This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-04-06 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Further, we have repeatedly held that 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 that would be unduly burdensome, to the point of oppression on their borrowers.[34] | |||||
|
2014-09-08 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Time and again, it has been ruled in a plethora of cases that stipulated interest rates of 3% per month and higher, are excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant. Such stipulations are void for being contrary to morals, if not against the law.[29] The Court, however, stresses that these rates shall be invalidated and shall be reduced only in cases where the terms of the loans are open-ended, and where the interest rates are applied for an indefinite period. Hence, the imposition of a specific sum of P40,000.00 a month for six months on a P1,000,000.00 loan is not considered unconscionable.[30] In the case at bench, there is no specified period as to the payment of the loan. Hence, levying 6% monthly or 72% interest per annum is "definitely outrageous and inordinate."[31] | |||||
|
2013-06-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| 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.[31] 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.[32] 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.[33] | |||||
|
2012-11-21 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Citing Macalinao v. Bank of the Philippine Islands,[8] the Court of Appeals held that the interest rates and penalty charges imposed by BPI for Ledda's non-payment of her credit card obligation, totalling 9.25% per month or 111% per annum, are exorbitant and unconscionable. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reduced the monthly finance charge to 1% and the late payment charge to 1%, or a total of 2% per month or 24% per annum. | |||||
|
2012-10-11 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The Court, in said case, tagged the 5% monthly interest rate agreed upon as "excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant, contrary to morals, and the law."[23] And instead of allowing recovery at the stipulated rate, the Court, in Castro, imposed the legal interest of 12% per annum. We need not unsettle the principle we had affirmed in a plethora of cases that stipulated interest rates of 3% per month and higher are excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable, and exorbitant.[24] | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Aside from the payment of the principal obligation of P1,936,800.00, the parties agreed that respondent pay interest at the rate of 25% from February 17, 1997 until fully paid. Such rate, however, is excessive and thus, void. Since the stipulation on the interest rate is void, it is as if there was no express contract thereon. To be sure, courts may reduce the interest rate as reason and equity demand.[45] In this case, 12% interest is reasonable. | |||||