Access Devices Regulation Act of

1998
Republic Act No. 8484, also known as the Access Devices
Regulation Act of 1998, is an act regulating the issuance and use of
access devices and prohibiting the fraudulent acts committed relative
thereto, among others. By enacting this legislation, the State
recognizes the recent advances in technology and the widespread
use of access devices in commercial transactions.

Disclosure requirements during application and
solicitation; exceptions
Any application to open a credit card account for any person under
an open-end credit plan or a solicitation to open such an account,
either by mail, telephone or other means, shall disclose in writing or
orally, as the case may be, the following information:
[1]

(a) Annual Percentage Rate
1) Each annual percentage rate of interest on the amount
of credit obtained by the credit card holder under such
credit plan. Where an extension of credit is subject to a
variable rate, the fact that the rate is variable, and the
annual percentage rate in effect at the time of the
mailing.
2) Where more than one rate applies, the range of
balances to which each rate applies.
(b) Annual and other Fees
1) Any annual fee, other periodic fee, or membership fee
imposed for the issuance or availability of a credit card,
including any account maintenance fee or any other
charge imposed based on activity or inactivity for the
account during the billing cycle.
2) Any minimum finance charge imposed for each period
during which any extension of credit which is subject to a
finance charge is outstanding (a finance charge
represents the amount to be paid by the debtor incident
to the extension of credit such as interest or discounts,
collection fees, credit investigation fees, and other
service charges).
3) Any transaction charge imposed in connection with use
of the card to purchase goods or services.
4) Any fee, penalty or surcharge imposed for the delay in
payment of an account. (a penalty charge means such
amount, in addition to interest, imposed on the credit
card holder for non-payment of an account within a
prescribed period).
(c) Balance Calculation Method the name or a detailed
explanation of the balance calculation method used in determining
the balance upon which the finance charge is computed.
(d) Cash Advance Fee any fee imposed for an extension of credit
in the form of cash.
(e) Over-the-Limit-Fee any fee imposed in connection with an
extension of credit in excess of the amount of credit authorized to be
extended with respect to such amount. In case the application or
solicitation to open a credit card account for any person under an
open-end consumer credit plan be made through catalogs,
magazines, or other publications, the following additional information
shall be disclosed:
1) A statement, in a conspicuous and prominent location on
the application or solicitation, that,
i) the information is accurate as of the date the
application or solicitation was printed;
ii) the information contained in the application
or solicitation is subject to change after such
date;
iii) the applicant should contact the creditor for
information on any change in the information
contained in the application or solicitation
since it was printed;
2) The date the application or solicitation was printed; and
3) In a conspicuous and prominent location on the
application or solicitation, a toll free telephone number or
mailing address which the applicant may contact to
obtain any change in the information provided in the
application or solicitation since it was printed.

The disclosures may be omitted in any telephone solicitation or
application if the credit card issuer:
[2]

1. does not impose any fee in connection with paragraph (b)(1)
above;
2. does not impose any fee in connection with telephone
solicitation unless the consumer signifies acceptance by
using the card;
3. discloses clearly the information in writing within thirty (30)
days after the consumer requests the card, but in no event
later than the date of delivery of the card; and
4. discloses clearly that the consumer is not obligated to accept
the card or account and the consumer will not be obligated to
pay any fees or charges disclosed unless the consumer
elects to accept the card or account by using the card.

Duty of a credit card isssuer in terms of
computation
A credit card issuer must, to the extent practicable, provide a detailed
explanation and a clear illustration of the manner by which all
charges and fees are computed.
[3]

Post-application disclosures; exceptions
If a credit card issuer already disclosed the information required
above, it is still required to disclose certain information prior to
renewal. Except in telephone solicitations, a card issuer that imposes
any fee described above shall transmit to a consumers credit card
account a clear and conspicuous disclosure of:
[4]

