Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. FAMILY FOODS MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 196118 2014-07-30	LEONARDO C. CASTILLO v. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
SBC's 16% rate of interest is not computed per month, but rather per annum or only 1.33% per month. In Spouses Bacolor v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, Dagupan City Branch,[29] the Court held that the interest rate of 24% per annum on a loan of P244,000.00 is not considered as unconscionable and excessive. As such, the Court ruled that the debtors cannot renege on their obligation to comply with what is incumbent upon them under the contract of loan as they are bound by its stipulations. Also, the 24% per annum rate or 2% per month for the penalty charges imposed on account of default, cannot be considered as skyrocketing. The enforcement of penalty can be demanded by the creditor in case of non-performance due to the debtor's fault or fraud. The non-performance gives rise to the presumption of fault and in order to avoid the penalty, the debtor has the burden of proving that the failure of the performance was due to either force majeure or the creditor's own acts.[30] In the instant case, petitioner failed to discharge said burden and thus cannot avoid the payment of the penalty charge agreed upon.
	GR No. 197861 2013-06-05	SPS. FLORENTINO T. MALLARI AND AUREA V. MALLARI v. PRUDENTIAL BANK PERALTA, J.
And in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Family Foods Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,[29] we held that: x x x 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.[30]
	GR No. 163433 2011-08-22	SPS. NELSON R. VILLANUEVA AND MYRA P. VILLANUEVA v. CA PERALTA, J.
The Court also upholds the validity of the 6% per annum penalty charge. In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Family Foods Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,[24] this Court, sustaining the validity of an 8% per annum penalty charge on separate loans of P500,000.00 and P440,000.00, held that: 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.
	GR No. 184041 2010-10-13	ANICETO G. SALUDO v. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
Finally, petitioner challenges the imposition of 20.189% interest rate as unconscionable. We rule otherwise. In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Family Foods Manufacturing Co. Ltd.,[26] this Court upheld the validity of the imposition of 18% and 22% stipulated rates of interest in the two (2) promissory notes. Likewise in Spouses Bacolor v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank,[27] the 24% interest rate agreed upon by parties was held as not violative of the Usury Law, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 116.
	GR No. 171736 2010-07-05	PENTACAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY NACHURA, J.
The promissory notes likewise required the payment of a penalty charge of 3% per month or 36% per annum. We find such rates unconscionable. This Court has recognized a penalty clause as an accessory obligation which the parties attach to a principal obligation for the purpose of ensuring the performance thereof by imposing on the debtor a special prestation (generally consisting of the payment of a sum of money) in case the obligation is not fulfilled or is irregularly or inadequately fulfilled.[46] However, a penalty charge of 3% per month is unconscionable;[47] hence, we reduce it to 1% per month or 12% per annum, pursuant to Article 1229 of the Civil Code which states: Art. 1229. The judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.[48]
	GR No. 149121 2010-04-20	NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. AUGUSTO BASA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In its petition, NHA attached the February 24, 2000 Decision, the November 27, 2000 Amended Decision, and the July 19, 2001 Resolution all of the Court of Appeals; copies of the transfer certificates of title of the disputed properties; and the June 13, 1994 Order of the Quezon City RTC ordering the reconstitution of the said titles. This Court finds that NHA substantially complied with the requirements under Section 4 of Rule 45. The same conclusion was arrived at by this Court in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Family Foods Manufacturing Co., Ltd.[36] when it was faced with the same procedural objection, thus: As held by this Court in Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora: