FIRST FIL-SIN LENDING CORPORATION vs. GLORIA D.

PADILLO

On July 22, 1997, respondent obtained a P500,000.00 loan from petitioner First Fil-
Sin Lending Corp. On September 7, 1997, respondent obtained another P500,000.00
loan from petitioner. In both instances, respondent executed a promissory note and
disclosure statement.

In sum, respondent paid a total of P792,500.00 for the first loan and P775,000.00
for the second loan.

Respondent filed an action for sum of money against herein petitioner before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila. Alleging that she only agreed to pay interest at the rates
of 4.5% and 5% per annum, respectively, for the two loans, and not 4.5% and 5% per
month, respondent sought to recover the amounts she allegedly paid in excess of her
actual obligations.

Trial court ruled that by issuing checks representing interest payments at 4.5% and
5% monthly interest rates, respondent is now estopped from questioning the provisions
of the promissory notes.

CA reversed and set aside the decision of the court a trial court.

Issue:

Whether or not the applicable interest rate should be the legal interest of 12% per
annum despite the clear agreement of the parties on another applicable rate.

Held:

Perusal of the promissory notes and the disclosure statements pertinent to the
July 22, 1997 and September 7, 1997 loan obligations of respondent clearly and
unambiguously provide for interest rates of 4.5% per annum and 5% per annum,
respectively. Nowhere was it stated that the interest rates shall be applied on a monthly
basis.

The same promissory note provides that x x x any and all remaining amount due
on the principal upon maturity hereof shall earn interest at the rate of _____ from date of
maturity until fully paid. The CA thus properly imposed the legal interest of 12% per
annum from the time the loans matured until the same has been fully paid on February
2, 1999.
 Interest rates on the July 22, 1997 and September 7, 1997 loan obligations of
respondent Gloria D. Padillo from petitioner First Fil-Sin Lending Corporation be
imposed and computed on a per annum basis, and upon their respective maturities, the
interest rate of 12% per annum shall be imposed until full payment. In addition, the
penalty at the rate of 12% per annum shall be imposed on the outstanding obligations
from date of default until full payment.

HERMOJINA ESTORES v. SPOUSES SUPANGAN

Petitioner Hermojina Estores and respondent-spouses Arturo and Laura Supangan

entered into a Conditional Deed of Sale whereby petitioner offered to sell, and respondent-
spouses offered to buy, a parcel of land at Naic, Cavite for the sum of P4.7 million.

After almost seven years from the time of the execution of the contract and
notwithstanding payment of P3.5 million on the part of respondent-spouses, petitioner still failed
to comply with her obligation in the contract. Hence, respondent-spouses demanded the return
of the amount of P3.5 million within 15 days from receipt of the letter. In reply, petitioner
acknowledged receipt of the P3.5 million and promised to return the same within 120
days. Respondent-spouses were amenable to the proposal provided an interest of 12%
compounded annually shall be imposed on the P3.5 million.

When petitioner still failed to return the amount despite demand, respondent-spouses
were constrained to file a Complaint for sum of money before RTC petitioner as well as Arias
who allegedly acted as petitioners agent.

Issue:

Whether the 6% as provided under Article 2209 of the Civil Code, or 12% under Central
Bank Circular No. 416, is due.

Held:

Even if the transaction involved a Conditional Deed of Sale, can the stipulation governing
the return of the money be considered as a forbearance of money which required payment of
interest at the rate of 12%? We believe so.
 Petitioners unwarranted withholding of the money which rightfully pertains to
respondent-spouses amounts to forbearance of money which can be considered as an
involuntary loan. Thus, the applicable rate of interest is 12% per annum.

ILEANA DR. MACALINAO v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINEISLANDS

Petitioner was an approved cardholder of BPI Mastercard, one of the credit card
facilities of respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). Petitioner made some
purchases through the use of the said credit card and defaulted in paying for said
purchases. She subsequently received a letter from respondent BPI, demanding
payment of the amount of PhP 141,518.34.

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.
 For failure of petitioner Macalinao to settle her obligations, respondent BPI filed
with the MeTC a complaint for a sum of money against her and her husband, Danilo SJ.
Macalinao.

Issue:

Whether or not he interest rate and penalty charge of 3% per month or 36% per
annum should be reduced to 2% per month or 24% per annum.

Held:

Yes.

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.

The records would reveal that petitioner Macalinao made partial payments to
respondent BPI, as indicated in her Billing Statements. 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.