Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

173227 January 20, 2009

SEBASTIAN SIGA-AN, Petitioner, vs. A ICIA !I ANUE!A, Respondent. D C"ICO-NA#ARIO, J.: "efore #s is a Petition$ for Revie% on Certiorari under Rule &' of the Rules of !ourt see(in) to set aside the Decision, * dated $+ Dece,ber *--', and Resolution,. dated $/ 0une *--+ of the !ourt of 1ppeals in !123.R. !V No. 4$5$&, %hich affir,ed in toto the Decision,& dated *+ 0anuar6 *--$, of the 7as Pinas !it6 Re)ional Trial !ourt, "ranch *'', in !ivil !ase No. 7P2/52--+5. The facts )athered fro, the records are as follo%s8 On .- March $//5, respondent 1licia Villanueva filed a co,plaint ' for su, of ,one6 a)ainst petitioner Sebastian Si)a2an before the 7as Pinas !it6 Re)ional Trial !ourt 9RT!:, "ranch *'', doc(eted as !ivil !ase No. 7P2/52--+5. Respondent alle)ed that she %as a business%o,an en)a)ed in suppl6in) office ,aterials and e;uip,ents to the Philippine Nav6 Office 9PNO: located at <ort "onifacio, Ta)ui) !it6, %hile petitioner %as a ,ilitar6 officer and co,ptroller of the PNO fro, $//$ to $//+. Respondent clai,ed that so,eti,e in $//*, petitioner approached her inside the PNO and offered to loan her the a,ount of P'&-,---.--. Since she needed capital for her business transactions %ith the PNO, she accepted petitioner=s proposal. The loan a)ree,ent %as not reduced in %ritin). 1lso, there %as no stipulation as to the pa6,ent of interest for the loan. + !ISION

On .$ 1u)ust $//., respondent issued a chec( %orth P'--,---.-- to petitioner as partial pa6,ent of the loan. On .$ October $//., she issued another chec( in the a,ount of P*--,---.-- to petitioner as pa6,ent of the re,ainin) balance of the loan. Petitioner told her that since she paid a total a,ount of P4--,---.-- for theP'&-,---.-%orth of loan, the e>cess a,ount of P$+-,---.-- %ould be applied as interest for the loan. Not satisfied %ith the a,ount applied as interest, petitioner pestered her to pa6 additional interest. Petitioner threatened to bloc( or disapprove her transactions %ith the PNO if she %ould not co,pl6 %ith his de,and. 1s all her transactions %ith the PNO %ere sub?ect to the approval of petitioner as co,ptroller of the PNO, and fearin) that petitioner ,i)ht bloc( or undul6 influence the pa6,ent of her vouchers in the PNO, she conceded. Thus, she paid additional a,ounts in cash and chec(s as interests for the loan. She as(ed petitioner for receipt for the pa6,ents but petitioner told her that it %as not necessar6 as there %as ,utual trust and confidence bet%een the,. 1ccordin) to her co,putation, the total a,ount she paid to petitioner for the loan and interest accu,ulated toP$,*--,---.--.4 Thereafter, respondent consulted a la%6er re)ardin) the propriet6 of pa6in) interest on the loan despite absence of a)ree,ent to that effect. Her la%6er told her that petitioner could not validl6 collect interest on the loan because there %as no a)ree,ent bet%een her and petitioner re)ardin) pa6,ent of interest. Since she paid petitioner a total a,ount of P$,*--,---.-- for the P'&-,---.-- %orth of loan, and upon bein) advised b6 her la%6er that she ,ade overpa6,ent to petitioner, she sent a de,and letter to petitioner as(in) for the return of the e>cess a,ount of P++-,---.--. Petitioner, despite receipt of the de,and letter, i)nored her clai, for rei,burse,ent. 5 Respondent pra6ed that the RT! render ?ud),ent orderin) petitioner to pa6 respondent 9$: P++-,---.-- plus le)al interest fro, the ti,e of de,and@ 9*: P.--,---.-- as ,oral da,a)es@ 9.: P'-,---.-- as e>e,plar6 da,a)es@ and 9&: an a,ount e;uivalent to *'A of P++-,---.-- as attorne6=s fees./ In his ans%er$- to the co,plaint, petitioner denied that he offered a loan to respondent. He averred that in $//*, respondent approached and as(ed hi, if he could )rant her a loan, as she needed ,one6 to

