NAZARENO VS. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No.

131641, February 23, 2000

FACTS: Maximino Nazareno, Sr. and Aurea Poblete were husband and wife. Aurea died on April !, "#$, while Maximino, Sr. died on %e&ember ', "'$. After the death of Maximino, Sr., (omeo filed an intestate &ase in the Court of First )nstan&e of Ca*ite, +ran&h ,-, where the &ase was do&.eted as Sp. Pro&. No. NC/0'. 1pon the reor2anization of the &ourts in "'3, the &ase was transferred to the (e2ional Trial Court of Nai&, Ca*ite. (omeo was appointed administrator of his father4s estate. )n the &ourse of the intestate pro&eedin2s, (omeo dis&o*ered that his parents had exe&uted se*eral deeds of sale &on*e5in2 a number of real properties in fa*or of his sister, Nati*idad. 6ne of the deeds in*ol*ed six lots in 7uezon Cit5 whi&h were alle2edl5 sold b5 Maximino, Sr., with the &onsent of Aurea, to Nati*idad on 8anuar5 0", "#$ for the total amount of P9#,'$$.$$. )SS1:: ;hether or not the %eed of Absolute of Sale &an be e<uated as a di*isible obli2ation. =:>%: The Supreme &ourt held that the %eed of Absolute Sale is an indi*isible &ontra&t founded on an indi*isible obli2ation. As su&h, it bein2 indi*isible, it &an not be annulled b5 onl5 one of them. And sin&e this suit was filed onl5 b5 the estate of Maximino A. Nazareno, Sr. without in&ludin2 the estate of Aurea Poblete, the present suit must fail. The estate of Maximino A. Nazareno, Sr. &an not &ause its annulment while its *alidit5 is sustained b5 the estate of Aurea Poblete. An obli2ation is indi*isible when it &annot be *alidl5 performed in parts, whate*er ma5 be the nature of the thin2 whi&h is the ob?e&t thereof. The indi*isibilit5 refers to the prestation and not to the ob?e&t. The %eed of Sale of 8anuar5 0", "#$ supposedl5 &on*e5ed the six lots to Nati*idad. The obli2ation is &learl5 indi*isible be&ause the performan&e of the &ontra&t &annot be done in parts, otherwise the *alue of what is transferred is diminished. Petitioners are mista.en in basin2 the indi*isibilit5 of a &ontra&t on the number of obli2ors. )n an5 &ase, if petitioners4 onl5 point is that the estate of Maximino, Sr. alone &annot &ontest the *alidit5 of the %eed of Sale be&ause the estate of Aurea has not 5et been settled, the ar2ument would nonetheless be without merit. The *alidit5 of the &ontra&t &an be <uestioned b5 an5one affe&ted b5 it. A *oid &ontra&t is inexistent from the be2innin2. =en&e, e*en if the estate of Maximino, Sr. alone &ontests the *alidit5 of the sale, the out&ome of the suit will bind the estate of Aurea as if no sale too. pla&e at all.

