Mutuum Case Digest
Mutuum Case Digest
Mutuum Case Digest
i.
the friend.
TAN filed a Manifestation wherein he proposed to settle his
indebtedness to CCP by down payment of P140,000.00 and
to issue1 2 checks every beginning of the year to cover
installment payments for one year, and every year thereafter
until the balance is fully paid.
i.
CCP did not agree to the
petitioners proposals and so the trial of the case ensued.
TRIAL COURT ORDERED TAN TO PAY CCP P7,996,314.67,
representing defendants outstanding account as of August
28, 1986, with the corresponding stipulated interest and
charges thereof, until fully paid, plus attorneys fees in an
amount equivalent to 25% of said outstanding account, plus
P50,000.00, as exemplary damages, plus costs.
REASONS:
ii.
Balance on the principal
obligation payable 36 monthly installments until fully paid.
i.
Reason of loan for
accommodation of friend was not credible.
ii.
Assuming, arguendo, that
the TAN did not personally benefit from loan, he should have
filed a 3rd-party complaint against Wilson Lucmen
i.
iii.
3 times the petitioner
offered to settle his loan obligation with CCP.
iv.
TAN may not avoid his
liability to pay his obligation under the promissory note which
he must comply with in good faith.
v.
TAN is estopped from
denying his liability or loan obligation to the private
respondent.
WON there are contractual and legal bases for the imposition
of the penalty, interest on the penalty and attorneys fees.
YES. WITH LEGAL BASES.
ART 1226: In obligations with a penal clause, the penalty
shall substitute the indemnity for damages and the payment
of interests in case of non-compliance, if there is no
stipulation to the contrary. Nevertheless, damages shall be
paid if the obligor refuses to pay the penalty or is guilty of
fraud in the fulfillment of the obligation.
i.
The penalty may be
enforced only when it is demandable in accordance with the
provisions of this Code.
CASE AT BAR: promissory note expressed the imposition of
both interest and penalties in case of default on the part of
the petitioner in the payment of the subject restructured
loan.
PENALTY IN MANY FORMS:
i.
If the parties stipulate
penalty apart monetary interest, two are different and
distinct from each other and may be demanded separately.
ii.
If stipulation about payment
of an additional interest rate partakes of the nature of a
penalty clause which is sanctioned by law:
1. ART 2209: If the obligation consists in the payment of a
sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity
for damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall
be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the
absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent
per annum.
i.
No doubt petitioner is liable
for both the stipulated monetary interest and the stipulated
penalty charge.
i.
Hence, the courts did not
err in ruling that the petitioner is bound to pay the interest on
the total amount of the principal, the monetary interest and
the penalty interest.
REDUCED TO 2% REDUCTION:
i.
PARTIAL PAYMENTS showed
his good faith despite difficulty in complying with his loan
obligation due to his financial problems.
1. However, we are not unmindful of the respondents long
overdue deprivation of the use of its money collectible.
The petitioner also imputes error on the part of the appellate
court for not declaring the suspension of the running of the
interest during period when the CCP allegedly failed to assist
the petitioner in applying for relief from liability
Alleges that his obligation to pay the interest and surcharge
should have been suspended because the obligation to pay
such interest and surcharge has become conditional
i.
Dependent on a future and
uncertain event which consists of whether the petitioners
request for condonation of interest and surcharge would be
recommended by the Commission on Audit.
1. Since the condition has not happened due to the private
respondents reneging on its promise, his liability to pay the
interest and surcharge on the loan has not arisen.
COURT ANSWER:
i.
surcharge was not suspended.
ii.
CCP correctly asserted that
it was the primary responsibility of petitioner to inform the
Commission on Audit of his application for condonation of
interest and surcharge.
April 4, 2007
Facts
Issue:
Prior to the first six months, the Petitioner may still offer the
cited land to other persons provided that the P3 million
downpayment shall be returned to the Respondent including
interest based on prevailing compounded bank interest.
Ruling:
FACTS:
This is an action against defendants shipping company,
arrastre operator and broker-forwarder for damages
sustained by a shipment while in defendants' custody, filed
by the insurer-subrogee who paid the consignee the value of
such losses/damages.
the losses/damages were sustained while in the respective
and/or successive custody and possession of defendants
carrier (Eastern), arrastre operator (Metro Port) and broker
(Allied Brokerage).
As a consequence of the losses sustained, plaintiff was
compelled to pay the consignee P19,032.95 under the
aforestated marine insurance policy, so that it became
subrogated to all the rights of action of said consignee
against defendants.
The prior Eastern Shipping Lines, case. did not lay down any
new rules because it was just a a comprehensive summary of
existing rules on the computation of legal interest.
CASTRO, J.:
This appeal was certified to this Court by the Court of
Appeals as involving questions purely of law.
