Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
ILEANA DR. MACALINAO, Petitioner, -
versus - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE Respondent. . |
|
G.R. No. 175490 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
and PERALTA,
JJ. Promulgated: September
17, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the June 30, 2006
Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) and its November 21, 2006 Resolution[2]
denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner Ileana Macalinao was an approved cardholder of BPI Mastercard, one of the credit card facilities of respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI).[3] Petitioner Macalinao made some purchases through the use of the said credit card and defaulted in paying for said purchases. She subsequently received a letter dated January 5, 2004 from respondent BPI, demanding payment of the amount of one hundred forty-one thousand five hundred eighteen pesos and thirty-four centavos (PhP 141,518.34), as follows:
|
Statement Date |
Previous Balance |
Purchases (Payments) |
Penalty Interest |
Finance Charges |
Balance Due |
|
10/27/2002 |
94,843.70 |
|
559.72 |
3,061.99 |
98,456.41 |
|
11/27/2002 |
98,465.41 |
(15,000) |
0 |
2,885.61 |
86,351.02 |
|
12/31/2002 |
86,351.02 |
30,308.80 |
259.05 |
2,806.41 |
119,752.28 |
|
1/27/2003 |
119,752.28 |
|
618.23 |
3,891.07 |
124,234.58 |
|
2/27/2003 |
124,234.58 |
|
990.93 |
4,037.62 |
129,263.13 |
|
3/27/2003 |
129,263.13 |
(18,000.00) |
298.72 |
3,616.05 |
115,177.90 |
|
4/27/2003 |
115,177.90 |
|
644.26 |
3,743.28 |
119,565.44 |
|
5/27/2003 |
119,565.44 |
(10,000.00) |
402.95 |
3,571.71 |
113,540.10 |
|
6/29/2003 |
113,540.10 |
8,362.50 (7,000.00) |
323.57 |
3,607.32 |
118,833.49 |
|
7/27/2003 |
118,833.49 |
|
608.07 |
3,862.09 |
123,375.65 |
|
8/27/2003 |
123,375.65 |
|
1,050.20 |
4,009.71 |
128,435.56 |
|
9/28/2003 |
128,435.56 |
|
1,435.51 |
4,174.16 |
134,045.23 |
|
10/28/2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/28/2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/28/2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1/27/2004 |
141,518.34 |
|
8,491.10 |
4,599.34 |
154,608.78 |
Under the Terms and Conditions Governing the Issuance and Use of the BPI Credit and BPI Mastercard, the charges or balance thereof remaining unpaid after the payment due date indicated on the monthly Statement of Accounts shall bear interest at the rate of 3% per month and an additional penalty fee equivalent to another 3% per month. Particularly:
8.
PAYMENT OF CHARGES – BCC shall furnish the Cardholder a monthly Statement of
Account (SOA) and the Cardholder agrees that all charges made through the use
of the CARD shall be paid by the Cardholder as stated in the SOA on or before
the last day for payment, which is twenty (20) days from the date of the said
SOA, and such payment due date may be changed to an earlier date if the
Cardholder’s account is considered overdue and/or with balances in excess of
the approved credit limit, or to such other date as may be deemed proper by the
CARD issuer with notice to the Cardholder on the same monthly SOA. If the last
day fall on a Saturday, Sunday or a holiday, the last day for the payment
automatically becomes the last working day prior to said payment date. However,
notwithstanding the absence or lack of proof of service of the SOA of the
Cardholder, the latter shall pay any and all charges made through the use of
the CARD within thirty (30) days from date or dates thereof. Failure of the
Cardholder to pay the charges made through the CARD within the payment period
as stated in the SOA or within thirty (30) days from actual date or dates of
purchase whichever occur earlier, shall render him in default without the
necessity of demand from BCC, which the Cardholder expressly waives. The charges or balance thereof remaining
unpaid after the payment due date indicated on the monthly Statement of
Accounts shall bear interest at the rate of 3% per month for BPI Express
Credit, BPI Gold Mastercard and an
additional penalty fee equivalent to another 3% of the amount due for every
month or a fraction of a month’s delay. PROVIDED that if there occurs any
change on the prevailing market rates, BCC shall have the option to adjust the
rate of interest and/or penalty fee due on the outstanding obligation with
prior notice to the cardholder. The Cardholder hereby authorizes BCC to
correspondingly increase the rate of such interest [in] the event of changes in
the prevailing market rates, and to charge additional service fees as may be deemed
necessary in order to maintain its service to the Cardholder. A CARD with
outstanding balance unpaid after thirty (30) days from original billing
statement date shall automatically be suspended, and those with accounts unpaid
after ninety (90) days from said original billing/statement date shall
automatically be cancel (sic), without prejudice to BCC’s right to suspend or
cancel any card anytime and for whatever reason. In case of default in his
obligation as provided herein, Cardholder shall surrender his/her card to BCC
and in addition to the interest and penalty charges aforementioned , pay the
following liquidated damages and/or fees (a) a collection fee of 25% of the
amount due if the account is referred to a collection agency or attorney; (b)
service fee for every dishonored check issued by the cardholder in payment of
his account without prejudice, however, to BCC’s right of considering Cardholder’s
account, and (c) a final fee equivalent to 25% of the unpaid balance, exclusive
of litigation expenses and judicial cost, if the payment of the account is
enforced though court action. Venue of all civil suits to enforce this
Agreement or any other suit directly or indirectly arising from the
relationship between the parties as established herein, whether arising from
crimes, negligence or breach thereof, shall be in the process of courts of the
City of Makati or in other courts at the option of BCC.[4] (Emphasis
supplied.)
