[ G.R. Nos. 240187-88.
March 28, 2022 ]
MARTIN R. BUENAFLOR, PETITIONER, VS. FEDERATED DISTRIBUTORS, INC. AND
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
LOPEZ, J., J.:
This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the Decision2 dated February 6, 2018 and the Resolution3 dated May 24, 2018
rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR Nos. 37649 and 37746. The CA Decision
affirmed with modification the Decision4 dated April 1, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 258, Parañaque City in Criminal Case Nos. 08-0820-24 and 09-0045-51, which found
petitioner Martin R. Buenaflor (Buenaflor) civilly liable for the face value of the 12 checks he
issued in favor of Federated Distributors, Inc. (FDI).
In 2006, FDI purchased from Buenaflor assorted pork products and made an advance
payment of P5,831,000.00. Some of the products had to be returned as they did not conform to
FDI's specifications. Despite repeated demands, however, Buenaflor failed to deliver the
remainder of FDI's order. Subsequently, Buenaflor promised to return the balance of the advance
payment of FDI in the sum of P4,444,829.97. He issued 12 post-dated checks in the amount of
P100,000.00 each:
Drawee Bank Check No. Date Amount
Equitable PCI 1017315 June 29, 2007 P100,000.00
Equitable PCI 1017316 July 29, 2007 P100,000.00
Equitable PCI 1017317 August 29, 2007 P100,000.00
Equitable PCI 1017318 September 29, 2007 P100,000.00
Equitable PCI 1017319 October 29, 2007 P100,000.00
Equitable PCI 1017320 November 29, 2007 P100,000.00
Equitable PCI 1017321 December 29, 2007 P100,000.00
Equitable PCI 1017322 January 29, 2008 P100,000.00
Equitable PCI 1017323 February 29, 2008 P100,000.00
Equitable PCI 1017324 March 29, 2008 P100,000.00
Equitable PCI 1017325 April 29, 2008 P100,000.00
Equitable PCI 1017326 May 29, 2008 P100,000.00
Total P1,200,000.005
All 12 checks were eventually dishonored because they were either drawn against
insufficient funds (DAIF) or the account was closed.6
This prompted FDI to institute a complaint for a sum of money against Buenaflor to collect his
outstanding obligation, including the value of the 12 checks. On April 21, 2008, FDI also filed a
criminal case for five counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP Blg.) 227 against
Buenaflor docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 08-0820 to 24 before the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC), Branch 78, Parañaque City. On July 21, 2008, FDI initiated another case for seven
counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 09-0045-51 before the
MeTC.8 The accusatory portion of the Information in Criminal Case No. 08-0820 reads:
That on or about the 29th day of June 2007 or prior thereto, in the City of
Paranaque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
issue to FEDERATED DISTRIBUTORS, INC. rep. by Grace B. Jayme to apply
on account or for value the check described below:
Check No. : 1017315
Drawn Against : EQUITABLE PCI BANK
In the Amount of : P100,000.00
Dated : JUNE 29, 2007
Payable to : FEDERATED DISTRIBUTORS, INC.
said accused well knowing that at the time of issue she/he did not have sufficient
funds in or credit with the bank for payment in full of the amount of such check
upon its presentment, which check when presented for payment within ninety
(90) days from the date thereof, was subsequently dishonored by the drawee
bank for the reason "DAIF" and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, the
accused failed to pay said payee the face amount of said check or to make
arrangement for full payment thereof, within five (5) banking days after receiving
said notice.
CONTRARY TO LAW.9 (Emphases and italics in the original)
The respective Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 08-021 to 08-024 and 09-0045 to 09-0051
contained the same allegations except for the check number and the date.10
Buenaflor filed a Demurrer to Evidence but it was denied by the MeTC on April 20,
2014.11 The MeTC then proceeded to resolve the consolidated criminal cases.
On September 1, 2014, the MeTC rendered its Judgment,12 the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, factual findings considered, this Court renders JUDGMENT:
1. DISMISSING CRIMINAL CASES Nos. 08-0820 to 24 and CRIMINAL CASES Nos.
09-0045 to 51, all for VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22, against
