This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-06-29 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| (a) petitioners should be held liable for the twenty percent (20%) per annum stipulated interest rate reckoned 31 days from January 6, 1999, as agreed upon in the PN,[60] until its maturity date on February 5, 2000, which period is regarded as the initial period in said PN. Said interest rate should be upheld as this was stipulated by the parties, and the rate cannot be considered unconscionable.[61] The same shall be computed based on the entire principal amount due, i.e., P40,491,051.65, since the records disclose that the admitted partial payment of P1,877,286.08 was still unpaid before the complaint was filed on October 4, 2002,[62] or before the February 5, 2000 maturity date; and | |||||
|
2013-08-28 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Forum shopping is the act of a litigant who repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues, either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other court, to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in another. More particularly, forum shopping can be committed in three ways, namely: (a) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (b) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (c) by filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).[52] Forum shopping is treated as an act of malpractice and, in this accord, constitutes a ground for the summary dismissal of the actions involved.[53] To be sure, the rule against forum shopping seeks to prevent the vexation brought upon the courts and the litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule on the same or related causes and grant the same or substantially the same reliefs and in the process creates the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.[54] | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Villanueva v. Court of Appeals,[25] where the issue raised was whether the 24% p.a. stipulated interest rate is unreasonable under the circumstances, we answered in the negative and held: In Spouses Zacarias Bacolor and Catherine Bacolor v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, Dagupan City Branch, this Court held that the interest rate of 24% per annum on a loan of P244,000.00, agreed upon by the parties, may not be considered as unconscionable and excessive. As such, the Court ruled that the borrowers cannot renege on their obligation to comply with what is incumbent upon them under the contract of loan as the said contract is the law between the parties and they are bound by its stipulations. | |||||
|
2012-03-14 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| With respect to identity of cause of action, a cause of action is defined in Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court as the act or omission by which a party violates the right of another. This Court has laid down the test in determining whether or not the causes of action in the first and second cases are identical, to wit: would the same evidence support and establish both the present and former cause of action? If so, the former recovery is a bar; if otherwise, it does not stand in the way of the former action.[25] | |||||