De Lima V Laguna
De Lima V Laguna
De Lima V Laguna
other than what he has obtained from the lower court, if any, whose decision is brought
up on appeal. 8
We take note of the fact that petitioners are litigating as paupers. Although they may not
have appealed, they had filed their motion for reconsideration with the court a quo which
unfortunately did not act on it. By reason of their indigence, they failed to appeal but
petitioners De Lima and Requijo had filed their manifestation making reference to the
law and jurisprudence upon which they base their prayer for relief while petitioner Flores
filed his brief.
Moreover, under the circumstances of this case where the heirs of the victim in the traffic
accident chose not to appeal in the hope that the transportation company will pay the
damages awarded by the lower court but unfortunately said company still appealed to the
Court of Appeals, which step was obviously dilatory and oppressive of the rights of the
said claimants: that the case had been pending in court for about 30 years from the date of
the accident in 1958 so that as an exception to the general rule aforestated, the said
heirs who did not appeal the judgment, should be afforded equitable relief by the
courts as it must be vigilant for their protection. The claim for legal interest and increase
in the indemnity should be entertained in spite of the failure of the claimants to appeal the
judgment.
We take exception to the ruling of the Appellate Court as to the date when the legal
interest should commence to ran. In view of the consistent rulings of this Court, We hold
that the legal interest of six percent (6) on the amounts adjudged in favor of petitioners
should start from the time of the rendition of the trial court's decision on December 27,
1963 instead of January 31, 1972, the promulgation of the decision of the Court of
Appeals.