The petitioner shipped bags of fishmeal that were insured by the respondent insurance company. During transit, the bags were damaged, rendering the fishmeal useless. The petitioner filed a claim that was denied, so the petitioner sued. The court ordered the insurance company to pay but set the interest at 12% rather than the mandated 6%. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Civil Code, the interest rate for damages arising from loss of property is 6% annually unless otherwise stipulated.
The petitioner shipped bags of fishmeal that were insured by the respondent insurance company. During transit, the bags were damaged, rendering the fishmeal useless. The petitioner filed a claim that was denied, so the petitioner sued. The court ordered the insurance company to pay but set the interest at 12% rather than the mandated 6%. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Civil Code, the interest rate for damages arising from loss of property is 6% annually unless otherwise stipulated.
The petitioner shipped bags of fishmeal that were insured by the respondent insurance company. During transit, the bags were damaged, rendering the fishmeal useless. The petitioner filed a claim that was denied, so the petitioner sued. The court ordered the insurance company to pay but set the interest at 12% rather than the mandated 6%. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Civil Code, the interest rate for damages arising from loss of property is 6% annually unless otherwise stipulated.
The petitioner shipped bags of fishmeal that were insured by the respondent insurance company. During transit, the bags were damaged, rendering the fishmeal useless. The petitioner filed a claim that was denied, so the petitioner sued. The court ordered the insurance company to pay but set the interest at 12% rather than the mandated 6%. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Civil Code, the interest rate for damages arising from loss of property is 6% annually unless otherwise stipulated.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
TIO KHE CHIO, petitioner, vs .
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and EASTERN ASSURANCE
AND SURETY CORPORATION, respondents. G.R. Nos. 76101-02 September 30, 1991
FACTS: Petitioner shipped bags of imported fishmeals and insured the same with respondent insurance company Eastern Assurance & Surety Corp ( EASCO). During transit, the bags were found out to be damaged thus rendering the fishmeals useless. Petitioner filed a claim before the EASCO which denied the same, prompting the former to sue the latter at CFI Cebu who ordered EASCO to pay the petitioner’s claim for insurance with damages. Upon execution, respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA who set aside the lower court’s decision arguing that the latter has erred in fixing the legal interest on 12 % per annum rather than the mandated 6 %.
ISSUE: WON the legal interest must be 12% for damages arising from loss of property
RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that the applicable law is Article 2209 of the Civil Code which reads that if the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money and the debtor incurs delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal interest which is 6% per annum. The adjusted rate mentioned in the Circular no. 416, from which the CFI based its decision, refers only to loans or forbearance of money, goods or credits and court judgments thereon but not to court judgments for damages arising from injury to persons and loss of property which does not involve a loan.