1. the date by which, the month by which, or the billing period
at the close of which, the account will expire if not renewed;
2. the information described above shall be transmitted to a
consumer at least thirty (30) days prior to the scheduled
renewal date of the consumers credit card account;
3. the information described in 4 (a) (1) above, which shall be
transmitted to a consumers credit card account; and
4. the method by which the consumer may terminate the
continued credit availability under the account. The
disclosures required by this section must be made prior to
posting a fee described in 4 (b) (1) above, or with the
periodic billing statement first disclosing that the fee has
been posted to the account subject to the condition that the
consumer is given thirty (30) day period to avoid payment of
the fee or to have the fee recredited to the account in any
case where the consumer does not wish to continue the
availability of the credit.
However, the disclosures may be omitted in any telephone
solicitation or application if the credit card issuer:
1. does not impose any fee in connection with paragraph (b)(1)
above;
2. does not impose any fee in connection with telephone
solicitation unless the consumer signifies acceptance by
using the card;
3. discloses clearly the information in writing within thirty (30)
days after the consumer requests the card, but in no event
later than the date of delivery of the card; and
4. discloses clearly that the consumer is not obligated to accept
the card or account and the consumer will not be obligated to
pay any fees or charges disclosed unless the consumer
elects to accept the card or account by using the card.


Duty of a credit card isssuer in terms of
computation
A credit card issuer must, to the extent practicable, provide a detailed
explanation and a clear illustration of the manner by which all
charges and fees are computed.

Lost credit card or other access devices
In case of loss of an access device, the holder must notify the issuer
of the access device of the details and circumstances of such loss
upon knowledge of the loss. Full compliance with such procedure
would absolve the access device holder of any financial liability from
fraudulent use of the access device from the time the loss or theft is
reported to the issuer.
[5]

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION


ILEANA DR. MACALINAO,
Petitioner,

- versus -


BANK OF THE PHILIPPINEISLANDS,
Respondent.

.
G.R. No. 175490

Present:

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, and
PERALTA, JJ.

Promulgated:

September 17, 2009
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the June 30, 2006 Decision
[1]
of the Court
of Appeals (CA) and its November 21, 2006 Resolution
[2]
denying petitioners
motion for reconsideration.
The Facts
Petitioner Ileana Macalinao was an approved cardholder of BPI
Mastercard, one of the credit card facilities of respondent Bank of the Philippine
Islands (BPI).
[3]
Petitioner Macalinao made some purchases through the use of the
said credit card and defaulted in paying for said purchases. She subsequently
received a letter dated January 5, 2004 from respondent BPI, demanding payment of
the amount of one hundred forty-one thousand five hundred eighteen pesos and
thirty-four centavos (PhP 141,518.34), as follows:
Statement
Date
Previous
Balance
Purchases
(Payments)
Penalty
Interest
Finance
Charges
Balance
Due
10/27/2002 94,843.70 559.72 3,061.99 98,456.41
11/27/2002 98,465.41 (15,000) 0 2,885.61 86,351.02
12/31/2002 86,351.02 30,308.80 259.05 2,806.41 119,752.28
1/27/2003 119,752.28 618.23 3,891.07 124,234.58
2/27/2003 124,234.58 990.93 4,037.62 129,263.13
3/27/2003 129,263.13 (18,000.00) 298.72 3,616.05 115,177.90
4/27/2003 115,177.90 644.26 3,743.28 119,565.44
5/27/2003 119,565.44 (10,000.00) 402.95 3,571.71 113,540.10
6/29/2003 113,540.10 8,362.50
(7,000.00)
323.57 3,607.32 118,833.49
7/27/2003 118,833.49 608.07 3,862.09 123,375.65
8/27/2003 123,375.65 1,050.20 4,009.71 128,435.56
9/28/2003 128,435.56 1,435.51 4,174.16 134,045.23
10/28/2003
11/28/2003
12/28/2003
1/27/2004 141,518.34 8,491.10 4,599.34 154,608.78

