Poliand Industrial Limited vs. National Development Company

Legal interest on a liquidated maritime lien claim accrues from the date of extrajudicial demand when the amount claimed is already determinate and certain, not from the date of finality of judgment or the date of foreclosure sale.

The case arose from a maritime lien claim by Poliand Industrial Limited against National Development Company (NDC) involving foreclosed vessels. The dispute centered on the proper reckoning date for the computation of legal interest on the monetary award, with Poliand seeking interest from the date of foreclosure sale or extrajudicial demand, while NDC contested the liability and timing of interest accrual.

• Poliand Industrial Limited is the petitioner in G.R. No. 143866 and respondent in G.R. No. 143877, while National Development Company (NDC) is the opposing party in both consolidated cases.
• The underlying dispute involves a maritime lien claim where Poliand sought satisfaction of its claim against NDC.
• The trial court made a factual finding that Poliand made extrajudicial demands on September 25, 1991 against NDC, Galleon Shipping Corporation, and Development Bank of the Philippines.
• The extrajudicial demand made on September 25, 1991 was for a specified amount equivalent to the maritime lien, which was the same amount prayed for in the complaint and eventually upheld by the trial court.
• The last foreclosure sale of the vessels occurred on September 12, 1984.
• In the August 22, 2005 Decision, the Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals' Decision, holding NDC liable for US$1,193,298.56 plus interest of 12% per annum computed from September 25, 1991.
• In the November 23, 2005 Resolution, the Supreme Court modified the August 22, 2005 Decision by reckoning the computation of interest from the date of finality of judgment instead of September 25, 1991.
• Poliand filed the instant motion seeking to reinstate the August 22, 2005 computation or, alternatively, to reckon interest from September 12, 1984 (date of foreclosure sale).

• The computation of interest should be reckoned from September 12, 1984, the date of the last foreclosure sale of the vessels, in conformity with the dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' Decision.
• Alternatively, the interest rate should be computed from September 25, 1991, the date of extrajudicial demand, in conformity with the tack ordered in the Decision dated August 22, 2005.
• The Court's finding that the institution of extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings was tainted with bad faith provides the basis to reckon the computation of legal interest from the date of the foreclosure sale.
• Section 17(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1521 supports the position that interest computation should be reckoned from the date of the last foreclosure sale on September 12, 1984.

• N/A (The Resolution focuses on the grant of the motion and the substantive ruling; specific arguments of NDC opposing the motion are not detailed in the text, though NDC previously filed its own motion for partial reconsideration which was denied).

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether a second motion for reconsideration filed by Poliand should be entertained despite the general rule prohibiting the same.
  • Whether the instant motion constitutes a second motion for reconsideration of the August 22, 2005 Decision or a first motion for reconsideration of the November 23, 2005 Resolution.
• Substantive Issues:
  • When should the computation of legal interest on the maritime lien award commence: (a) September 12, 1984 (date of foreclosure sale); (b) September 25, 1991 (date of extrajudicial demand); or (c) date of finality of judgment?

• Procedural:
  • The Court held that the instant motion is not actually a second motion for reconsideration of the August 22, 2005 Decision, but rather seeks review of the November 23, 2005 Resolution which delved for the first time on the issue of the reckoning date of interest computation.
  • The Court granted the motion to avoid further delay and ensure that "finis is written to this controversy," allowing a fresh scrutiny of the factual premises glossed over in the November 23, 2005 Resolution.
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that interest should be computed from September 25, 1991, the date of extrajudicial demand, reinstating the dispositive portion of the August 22, 2005 Decision.
  • The trial court's finding that an extrajudicial demand was made on September 25, 1991 for a determinate amount constitutes adequate basis to conclude that Poliand's claim was already due and demandable as of said date.
  • The claim was "liquidated" as of the date of demand because the amount and date were both certain, making the computation merely a matter of mathematical calculation.
  • The Court rejected Poliand's theory that interest should be reckoned from September 12, 1984 (foreclosure sale date), holding that bad faith in foreclosure proceedings may be the basis of other awards but not the award of legal interest.
  • The Court held that Section 17(a) of Presidential Decree No. 1521 is inapplicable to the question of interest payment as it merely enumerates prioritized liens entitled to satisfaction upon sale of a mortgaged vessel, not the computation of interest.

• Rule Against Second Motions for Reconsideration — Ordinarily, no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained; however, the Court may relax this rule when the subsequent motion seeks review of a resolution that modified the original decision and addressed issues not previously passed upon.
• Liquidated Debt/Demandable Claim — An account is considered liquidated when it has been made certain as to what and how much is deemed to be owing; when the amount claimed and the date of demand are both certain, the claim is due and demandable, and legal interest begins to run from the date of default.
• Factual Findings of Trial Courts — Factual findings of the trial court, duly supported by evidence on record, deserve great weight and respect and are binding on appellate courts unless substantial evidence points to a different conclusion.

• "Ordinarily, no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained."
• "An account that has been 'liquidated' can also mean that the item has been made certain as to what, and how much, is deemed to be owing."
• "The amount claimed and the date of demand being both certain, to arrive at the liquidated amount would merely be a matter of mathematical computation."
• "The finding of the trial court that an extrajudicial demand was made by Poliand on September 25, 1991 on NDC for the payment of a determinate amount equivalent to its maritime lien, unmodified as it was by the appellate court, constitutes adequate basis to conclude that as of said date, Poliand's claim was already due and demandable."
• "An act done in bad faith may be the basis of some other award but not the award of legal interest."

• Diaz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 125213, January 26, 1999 — Cited for the definition that an account which has been "liquidated" means the item has been made certain as to what, and how much, is deemed to be owing.
• Tropical Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111858, May 14, 1997 — Cited for the principle that when the amount claimed and date of demand are certain, arriving at the liquidated amount is merely a matter of mathematical computation.

• Rule 52, Section 2 and Rule 56, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Establishes the general rule that no second motion for reconsideration shall be entertained, which the Court characterized as not applicable to the instant motion since it sought review of the November 23, 2005 Resolution.
• Presidential Decree No. 1521, Section 17(a) — Enumerates preferred maritime liens and their priorities upon sale of mortgaged vessels; held inapplicable to the computation of interest as it merely addresses lien satisfaction priorities, not interest accrual.

• N/A (The Resolution indicates concurrence by Puno, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., but does not contain separate concurring opinions).