GR L 8772; (April, 1956) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-8772; April 27, 1956
RAMCAR, INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
On December 12, 1950, the Manila Court of First Instance rendered a judgment in favor of Ramcar, Inc., ordering China Banking Corporation to pay P16,271.72 with interest, plus P5,000 in damages. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals. However, the plaintiff obtained an execution of the judgment pending appeal, and pursuant thereto, the defendant turned over the total sum of P21,089.39 to the plaintiff on January 11, 1951. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals, in its amended decision dated February 28, 1953, modified the trial court’s judgment and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the reduced sum of P16,168.88, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint until fully paid. Upon the return of the case records to the trial court, the defendant pointed out its overpayment and requested a refund of the excess amount after deducting interest and costs up to January 10, 1951. The Manila court ordered such a refund. The plaintiff appealed this order, contending it was entitled to deduct interest up to the date of the Court of Appeals’ decision (February 28, 1953), not just up to January 10, 1951.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to collect interest on the principal sum awarded by the Court of Appeals for the period after January 11, 1951, the date the defendant fully paid the amount under the executed judgment pending appeal.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Manila court. The Court of Appeals’ judgment required the defendant to pay the plaintiff P16,168.88 with interest until the said sum is fully paid. Since the defendant had already fully paid this principal sum to the plaintiff on January 11, 1951, by virtue of the execution pending appeal, the plaintiff could no longer lawfully or equitably demand interest on that sum for any period thereafter. Therefore, the plaintiff was only entitled to interest up to January 10, 1951, and the defendant was entitled to a refund of the overpayment.