Under the Terms and Conditions Governing the Issuance and Use of the
BPI Credit and BPI Mastercard, the charges or balance thereof remaining unpaid
after the payment due date indicated on the monthly Statement of Accounts shall
bear interest at the rate of 3% per month and an additional penalty fee equivalent to
another 3% per month. Particularly:
8. PAYMENT OF CHARGES BCC shall furnish the
Cardholder a monthly Statement of Account (SOA) and the
Cardholder agrees that all charges made through the use of the
CARD shall be paid by the Cardholder as stated in the SOA on
or before the last day for payment, which is twenty (20) days
from the date of the said SOA, and such payment due date may
be changed to an earlier date if the Cardholders account is
considered overdue and/or with balances in excess of the
approved credit limit, or to such other date as may be deemed
proper by the CARD issuer with notice to the Cardholder on the
same monthly SOA. If the last day fall on a Saturday, Sunday or
a holiday, the last day for the payment automatically becomes
the last working day prior to said payment date. However,
notwithstanding the absence or lack of proof of service of the
SOA of the Cardholder, the latter shall pay any and all charges
made through the use of the CARD within thirty (30) days from
date or dates thereof. Failure of the Cardholder to pay the
charges made through the CARD within the payment period as
stated in the SOA or within thirty (30) days from actual date or
dates of purchase whichever occur earlier, shall render him in
default without the necessity of demand from BCC, which the
Cardholder expressly waives. The charges or balance thereof
remaining unpaid after the payment due date indicated on
the monthly Statement of Accounts shall bear interest at the
rate of 3% per month for BPI Express Credit, BPI Gold
Mastercard and an additional penalty fee equivalent to
another 3% of the amount due for every month or a fraction
of a months delay. PROVIDED that if there occurs any change
on the prevailing market rates, BCC shall have the option to
adjust the rate of interest and/or penalty fee due on the
outstanding obligation with prior notice to the cardholder. The
Cardholder hereby authorizes BCC to correspondingly increase
the rate of such interest [in] the event of changes in the
prevailing market rates, and to charge additional service fees as
may be deemed necessary in order to maintain its service to the
Cardholder. A CARD with outstanding balance unpaid after
thirty (30) days from original billing statement date shall
automatically be suspended, and those with accounts unpaid
after ninety (90) days from said original billing/statement date
shall automatically be cancel (sic), without prejudice to BCCs
right to suspend or cancel any card anytime and for whatever
reason. In case of default in his obligation as provided herein,
Cardholder shall surrender his/her card to BCC and in addition
to the interest and penalty charges aforementioned , pay the
following liquidated damages and/or fees (a) a collection fee of
25% of the amount due if the account is referred to a collection
agency or attorney; (b) service fee for every dishonored check
issued by the cardholder in payment of his account without
prejudice, however, to BCCs right of considering Cardholders
account, and (c) a final fee equivalent to 25% of the unpaid
balance, exclusive of litigation expenses and judicial cost, if the
payment of the account is enforced though court action. Venue
of all civil suits to enforce this Agreement or any other suit
directly or indirectly arising from the relationship between the
parties as established herein, whether arising from crimes,
negligence or breach thereof, shall be in the process of courts of
the City of Makati or in other courts at the option of
BCC.
[4]
(Emphasis supplied.)

For failure of petitioner Macalinao to settle her obligations, respondent
BPI filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City a complaint for
a sum of money against her and her husband, Danilo SJ. Macalinao. This was raffled
to Branch 66 of the MeTC and was docketed as Civil Case No. 84462 entitled Bank
of the Philippine Islandsvs. Spouses Ileana Dr. Macalinao and Danilo SJ.
Macalinao.
[5]

In said complaint, respondent BPI prayed for the payment of the amount
of one hundred fifty-four thousand six hundred eight pesos and seventy-eight
centavos (PhP 154,608.78) plus 3.25% finance charges and late payment charges
equivalent to 6% of the amount due from February 29, 2004 and an amount
equivalent to 25% of the total amount due as attorneys fees, and of the cost of
suit.
[6]

After the summons and a copy of the complaint were served upon
petitioner Macalinao and her husband, they failed to file their Answer.
[7]
Thus,
respondent BPI moved that judgment be rendered in accordance with Section 6 of
the Rule on Summary Procedure.
[8]
This was granted in an Order dated June 16,
2004.
[9]
Thereafter, respondent BPI submitted its documentary evidence.
[10]

In its Decision dated August 2, 2004, the MeTC ruled in favor of
respondent BPI and ordered petitioner Macalinao and her husband to pay the amount
of PhP 141,518.34 plus interest and penalty charges of 2% per month, to wit:
WHEREFORE, finding merit in the allegations of the
complaint supported by documentary evidence, judgment is
hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Bank of the Philippine
Islands and against defendant-spouses Ileana DR Macalinao
and Danilo SJ Macalinao by ordering the latter to pay the
former jointly and severally the following:
1. The amount of PESOS: ONE HUNDRED
FORTY ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
EIGHTEEN AND 34/100 (P141,518.34) plus interest
and penalty charges of 2% per month from January 05,
2004 until fully paid;
2. P10,000.00 as and by way of attorneys fees; and
3. Cost of suit.

