Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANSUETO CUATON v. REBECCA SALUD

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 148974 2010-07-02	OMC CARRIERS v. SPS. ROBERTO C. NABUA AND ROSARIO T. NABUA PERALTA, J.
While petitioners did not put in error the award of actual damages, this Court feels that the same should nevertheless be reviewed as an appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors. This is especially so if the court finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case before it.[37]
	GR No. 168940 2009-11-24	SPS. ISAGANI CASTRO AND DIOSDADA CASTRO v. ANGELINA DE LEON TAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
While we agree with petitioners that parties to a loan agreement have wide latitude to stipulate on any interest rate in view of the Central Bank Circular No. 905 s. 1982 which suspended the Usury Law ceiling on interest effective January 1, 1983, it is also worth stressing that interest rates whenever unconscionable may still be declared illegal. There is certainly nothing in said circular which 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.[17]
	GR No. 175381 2008-02-26	JAMES SVENDSEN v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
While the Usury Law ceiling on interest rates was lifted by Central Bank Circular No. 905, nothing therein grants lenders carte blanche to raise interest rates to levels which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets.[20] Stipulations authorizing such interest are contra bonos mores, if not against the law. They are, under Article 1409[21] of the New Civil Code, inexistent and void from the beginning.[22]
	GR No. 175381 2008-02-26	JAMES SVENDSEN v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
The interest rate of 10% per month agreed upon by the parties in this case being clearly excessive, iniquitous and unconscionable cannot thus be sustained. In Macalalag v. People,[23] Diño v. Jardines,[24] and in Cuaton v. Salud,[25] this Court, finding the 10% per month interest rate to be unconscionable, reduced it to 12% per annum. And in other cases[26] where the interest rates stipulated were even less than that involved herein, the Court equitably reduced them.
	GR No. 175381 2008-02-26	JAMES SVENDSEN v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
This Court deems it fair and reasonable then, consistent with existing jurisprudence, to adjust the civil indemnity to P16,000, the equivalent of petitioner's unpaid interest on the P200,000 loan at 12% percent per annum as of February 2, 1999, the date of the check, plus 12% per annum interest to be computed from April 29, 1999, the date of judicial demand (date of the filing of the Information) up to the finality of this judgment. After the judgment becomes final and executory until the obligation is satisfied, the total amount due shall bear interest at 12% per annum.[27]
	GR NO. 169617 2007-04-03	HEIRS OF ZOILO ESPIRITU v. SPS. MAXIMO LANDRITO AND PAZ LANDRITO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In declaring void the stipulations authorizing excessive interest and charges, the Court declared that although the Usury Law was suspended by Central Bank Circular No. 905, s. 1982, effective on 1 January 1983, and consequently parties are given a wide latitude to agree on any interest rate, nothing in the said 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.[21]
	GR NO. 141962 2006-01-25	DANILO DUMO v. ERLINDA ESPINAS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We have held that an appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors.[29] This is especially so if the court finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case before it.[30] We have consistently held that an unassigned error closely related to an error properly assigned, or upon which a determination of the question raised by the error properly assigned is dependent, will be considered by the appellate court notwithstanding the failure to assign it as an error.[31] Petitioners admit in the present petition that herein respondents, in their appeal with the RTC, raised the question of whether or not the prevailing party may be awarded damages. Since this issue had been seasonably raised, it became open to further evaluation. It was only logical and natural for the RTC to deal with the question of whether petitioners are indeed entitled to the damages awarded by the MTC.
	GR NOS. 150773 & 153599 2005-09-30	SPS. DAVID B. CARPO AND RECHILDA S. CARPO v. ELEANOR CHUA TINGA, J.
In a long line of cases, this Court has invalidated similar stipulations on interest rates for being excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant. In Solangon v. Salazar,[10] we annulled the stipulation of 6% per month or 72% per annum interest on a P60,000.00 loan. In Imperial v. Jaucian,[11] we reduced the interest rate from 16% to 1.167% per month or 14% per annum. In Ruiz v. Court of Appeals,[12] we equitably reduced the agreed 3% per month or 36% per annum interest to 1% per month or 12% per annum interest. The 10% and 8% interest rates per month on a P1,000,000.00 loan were reduced to 12% per annum in Cuaton v. Salud.[13] Recently, this Court, in Arrofo v. Quino,[14] reduced the 7% interest per month on a P15,000.00 loan amounting to 84% interest per annum to 18% per annum.