For failure of
petitioner Macalinao to settle her obligations, respondent BPI filed with the Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City a complaint for a sum of money against her
and her husband, Danilo SJ. Macalinao. This was raffled to Branch 66 of the
MeTC and was docketed as Civil Case No. 84462 entitled Bank of the Philippine
In said complaint, respondent BPI prayed for the payment of the amount of one hundred fifty-four thousand six hundred eight pesos and seventy-eight centavos (PhP 154,608.78) plus 3.25% finance charges and late payment charges equivalent to 6% of the amount due from February 29, 2004 and an amount equivalent to 25% of the total amount due as attorney’s fees, and of the cost of suit.[6]
After the summons and a copy of the complaint were served upon petitioner Macalinao and her husband, they failed to file their Answer.[7] Thus, respondent BPI moved that judgment be rendered in accordance with Section 6 of the Rule on Summary Procedure.[8] This was granted in an Order dated June 16, 2004.[9] Thereafter, respondent BPI submitted its documentary evidence.[10]
In its Decision dated August 2, 2004, the MeTC ruled in favor of respondent BPI and ordered petitioner Macalinao and her husband to pay the amount of PhP 141,518.34 plus interest and penalty charges of 2% per month, to wit:
WHEREFORE,
finding merit in the allegations of the complaint supported by documentary
evidence, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Bank of the Philippine Islands and
against defendant-spouses Ileana DR
Macalinao and Danilo SJ Macalinao by ordering the latter to pay the former
jointly and severally the following:
1.
The amount of
PESOS: ONE HUNDRED FORTY ONE THOUSAND
FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN AND 34/100 (P141,518.34) plus interest and penalty
charges of 2% per month from January 05, 2004 until fully paid;
2.
P10,000.00 as and
by way of attorney’s fees; and
3.
Cost of suit.
SO
ORDERED.[11]
Only petitioner Macalinao
and her husband appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
In any event, the sum of P141,518.34 adjudged by the
trial court appeared to be the result of a recomputation at the reduced rate of
2% per month. Note that the total amount sought by the plaintiff-appellee was
P154,608.75 exclusive of finance charge of 3.25% per month and late payment
charge of 6% per month.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed in
toto.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[12]
Unconvinced, petitioner Macalinao filed a petition for review with the CA, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 92031. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision of the RTC:
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED but MODIFIED with respect to the total amount due and interest rate. Accordingly, petitioners are jointly and severally ordered to pay respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands the following:
1.
The amount of One Hundred Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Six Pesos and Seventy
Centavos plus interest and penalty charges of 3% per month from January 5,
2004 until fully paid;
2.
P10,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s
fees; and
3.
Cost of Suit.
SO
ORDERED.[13]
Although sued jointly with her husband, petitioner Macalinao was
the only one who filed the petition before the CA since her husband already
passed away on October 18, 2005.[14]
In its assailed decision, the CA held that the amount of PhP 141,518.34
(the amount sought to be satisfied in the demand letter of respondent BPI) is
clearly not the result of the re-computation at the reduced interest rate as
previous higher interest rates were already incorporated in the said amount.
Thus, the said amount should not be made as basis in computing the total
obligation of petitioner Macalinao. Further, the CA also emphasized that
respondent BPI should not compound the interest in the instant case absent a
stipulation to that effect. The CA also held, however, that the MeTC erred in
modifying the amount of interest rate from 3% monthly to only 2% considering that
petitioner Macalinao freely availed herself of the credit card facility offered
by respondent BPI to the general public. It explained that contracts of
adhesion are not invalid per se and are not entirely prohibited.