SO ORDERED.
[11]


Only petitioner Macalinao and her husband appealed to the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Makati City, their recourse docketed as Civil Case No. 04-1153. In
its Decision dated October 14, 2004, the RTC affirmed in toto the decision of the
MeTC and held:
In any event, the sum of P141,518.34 adjudged by the
trial court appeared to be the result of a recomputation at the
reduced rate of 2% per month. Note that the total amount sought
by the plaintiff-appellee was P154,608.75 exclusive of finance
charge of 3.25% per month and late payment charge of 6% per
month.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby
affirmed in toto.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.
[12]



Unconvinced, petitioner Macalinao filed a petition for review with the CA,
which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 92031. The CA affirmed with modification
the Decision of the RTC:
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision
is AFFIRMED but MODIFIED with respect to the total amount
due and interest rate. Accordingly, petitioners are jointly and
severally ordered to pay respondent Bank of the Philippine
Islands the following:
1. The amount of One Hundred Twenty
Six Thousand Seven Hundred Six
Pesos and Seventy Centavos plus
interest and penalty charges of 3% per
month from January 5, 2004 until fully
paid;
2. P10,000.00 as and by way of
attorneys fees; and
3. Cost of Suit.

SO ORDERED.
[13]


Although sued jointly with her husband, petitioner Macalinao was the
only one who filed the petition before the CA since her husband already passed
away on October 18, 2005.
[14]

In its assailed decision, the CA held that the amount of PhP 141,518.34
(the amount sought to be satisfied in the demand letter of respondent BPI) is
clearly not the result of the re-computation at the reduced interest rate as previous
higher interest rates were already incorporated in the said amount. Thus, the said
amount should not be made as basis in computing the total obligation of petitioner
Macalinao. Further, the CA also emphasized that respondent BPI should not
compound the interest in the instant case absent a stipulation to that effect. The
CA also held, however, that the MeTC erred in modifying the amount of interest
rate from 3% monthly to only 2% considering that petitioner Macalinao freely
availed herself of the credit card facility offered by respondent BPI to the general
public. It explained that contracts of adhesion are not invalid per se and are not
entirely prohibited.
Petitioner Macalinaos motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA
in its Resolution dated November 21, 2006. Hence, petitioner Macalinao is now
before this Court with the following assigned errors:
I.
THE REDUCTION OF INTEREST RATE, FROM 9.25% TO
2%, SHOULD BE UPHELD SINCE THE STIPULATED
RATE OF INTEREST WAS UNCONSCIONABLE AND
INIQUITOUS, AND THUS ILLEGAL.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ARBITRARILY MODIFIED THE
REDUCED RATE OF INTEREST FROM 2% TO 3%,
CONTRARY TO THE TENOR OF ITS OWN DECISION.
III.
THE COURT A QUO, INSTEAD OF PROCEEDING WITH A
RECOMPUTATION, SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE
CASE FOR FAILURE OF RESPONDENT BPI TO PROVE
THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF PETITIONERS
OBLIGATION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REMANDED
THE CASE TO THE LOWER COURT FOR RESPONDENT
BPI TO PRESENT PROOF OF THE CORRECT AMOUNT
THEREOF.
Our Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious.
The Interest Rate and Penalty Charge of 3% Per Month or 36% Per Annum Should
Be Reduced to 2% Per Month or 24% Per Annum
In its Complaint, respondent BPI originally imposed the interest and
penalty charges at the rate of 9.25% per month or 111% per annum. This was
declared as unconscionable by the lower courts for being clearly excessive, and was
thus reduced to 2% per month or 24% per annum. On appeal, the CA modified the
rate of interest and penalty charge and increased them to 3% per month or 36%
per annum based on the Terms and Conditions Governing the Issuance and Use of
the BPI Credit Card, which governs the transaction between petitioner Macalinao
and respondent BPI.
In the instant petition, Macalinao claims that the interest rate and
penalty charge of 3% per month imposed by the CA is iniquitous as the same
translates to 36% per annum or thrice the legal rate of interest.
[15]
On the other
hand, respondent BPI asserts that said interest rate and penalty charge are
reasonable as the same are based on the Terms and Conditions Governing the
Issuance and Use of the BPI Credit Card.
[16]

We find for petitioner. We are of the opinion that the interest rate and
penalty charge of 3% per month should be equitably reduced to 2% per month or
24% per annum.
Indeed, in the Terms and Conditions Governing the Issuance and Use of
the BPI Credit Card, there was a stipulation on the 3% interest rate. Nevertheless, it
should be noted that this is not the first time that this Court has considered the
interest rate of 36% per annum as excessive and unconscionable. We held in Chua
vs. Timan:
[17]

