Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. ISAGANI CASTRO AND DIOSDADA CASTRO v. ANGELINA DE LEON TAN

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 192304 2014-08-13	ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK v. PINZMAN REALTY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Recently, in Castro v. Tan,[17] we affirmed the above doctrinal pronouncements as we also nullified a foreclosure proceeding where the amount demanded as outstanding loan was clearly overstated due to exorbitant interest rates.
	GR No. 173331 2013-12-11	FLORPINA BENAVIDEZ v. NESTOR SALVADOR MENDOZA, J.
This Court is not unmindful of the fact that parties to a loan contract 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, however, worth stressing that interest rates whenever unconscionable may still be declared illegal. There is 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.[31] In Menchavez v. Bermudez,[32] the interest rate of 5% per month, which when summed up would reach 60% per annum, is null and void for being excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant, contrary to morals, and the law.[33]
	GR No. 185368 2012-10-11	ARTHUR F. MENCHAVEZ v. MARLYN M. BERMUDEZ VELASCO JR., J.
Castro v. Tan[21] is instructive. Petitioners in that case also argued that lender and borrower could validly agree on any interest rate for loans, and that the parties had voluntarily agreed upon the stipulated rate of interest. The Court held in Castro: 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 either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets.[22]
	GR No. 194785 2012-07-11	VIRGILIO S. DAVID v. MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE MENDOZA, J.
That being said, the Court now comes to David's prayer that MOELCI be made to pay the total sum of P5,472,722.27 plus the stipulated interest at 24% per annum from the filing of the complaint. Although the Court agrees that MOELCI should pay interest, the stipulated rate is, however, unconscionable and should be equitably reduced. While there is no question 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 reduced to a reasonable and fair level. There is nothing in the 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.[16] Accordingly, the excessive interest of 24% per annum stipulated in the sales invoice should be reduced to 12% per annum.
	GR No. 165554 2010-07-26	LAZARO PASCO v. HEIRS OF FILOMENA DE GUZMAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
[40] G.R. No. 168940, November 24, 2009, 605 SCRA 231, 238.
	GR No. 186550 2010-07-05	ASIAN CATHAY FINANCE v. SPS. CESARIO GRAVADOR AND NORMA DE VERA AND SPS. EMMA CONCEPCION G. DUMIGPI AND FEDERICO L. DUMIGPI NACHURA, J.
In Spouses Isagani and Diosdada Castro v. Angelina de Leon Tan, Sps. Concepcion T. Clemente and Alexander C. Clemente, Sps. Elizabeth T. Carpio and Alvin Carpio, Sps. Marie Rose T. Soliman and Arvin Soliman and Julius Amiel Tan,[11] this Court held: The imposition of an unconscionable rate of interest on a money debt, even if knowingly and voluntarily assumed, is immoral and unjust. It is tantamount to a repugnant spoliation and an iniquitous deprivation of property, repulsive to the common sense of man. It has no support in law, in principles of justice, or in the human conscience nor is there any reason whatsoever which may justify such imposition as righteous and as one that may be sustained within the sphere of public or private morals.