finance her business venture %ith the PNO. 1t first, he %as reluctant to deal %ith respondent, because the latter had a spott6 record as a supplier of the PNO. Ho%ever, since respondent %as an ac;uaintance of his office,ate, he a)reed to )rant her a loan. Respondent paid the loan in full.$$ Subse;uentl6, respondent a)ain as(ed hi, to )ive her a loan. 1s respondent had been able to pa6 the previous loan in full, he a)reed to )rant her another loan. 7ater, respondent re;uested hi, to restructure the pa6,ent of the loan because she could not )ive full pa6,ent on the due date. He acceded to her re;uest. Thereafter, respondent pleaded for another restructurin) of the pa6,ent of the loan. This ti,e he re?ected her plea. Thus, respondent proposed to e>ecute a pro,issor6 note %herein she %ould ac(no%led)e her obli)ation to hi,, inclusive of interest, and that she %ould issue several postdated chec(s to )uarantee the pa6,ent of her obli)ation. #pon his approval of respondent=s re;uest for restructurin) of the loan, respondent e>ecuted a pro,issor6 note dated $* Septe,ber $//& %herein she ad,itted havin) borro%ed an a,ount of P$,*&-,---.--, inclusive of interest, fro, petitioner and that she %ould pa6 said a,ount in March $//'. Respondent also issued to hi, si> postdated chec(s a,ountin) to P$,*&-,---.-- as )uarantee of co,pliance %ith her obli)ation. Subse;uentl6, he presented the si> chec(s for encash,ent but onl6 one chec( %as honored. He de,anded that respondent settle her obli)ation, but the latter failed to do so. Hence, he filed cri,inal cases for Violation of the "ouncin) !hec(s 7a% 9"atas Pa,bansa "l). **: a)ainst respondent. The cases %ere assi)ned to the Metropolitan Trial !ourt of Ma(ati !it6, "ranch +' 9MeT!:.$* Petitioner insisted that there %as no overpa6,ent because respondent ad,itted in the latter=s pro,issor6 note that her ,onetar6 obli)ation as of $* Septe,ber $//& a,ounted to P$,*&-,---.-inclusive of interests. He ar)ued that respondent %as alread6 estopped fro, co,plainin) that she should not have paid an6 interest, because she %as )iven several ti,es to settle her obli)ation but failed to do so. He ,aintained that to rule in favor of respondent is tanta,ount to concludin) that the loan %as )iven interest2free. "ased on the fore)oin) aver,ents, he as(ed the RT! to dis,iss respondent=s co,plaint.

1fter trial, the RT! rendered a Decision on *+ 0anuar6 *--$ holdin) that respondent ,ade an overpa6,ent of her loan obli)ation to petitioner and that the latter should refund the e>cess a,ount to the for,er. It ratiocinated that respondent=s obli)ation %as onl6 to pa6 the loaned a,ount of P'&-,---.--, and that the alle)ed interests due should not be included in the co,putation of respondent=s total ,onetar6 debt because there %as no a)ree,ent bet%een the, re)ardin) pa6,ent of interest. It concluded that since respondent ,ade an e>cess pa6,ent to petitioner in the a,ount of P++-,---.-throu)h ,ista(e, petitioner should return the said a,ount to respondent pursuant to the principle of solutio indebiti.$. The RT! also ruled that petitioner should pa6 ,oral da,a)es for the sleepless ni)hts and %ounded feelin)s e>perienced b6 respondent. <urther, petitioner should pa6 e>e,plar6 da,a)es b6 %a6 of e>a,ple or correction for the public )ood, plus attorne6=s fees and costs of suit. The dispositive portion of the RT! Decision reads8 BH R <OR , in vie% of the fore)oin) evidence and in the li)ht of the provisions of la% and ?urisprudence on the ,atter, ?ud),ent is hereb6 rendered in favor of the plaintiff and a)ainst the defendant as follo%s8 9$: Orderin) defendant to pa6 plaintiff the a,ount of P++-,---.-- plus le)al interest of $*A per annu, co,puted fro, . March $//5 until the a,ount is paid in full@ 9*: Orderin) defendant to pa6 plaintiff the a,ount of P.--,---.-- as ,oral da,a)es@ 9.: Orderin) defendant to pa6 plaintiff the a,ount of P'-,---.-- as e>e,plar6 da,a)es@ 9&: Orderin) defendant to pa6 plaintiff the a,ount e;uivalent to *'A of P++-,---.-- as attorne6=s fees@ and 9': Orderin) defendant to pa6 the costs of suit. $&