The stipulated interest rates of 7% and 5% per month
imposed on respondents loans must be equitably reduced to
1% per month or 12% per annum. We need not unsettle the
principle we had affirmed in a plethora of cases that
stipulated interest rates of 3% per month and higher are
excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant. Such
stipulations are void for being contrary to morals, if not
against the law. While C.B. Circular No. 905-82, which took
effect on January 1, 1983, effectively removed the ceiling on
interest rates for both secured and unsecured loans, regardless
of maturity, nothing in the said circular could possibly be read
as granting carte blanche authority to lenders to raise interest
rates to levels which would either enslave their borrowers or
lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets. (Emphasis supplied.)

Since the stipulation on the interest rate is void, it is as if there was no
express contract thereon. Hence, courts may reduce the interest rate as reason and
equity demand.
[18]

The same is true with respect to the penalty charge. Notably, under the
Terms and Conditions Governing the Issuance and Use of the BPI Credit Card, it was
also stated therein that respondent BPI shall impose an additional penalty charge
of 3% per month. Pertinently, Article 1229 of the Civil Code states:
Art. 1229. The judge shall equitably reduce the
penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or
irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there has been
no performance, the penalty may also be reduced by the courts
if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.
In exercising this power to determine what is iniquitous and
unconscionable, courts must consider the circumstances of each case since what
may be iniquitous and unconscionable in one may be totally just and equitable in
another.
[19]

In the instant case, the records would reveal that petitioner Macalinao
made partial payments to respondent BPI, as indicated in her Billing
Statements.
[20]
Further, the stipulated penalty charge of 3% per month or 36% per
annum, in addition to regular interests, is indeed iniquitous and unconscionable.
Thus, under the circumstances, the Court finds it equitable to reduce the
interest rate pegged by the CA at 1.5% monthly to 1% monthly and penalty charge
fixed by the CA at 1.5% monthly to 1% monthly or a total of 2% per month or 24%
per annum in line with the prevailing jurisprudence and in accordance with Art.
1229 of the Civil Code.
There Is No Basis for the Dismissal of the Case,
Much Less a Remand of the Same for Further Reception of Evidence


Petitioner Macalinao claims that the basis of the re-computation of the
CA, that is, the amount of PhP 94,843.70 stated on the October 27, 2002 Statement
of Account, was not the amount of the principal obligation. Thus, this allegedly
necessitates a re-examination of the evidence presented by the parties. For this
reason, petitioner Macalinao further contends that the dismissal of the case or its
remand to the lower court would be a more appropriate disposition of the case.
Such contention is untenable. Based on the records, the summons and a
copy of the complaint were served upon petitioner Macalinao and her husband on
May 4, 2004. Nevertheless, they failed to file their Answer despite such service.
Thus, respondent BPI moved that judgment be rendered
accordingly.
[21]
Consequently, a decision was rendered by the MeTC on the basis of
the evidence submitted by respondent BPI. This is in consonance with Sec. 6 of the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, which states:
Sec. 6. Effect of failure to answer. Should the
defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period
above provided, the court, motu proprio, or on motion of the
plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the
facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed
for therein: Provided, however, that the court may in its
discretion reduce the amount of damages and attorneys fees
claimed for being excessive or otherwise unconscionable. This
is without prejudice to the applicability of Section 3(c), Rule 10
of the Rules of Court, if there are two or more defendants. (As
amended by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; emphasis
supplied.)

Considering the foregoing rule, respondent BPI should not be made to
suffer for petitioner Macalinaos failure to file an answer and concomitantly, to
allow the latter to submit additional evidence by dismissing or remanding the case
for further reception of evidence. Significantly, petitioner Macalinao herself
admitted the existence of her obligation to respondent BPI, albeit with reservation
as to the principal amount. Thus, a dismissal of the case would cause great injustice
to respondent BPI. Similarly, a remand of the case for further reception of evidence
would unduly prolong the proceedings of the instant case and render inutile the
proceedings conducted before the lower courts.
Significantly, the CA correctly used the beginning balance of PhP
94,843.70 as basis for the re-computation of the interest considering that this was
the first amount which appeared on the Statement of Account of petitioner
Macalinao. There is no other amount on which the re-computation could be based,
as can be gathered from the evidence on record. Furthermore, barring a showing
that the factual findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the record
or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion,
such findings must stand, for this Court is not expected or required to examine or
contrast the evidence submitted by the parties.
[22]