ar!ue" #". Far Ea"$ %a&' G.R. No. 1(13(), *a&uary 10, 2011 Fa&ts: Maxilite Te&hnolo2ies, )n&. @MaxiliteA is a domesti& &orporation en2a2ed in the importation and tradin2 of e<uipment for ener25/effi&ien&5 s5stems. 8ose N. Mar<ues @Mar<uesA is the President and &ontrollin2 sto&.holder of Maxilite. Far :ast +an. and Trust Co. @F:+TCA is a lo&al ban. whi&h handled the finan&in2 and related re<uirements of Mar<ues and Maxilite. Mar<ues and Maxilite maintained a&&ounts with F:+TC. A&&ordin2l5, F:+TC finan&ed Maxilite4s &apital and operational re<uirements throu2h loans se&ured with properties of Mar<ues under the latter4s name. Far :ast +an. )nsuran&e +ro.ers, )n&. @F:+)+)A is a lo&al insuran&e bro.era2e &orporation while Ma.ati )nsuran&e Compan5 is a lo&al insuran&e &ompan5. +oth &ompanies are subsidiaries of F:+TC. 6n # 8une ""3, Maxilite and Mar<ues entered into a trust re&eipt transa&tion with F:+TC, in the sum of 1SB'$,#C!.$$, for the shipment of *arious hi2h/te&hnolo25 e<uipments from the 1nited States, with the mer&handise ser*in2 as &ollateral. The fore2oin2 importation was &o*ered b5 a trust re&eipt do&ument si2ned b5 Mar<ues on behalf of Maxilite. Sometime in Au2ust ""3, F:+)+), upon the ad*i&e of F:+TC, fa&ilitated the pro&urement and pro&essin2 from Ma.ati )nsuran&e Compan5 of four separate and independent fire insuran&e poli&ies o*er the trust re&eipted mer&handise. Findin2 that Maxilite failed to pa5 the insuran&e premium in the sum of P',0C!.C$ for )nsuran&e Poli&5 No. $0993" &o*erin2 the period 09 8une ""9 to 09 8une ""!, F:+)+) sent written reminders to F:+TC, dated " 6&tober ""9, 09 8anuar5 ""!, and C Mar&h ""!, to debit Maxilite4s a&&ount. 6n 09 and 0C 6&tober ""9, Maxilite full5 settled its trust re&eipt a&&ount. 6n " Mar&h ""!, a fire 2utted the Aboitiz Sea Transport +uildin2 alon2 M.8. Cuen&o A*enue, Cebu Cit5, where Maxilite4s offi&e and warehouse were lo&ated. As a result, Maxilite suffered losses amountin2 to at least P0. million, whi&h Maxilite &laimed a2ainst the fire insuran&e poli&5 with Ma.ati )nsuran&e Compan5. Ma.ati )nsuran&e Compan5 denied the fire loss &laim on the 2round of non/pa5ment of premium. F:+TC and F:+)+) dis&laimed an5 responsibilit5 for the denial of the &laim. )ssue: ;hether F:+TC, F:+)+) and Ma.ati )nsuran&e Compan5 are ?ointl5 and se*erall5 liable to pa5 respondents the full &o*era2e of the sub?e&t insuran&e poli&5D =eld: Contrar5 to Maxilite4s and Mar<ues4 *iew, F:+TC is solel5 liable for the pa5ment of the fa&e *alue of the insuran&e poli&5 and the monetar5 awards stated in the Court of Appeals4 de&ision. Suffi&e it to state that F:+TC, F:+)+), and Ma.ati )nsuran&e Compan5 are independent and separate ?uridi&al entities, e*en if F:+)+) and Ma.ati )nsuran&e Compan5 are subsidiaries of F:+TC. Absent an5 showin2 of its ille2itimate or ille2al fun&tions, a subsidiar54s separate existen&e shall be respe&ted, and the liabilit5 of the parent &orporation as well as the subsidiar5 shall be &onfined to those arisin2 in their respe&ti*e business. +esides, the re&ords are bereft of an5 e*iden&e warrantin2 the pier&in2 of &orporate *eil in order to treat F:+TC, F:+)+), and Ma.ati )nsuran&e Compan5 as a sin2le entit5. >i.ewise, there is no e*iden&e showin2 F:+)+)4s and Ma.ati )nsuran&e Compan54s ne2li2en&e as re2ards the non/pa5ment of the insuran&e premium.

