GR L 16804; (April, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16804. April 28, 1962.
FRANCO J. ALTOMONTE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PHILIPPINE-AMERICAN DRUG COMPANY, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The case originated from a judgment by the Court of First Instance of Cebu ordering the Philippine-American Drug Company to pay Franco J. Altomonte accrued commissions, attorney’s fees, and costs. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court, in its final judgment in G.R. Nos. L-11872 and L-14922, modified the trial court’s decision by awarding Altomonte a specific sum of P5,042.37 as 1% commission on gross receipts and P2,000 as attorney’s fees, while striking out other awards. The Supreme Court’s dispositive portion did not explicitly mention the payment of legal interest on the commission, which had been originally granted by the trial court from the filing of the complaint.
Subsequently, Altomonte filed a motion for execution in the trial court, claiming entitlement to legal interest on the commission award from the date of the filing of the complaint. The defendant company objected, arguing that the Supreme Court’s final judgment fixed its liability at the exact aggregate amount of P7,042.37 (P5,042.37 + P2,000) and that the omission of legal interest in the High Court’s dispositive portion meant it was excluded. The trial court issued a writ of execution that included legal interest on the commission. The defendant company appealed this order of execution.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court’s order of execution, which directed payment of legal interest on the awarded commission, correctly enforces the Supreme Court’s final and modified judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order of execution, ruling that the award of legal interest on the commission stood affirmed. The Court explained that its final judgment in the prior appeal both modified and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The legal principle applied is that aspects of the lower court’s judgment which the Supreme Court did not expressly reverse, alter, or modify are deemed affirmed. Since the Supreme Court’s dispositive portion in the prior case did not state that the legal interest originally granted was excluded, that part of the trial court’s judgment was considered to have been affirmed by the statement, “As thus modified, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.” Therefore, the trial court correctly included the legal interest in the execution of its judgment as modified. The appeal was dismissed, with costs against the appellant.