In view of the ruling that only 1% monthly interest and 1% penalty charge
can be applied to the beginning balance of PhP 94,843.70, this Court finds the
following computation more appropriate:
Statement
Date
Previous
Balance
Purchases
(Payments
)
Balance Interest
(1%)
Penalty
Charge
(1%)
Total
Amount
Due for
the Month
10/27/200
2
94,843.70 94,843.70 948.44 948.44 96,740.58
11/27/200
2
94,843.70 (15,000) 79,843.70 798.44 798.44 81,440.58
12/31/200
2
79,843.70 30,308.80 110,152.5
0
1,101.53 1,101.53 112,355.5
6
1/27/2003 110,152.5
0
110,152.5
0
1,101.53 1,101.53 112,355.5
6
2/27/2003 110,152.5
0
110,152.5
0
1,101.53 1,101.53 112,355.5
6
3/27/2003 110,152.5
0
(18,000.00
)
92,152.50 921.53 921.53 93,995.56
4/27/2003 92,152.50 92,152.50 921.53 921.53 93,995.56
5/27/2003 92,152.50 (10,000.00
)
82,152.50 821.53 821.53 83,795.56
6/29/2003 82,152.50 8,362.50
(7,000.00)
83,515.00 835.15 835.15 85,185.30
7/27/2003 83,515.00 83,515.00 835.15 835.15 85,185.30
8/27/2003 83,515.00 83,515.00 835.15 835.15 85,185.30
9/28/2003 83,515.00 83,515.00 835.15 835.15 85,185.30
10/28/200
3
83,515.00 83,515.00 835.15 835.15 85,185.30
11/28/200
3
83,515.00 83,515.00 835.15 835.15 85,185.30
12/28/200
3
83,515.00 83,515.00 835.15 835.15 85,185.30
1/27/2004 83,515.00 83,515.00 835.15 835.15 85,185.30
TOTAL

83,515.00 14,397.2
6
14,397.2
6
112,309.5
2

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The CA Decision dated
June 30, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 92031 is hereby MODIFIED with respect to the
total amount due, interest rate, and penalty charge. Accordingly, petitioner
Macalinao is ordered to pay respondent BPI the following:
(1) The amount of one hundred twelve thousand three hundred nine
pesos and fifty-two centavos (PhP 112,309.52) plus interest and penalty charges of
2% per month from January 5, 2004 until fully paid;
(2) PhP 10,000 as and by way of attorneys fees; and
(3) Cost of suit.

SO ORDERED.

Imprisonment for Credit
Card Debt
A lot of people have been asking me whether they can be
imprisoned for non-payment of their credit card debts or debts
in general.
Article III, Section 20 of the 1987 Constitution states: No person
shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Given this provision, you cannot be imprisoned for non-payment
of your credit card debt. Non-payment only subjects you to civil
liability.
EXCEPTIONS
There are exceptions, however.
(1) If you used a check to pay for your credit card, and your check
bounced, you could be liable criminally (and may be imprisoned)
for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks
Law.
(2) If you change addresses without informing your credit
company, and your unpaid balance, which should exceed
P10,000, is past due for at least 90 days, there is a prima facie
presumption that you used your credit card with intent to
defraud, and you can be liable criminally (which means you may
be imprisoned) under Section 14 of the Access Devices Regulation
Act of 1998 or Republic Act No. 8484.
WHAT TO DO IF YOU HAVE A CREDIT CARD DEBT
Its normal to have a credit card debt. We all have it. Sometimes,
we are unable to pay. If we just sit on it, the interest accrues and
we incur a larger debt. For this reason, I advise you to write a
letter to the credit card company, stating that you would like to
restructure your debt because you are unable to pay at the
moment. In the letter, you may also request for a waiver of
interest and penalty charges (although whether this would be
approved or not would depend on the discretion of the credit card
company). Make sure you address it to the right person so call
the credit card company first, state your problem and ask them to
whom you can address your letter to. Make sure your letter is
personally received by the department (it must have a date and
time stamp and the name of the person who received it). Make
follow-up calls to track down the status of your request. Lastly, be
vigilant. Dont be embarrassed. Everyone goes through it!
Good luck!