CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ TELENGTAN BROTHERS & SONS, INC. VS. UNITED STATES LINES/ INC., G. R. NO. 132284/ 28 FEBRUARY 2006
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST
TELENGTAN BROTHERS & SONS, INC. VS. UNITED STATES LINES, INC.,
G. R. NO. 132284, 28 FEBRUARY 2006
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Absent an official pronouncement or declaration by competent authorities of the existence of extraordinary inflation during a given period, the effects of extraordinary inflation, if that be the case, are not to be applied. Moreover, it is only when there is a contrary agreement that extraordinary inflation will make the value of the currency at the time of payment, not at the time of the establishment of obligation, the basis for payment.
FACTS
On June 22, 1981, respondent U.S. Lines filed a suit against petitioner Telengtan seeking payment of demurrage charges of P94,000 which it refused to pay despite repeated demands plus interest and damages. The complaint alleged that between the years 1979 and 1980, goods belonging to petitioner loaded on containers aboard its (respondent’s) vessels arrived in Manila from U.S. ports. After the 10-day free period, petitioner still failed to withdraw its goods from the containers wherein the goods had been shipped.
The trial court found [petitioner] liable to [respondent] for demurrage incurred in the amount of P99,408.00 which sum will bear interest at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the complaint till full payment thereof plus attorney’s fees in the amount of 20% of the total sum due, all of which shall be recomputed as of the date of payment in accordance with the provisions of Article 1250 of the Civil Code. The court of appeals affirmed.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s order for the recompilation of the judgment award in accordance with Article 1250 of the Civil Code contrary to existing jurisprudence and without any evidence at all to support it.
RULING
The court ruled in the merits of the petitioner.
The court held that absent an official pronouncement or declaration by competent authorities of the existence of extraordinary inflation during a given period, the effects of extraordinary inflation, if that be the case, are not to be applied. Moreover, it is only when there is a contrary agreement that extraordinary inflation will make the value of the currency at the time of payment, not at the time of the establishment of obligation, the basis for payment.
Here, respondent was unable to prove the occurrence of extraordinary inflation since it filed its complaint in 1981. Indeed, the record is bereft of any evidence, documentary or testimonial, that inflation, nay, an extraordinary one, existed. Even if the price index of goods and services may have risen during the intervening period, this increase, without more, cannot be considered as resulting to “extraordinary inflation” as to justify the application of Article 1250.