Petitioner Macalinao’s motion for reconsideration was denied
by the CA in its Resolution dated November 21, 2006. Hence, petitioner
Macalinao is now before this Court with the following assigned errors:
I.
THE REDUCTION OF INTEREST RATE, FROM 9.25% TO 2%,
SHOULD BE UPHELD SINCE THE STIPULATED RATE OF INTEREST WAS UNCONSCIONABLE AND
INIQUITOUS, AND THUS ILLEGAL.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ARBITRARILY MODIFIED THE REDUCED
RATE OF INTEREST FROM 2% TO 3%, CONTRARY TO THE TENOR OF ITS OWN DECISION.
III.
THE COURT A QUO,
INSTEAD OF PROCEEDING WITH A RECOMPUTATION, SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE CASE FOR
FAILURE OF RESPONDENT BPI TO PROVE THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF PETITIONER’S
OBLIGATION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REMANDED THE CASE TO THE
The petition is partly meritorious.
The Interest Rate and Penalty Charge of 3% Per Month
or 36% Per Annum Should Be Reduced to 2% Per Month or 24% Per Annum
In its Complaint, respondent BPI
originally imposed the interest and penalty charges at the rate of 9.25% per
month or 111% per annum. This was declared as unconscionable by the lower
courts for being clearly excessive, and was thus reduced to 2% per month or 24%
per annum. On appeal, the CA modified the rate of interest and penalty charge
and increased them to 3% per month or 36% per annum based on the Terms and
Conditions Governing the Issuance and Use of the BPI Credit Card, which governs
the transaction between petitioner Macalinao and respondent BPI.
In the instant petition, Macalinao claims
that the interest rate and penalty charge of 3% per month imposed by the CA is
iniquitous as the same translates to 36% per annum or thrice the legal rate of
interest.[15]
On the other hand, respondent BPI asserts that said interest rate and penalty
charge are reasonable as the same are based on the Terms and Conditions Governing
the Issuance and Use of the BPI Credit Card.[16]
We find for petitioner. We are of
the opinion that the interest rate and penalty charge of 3% per month should be
equitably reduced to 2% per month or 24% per annum.
Indeed, in the Terms and Conditions
Governing the Issuance and Use of the BPI Credit Card, there was a stipulation
on the 3% interest rate. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this is not the
first time that this Court has considered the interest rate of 36% per annum as
excessive and unconscionable. We held in Chua
vs. Timan:[17]
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. 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. Such stipulations are void for being contrary to morals, if not against the law. 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, 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. (Emphasis supplied.)
Since the stipulation on the interest rate is void, it is as
if there was no express contract thereon. Hence, courts may reduce the interest
rate as reason and equity demand.[18]
The same is true with respect to the
penalty charge. Notably, under the Terms and Conditions Governing the Issuance
and Use of the BPI Credit Card, it was also stated therein that respondent BPI
shall impose an additional penalty charge of 3% per month. Pertinently, Article
1229 of the Civil Code 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.
In exercising this power to determine what is iniquitous and
unconscionable, courts must consider the circumstances of each case since what
may be iniquitous and unconscionable in one may be totally just and equitable
in another.[19]
In the instant case, the records would reveal that petitioner
Macalinao made partial payments to respondent BPI, as indicated in her Billing
Statements.[20] Further, the stipulated
penalty charge of 3% per month or 36% per annum, in addition to regular
interests, is indeed iniquitous and unconscionable.
Thus, under the circumstances, the Court finds it equitable to reduce the interest rate pegged by the
CA at 1.5% monthly to 1% monthly and penalty charge fixed by the CA at 1.5%
monthly to 1% monthly or a total of 2% per month or 24% per annum in line with
the prevailing jurisprudence and in accordance with Art. 1229 of the Civil Code.
There Is No Basis for the Dismissal of the Case,
Much Less a Remand of the Same for Further Reception
of Evidence
Petitioner Macalinao claims that the
basis of the re-computation of the CA, that is, the amount of PhP 94,843.70
stated on the October 27, 2002 Statement of Account, was not the amount of the
principal obligation. Thus, this allegedly necessitates a re-examination of the
evidence presented by the parties. For this reason, petitioner Macalinao
further contends that the dismissal of the case or its remand to the lower
court would be a more appropriate disposition of the case.
