Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 153 views

    SENTINEL INSURANCE CO Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Rengie Galo
    Sentinel Insurance Co. was the surety for Nemesio Azcueta, Sr. in a suretyship agreement with Rose Industries, Inc. Azcueta failed to pay for purchases made from Rose Industries. Rose Industries filed a collection case against Sentinel Insurance and Azcueta. The trial court ordered Sentinel Insurance to pay 14% annual interest on the principal amount as well as an additional 2% every 45 days. Sentinel Insurance argued this was usurious. The appellate court clarified the decision by stating the additional 2% rate was for "damage dues" rather than interest, to avoid any misconception of imposing an usurious interest rate. The appellate court's amendment was appropriate to clarify an

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    SENTINEL INSURANCE CO Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Rengie Galo
    153 views2 pages
    Sentinel Insurance Co. was the surety for Nemesio Azcueta, Sr. in a suretyship agreement with Rose Industries, Inc. Azcueta failed to pay for purchases made from Rose Industries. Rose Industries filed a collection case against Sentinel Insurance and Azcueta. The trial court ordered Sentinel Insurance to pay 14% annual interest on the principal amount as well as an additional 2% every 45 days. Sentinel Insurance argued this was usurious. The appellate court clarified the decision by stating the additional 2% rate was for "damage dues" rather than interest, to avoid any misconception of imposing an usurious interest rate. The appellate court's amendment was appropriate to clarify an

    Original Description:

    SENTINEL

    Original Title

    SENTINEL INSURANCE CO vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sentinel Insurance Co. was the surety for Nemesio Azcueta, Sr. in a suretyship agreement with Rose Industries, Inc. Azcueta failed to pay for purchases made from Rose Industries. Rose Industries filed a collection case against Sentinel Insurance and Azcueta. The trial court ordered Sentinel Insurance to pay 14% annual interest on the principal amount as well as an additional 2% every 45 days. Sentinel Insurance argued this was usurious. The appellate court clarified the decision by stating the additional 2% rate was for "damage dues" rather than interest, to avoid any misconception of imposing an usurious interest rate. The appellate court's amendment was appropriate to clarify an

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    153 views2 pages

    SENTINEL INSURANCE CO Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Rengie Galo
    Sentinel Insurance Co. was the surety for Nemesio Azcueta, Sr. in a suretyship agreement with Rose Industries, Inc. Azcueta failed to pay for purchases made from Rose Industries. Rose Industries filed a collection case against Sentinel Insurance and Azcueta. The trial court ordered Sentinel Insurance to pay 14% annual interest on the principal amount as well as an additional 2% every 45 days. Sentinel Insurance argued this was usurious. The appellate court clarified the decision by stating the additional 2% rate was for "damage dues" rather than interest, to avoid any misconception of imposing an usurious interest rate. The appellate court's amendment was appropriate to clarify an

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SENTINEL INSURANCE CO. v.

    CA

    GR No. 52482, Feb 23, 1990

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Sentinel Insurance, Co., Inc., was the surety in a contract of


    suretyship entered into on November 15, 1974 with Nemesio Azcueta, Sr.,
    who is doing business under the name and style of 'Malayan Trading' as
    reflected in SICO Bond No. G(16)00278 where both of them bound
    themselves, 'jointly and severally, to fully and religiously guarantee the
    compliance with the terms and stipulations of the credit line granted by
    private respondent Rose Industries, Inc., in favor of Nemesio Azcueta, Sr., in
    the amount of P180,000.00.' Between November 23 to December 23, 1974,
    Azcueta made various purchases of tires, batteries and tire tubes from the
    private respondent but failed to pay therefor, prompting the latter to demand
    payment but because Azcueta failed to settle his accounts, the case was
    referred to the Insurance Commissioner who invited the attention of the
    petitioner on the matter and the latter cancelled the Suretyship Agreement
    on May 13, 1975 with due notice to the private respondent. Meanwhile,
    private respondent filed with the respondent court of Makati a complaint for
    collection of sum of money against herein petitioner and Azcueta, docketed
    as Civil Case No. 21248 alleging the foregoing antecedents and praying that
    said defendants be ordered to pay jointly and severally unto the plaintiff:
    a) The amount of P198,602.41 as its principal obligation, including interest
    and damage dues as of April 29, 1975;
    b) To pay interest at 14% per annum and damage dues at the rate of 2%
    every 45 days commencing from April 30, 1975 up to the time the full
    amount is fully paid:

    Respondent court rendered its decision to pay interest on the principal


    obligation at the rate of 14% per annum at the rate of 2% every 45
    days commencing from April 30, 1975 until the amount is fully paid.
    Petitioner filed a motion for 'clarification of the judgment as to its real and
    true import because on its face, it would appear that aside from the 14%
    interest imposed on the principal obligation, an additional 2% every 45 days
    corresponding to the additional penalty has been imposed against the
    petitioner which imposition would be usurious and could not have been the
    intention of respondent Judge.

    Issue;

    Whether or not the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion


    on the imposition of the additional interest rates.

    Held;
    Respondent court demonstrably did not err in ordering the clarification of
    the decision of the trial court by amending the questioned part of its
    dispositive portion to include therein the phrase "damage dues" to modify
    the stated rate of 2%, and thereby obviate any misconception that it is being
    imposed as interest.
    To clarify an ambiguity or correct a clerical error in the judgment, the court
    may resort to the pleadings filed by the parties, the findings of fact and the
    conclusions of law expressed in the text or body of the decision.
    Indeed, this was what respondent court did in resolving the original petition.
    It examined the complaint filed against the petitioner and noted that the
    prayer as stated in Paragraph (b) thereof was to "order defendant to pay
    interest at 14 per centum and damage dues at the rate of 2% every 45 days
    commencing from April 30, 1975 up to the time the full amount is fully paid."

    You might also like