the accused, MARTIN R. BUENAFLOR, the Prosecution having failed to
establish his guilt beyond REASONABLE DOUBT; and
2. ADJUDGING the accused, MARTIN R. BUENAFLOR in CRIMINAL CASES Nos.
08-0820 to 24 and CRIMINAL CASES Nos. 09-0045 to 51, all for VIOLATION
OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22, CIVILLY LIABLE for:
A. ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
([P]1,200,000.00) for the face value of the twelve (12) checks, as
ACTUAL DAMAGES;
B. TWELVE PERCENT PER ANNUM (12% P.A.) on the value of
each check computed from the date of the filing of the criminal
cases in Court, until fully paid, as INTERESTS;
C. TWENTY THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS
([P]23,250.00), for reimbursement of the filing and other fees in
Court; and
D. TEN THOUSAND PESOS ([P]10,000.00), as and for
ATTORNEY'S FEES.
SO ORDERED.13
The MeTC was convinced that the elements of violation of BP Blg. 22 were not established
by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The MeTC found that while the first two elements
of the crime were established because Buenaflor issued checks that were subsequently
dishonored, the third element – that the accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with drawee bank for the payment of the check in full
upon its presentment – was not proven. The MeTC explained that FDI failed to notify Buenaflor
personally and directly that his account had no funds or that it had been closed. For the MeTC,
the prosecution should have presented other witnesses or documents to establish that Buenaflor
received a valid demand letter from FDI.14 In any case, considering that Buenaflor waived his
right to present his evidence when he filed his Demurrer to Evidence, the MeTC found him civilly
liable.15
The MeTC pointed out that an earlier civil case had been instituted by FDI against Buenaflor
to recover P4,444,829.97, which amount already included the value of the 12 checks subject of
the criminal cases. The MeTC concluded that a recovery by FDI under one remedy necessarily
bars recovery under the other. Thus, the MeTC opined that awarding the value of the 12 checks
in the criminal cases will defeat the rule against unjust enrichment.16 Nevertheless, in the
dispositive portion of the MeTC Judgment, Buenaflor was still found civilly liable for the value of
the checks in the amount of P1,200,000.00, twelve percent (12%) interest per annum, filing fees
in the amount of P23,250.00, and attorney's fees worth P10,000.00.17
Aggrieved, Buenaflor appealed to the RTC. On April 1, 2015, the RTC rendered its
Decision,18 the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision dated
September 1, 2014 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that the award
of ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS ([P]1,200,000.00) for
the face value of the twelve (12) checks, as ACTUAL DAMAGES and TWELVE
PERCENT PER ANNUM (12% P.A.) on the value of each computed from the
date of the filing of the criminal cases in Court, until fully paid, as INTERESTS
are hereby deleted. The Decision is AFFIRMED in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.19 (Emphases in the original)
The RTC deleted the award of civil indemnity in the amount of P1,200,000.00 for the face
value of the 12 checks and the interest pursuant to the principle proscribing unjust enrichment.20
FDI filed an appeal with the CA. On February 6, 2018, the CA rendered its Decision,21 the
dispositive portion of which states:
We MODIFY the assailed Decision dated 01 April 2015 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 258, Paranaque City, thus: we ORDER Martin R. Buenaflor to pay
Federated Distributors Inc. the following amounts:
1) Php 1,200,000.00 (as actual damages), plus 6% per annum as
interest, computed from the finality of this decision, until the
award is fully satisfied;
2) Php 10,000.00 as attorney's fees;
3) Php 23,250.00, as costs of suit and other fees.
We DISMISS the Amended Petition for Review filed by Martin R. Buenaflor.
IT IS SO ORDERED.22 (Emphases in the original)
Citing Section 1 (b), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, the CA held that the RTC erred when it
deleted the award of P1,200,000.00 plus 12% interest per annum. The CA ruled that when FDI
filed the criminal cases for violation of BP Blg. 22 before the MeTC, the civil actions were
deemed instituted. Thus, the MeTC could validly make a ruling regarding the civil award in the
criminal suits.23
The CA declared that the fact that FDI's counsel manifested before the MeTC that it should
only rule on the criminal aspect of the cases was irrelevant because Section 1 (b), Rule 111 of
the Rules of Court24 prohibits a party from reserving to file a separate civil action. The CA also
relied on FDI's manifestation and the testimony of its representative, Grace B. Jayme, who stated
that FDI also seeks to recover the face value of the checks worth P1,200,000.00 in the present
criminal cases.25
In a Resolution26 dated May 24, 2018, the CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration of
Buenaflor.27 Hence, this Petition.