Ta& #". Cour$ + A,,ea-" G.R. No. 1162./, O0$ober 1), 2001 36( SCRA /(1 FACTS: 6n Ma5 9, "#', petitioner Antonio Tan obtained two @0A loans in the total prin&ipal amount of four @9A million pesos from respondent Cultural Center of the Philippines @CCPA, e*iden&ed b5 0 promissor5 notes with maturit5 dates on Ma5 9, "#" and 8ul5 C, "#", respe&ti*el5. Petitioner defaulted but after a few partial pa5ments he had the loans restru&tured b5 respondent CCP, and petitioner a&&ordin2l5 exe&uted a promissor5 note on Au2ust 3 , "#" in the amount of P3,9 ,90 .30 pa5able in fi*e @!A installments. Petitioner Tan, howe*er, failed to pa5 an5 of the supposed installments and a2ain offered another mode of pa5in2 restru&tured loan whi&h respondent CCP refused to &onsent. 6n Ma5 3$, "'9, respondent, thru &ounsel, wrote petitioner demandin2 the full pa5ment, within ten @ $A da5s, from re&eipt of the letter, of the latter4s restru&tured loan whi&h as of April 3$, "'9 amounted to PC, $'',#3!.$3. 6n Au2ust 0", "'9, respondent CCP filed with the (TC of Manila a &omplaint for a &olle&tion of a sum of mone5. :*entuall5, petitioner was ordered to pa5 said amount, with 0!E thereof as attorne54s fees and P!$$, $$$.$$ as exemplar5 dama2es. The Court of Appeals, on appeal, redu&ed the attorne54s fees to !E of the prin&ipal amount to be &olle&ted from petitioner and deleted the exemplar5 dama2es. Still unsatisfied with the de&ision, petitioner &omes to this Court see.in2 for the deletion of the attorne54s fees and the redu&tion of the penalties. )SS1:: The issue is whether or not interests and penalties ma5 be both awarded in the &ase at bar. =:>%: F:S. Arti&le 00C of the New Ci*il Code pro*ides that in obli2ations with a penal &lause, the penalt5 shall substitute the indemnit5 for dama2es and the pa5ment of interests in &ase of non/ &omplian&e, if there is no stipulation to the &ontrar5. Ne*ertheless, dama2es shall be paid if the obli2or refuses to pa5 the penalt5 or is 2uilt5 of fraud in the fulfillment of the obli2ation. The penalt5 ma5 be enfor&ed onl5 when it is demandable in a&&ordan&e with the pro*isions of this Code. )n the &ase at bar, the promissor5 note expressl5 pro*ides for the imposition of both interest and penalties in &ase of default on the part of the petitioner in the pa5ment of the sub?e&t restru&tured loan, and sin&e the said stipulation has the for&e of law between the parties and does not appear to be ine<uitable or un?ust, the said stipulation must be respe&ted.

NE1 SA PAGU2TA %U2L3ERS CONSTRUCT2ON, 2NC. 4NS%C25 V. P62L2PP2NE NAT2ONAL %AN7 G.R. No. 14.(/3 2004 *u- 30 FACTS: 6n Februar5 , "'", +oard (esolution No. $!, Series of "'" was appro*ed b5 Petitioner NS+C) authorizin2 the &ompan5 to x x x appl5 for or se&ure a &ommer&ial loan with the PN+ in an a22re2ate amount of P'.$M, under su&h terms a2reed b5 the +an. and the NS+C), usin2 or mort2a2in2 the real estate properties re2istered in the name of its President and Chairman of the +oard Petitioner :duardo (. %ee as &ollateralG and authorizin2 petitioner/spouses to se&ure the loan and to si2n an5 and all do&uments whi&h ma5 be re<uired b5 (espondent PN+, and that petitioner/spouses shall a&t as sureties or &o/obli2ors who shall be ?ointl5 and se*erall5 liable with Petitioner NS+C) for the pa5ment of an5 Hand allI obli2ations. 6n Au2ust !, "'", (esolution No. ## was appro*ed b5 2rantin2 the re<uest of (espondent PN+ thru its +oard NS+C) for an P' Million loan bro.en down into a re*ol*in2 &redit line of P#.