Petitioner appealed to the !ourt of 1ppeals. On $+ Dece,ber *--', the appellate court pro,ul)ated its Decision affir,in) in toto the RT! Decision, thus8 BH R <OR , the fore)oin) considered, the instant appeal is hereb6 D NI D and the assailed decision CisD 1<<IRM D in toto.$' Petitioner filed a ,otion for reconsideration of the appellate court=s decision but this %as denied.$+ Hence, petitioner lod)ed the instant petition before us assi)nin) the follo%in) errors8 I. TH RT! 1ND TH !O#RT O< 1PP 17S RR D IN R#7IN3 TH1T NO INT R ST B1S D# TO P TITION R@ II. TH RT! 1ND TH !O#RT O< 1PP 17S RR D IN 1PP7EIN3 TH PRIN!IP7 O< SOLUTIO INDEBITI.$4 Interest is a co,pensation fi>ed b6 the parties for the use or forbearance of ,one6. This is referred to as ,onetar6 interest. Interest ,a6 also be i,posed b6 la% or b6 courts as penalt6 or inde,nit6 for da,a)es. This is called co,pensator6 interest. $5 The ri)ht to interest arises onl6 b6 virtue of a contract or b6 virtue of da,a)es for dela6 or failure to pa6 the principal loan on %hich interest is de,anded.$/ 1rticle $/'+ of the !ivil !ode, %hich refers to ,onetar6 interest,*- specificall6 ,andates that no interest shall be due unless it has been e>pressl6 stipulated in %ritin). 1s can be )leaned fro, the fore)oin) provision, pa6,ent of ,onetar6 interest is allo%ed onl6 if8 9$: there %as an e>press stipulation for the pa6,ent of interest@ and 9*: the a)ree,ent for the pa6,ent of interest %as reduced in %ritin). The concurrence of the t%o conditions is re;uired for the pa6,ent of ,onetar6 interest. Thus, %e have held that collection of interest %ithout an6 stipulation therefor in %ritin) is prohibited b6 la%. *$ It appears that petitioner and respondent did not a)ree on the pa6,ent of interest for the loan. Neither %as there convincin) proof of

%ritten a)ree,ent bet%een the t%o re)ardin) the pa6,ent of interest. Respondent testified that althou)h she accepted petitioner=s offer of loan a,ountin) to P'&-,---.--, there %as, nonetheless, no verbal or %ritten a)ree,ent for her to pa6 interest on the loan. ** Petitioner presented a hand%ritten pro,issor6 note dated $* Septe,ber $//&*. %herein respondent purportedl6 ad,itted o%in) petitioner Fcapital and interest.F Respondent, ho%ever, e>plained that it %as petitioner %ho ,ade a pro,issor6 note and she %as told to cop6 it in her o%n hand%ritin)@ that all her transactions %ith the PNO %ere sub?ect to the approval of petitioner as co,ptroller of the PNO@ that petitioner threatened to disapprove her transactions %ith the PNO if she %ould not pa6 interest@ that bein) una%are of the la% on interest and fearin) that petitioner %ould ,a(e )ood of his threats if she %ould not obe6 his instruction to cop6 the pro,issor6 note, she copied the pro,issor6 note in her o%n hand%ritin)@ and that such %as the sa,e pro,issor6 note presented b6 petitioner as alle)ed proof of their %ritten a)ree,ent on interest. *& Petitioner did not rebut the fore)oin) testi,on6. It is evident that respondent did not reall6 consent to the pa6,ent of interest for the loan and that she %as ,erel6 tric(ed and coerced b6 petitioner to pa6 interest. Hence, it cannot be )ainfull6 said that such pro,issor6 note pertains to an e>press stipulation of interest or %ritten a)ree,ent of interest on the loan bet%een petitioner and respondent. Petitioner, nevertheless, clai,s that both the RT! and the !ourt of 1ppeals found that he and respondent a)reed on the pa6,ent of 4A rate of interest on the loan@ that the a)reed 4A rate of interest %as dul6 ad,itted b6 respondent in her testi,on6 in the "atas Pa,bansa "l). ** cases he filed a)ainst respondent@ that despite such ?udicial ad,ission b6 respondent, the RT! and the !ourt of 1ppeals, citin) 1rticle $/'+ of the !ivil !ode, still held that no interest %as due hi, since the a)ree,ent on interest %as not reduced in %ritin)@ that the application of 1rticle $/'+ of the !ivil !ode should not be absolute, and an e>ception to the application of such provision should be ,ade %hen the borro%er ad,its that a specific rate of interest %as a)reed upon as in the present case@ and that it %ould be unfair to allo% respondent to pa6 onl6 the loan %hen the latter ver6 %ell (ne% and even ad,itted in the "atas Pa,bansa "l). ** cases that there %as an a)reed 4A rate of interest on the loan. *'