Buenaflor argues that it is unjust and violative of his right to due process to disregard the
manifestation of FDI's counsel during trial that it will not pursue the civil aspect of the BP Blg. 22
cases. He insists that he relied on such manifestation in deciding not to present controverting
evidence for the civil aspect.28 He also maintains that FDI committed forum shopping because it
resorted to two different courts for the recovery of the same amount.29
The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Manifestation and Motion (In Lieu of Comment)
dated November 14, 2018,30 asking that it be excused from filing a comment since Buenaflor's
appeal is limited only to the civil aspect of the BP Blg. 22 cases.31 Meanwhile, FDI filed its
Comment,32 claiming that Buenaflor failed to raise any substantial question of law that may
warrant this Court's discretionary review.33
In his Reply dated February 10, 2019,34 Buenaflor merely reiterated his arguments in his
petition.
The issues to be resolved are:
I.
Whether FDI may recover the face value of the checks worth P1,200,000.00 in
the BP Blg. 22 cases when this amount was initially included in the civil case
instituted prior to the criminal cases; and
II
Whether FDI committed forum shopping in filing the BP Blg. 22 cases after
instituting a collection case seeking to recover an amount which includes the
face value of the checks.
FDI is not barred from
recovering the face value
of the checks in the BP
Blg. 22 cases.
The CA is correct in awarding the face value of the checks amounting to P1,200,000.00.
However, there is a need to clarify the reason behind this ruling.
In modifying the decision of the RTC, the CA relied on Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Rules of
Court, the pertinent portion of which states:
SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.
xxxx
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file
such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party
shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which
shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the complaint or
information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or
exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on
the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these
damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the
amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet
commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application
with the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted the trial of both
actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing
consolidation of the civil and criminal actions. (Emphasis supplied)
It is settled that, as a rule, an offended party may reserve the right to institute a civil action.
The quoted provision is an exception to the general rule and exclusively applies to a case for
violation of BP Blg. 22. It states that the criminal action for violation of BP Blg. 22 is deemed to
include the corresponding civil action and that no reservation to file such civil action separately is
permitted. However, this prohibition contemplates a situation wherein a reservation to file the civil
action arising from BP Blg. 22 is made after the criminal action is filed. It does not bar the
institution of a civil action prior to the criminal action for violation of BP Blg. 22.35
Citing the case of Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corp. v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corp.,36 this
Court explained in Spouses Lo Bun Tiong and Siok Ching Teng v. Balboa,37 the rationale behind
Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court as follows:
x x x This rule [Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure] was enacted to help declog court dockets which are filled with B.P.
22 cases as creditors actually use the courts as collectors. Because ordinarily no
filing fee is charged in criminal cases for actual damages, the payee uses the
intimidating effect of a criminal charge to collect his credit gratis and sometimes,
upon being paid, the trial court is not even informed thereof. The inclusion of the
civil action in the criminal case is expected to significantly lower the number of
cases filed before the courts for collection based on dishonored checks. It is also
expected to expedite the disposition of these cases. Instead of instituting two
separate cases, one for criminal and another for civil, only a single suit shall be
filed and tried. It should be stressed that the policy laid down by the Rules is to
discourage the separate filing of the civil action. The Rules even prohibit the
reservation of a separate civil action, which means that one can no longer file a
separate civil case after the criminal complaint is filed in court. The only
instance when separate proceedings are allowed is when the civil action is
filed ahead of the criminal case. Even then, the Rules encourage the
consolidation of the civil and criminal cases. We have previously observed that a
separate civil action for the purpose of recovering the amount of the dishonored
checks would only prove to be costly, burdensome and time-consuming for both
parties and would further delay the final disposition of the case. This multiplicity
of suits must be avoided. Where petitioners' rights may be fully adjudicated in the
proceedings before the trial court, resort to a separate action to recover civil
liability is clearly unwarranted.38 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)
It is clear from the foregoing that a separate civil suit for the recovery of the civil liability in
cases of violation of BP Blg. 22, when filed ahead of the criminal case, is allowed.
The proper course of action would have been to suspend the civil action until final judgment
has been rendered in the criminal action in accordance with Section 2, Rule 111,39 or to
consolidate the civil action with the criminal action. However, in the present case, it is apparent
that neither of these directions were pursued by the trial court despite its knowledge of the
pendency of the separate civil case.