#M and an unad*ised line of P$.3M for additional operatin2 and wor.in2 &apital to mobilize its *arious &onstru&tion pro?e&ts. The loan of Petitioner NS+C) was se&ured b5 a first mort2a2e on the followin2: aA three @3A par&els of residential land lo&ated at Man2aldan, Pan2asinanG bA six @CA par&els of residential land situated at San Fabian, Pan2asinanG and &A a residential lot and impro*ements thereon lo&ated at Man2aldan. The loan was further se&ured b5 the ?oint and se*eral si2natures of Petitioners :duardo %ee and Ar&elita Mar<uez %ee, who si2ned as a&&ommodation/mort2a2ors sin&e all the &ollaterals were owned b5 them and re2istered in their names. Moreo*er Petitioner NS+C) exe&uted three promissor5 notes. )n addition, petitioner &orporation also si2ned the Credit A2reement dated Au2ust 3 , "'" relatin2 to the Jre*ol*in2 &redit line4 of P#.# Million x x x and the Credit A2reement dated September !, "'" to support the Junad*ised line4 of P3$$,$$$.$$. 6n Au2ust 3 , "'", petitioner/spouses exe&uted a J8oint and Solidar5 A2reement4 @8SAA in fa*or of (espondent PN+ Jun&onditionall5 and irre*o&abl5 bindin2 themsel*es to be ?ointl5 and se*erall5 liable with the borrower for the pa5ment of all sums due and pa5able to the +an. under the Credit %o&ument. >ater on, Petitioner NS+C) failed to &ompl5 with its obli2ations under the promissor5 notes. 6n 8une ', "" , Petitioner :duardo (. %ee on behalf of Petitioner NS+C) sent a letter to the +ran&h Mana2er of the PN+ %a2upan +ran&h re<uestin2 for a "$/da5 extension for the pa5ment of interests and restru&turin2 of its loan for another term. Subse<uentl5, NS+C) tendered pa5ment to (espondent PN+ of three @3A &he&.s a22re2atin2 P ,$$$,$$$.$$. )n a meetin2 held on Au2ust 0, "" , (espondent PN+4s representati*e, Mr. (oll5 Cruzabra, was informed b5 HPetitionerI :duardo %ee of his intention to remit to (espondent PN+ post/dated &he&.s &o*erin2 interests, penalties and part of the loan prin&ipals of his due a&&ount. 6n Au2ust 00, "" , (espondent ban.4s Crispin Car&amo wrote Petitioner :duardo %ee, informin2 him that Petitioner NS+C)4s proposal was a&&eptable, pro*ided the total pa5ment should be P9, 0',"C'.0" that would &o*er the amount of P ,$ ",03 .33 as prin&ipal, P3,$!C,$!'.$3 as interests and penalties, and P!3,C#'."3 for insuran&eH,I with the issuan&e of post/dated &he&.s to be dated not later than No*ember 0", "" . 6n September C, "" , Petitioner :duardo %ee wrote the PN+ +ran&h Mana2er reiteratin2 his proposals for the settlement of Petitioner NS+C)4s past due loan a&&ount amountin2 to P#,$ ",03 .33. Petitioner :duardo %ee later tendered four @9A post/dated )nterban. &he&.s a22re2atin2 P , ,3$C.C# in fa*or of (espondent PN+

1pon presentment, howe*er, x x x &he&. nos. $3!$$$'# and $3!$$$'' dated September 0" and 6&tober 0", "" were dishonored b5 the drawee ban. and returned due to a Jstop pa5ment4 order from petitioners. 6n No*ember 0, "" , PN+4s Mr. Car&amo wrote Petitioner :duardo %ee informin2 him that unless the dishonored &he&.s were made 2ood, said PN+ bran&h Jshall re&all its re&ommendation to the =ead 6ffi&e for the restru&turin2 of the loan a&&ount and refer the matter to its le2al &ounsel for le2al a&tion. Petitioners did not heed respondent4s warnin2 and as a result, the PN+ %a2upan +ran&h sent demand letters to Petitioner NS+C) at its offi&e address at C :(%C +uildin2, :. (odri2uez Sr. A*enue, 7uezon Cit5, as.in2 it to settle its past due loan a&&ount. Petitioners ne*ertheless failed to pa5 their loan obli2ations within the time frame 2i*en them and as a result, (espondent PN+ filed with the Pro*in&ial Sheriff of Pan2asinan at >in2a5en a Petition for Sale The sheriff fore&losed the real estate mort2a2e and sold at publi& au&tion the mort2a2ed properties of petitioner/spouses, with (espondent PN+ bein2 de&lared the hi2hest bidder for the amount of P $,339,$$$.$$. Copies of the Sheriff4s Certifi&ate of Sale were sent b5 re2istered mail to petitioner &orporation4s address petitioner/spouses4 address. 