The decision a quo was rendered by the Court of First
Instance of Misamis Occidental (Branch I) in an action
instituted by the plaintiff-appellee Lucia Tan against the
defendants-appellants Arador Valdehueza and Rediculo
Valdehueza (docketed as civil case 2574) for (a) declaration
of ownership and recovery of possession of the parcel of land
described in the first cause of action of the complaint, and (b)
consolidation of ownership of two portions of another parcel
of (unregistered) land described in the second cause of
action of the complaint, purportedly sold to the plaintiff in
two separate deeds of pacto de retro.
After the issues were joined, the parties submitted the
following stipulation of facts:
1. That parties admit the legal capacity of plaintiff to sue;
that defendants herein, Arador, Rediculo, Pacita, Concepcion
and Rosario, all surnamed Valdehueza, are brothers and
sisters; that the answer filed by Arador and Rediculo stand as
the answer of Pacita, Concepcion and Rosario.
2. That the parties admit the identity of the land in the first
cause of action.
3. That the parcel of land described in the first cause of
action was the subject matter of the public auction sale held
on May 6, 1955 at the Capitol Building in Oroquieta, Misamis
Occidental, wherein the plaintiff was the highest bidder and
as such a Certificate of Sale was executed by MR. VICENTE D.
ROA who was then the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff in favor of
LUCIA TAN the herein plaintiff. Due to the failure of defendant
Arador Valdehueza to redeem the said land within the period
of one year as being provided by law, MR. VICENTE D. ROA
who was then the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff executed an
ABSOLUTE DEED OF SALE in favor of the plaintiff LUCIA TAN.
FACTS:
NO
RATIO:
Although under Sec. 2 of PD 116, the Monetary Board
is authorized to prescribe the maximumrate of interest for
loans and to change such rates whenever warranted by
prevailing economic and socialconditions, by express
provision, it may not do so oftener than once every
12 months. If the MonetaryBoard cannot, much less can
PNB, effect increases on the interest rates more than once a
year.Based on the credit agreement and promissory notes
executed between the parties, although PR didagree to
increase on the interest rates allowed by law, no law was
passed warranting Petitioner to effectincrease on the interest
rates on the existing loan of PR for the months of July to
November of 1984.Neither there being any document
executed and delivered by PR to effect such increase.For
escalation clauses to be valid and warrant the increase of the
interest rates on loans, there must be:(1) increase was made
by law or by the Monetary Board; (2) stipulation must include
a clause for thereduction of the stipulated interest rate in the
event that the maximum interest is lowered by law or by
theMonetary board. In this case, PNB merely relied on its own
Board Resolutions, which are not laws nor resolutions of the
Monetary Board.Despite the suspension of the Usury Law,
imposing a ceiling on interest rates, this does not
authorizebanks to unilaterally and successively increase
interest rates in violation of Sec. 2 PD 116.Increases
unilaterally effected by PNB was in violation of the Mutuality
of Contracts under Art. 1308. Thisprovides that the validity
and compliance of the parties to the contract cannot be left
to the will of one of the contracting parties. Increases made
are therefore void.Increase on the stipulated interest rates
made by PNB also contravenes Art. 1956. It provides that,
nointerest shall be due unless it has been expressly
stipulated in writing. PR never agreed in writing to
While not involving the main issues in the case threshed out
in the court a quo, the judgment in which had already
become final and executory, the factual backdrop of the
present petition is summarized by respondent court as
follows:
REGALADO, J.:
Before us is a petition seeking the amendment and
modification of the dispositive portion of respondent court's
decision in CA-G.R. No. SP-09331, 1 allegedly to make it
conform with the findings, arguments and observations
embodied in said decision which relief was denied by
respondent court in its resolution, dated January 15,
1980, 2 rejecting petitioner's ex parte motion filed for that
purpose. 3
5. The very face of Annex 'D' shows that the '2%' damage
dues being questioned by the present counsel of petitioner
had been mentioned no less than TEN (10) TIMES and was
clearly and distinctly defined by petitioner and included in
the computation of its obligation to herein petitioner as '2%
penalty for every 45 days.'
OUTRIGHT SALE
Co accepted the invoice of the ballet shoes and he even
noted down in his own handwriting the partial payments that
he made.
If the sale has been on consignment, a stipulation as to the
period of time for the return of the unsold shoes should have
been made, however, this was not done
NOT BOUND BY THE INTEREST
He did not sign the invoice slip the stipulated interest was
20%, hence, not binding
However, he is bound by the legal interest of 6%
FACTS:
The parties entered into a contract wherein it is stipulated
that 350 pairs of ballet shoes will be sold by Co and that Co
had 9 days from delivery of the shoes to make his choice of 2
alternatives: a) consider the sale for the shoes closed at a flat
rate, or b) return the remaining unsold ones to Royal.
Co failed to return the unsold pairs after 9 days and actually
began making partial payments on account of the purchase
price agreed upon.
Co then contended that there was merely a consignment of
the goods and he wanted to return the unsold shoes. Royal
refused contending that it was an outright sale.
ISSUE: WoN the sale was an outright sale / WoN Co is bound
by the interest stipulated in the invoice.
SC: YES! / NO!