To this Court's mind, while the CA correctly found that private respondent is entitled to the
face value of the 12 checks, it erred in relying on Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court as
its basis for ruling so. The provision is not applicable to the present case since the civil case was
instituted ahead of the BP Blg. 22 cases. Instead, the proper basis for ordering petitioner to pay
private respondent the face value of the 12 checks should be the Decision40 dated May 13, 2015
of the CA in CA G.R. No. 96212, which involved the civil case filed by private respondent against
petitioner. The pertinent portion of the Decision is quoted below:
However, We are not unmindful of the fact that on July 22, 2008, appellee
filed a Manifestation informing the court a quo that it instituted against appellee a
separate criminal action for violation of BP 22. In the same pleading, appellee
also asked that his claim in Civil Case No. 07-0301 be reduced accordingly. The
Court will certainly not allow appellee to recover a sum of money twice in the
amount based on the same set of checks. Neither will the Court allow appellee to
proceed with two actions based on the same set of checks to increase its
chances of obtaining a favorable ruling. In order to prevent double recovery or
unjust enrichment on the part of appellee, the said amount of P4,444,829.97
must be reduced by P1,200,000.00, or the total amount for which the dishonored
checks were issued. Thus, We reduce appellant's liability to P3,244,829.97.
xxx
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the decision dated September 8,
2010 of Branch 257 of the Regional Trial Court of Paranaque City in Civil Case
No. 07-0301 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION in that defendant-
appellant Martin R. Buenaflor is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff-appellee
Federated Distributors, Inc. the amount of P3,244,829.97 with interest rate of six
percent (6%) per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint until its full
satisfaction.41 (Citations omitted; emphasis in the original)
It is worthy to point out that in the civil case, the counsel of private respondent filed a
Manifestation42 dated July 22, 2008 stating that:
xxxx
3. The [P]1,200,000.00 representing the total amount of the said checks is a portion
of defendant's indebtedness to plaintiff in the sum of [P]4,444,829.97.
Accordingly, to avoid double recovery, the amount of the aforesaid dishonored
checks, now subject of the criminal cases aforementioned, should be deducted
from plaintiffs claim in this case. Thus, [P]4,444,829.97 less [P]1,200,000.00,
leaves a balance of [P]3,244,829.97, representing plaintiff's principal claim
against defendant in this case. The reason for this Manifestation is Section 1 (b),
Rule 111 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.43
It must be noted that the decision of the CA in the civil case was brought to this Court
through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court docketed as G.R.
No. 220841.44 In an Entry of Judgment, it was certified that on December 9, 2015, this Court
issued a Resolution denying the petition for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the
challenged decision and resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary
appellate jurisdiction.45 This Court confirmed that its Resolution became final and executory on
June 13, 2016.46
Indeed, Article 2177 of the Civil Code provides that "the plaintiff cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the defendant." In this case, since the face value of the 12
checks with a total amount of P1,200,000.00 was already deleted to avoid double recovery in
G.R. No. 220841, and this ruling had already attained finality on June 13, 2016, private
respondent should be permitted to recover the amount in the present case. After all, these
checks constitute an evidence of indebtedness of petitioner duly proven during trial yet remain
unpaid.
A check is defined as "a bill of exchange drawn on a bank payable on demand."47 As a
negotiable instrument, it may be discharged under any of the methods enumerated in Section
119 of the Negotiable Instruments Law:
(a) By payment in due course by or on behalf of the principal debtor;
(b) By payment in due course by the party accommodated, where the instrument is
made or accepted for his accommodation;
(c) By the intentional cancellation thereof by the holder;
(d) By any other act which will discharge a simple contract for the payment of money;
(e) When the principal debtor becomes the holder of the instrument at or after
maturity in his own right.
In Ting Ting Pua v. Sps. Lo Bun Tiong and Siok Ching Teng,48 this Court stressed that a
check constitutes an evidence of indebtedness. This Court explained that:
In Pacheco v. Court of Appeals, this Court has expressly recognized that a
check "constitutes an evidence of indebtedness" and is a veritable "proof
of an obligation." Hence, it can be used "in lieu of and for the same
purpose as a promissory note." In fact, in the seminal case of Lozano v.
