This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-07-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Similarly, we uphold the validity of the 8% penalty charge. In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Go,[24] this Court had the occasion to state that the 8% penalty charge is valid, viz.: This Court has recognized a penalty clause as an accessory obligation which the parties attach to a principal obligation for the purpose of insuring the performance thereof by imposing on the debtor a special prestation (generally consisting in the payment of a sum of money) in case the obligation is not fulfilled or is irregularly or inadequately fulfilled. The enforcement of the penalty can be demanded by the creditor only when the non-performance is due to the fault or fraud of the debtor. The non-performance gives rise to the presumption of fault; in order to avoid the payment of the penalty, the debtor has the burden of proving an excuse -- the failure of the performance was due to either force majeure or the acts of the creditor himself.[25] | |||||