This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-08-13 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The stipulated interest rates of 7% and 5% per month imposed on respondents' loans must be equitably reduced to 1% per month or 12% per annum. [8] We need not unsettle the principle we had affirmed in a plethora of cases that stipulated interest rates of 3% [9] per month and higher [10] are excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant. Such stipulations are void for being contrary to morals, if not against the law. [11] While C.B. 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, [12] 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. [13] | |||||
|
2008-02-26 |
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] | |||||
|
2007-09-03 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Article 1310. The determination shall not be obligatory if it is evidently inequitable. In such case, the courts shall decide what is equitable under the circumstances. In the other Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals[12] case, we disauthorized petitioner bank from unilaterally raising the interest rate on the loan of private respondent from 18% to 32%, 41% and 48%. In Almeda v. Court of Appeals,[13] where the interest rate was increased from 21% to as high as 68% per annum, we declared arbitrary "the galloping increases in interest rate imposed by respondent bank on petitioners' loan, over the latter's vehement protests." In Medel v. Court of Appeals,[14] the stipulated interest of 5.5% per month or 66% per annum on a loan amounting to P500,000.00 was equitably reduced for being iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant. In Solangon v. Salazar,[15] the stipulated interest rate of 6% per month or 72% per annum was found to be "definitely outrageous and inordinate" and was reduced to 12% per annum which we deemed fair and reasonable. In Imperial v. Jaucian,[16] we ruled that the trial court was justified in reducing the stipulated interest rate from 16% to 1.167% or 14% per annum and the stipulated penalty charge from 5% to 1.167% per month or 14% per annum. | |||||