Such contention is untenable. Based
on the records, the summons and a copy of the complaint were served upon
petitioner Macalinao and her husband on May 4, 2004. Nevertheless, they failed
to file their Answer despite such service. Thus, respondent BPI moved that
judgment be rendered accordingly.[21]
Consequently, a decision was rendered by the MeTC on the basis of the evidence
submitted by respondent BPI. This is in consonance with Sec. 6 of the Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure, which states:
Sec. 6. Effect of failure to answer. — Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period above provided, the court, motu proprio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein: Provided, however, that the court may in its discretion reduce the amount of damages and attorney’s fees claimed for being excessive or otherwise unconscionable. This is without prejudice to the applicability of Section 3(c), Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, if there are two or more defendants. (As amended by the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; emphasis supplied.)
Considering the foregoing rule, respondent BPI should not be
made to suffer for petitioner Macalinao’s failure to file an answer and
concomitantly, to allow the latter to submit additional evidence by dismissing or
remanding the case for further reception of evidence. Significantly, petitioner
Macalinao herself admitted the existence of her obligation to respondent BPI,
albeit with reservation as to the principal amount. Thus, a dismissal of the case
would cause great injustice to respondent BPI. Similarly, a remand of the case
for further reception of evidence would unduly prolong the proceedings of the
instant case and render inutile the proceedings conducted before the lower
courts.
Significantly, the CA correctly used the beginning balance of
PhP 94,843.70 as basis for the re-computation of the interest considering that this
was the first amount which appeared on the Statement of Account of petitioner
Macalinao. There is no other amount on which the re-computation could be based,
as can be gathered from the evidence on record. Furthermore, barring
a showing that the factual findings complained of are totally devoid of support
in the record or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious
abuse of discretion, such findings must stand, for this Court is not expected
or required to examine or contrast the evidence submitted by the parties.[22]
In view of the ruling that only 1% monthly interest and 1%
penalty charge can be applied to the beginning balance of PhP 94,843.70, this
Court finds the following computation more appropriate:
|
Statement Date |
Previous Balance |
Purchases (Payments) |
Balance |
Interest (1%) |
Penalty Charge (1%) |
Total Amount Due for
the Month |
|
10/27/2002 |
94,843.70 |
|
94,843.70 |
948.44 |
948.44 |
96,740.58 |
|
11/27/2002 |
94,843.70 |
(15,000) |
79,843.70 |
798.44 |
798.44 |
81,440.58 |
|
12/31/2002 |
79,843.70 |
30,308.80 |
110,152.50 |
1,101.53 |
1,101.53 |
112,355.56 |
|
1/27/2003 |
110,152.50 |
|
110,152.50 |
1,101.53 |
1,101.53 |
112,355.56 |
|
2/27/2003 |
110,152.50 |
|
110,152.50 |
1,101.53 |
1,101.53 |
112,355.56 |
|
3/27/2003 |
110,152.50 |
(18,000.00) |
92,152.50 |
921.53 |
921.53 |
93,995.56 |
|
4/27/2003 |
92,152.50 |
|
92,152.50 |
921.53 |
921.53 |
93,995.56 |
|
5/27/2003 |
92,152.50 |
(10,000.00) |
82,152.50 |
821.53 |
821.53 |
83,795.56 |
|
6/29/2003 |
82,152.50 |
8,362.50 (7,000.00) |
83,515.00 |
835.15 |
835.15 |
85,185.30 |
|
7/27/2003 |
83,515.00 |
|
83,515.00 |
835.15 |
835.15 |
85,185.30 |
|
8/27/2003 |
83,515.00 |
|
83,515.00 |
835.15 |
835.15 |
85,185.30 |
|
9/28/2003 |
83,515.00 |
|
83,515.00 |
835.15 |
835.15 |
85,185.30 |
|
10/28/2003 |
83,515.00 |
|
83,515.00 |
835.15 |
835.15 |
85,185.30 |
|
11/28/2003 |
83,515.00 |
|
83,515.00 |
835.15 |
835.15 |
85,185.30 |
|
12/28/2003 |
83,515.00 |
|
83,515.00 |
835.15 |
835.15 |
85,185.30 |
|
1/27/2004 |
83,515.00 |
|
83,515.00 |
835.15 |
835.15 |
85,185.30 |
|
TOTAL |
|
|
83,515.00 |
14,397.26 |
14,397.26 |
112,309.52 |
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED.
The CA Decision dated June 30, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 92031 is hereby MODIFIED with respect to the total
amount due, interest rate, and penalty charge. Accordingly, petitioner
Macalinao is ordered to pay respondent BPI the following:
(1) The amount of one hundred twelve
thousand three hundred nine pesos and fifty-two centavos (PhP 112,309.52) plus interest and
penalty charges of 2% per month from January 5, 2004 until fully paid;
(2) PhP 10,000 as and by way of
attorney’s fees; and
(3) Cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V.
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 29-38. Penned by Associate
Justice Magdangal M. De
[10]