Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Direct appeal, on points of law, from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, in its Civil Case No. 4676 , modif!in" an earlier decision for the plaintiff #! reducin" the rate of interest on the sum ad$ud"ed, and also the attorne!%s fees& and #! orderin" the plaintiff to pa! dama"es to the defendant on account of a preliminar! attachment o#tained #! the former upon the latter%s counterclaim. 'he complaint in the aforesaid civil case was for collection of the sum of (4),*+7.) representin" #alance due on purchases of wire ropes, tractors and diesel parts made #! the defendant-appellee, D. ,. (la-a .nterprises, Inc., from the plaintiff-appellant, .lpidio /avellana. 'he complaint pra!ed that the defendant #e ordered to pa! the said sum of (4),*+7.) , with le"al interest, plus attorne!%s fees in the sum of (0,***.**& it also pra!ed for a writ of preliminar! attachment. 1pon plaintiff%s puttin" up a #ond, the trial court, on +0 2pril +36+, issued a writ of attachment. ,n * Ma! +36+, the defendant moved to dischar"e the attachment on the "round that it was improperl! issued. 'he motion was denied. ,n 7 Novem#er +36+, the defendant filed its answer and counter-claimed for dama"es arisin" from the attachment. 'he plaintiff answered and interposed a counterclaim to the counterclaim. 2fter some !ears, or on 7 2pril +366, the defendant moved for the dissolution of the preliminar! attachment. 1pon its filin" a counter#ond, the court, on 7 Ma! +366, dissolved the attachment. ,n ) Novem#er +366, the plaintiff filed a motion to admit his amended complaint, which the court "ranted on + Novem#er +366. In this amended complaint, the plaintiff averred that of the sum of (4),*+7.) alle"ed in the ori"inal complaint, the defendant has paid (),3**.**, there#! leavin" a #alance of ()3,++7.) unpaid, #ut that, as indicated #! invoices, defendant%s purchases were pa!a#le within thirt! 4)*5 da!s and were to #ear interest of + 6 per annum plus 06 attorne!%s fees. 'he amended complaint accordin"l! pra!ed for the increased amounts. Defendant did not answer this amended complaint. 2fter trial, the court, on +0 /une +367, rendered $ud"ment. It found the followin" facts7 .... Durin" the period from ) /ul! +303 to )* /ul! +36*, defendant, in a series of transactions, purchased from plaintiff wire ropes, tractors and diesel spare parts, 4in5 pa!ment for which he issued several chec8s amountin" to (4),*+7.) , which, when presented to the #an8, were dishonored for lac8 of funds. Defendant su#stituted these chec8s with another set of chec8s for the same amount, #ut a"ain, the same were dishonored for lac8 of funds, as evidenced #! .9hi#its 2 to M, e9cept for one
chec8 in the amount of (),3**.** as evidenced #! .9hi#it C. 'hus, the principal o#li"ation was reduced to ()3,++7.) . 2t the time of the issuance of the said chec8s, the defendant never informed plaintiff that it had funds to #ac8 them up. (laintiff made demands to defendant for pa!ment, #ut defendant pleaded for time and li#erali-ation of pa!ment, which was re$ected #! the plaintiff. 'he transactions in :uestion were covered #! invoices listed in .9hi#it (, a sample of which is evidenced #! .9hi#it C, wherein said transactions were for )*-da! term, + 6 interest per annum to #e char"ed from date of invoice, and 06 attorne!%s fees in case of liti"ation. 'he defendant claims that there were other transactions #etween plaintiff and defendant involvin" the amount of (+36,; ;.0;& that it had no intention not to pa! the chec8s it issued upon presentment& and that it suffered dama"es in the amount of (+4,;**.** #! reason of the attachment. 999 999 999 'he counterclaim for dama"es arisin" from the attachment is without merit. 'he defendant was manifestl! in #ad faith when it issued two sets of #ouncin" chec8s. <ence, the attachment was not improper, contrar! to defendant%s claim. 'he dispositive portion of the decision decreed7 =<.>.F,>., $ud"ment is here#! rendered for the plaintiff and a"ainst the defendant, orderin" the latter to pa! the former the sum of ()3,++7.) with interest at + 6 per annum from +4 2pril +36+, the date of the filin" of the ori"inal complaint, until final pa!ment, plus 06 of the principal inde#tedness as attorne!