civil Code for breach of contract. Jurisdictional questions, while generally allowed at any time, admit of an exception where estoppel has supervened.
KAL actively participated in all stages of litigation, never questioning the imposition of legal interest in its appeals before the Court of Appeals and, initially, before the Supreme Court. It only raised the jurisdictional issue after receiving an adverse final judgment. The Court condemns the practice of submitting a case for decision, accepting a favorable judgment, and attacking an adverse one for lack of jurisdiction. KAL was amply given opportunity to be heard; thus, no due process violation occurred.
The consolidated decision had long acquired finality and immutability. KAL’s repeated pleadings thereafter unduly delayed the case’s termination for fifteen years, constituting an abuse of court processes. The Court warned KAL’s counsel against such obstructive practices. Regarding execution, the application for a writ should be filed with the court of origin, as the Supreme Court’s role ended with the judgment’s finality, leaving only the ministerial duty of execution to the trial court.