1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHLIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 141

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,

Plaintiff,

- versus - CIVIL CASE NO. 15-856

SUM OF MONEY

CHERRY PIE B. ENRIQUEZ

Defendant.
X----------------------- x

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

RECONSIDERATION
PLAINTIFF, through undersigned counsel, most respectfully
moves for the partial reconsideration of the Decision dated May 15,
2017 (copy of which was received on June 9, 2017), and in support
thereof states:

1. On May 15, 2017, the Honorable Court issued a Decision,

the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered against

defendant Cherry Pie B. Enriquez finding her liable to pay the
plaintiff for her obligation in the amount of P195,000.00 under
BPI Credit Card under Customer No. 0201001102726479
inclusive of interest and penalty charges as of November 16,
2014 plus interest at 12% per annum and late payment charge
at the rate of 12% per annum computed thereon from
December 2015 until the decision becomes final. Thereafter,
the interests on the judgment award and intrests earned up to
the finality of the decision shall be 6% per annum until the
obligation is fully paid.

2. In the complaint filed, plaintiff among others, prayed for

the award of the principal obligation of Php674,660.05 as of
November 16, 2014. However, the Honorable Court, in the subject
Decision, stated that it is unable to grant the said amount, since The
Statement of Account relied upon by the plaintiff dated November 16,
2014 includes interest and penalty charges. Defendant is partly
correct when she questioned the imposition of interest and finance
charge that accumulated to such total amount. Verily, the interest rate
1
 2

and late payment charge imposed under the credit card are
excessive and unconscionable.

3. This Honorable Court further ruled that since the

defendant did not adduce evidence of the exact amount of her
purchase upon which the reduced interest and finance charge shall
be computed, by reason of equity, the balance obligation of
Php674,660.05 as of November 16, 2014 shall be tempered in the
amount of Php244,000.00 which is admittedly the credit limit
indicated in the Statement of Account of even date.

4. With all due respects to this most Honorable Court,

plaintiff respectfully submits that the Court may have erred in
awarding the amount of Php244,000.00, which is the same as the
credit limit of herein defendant indicated in the Statement of Account
dated November 2014, as her principal obligation, in accordance with
the law and established jurispredence.

5. As part of plaintiffs documentary evidence, the Court

admitted Statement of Accounts (SOAs) dated September 2013 to
November 2014 (Exhs D to P). These SOAs reflect not only
interest and penalty charges imposed to the cardholder but also
payments and purchases made by the defendant pertaining to her
use of the said credit card.

6. It is undisputed that before the filing of this complaint, no

billing errors or complaints were ever reported or filed by defendant,
despite paragraph 10 of the Terms and Conditions as well as
Reminder No. 3 in the dorsal portion of every SOA requires the
cardholder to notify BPI immediately in writing of any billing error in
the SOA and that if no error is reported within twenty (20) days from
Statement Date, the Statement shall be considered correct and
binding upon the cardholder. Therefore, it necessarily follows that
defendant recognized and admitted the integrity of the Statement as
an electronic document pursuant to the Electronic Commerce Act.

7. It is hornbook doctrine in civil law that when the existence

of a debt is fully established by the evidence contained in the record,
the burden of proving that it has been extinguished by payment
devolves upon the debtor who offers such a defense to the claim of
the creditor.1 Defendant miserably failed to discharge this burden
mainly for the reason that they failed to offer evidences to support
their defense. This Honorable Court even stated that defendant did

1 Servicewide Specialist vs IAC, 174 SCRA 80

2
 3

not adduce evidence of the exact amount of her purchases upon

which the reduced interest and finance charge shall be computed.

8. Thus, the undersigned humbly submits that Statement of

Accounts offered by plaintiff to prove the usage and payments
patterns of defendant, which were made part of the records of the
instant case, be considered by this Honorable Court in the
computation or application of the reduced rate of interest and
penalties pursuant to the prevailing jurisprudence mainly for the
reason that these SOAs not only contain interests and penalties but
also purchases and payments which were the basis of plaintiffs
computation of the minimum and total amount due.

9. Plaintiff adheres to the pertinent laws and jurisprudence

giving judges the discretion and authority to reduce the interest rate
and/or penalty when it is iniquitous or unconscionable as reason and
equity demand.2 However, it is respectfully submitted that what the
law and jurisprudence grant is the power to reduce the rate itself
when applied to the purchases less payments, if any. There is no
provision under the law or ruling made by the Supreme Court which
states that the court has power to equitably reduce and temper the
amount of principal obligation based on the credit limit.

10. To solely rely on the amount indicated as credit limit in the

Statement of Account of the defendant-cardholder as her principal
obligation, would not only run counter to the guidelines and
pronouncements made by the Supreme Court in these kinds of
cases, but will definitely posed uncertainty and doubt as to the correct
obligation of a cardholder, which might be disadvantageous on either
party. The case of Macalino vs BPI, with respect to the application of
reduced rate of interest and penalty is instructive on the matter, to wit:

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

2 Imperial v. Jaucian, G.R. No. 149004, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 517; citing Tongoy v. Court of Appeals,
No. L-45645, June 28, 1983, 123 SCRA 99;

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.

3
 4

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.
11. Considering the foregoing, plaintiff, through the
undersigned, most respectfully submits that in the application of
reduced rate of interest and penalty, pursuant to pertinent laws and
prevailing jurisprudence, contents of the first Statement of Account
forming part of the record of the case should be considered as the
beginning balance where re-computation shall be made, and should
not be based on the credit limit as stated in the current SOA of
defendant.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed unto this Honorable Court that the Decision dated May 15,
2017 be PARTIALLY RECONSIDERED and MODIFIED, and that the
application of reduced rate of interests under prevailing jurisprudence
be computed based on the Statements of Accounts which formed
part of the records of the instant case.

Other relief just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Pasay City for Makati City, June 27, 2017.

NOTICE OF HEARING

The Branch Clerk of Court

RTC, Branch 141

GREETINGS:

Please take notice that on ________, _______, 2016 @_____,

undersigned counsel will submit the foregoing Motion for Partial
Reconsideration for the consideration and approval of the Honorable
Court.

4
 5

Copy furnished:

EXPLANATION