Title
1st Metro Investment Corp. vs. Este Del Sol Mountain Reserve, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 141811
Decision Date
Nov 15, 2001
FMIC granted Este del Sol a loan with excessive fees and penalties. Court ruled agreements concealed usurious interest, penalties excessive; FMIC ordered to reimburse excess interest.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 152058)

Facts:

  • Loan Agreement and Security
    • On January 31, 1978, First Metro Investment Corporation (FMIC) granted Este del Sol Mountain Reserve, Inc. (Este del Sol) a loan of ₱7,385,500.00 at 16% per annum (diminishing balance), payable in 36 equal monthly amortizations beginning the 13th month after first release.
    • The agreement provided for acceleration upon default, a one-time 20% penalty on the amount due, interest at the highest rate permitted by law, 2% monthly liquidated damages (compounded quarterly), and attorney’s fees of 25% of the amount recovered (minimum ₱20,000).
  • Simultaneous Underwriting and Consultancy Agreements
    • Underwriting Agreement (January 31, 1978): FMIC to underwrite a public offering of 120,000 common shares for a one-time fee of ₱200,000 and a supervision fee of ₱200,000 per annum for four years.
    • Consultancy Agreement (January 31, 1978): FMIC to provide general consultancy services for ₱332,500 per annum for four years.
  • Loan Release, Billing and Default
    • On February 22, 1978, FMIC released the first tranche of ₱2,382,500 and deducted underwriting, supervision and consultancy fees totaling ₱1,730,000.
    • Este del Sol defaulted on the revised amortization schedule. By June 23, 1980, its total obligation amounted to ₱12,679,630.98.
  • Foreclosure and Deficiency
    • FMIC foreclosed the real estate mortgage on June 23, 1980; it was the highest bidder at ₱9,000,000.
    • After deducting publication fees (₱4,964), sheriff’s fees (₱15,000) and attorney’s fees (₱3,168,666.75), there remained a deficiency of ₱6,863,297.73.
  • Court Proceedings
    • FMIC sued the individual sureties for the deficiency plus 21% interest from June 24, 1980 and 25% attorney’s fees.
    • RTC ruled for FMIC (₱6,863,297.73 + interest + fees). On appeal, CA held the fees were usurious devices, reduced penalty to 20% and attorney’s fees to 10%, dismissed sureties, and ordered FMIC to reimburse Este del Sol ₱971,000.
    • FMIC’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. FMIC then petitioned the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether the Underwriting and Consultancy Agreements are separate and valid contracts or subterfuges to conceal usurious interest.
  • Whether the fees stipulated under those agreements and the Loan Agreement’s penalties, liquidated damages and attorney’s fees are excessive and unconscionable.
  • Whether Central Bank Circular No. 905 (1983) removing the interest ceiling applies retroactively to the 1978 contract.
  • Whether parol evidence may be admitted to show a device to conceal usury.
  • Whether the deficiency and reimbursement computations by the CA are correct.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.