6n April C, ""0, the PN+ %a2upan +ran&h Mana2er sent a letter to petitioners at their address informin2 them that the properties se&urin2 their loan a&&ount had been sold at publi& au&tion, that the Sheriff4s Certifi&ate of Sale had been re2istered with the (e2istr5 of %eeds of Pan2asinan and that a period of one @ A 5ear therefrom was 2ranted to them within whi&h to redeem their properties. Petitioners failed to redeem their properties within the one/5ear redemption period and so (espondent PN+ exe&uted a %eed of Absolute Sale &onsolidatin2 title to the properties in its name. (espondent PN+ informed Petitioner NS+C) that the pro&eeds of the sale &ondu&ted on Februar5 0C, ""0 were not suffi&ient to &o*er its total &laim amountin2 to P 0,!$C,9#C.93 and thus demanded from the latter the defi&ien&5 of P0, #0,9#C.93 plus interest and other &har2es until the amount was full5 paid. Petitioners refused to pa5 the abo*e defi&ien&5 &laim whi&h &ompelled (espondent PN+ to institute the instant Complaint for the &olle&tion of its defi&ien&5 &laim. )SS1:: ;hether or not the es&alation &lause is *alid and whether or not it is *iolati*e of the prin&iple of mutualit5 of &ontra&ts. (1>)NK: )n ea&h drawdown, the Promissor5 Notes spe&ified the interest rate to be &har2ed: ".! per&ent in the first, and 0 .! per&ent in the se&ond and a2ain in the third. =owe*er, a uniform &lause therein permitted respondent to in&rease the rate Lwithin the limits allowed b5 law at an5 time dependin2 on whate*er poli&5 it ma5 adopt in the future x x x,M without e*en 2i*in2 prior noti&e to petitioners. The Court holds that petitioners4 a&&essor5 dut5 to pa5 interest did not 2i*e respondent unrestrained freedom to &har2e an5 rate other than that whi&h was a2reed upon. No interest shall be due, unless expressl5 stipulated in writin2. )t would be the zenith of far&i&alit5 to spe&if5 and a2ree upon rates that &ould be subse<uentl5 up2raded at whim b5 onl5 one part5 to the a2reement. The Lunilateral determination and impositionM of in&reased rates is L*iolati*e of the prin&iple of mutualit5 of &ontra&ts ordained in Arti&le 3$' of the Ci*il Code.M 6ne/sided impositions do not ha*e the for&e of law between the parties, be&ause su&h impositions are not based on the parties4 essential e<ualit5. Althou2h es&alation &lauses are *alid in maintainin2 fis&al stabilit5 and retainin2 the *alue of

mone5 on lon2/term &ontra&ts, 2i*in2 respondent an unbridled ri2ht to ad?ust the interest independentl5 and upwardl5 would &ompletel5 ta.e awa5 from petitioners the Lri2ht to assent to an important modifi&ation in their a2reementM and would also ne2ate the element of mutualit5 in their &ontra&ts. The &lause &ited earlier made the fulfillment of the &ontra&ts Ldependent ex&lusi*el5 upon the un&ontrolled willM of respondent and was therefore *oid. +esides, the pro forma promissor5 notes ha*e the &hara&ter of a &ontra&t d4adhNsion, Lwhere the parties do not bar2ain on e<ual footin2, the wea.er part54s the debtor4s parti&ipation bein2 redu&ed to the alternati*e Jto ta.e it or lea*e it.4M

6er8o9:&a E"$ore" #". S,ou"e" Ar$uro a&; Laura Su,a&<a& G.R. No. 1(/13) April ', 0$ 0 3EL CAST2LLO, J.= Fa0$": . )n 6&t. ""3, =ermo?ina :stores and Spouses Supan2an entered into a Conditional %eed of Sale where :stores offered to sell, and Spouses offered to bu5 a par&el of land in Ca*ite for P9.#M. 0. After almost # 5ears and despite the pa5ment of P3.!M b5 the Spouses, :stores still failed to &ompl5 with her obli2ation to handle the pea&eful transfer of ownership as stated in ! pro*isions in the &ontra&t. 3. )n a letter in 0$$$, Spouses demanded the return of the amount within ! da5s from re&eipt 9. )n repl5, :stores promised to return the same within 0$ da5s !. Spouses a2reed but imposed an interest of 0E annuall5 C. :stores still failed despite demands #. Spouses filed a &omplaint with the (TC a2ainst :stores and (oberto Arias @alle2edl5 a&ted as :stores4 a2entA '. )n Answer, :stores said the5 were willin2 to pa5 the prin&ipal amount but without the interest as it was not a2reed upon a. That sin&e the Conditional %eed of Sale pro*ided onl5 for the return of the downpa5ment in &ase of brea&h, the5 &ant be liable for le2al interest as well ". (TC ruled sa5in2 that the Spouses are entitled to the interest but onl5 at CE per annum and also entitled to att54s fees $. 