Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SALVADOR CHUA v. RODRIGO TIMAN

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 201892 2015-07-22	NORLINDA S. MARILAG v. MARCELINO B. MARTINEZ PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Records show that other than the matter of interest, the principal loan obligation and the payments made were not disputed by the parties. Nonetheless, the Court finds the stipulated 5% monthly interest to be excessive and unconscionable. In a plethora of cases, the Court has affirmed that stipulated interest rates of three percent (3%) per month and higher are excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable, and exorbitant,[51] hence, illegal[52] and void for being contrary to morals.[53] In Agner v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc.,[54] the Court had the occasion to rule:Settled is the principle which this Court has affirmed in a number of cases that stipulated interest rates of three percent (3%) per month and higher are excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable, and exorbitant. While Central Bank Circular No. 905-82, which took effect on January 1, 1983, effectively removed the ceiling on interest rates for both secured and unsecured loans, regardless of maturity, nothing in the said circular could possibly be read as granting carte blanche authority to lenders to raise interest rates to levels which would either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets. Since the stipulation on the interest rate is void for being contrary to morals, if not against the law, it is as if there was no express contract on said interest rate; thus, the interest rate may be reduced as reason and equity demand. (Emphases supplied)
	GR No. 204672 2015-02-18	SPS. RODOLFO AND MARCELINA GUEVARRA v. COMMONER LENDING CORPORATION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Moreover, the Court notes that the stipulated three percent (3%) monthly interest is excessive and unconscionable.In a plethora of cases, the Court has affirmed that stipulated interest rates of three percent (3%) per month and higher are excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable, and exorbitant,[63] hence, illegal[64] and void for being contrary to morals.[65] In Agner v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc.,[66] the Court had the occasion to rule: Settled is the principle which this Court has affirmed in a number of cases that stipulated interest rates of three percent (3%) per month and higher are excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable, and exorbitant. While Central Bank Circular No. 905-82, which took effect on January 1, 1983, effectively removed the ceiling on interest rates for both secured and unsecured loans, regardless of maturity, nothing in the said circular could possibly be read as granting carte blanche authority to lenders to raise interest rates to levels which would either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets. Since the stipulation on the interest rate is void for being contrary to morals, if not against the law, it is as if there was no express contract on said interest rate; thus, the interest rate may be reduced as reason and equity demand. (Emphases supplied)[67]
	GR No. 180144 2014-09-24	LEONARDO BOGNOT v. RRI LENDING CORPORATION BRION, J.
We reiterated this ruling in Chua v. Timan,[51] where we held that the stipulated interest rates of 3% per month and higher are excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant, and must therefore be reduced to 12% per annum.
	GR No. 197861 2013-06-05	SPS. FLORENTINO T. MALLARI AND AUREA V. MALLARI v. PRUDENTIAL BANK PERALTA, J.
Parties are free to enter into agreements and stipulate as to the terms and conditions of their contract, but such freedom is not absolute. As Article 1306 of the Civil Code provides, "The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy." Hence, if the stipulations in the contract are valid, the parties thereto are bound to comply with them, since such contract is the law between the parties. In this case, petitioners and respondent bank agreed upon on a 23% p.a. interest rate on the P1.7 million loan. However, petitioners now contend that the interest rate of 23% p.a. imposed by respondent bank is excessive or unconscionable, invoking our ruling in Medel v. Court of Appeals,[18] Toring v. Spouses Ganzon-Olan,[19] and Chua v. Timan.[20]
	GR No. 163433 2011-08-22	SPS. NELSON R. VILLANUEVA AND MYRA P. VILLANUEVA v. CA PERALTA, J.
Petitioners contend that the interest rate of 24% per annum stipulated in the mortgage contract, which they executed in favor of respondent Bank, is usurious. This Court has consistently held that for sometime now, usury has been legally non-existent and that interest can now be charged as lender and borrower may agree upon.[19] In fact, Section 1 of Central Bank Circular No. 905, Series of 1982, which took effect on January 1, 1983, expressly provides that "[t]he rate of interest, including commissions, premiums, fees and other charges, on a loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or credits, regardless of maturity and whether secured or unsecured, that may be charged or collected by any person, whether natural or juridical, shall not be subject to any ceiling prescribed under or pursuant to the Usury Law, as amended." Nonetheless, this Court has also held in a number of cases, that nothing in the circular grants lenders carte blanche authority to raise interest rates to levels which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets.[20] Thus, the stipulated interest rates are illegal if they are unconscionable.
	GR No. 160545 2010-03-09	PRISMA CONSTRUCTION v. ARTHUR F. MENCHAVEZ 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.
	GR No. 175490 2009-09-17	ILEANA DR. MACALINAO v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VELASCO JR., J.
Indeed, in the Terms and Conditions Governing the Issuance and Use of the BPI Credit Card, there was a stipulation on the 3% interest rate. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this is not the first time that this Court has considered the interest rate of 36% per annum as excessive and unconscionable. We held in Chua vs. Timan:[17]