Be have carefull6 e>a,ined the RT! Decision and found that the RT! did not ,a(e a rulin) therein that petitioner and respondent a)reed on the pa6,ent of interest at the rate of 4A for the loan. The RT! clearl6 stated that althou)h petitioner and respondent entered into a valid oral contract of loan a,ountin) to P'&-,---.--, the6, nonetheless, never intended the pa6,ent of interest thereon. *+ Bhile the !ourt of 1ppeals ,entioned in its Decision that it concurred in the RT!=s rulin) that petitioner and respondent a)reed on a certain rate of interest as re)ards the loan, %e consider this as ,erel6 an inadvertence because, as earlier elucidated, both the RT! and the !ourt of 1ppeals ruled that petitioner is not entitled to the pa6,ent of interest on the loan. The rule is that factual findin)s of the trial court deserve )reat %ei)ht and respect especiall6 %hen affir,ed b6 the appellate court.*4 Be found no co,pellin) reason to disturb the rulin) of both courts. Petitioner=s reliance on respondent=s alle)ed ad,ission in the "atas Pa,bansa "l). ** cases that the6 had a)reed on the pa6,ent of interest at the rate of 4A deserves scant consideration. In the said case, respondent ,erel6 testified that after pa6in) the total a,ount of loan, petitioner ordered her to pa6 interest. *5 Respondent did not cate)oricall6 declare in the sa,e case that she and respondent ,ade an express stipulation in %ritin) as re)ards pa6,ent of interest at the rate of 4A. 1s earlier discussed, ,onetar6 interest is due onl6 if there %as anexpress stipulation in %ritin) for the pa6,ent of interest. There are instances in %hich an interest ,a6 be i,posed even in the absence of e>press stipulation, verbal or %ritten, re)ardin) pa6,ent of interest. 1rticle **-/ of the !ivil !ode states that if the obli)ation consists in the pa6,ent of a su, of ,one6, and the debtor incurs dela6, a le)al interest of $*A per annu, ,a6 be i,posed as inde,nit6 for da,a)es if no stipulation on the pa6,ent of interest %as a)reed upon. 7i(e%ise, 1rticle **$* of the !ivil !ode provides that interest due shall earn le)al interest fro, the ti,e it is ?udiciall6 de,anded, althou)h the obli)ation ,a6 be silent on this point. 1ll the sa,e, the interest under these t%o instances ,a6 be i,posed onl6 as a penalt6 or da,a)es for breach of contractual obli)ations. It cannot be char)ed as a co,pensation for the use or forbearance of ,one6. In other %ords, the t%o instances appl6 onl6 to co,pensator6

interest and not to ,onetar6 interest.*/ The case at bar involves petitioner=s clai, for ,onetar6 interest. <urther, said co,pensator6 interest is not char)eable in the instant case because it %as not dul6 proven that respondent defaulted in pa6in) the loan. 1lso, as earlier found, no interest %as due on the loan because there %as no %ritten a)ree,ent as re)ards pa6,ent of interest. Apropos the second assi)ned error, petitioner ar)ues that the principle of solutio indebiti does not appl6 to the instant case. Thus, he cannot be co,pelled to return the alle)ed e>cess a,ount paid b6 respondent as interest..#nder 1rticle $/+- of the !ivil !ode, if the borro%er of loan pa6s interest %hen there has been no stipulation therefor, the provisions of the !ivil !ode concernin) solutio indebiti shall be applied. 1rticle *$'& of the !ivil !ode e>plains the principle of solutio indebiti. Said provision provides that if so,ethin) is received %hen there is no ri)ht to de,and it, and it %as undul6 delivered throu)h ,ista(e, the obli)ation to return it arises. In such a case, a creditor2debtor relationship is created under a ;uasi2contract %hereb6 the pa6or beco,es the creditor %ho then has the ri)ht to de,and the return of pa6,ent ,ade b6 ,ista(e, and the person %ho has no ri)ht to receive such pa6,ent beco,es obli)ated to return the sa,e. The ;uasi2contract of solutio indebiti har(s bac( to the ancient principle that no one shall enrich hi,self un?ustl6 at the e>pense of another..$ The principle of solutio indebitiapplies %here 9$: a pa6,ent is ,ade %hen there e>ists no bindin) relation bet%een the pa6or, %ho has no dut6 to pa6, and the person %ho received the pa6,ent@ and 9*: the pa6,ent is ,ade throu)h ,ista(e, and not throu)h liberalit6 or so,e other cause..* Be have held that the principle of solutio indebiti applies in case of erroneous pa6,ent of undue interest... It %as dul6 established that respondent paid interest to petitioner. Respondent %as under no dut6 to ,a(e such pa6,ent because there %as no e>press stipulation in %ritin) to that effect. There %as no bindin) relation bet%een petitioner and respondent as re)ards the pa6,ent of interest. The pa6,ent %as clearl6 a ,ista(e. Since

