SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 192108. March 18, 2013.]
SPOUSES SOCRATES SY AND CELY SY, petitioners, vs. ANDOK'S LITSON CORPORATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 March 2013which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 192108 Spouses Socrates Sy and Cely Sy, petitioners, v. Andok's Litson Corporation, respondent.
On 21 November 2012, the Court rendered a Decision, 1 the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The 20 January 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 91942, affirming the 24 July 2008 Decision of the RTC, Branch 17, Manila, is hereby AFFIRMED. 2
The dispositive portion of the 20 January 2010 Court of Appeals' Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding no reversible error committed by the court a quo in rendering the appealed decision, the same is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO and the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. 3
The appealed decision adverted to by the Court of Appeals is the 24 July 2008 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Manila, the dispositive portion of which states: AEcTaS
WHEREFORE, consistent with Section 5, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to pay to the plaintiff (1) P480,000.00 with legal rate of interest from March 11, 2006, (2) P1,350.00 for the comprehensive insurance on the leased portion of the realty, and (3) P4,873.00 as contractor's tax. 4
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification 5 dated 7 January 2013. First, petitioners seek a clarification on the date the legal interest is set to run. Petitioners contend that the since the Court affirmed the 20 January 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals, it has in effect affirmed the trial court's holding that legal rate of interest should be reckoned from 11 March 2006. Petitioners point out that the Court has specifically ruled that the legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amounts awarded is reckoned from 24 July 2008 when the trial court rendered judgment.
Second, petitioners seek a reconsideration of the Court's Decision and insist that there was lack of any notice on petitioners regarding the ex-parte hearing which resulted in the judgment against petitioners. Petitioners maintain that they had complied with their obligations under the lease contract and that the legal interest should not have been awarded because respondent did not seek for its payment.
After a careful consideration of the merits of this case, the Court finds no substantial arguments or cogent reason to deviate from the substance of our ruling. But a correction of the dispositive portion of our Decision is in order.
Let the fallo of the Decision dated 21 November 2012 be corrected to read as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 20 January 2010 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONthat the rate of legal interest to be paid is SIX PERCENT (6%) per annum of the amount due computed from 24 July 2008 when the trial court rendered judgment. After our decision in this petition becomes final and executory, the rate of TWELVE PERCENT (12%) per annum shall be imposed on the total obligation until payment thereof is satisfied. (Per raffle dated 19 November 2012, Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad is designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe). EAcCHI
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 113-125.
2.Id. at 123.
3.Id. at 45.
4.Id. at 58.
5.Id. at 127-138.