6n appeal, CA said that the issue to resol*e is a. whether it is proper to impose interest for an obli2ation that does not in*ol*e a loan or forbearan&e of mone5 in the absen&e of stipulation of the parties . CA affirmed (TC a. That interest should start on date of formal demand b5 Spouses to return the mone5 not when &ontra&t was exe&uted as stated b5 the (TC b. That Arias not be solidaril5 liable as he a&ted as a2ent onl5 and did not expressl5 bind himself or ex&eeded his authorit5 0. :stores &ontends: a. Not bound to pa5 interest be&ause the deed onl5 pro*ided for the return of the downpa5ment in &ase of failure to &ompl5 with her obli2ations b. That att5 fees not proper be&ause both (TC and CA sustained her &ontention that 0E interest was un&alled for so it showed that Spouses did not win 3. Spouses &ontend: a. )t is onl5 fair that interest be imposed be&ause :stores failed to return the amount upon demand and used the mone5 for her benefit b. :stores failed to relo&ate the house outside the perimeter of the sub?e&t lot and &omplete the ne&essar5 do&uments &. As to the fees, the5 &laim that the5 were for&ed to liti2ate when :stores un?ustl5 held the amount 2""ue: )s the imposition of interest and attorne54s fees is properD F:S )nterest based on Art 00$" of CC @CEA or under Central +an. Cir&ular 9 C @ 0EAD 0E

6e-;: 2&$ere"$ 8ay be :8,o"e; e#e& :& $>e ab"e&0e o+ "$:,u-a$:o& :& $>e 0o&$ra0$. Arti&le 00 $ of the Ci*il Code expressl5 pro*ides that LHiInterest ma5, in the dis&retion of the &ourt, be allowed upon dama2es awarded for brea&h of &ontra&t.M :stores failed on her obli2ations despite demand. o She admitted that the &onditions were not fulfilled and was willin2 to return the full amount of P3.!M but hasn4t done so o She is now in default T>e :&$ere"$ a$ $>e ra$e o+ 12? :" a,,-:0ab-e :& $>e :&"$a&$ 0a"e. Ken (ule: the appli&able interest rate shall be &omputed in a&&ordan&e with the stipulation of the parties :x&: if no stipulation, appli&able rate of interest shall be 0E per annum o ;hen obli2ation arises out of a loan or forbearan&e of mone5, 2oods or &redits )n other &ases, it shall be CE )n this &ase, no stipulation was made Co&$ra0$ :&#o-#e; :& $>:" 0a"e :" &o$ a -oa& bu$ a Co&;:$:o&a- 3ee; o+ Sa-e. o No !ue"$:o& $>a$ $>e ob-:<a$:o&" @ere &o$ 8e$ a&; $>e re$ur& o+ 8o&ey &o$ 8a;e E#e& :+ $ra&"a0$:o& @a" a Co&;:$:o&a- 3ee; o+ Sa-e, $>e "$:,u-a$:o& <o#er&:&< $>e re$ur& o+ $>e 8o&ey 0a& be 0o&":;ere; a" a +orbeara&0e o+ 8o&ey @>:0> re!u:re" 12? :&$ere"$ )n Crismina Garments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Forbeara&0e// L&ontra&tual obli2ation of lender or &reditor to refrain durin2 a 2i*en period of time, from re<uirin2 the borrower or debtor to repa5 a loan or debt then due and pa5able.M o )n su&h &ase, Lforbearan&e of mone5, 2oods or &reditsM will ha*e no distin&t definition from a loan. o howe*er, the phrase Lforbearan&e of mone5, 2oods or &reditsM is meant to ha*e a separate meanin2 from a loan, otherwise there would ha*e been no need to add that phrase as a loan is alread5 suffi&ientl5 defined in the Ci*il Code o Forbearan&e of mone5, 2oods or &redits should therefore refer to arran2ements other than loan a2reements, where a person a&<uies&es to the temporar5 use of his mone5, 2oods or &redits pendin2 happenin2 of &ertain e*ents or fulfillment of &ertain &onditions. :stores4 unwarranted withholdin2 of the mone5 amounts to forbearan&e of mone5 whi&h &an be &onsidered as an in*oluntar5 loan so rate is 0E startin2 in Sept. 0$$$ T>e a@ar; o+ a$$or&eyA" +ee" :" @arra&$e;. no doubt that the Spouses were for&ed to liti2ate to prote&t their interest, i.e., to re&o*er their mone5. The amount of P!$,$$$.$$ more appropriate