%s fees and costs of suit. 'he counterclaim as well as the counterclaim to the counter claim are here#! dismissed for lac8 of merit. ,n ; /une +367, the defendant moved to reconsider. ,ver the o#$ection of the plaintiff, the court issued an order dated +* 2u"ust +367, now the su#$ect of the present appeal, modif!in" the previous decision, in the manner followin"7 =<.>.F,>., the dispositive part of the decision rendered in this case is here#! modified as follows7 4a5 ?! orderin" the defendant to pa! plaintiff the sum of ()3,++7. * plus the le"al interest therein from the filin" of the complaint until the amount is full! paid. 4#5 ,rderin" the plaintiff to pa! defendant the sum of (+6,+3*.**, the amount of dama"es suffered #! the defendant on account of the preliminar! attachment of the defendant& and
4c5 ?! orderin" the defendant to pa! (0,***.** as attorne!%s fees. =ithout pronouncement as to costs. (laintiff-appellant assi"ns the followin" errors7 the reduction of the attorne!%s fees, the reduction of the interest, and the "rant to the defendant of dama"es arisin" from the attachment. 'he first two assi"ned errors are well ta8en. 'he court a quo reduced the interest stated in its previous decision from + 6 to mere le"al interest and the attorne!%s fees from 06 to (0,***.** on the #asis of estoppel, the "round therefor #ein" that the reduced amounts were those alle"ed, hence admitted, #! the plaintiff in his ori"inal complaint. 'his was error. 'he ori"inal complaint was not formall! offered in evidence. <avin" #een amended, the ori"inal complaint lost its character as a $udicial admission, which would have re:uired no proof, and #ecame merel! an e9tra$udicial admission, the admissi#ilit! of which, as evidence, re:uires its formal offer. (leadin"s superseded or amended disappear from the record as $udicial admissions. <owever, an! statement contained therein ma! #e considered as an e9tra$udicial admission, and as such, in order that the court ma! ta8e it into consideration, it should #e offered formalit! in evidence. 40 Moran 0;, citin" @ucido v. Calupitan, 7 (hil. +4;& ?astida v. Men-i, 0; (hil. +;;.5 =here amended pleadin"s have #een filed, alle"ations in the ori"inal pleadin"s can have no effect, unless formall! offered in evidence. 4/ones on .vidence, Aec. 7).5 Aince the record does not show that the complaint 4mar8ed as .9hi#it ++05 was admitted in evidence, there is no proof of estoppel on the part of the plaintiff on his alle"ations in the complaint. Not onl! this, #ut since the stipulation for + 6 interest on #alance due and the 06 counsel fees appear on the invoices themselves, appellee (la-a .nterprises cannot fairl! claim that it was deceived or misled #! the pleadin"s of appellant. .ven more, the ori"inal plea for (0,***.** as attorne!%s fees is onl! contained in the pra!er of the ori"inal complaint, and it is a well esta#lished rule that the pra!er for relief, althou"h part of the complaint, is no part of the cause of action and does not "ive character, the plaintiff #ein" entitled to as much relief as the facts warrant 4>osales vs. >e!es, 0 (hil. 430& 2"uilar vs. >u#iato, 4* (hil. 47*5. ?ut the appellant%s last assi"ned error is without merit. 2lthou"h the defendant was found to #e in #ad faith in issuin" two 4 5 sets of #ouncin" chec8s in pa!ment for its inde#tedness, such #ad faith was not related to his havin" incurred the o#li"ation in favor of the plaintiff #ut to defendant%s failure to perform said o#li"ation. 'here was, therefore, no "round for the plaintiff to attach the defendant%s properties on the "round of fraud. 'hat the plaintiff acted in "ood faith in securin" attachment does not relieve him from the dama"es that the defendant sustained #! reason of the attachment #ecause he, the plaintiff, was, in the first place, not entitled to attachments, the element of malice was unnecessar! 4) Moran, >ules of Court, +35.
F,> '<. F,>.B,INB >.2A,NA, the appealed order is here#! reversed insofar as it reduced the amount of attorne!%s fees and the interest on the principal sum ad$ud"ed in the ori"inal decision dated +0 /une +367& #ut the order is affirmed in all other respects. No costs.