Martinez, We pointed out that a check functions more than a promissory note
since it not only contains an undertaking to pay an amount of money but is an
"order addressed to a bank and partakes of a representation that the drawer has
funds on deposit against which the check is drawn, sufficient to ensure payment
upon its presentation to the bank." This Court reiterated this rule in the relatively
recent Lim v. Mindanao Wines and Liquour Galleria stating that "a check, the
entries of which are in writing, could prove a loan transaction."49 (Citations
omitted; emphases supplied)
Here, the obligation of petitioner to pay the value of the dishonored checks subsists as the
checks had not been discharged under any of the modes enumerated above. Therefore, private
respondent should be permitted to collect the face value of the 12 checks. 1âшphi1
II
FDI did not commit
forum shopping in filing
the BP Blg. 22 cases
after instituting the
separate collection suit.
Forum shopping refers to the act of repetitively availing "several judicial remedies in different
courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and
the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either
pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court."50 This Court has recognized the
following instances as modes of committing forum shopping:
(1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same
prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for
dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved
(where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases
based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers (splitting of causes
of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res
judicata).51 (Citation omitted)
Here, private respondent did not commit forum shopping. The criminal actions for violation of
BP Blg. 22 may be pursued independently from the collection suit provided that there is no
double recovery. While both actions are inherently related to one another and involve the same
checks, they have different causes of action and the reliefs prayed for are not identical. In the
criminal case, the primary objective is to punish the offender to deter him and others from
committing the same or similar offense. On the other hand, the purpose of the civil action is to
recover indebtedness.
To recall, private respondent initially sought to recover in the civil case the value of the 12
checks together with other amounts representing petitioner's indebtedness. However, after
instituting the BP Blg. 22 cases, private respondent informed the trial court in the civil case about
the BP Blg. 22 cases and asked that the face value of the checks be excluded from the award in
the civil case.50 This is consistent with Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court which states:
SECTION 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal
party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading
asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any
action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-
judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is
pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn
that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he
shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. x x x (Emphasis
supplied)
The fact that private respondent promptly informed the court of the pendency of the BP Blg.
22 cases show that there is no intention to commit forum shopping. The manifestation of private
respondent reveals that it did not intend to mislead the court or to claim more than what petitioner
actually owes it.
All told, the CA correctly found petitioner liable for the face value of the 12 checks. The
previously instituted civil case did not prevent private respondent from claiming the value of the
checks in the BP Blg. 22 cases since the issue of double recovery was sufficiently foreclosed.
As a final note, this Court modifies the amount of interest imposed by the CA in its Decision.
In Nacar v. Gallery Frames,51 this Court laid down the following guidelines in the imposition of
legal interest:
II. With regard particularly to an award of interest in the concept of actual and
compensatory damages, the rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof, is
imposed, as follows:
1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of
a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the
interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in
writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal
interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In the absence of
stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be
computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand
under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil
Code.
xxx
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money
becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether
the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall
be 6% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this
interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a
forbearance of credit.
And in addition to the above, judgments that have become final and
executory prior to July 1, 2013, shall not be disturbed and shall continue to be
implemented applying the rate of interest fixed therein.52 (Emphasis in the
original; underscoring supplied; citation omitted)
Pursuant to this Court's ruling in Nacar, the sum of P1,200,000.00, representing the face
value of the 12 checks, being a forbearance of money, shall earn interest at the rate of twelve
percent (12%)53 per annum from the filing of the 12 Informations until June 30, 2013 and
thereafter, at the rate of six percent (6%)54 per annum from July 1, 2013 until the finality of this
Decision.
The total amount awarded to private respondent, including attorney's fees and costs of suit,
shall further earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%)55 per annum from the finality of
this Decision until full payment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated February 6, 2018
and the Resolution dated May 24, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
Nos. 37649 and 37746 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Petitioner Martin R. Buenaflor is ORDERED to pay respondent Federated
Distributors, Inc. the amount of P1,200,000.00, with interest at the rate of twelve
percent (12%) per annum from the filing of the 12 Informations until June 30,
2013 and thereafter at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from July 1, 2013
until the finality of this Decision.
Petitioner Martin R. Buenaflor is also ORDERED to PAY interest on the
monetary awards in favor of respondent Federated Distributors, Inc. at the rate
of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Decision until
full payment.
SO ORDERED.