petitioner received so,ethin) %hen there %as no ri)ht to de,and it, he has an obli)ation to return it. Be shall no% deter,ine the propriet6 of the ,onetar6 a%ard and da,a)es i,posed b6 the RT! and the !ourt of 1ppeals. Records sho% that respondent received a loan a,ountin) to P'&-,---.-- fro, petitioner..& Respondent issued t%o chec(s %ith a total %orth of P4--,---.-- in favor of petitioner as pa6,ent of the loan..' These chec(s %ere subse;uentl6 encashed b6 petitioner..+ Obviousl6, there %as an e>cess of P$+-,---.-- in the pa6,ent for the loan. Petitioner clai,s that the e>cess of P$+-,---.-- serves as interest on the loan to %hich he %as entitled. 1side fro, issuin) the said t%o chec(s, respondent also paid cash in the total a,ount of P$4',---.-- to petitioner as interest..4 1lthou)h no receipts reflectin) the sa,e %ere presented because petitioner refused to issue such to respondent, petitioner, nonetheless, ad,itted in his Repl621ffidavit.5 in the "atas Pa,bansa "l). ** cases that respondent paid hi, a total a,ount of P$4',---.-- cash in addition to the t%o chec(s. Section *+ Rule $.- of the Rules of vidence provides that the declaration of a part6 as to a relevant fact ,a6 be )iven in evidence a)ainst hi,. 1side fro, the a,ounts of P$+-,---.-- and P$4',---.-- paid as interest, no other proof of additional pa6,ent as interest %as presented b6 respondent. Since %e have previousl6 found that petitioner is not entitled to pa6,ent of interest and that the principle of solutio indebiti applies to the instant case, petitioner should return to respondent the e>cess a,ount of P$+-,---.-- and P$4',---.-- or the total a,ount of P..',---.--. 1ccordin)l6, the rei,bursable a,ount to respondent fi>ed b6 the RT! and the !ourt of 1ppeals should be reduced fro,P++-,---.-- to P..',---.--. 1s earlier stated, petitioner filed five 9': cri,inal cases for violation of "atas Pa,bansa "l). ** a)ainst respondent. In the said cases, the MeT! found respondent )uilt6 of violatin) "atas Pa,bansa "l). ** for issuin) five dishonored chec(s to petitioner. Nonetheless, respondent=s conviction therein does not affect our rulin) in the instant case. The t%o chec(s, sub?ect ,atter of this case, totalin) P4--,---.-- %hich respondent clai,ed as pa6,ent of the P'&-,---.-- %orth of loan, %ere not a,on) the five chec(s found

