This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-03-09 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Applying Medel, we invalidated and reduced the stipulated interest in Spouses Solangon v. Salazar [35] of 6% per month or 72% per annum interest on a P60,000.00 loan; in Ruiz v. Court of Appeals, [36] of 3% per month or 36% per annum interest on a P3,000,000.00 loan; in Imperial v. Jaucian, [37] of 16% per month or 192% per annum interest on a P320,000.00 loan; in Arrofo v. Quiño, [38] of 7% interest per month or 84% per annum interest on a P15,000.00 loan; in Bulos, Jr. v. Yasuma, [39] of 4% per month or 48% per annum interest on a P2,500,000.00 loan; and in Chua v. Timan, [40] of 7% and 5% per month for loans totalling P964,000.00. We note that in all these cases, the terms of the loans were open-ended; the stipulated interest rates were applied for an indefinite period. | |||||
|
2007-02-08 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, in Trade & Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines v. Roblett Industrial Construction Corporation, [9] this Court has ruled that:With the suspension of the Usury Law and the removal of interest ceiling, the parties are free to stipulate the interest to be imposed on monetary obligations. Absent any evidence of fraud, undue influence, or any vice of consent exercised by one party against the other, the interest rate agreed upon is binding upon them. There is no indication in the records that any of the incidents which vitiate consent on the part of petitioners is present. Indeed, the interest rate agreed upon is binding on them. With respect to the penalty and service charges, the same are unconscionable or excessive. | |||||