to be dishonored or bounced in the five cri,inal cases. <urther, the MeT! found that respondent ,ade an overpa6,ent of the loan b6 reason of the interest %hich the latter paid to petitioner. ./ 1rticle **$4 of the !ivil !ode provides that ,oral da,a)es ,a6 be recovered if the part6 under%ent ph6sical sufferin), ,ental an)uish, fri)ht, serious an>iet6, bes,irched reputation, %ounded feelin)s, ,oral shoc(, social hu,iliation and si,ilar in?ur6. Respondent testified that she e>perienced sleepless ni)hts and %ounded feelin)s %hen petitioner refused to return the a,ount paid as interest despite her repeated de,ands. Hence, the a%ard of ,oral da,a)es is ?ustified. Ho%ever, its correspondin) a,ount of P.--,---.--, as fi>ed b6 the RT! and the !ourt of 1ppeals, is e>orbitant and should be e;uitabl6 reduced. 1rticle **$+ of the !ivil !ode instructs that assess,ent of da,a)es is left to the discretion of the court accordin) to the circu,stances of each case. This discretion is li,ited b6 the principle that the a,ount a%arded should not be palpabl6 e>cessive as to indicate that it %as the result of pre?udice or corruption on the part of the trial court.&- To our ,ind, the a,ount of P$'-,---.-- as ,oral da,a)es is fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the in?ur6 suffered b6 respondent. 1rticle **.* of the !ivil !ode states that in a ;uasi2contract, such as solutio indebiti, e>e,plar6 da,a)es ,a6 be i,posed if the defendant acted in an oppressive ,anner. Petitioner acted oppressivel6 %hen he pestered respondent to pa6 interest and threatened to bloc( her transactions %ith the PNO if she %ould not pa6 interest. This forced respondent to pa6 interest despite lac( of a)ree,ent thereto. Thus, the a%ard of e>e,plar6 da,a)es is appropriate. The a,ount of P'-,---.-- i,posed as e>e,plar6 da,a)es b6 the RT! and the !ourt is fittin) so as to deter petitioner and other lenders fro, co,,ittin) si,ilar and other serious %ron)doin)s.&$ 0urisprudence instructs that in a%ardin) attorne6=s fees, the trial court ,ust state the factual, le)al or e;uitable ?ustification for a%ardin) the sa,e.&* In the case under consideration, the RT! stated in its Decision that the a%ard of attorne6=s fees e;uivalent to *'A of the a,ount paid as interest b6 respondent to petitioner is reasonable and ,oderate considerin) the e>tent of %or( rendered b6 respondent=s

la%6er in the instant case and the fact that it dra))ed on for several 6ears.&. <urther, respondent testified that she a)reed to co,pensate her la%6er handlin) the instant case such a,ount. && The a%ard, therefore, of attorne6=s fees and its a,ount e;uivalent to *'A of the a,ount paid as interest b6 respondent to petitioner is proper. <inall6, the RT! and the !ourt of 1ppeals i,posed a $*A rate of le)al interest on the a,ount refundable to respondent co,puted fro, . March $//5 until its full pa6,ent. This is erroneous. Be held in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc ! Court o" Appeals, &' that %hen an obli)ation, not constitutin) a loan or forbearance of ,one6 is breached, an interest on the a,ount of da,a)es a%arded ,a6 be i,posed at the rate of +A per annu,. Be further declared that %hen the ?ud),ent of the court a%ardin) a su, of ,one6 beco,es final and e>ecutor6, the rate of le)al interest, %hether it is a loanGforbearance of ,one6 or not, shall be $*A per annu, fro, such finalit6 until its satisfaction, this interi# period bein) dee,ed e;uivalent to a forbearance of credit. In the present case, petitioner=s obli)ation arose fro, a ;uasi2 contract of solutio indebiti and not fro, a loan or forbearance of ,one6. Thus, an interest of +A per annu, should be i,posed on the a,ount to be refunded as %ell as on the da,a)es a%arded and on the attorne6=s fees, to be co,puted fro, the ti,e of the e>tra2?udicial de,and on . March $//5,&+ up to the finalit6 of this Decision. In addition, the interest shall beco,e $*A per annu, fro, the finalit6 of this Decision up to its satisfaction. $"ERE%ORE, the Decision of the !ourt of 1ppeals in !123.R. !V No. 4$5$&, dated $+ Dece,ber *--', is hereb6 A%%IRME& %ith the follo%in) MO&I%ICATIONS8 9$: the a,ount of P++-,---.-- as refundable a,ount of interest is reduced to THR H#NDR D THIRTE <IV THO#S1ND P SOS 9P..',---.--:@ 9*: the a,ount ofP.--,---.-- i,posed as ,oral da,a)es is reduced to ON H#NDR D <I<TE THO#S1ND P SOS 9P$'-,---.--:@ 9.: an interest of +A per annu, is i,posed on the P..',---.--, on the da,a)es a%arded and on the attorne6=s fees to be co,puted fro, the ti,e of the e>tra2?udicial de,and on . March $//5 up to the finalit6 of this Decision@ and 9&: an interest of $*A per annu, is also

i,posed fro, the finalit6 of this Decision up to its satisfaction. !osts a)ainst petitioner. SO OR&ERE&.