Title
Insular Bank of Asia and America vs. Spouses Salazar
Case
G.R. No. L-82082
Decision Date
Mar 25, 1988
Defendants defaulted on a loan; court ruled escalation clause unenforceable, reduced penalties, and recalculated debt, awarding P38,915.18 with 12% interest.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-82082)

Facts of the Case

The stipulated loan was documented through a promissory note, which not only detailed the loan amount but also imposed an interest charge of 19% per annum along with penalty charges of 2% per month for defaults. The interest rate could be increased without notice as per the terms of the promissory note. Following the promissory note's maturity, the defendants failed to settle their account in full, leading to partial payments amounting to ₱68,676.75 by November 25, 1983. On September 12, 1984, IBAA initiated a complaint at the Regional Trial Court, claiming the defendants owed ₱87,647.19 due to unpaid interest and penalties.

Court Decision

The Regional Trial Court eventually rendered a summary judgment against the defendants, ordering them to pay ₱11,253.25, with interest at 19% per annum from the filing date of the complaint. The court declined to award additional penalties, interest at the initially claimed 21% rate, and a higher amount in attorney’s fees. IBAA subsequently appealed this decision, citing several errors in the lower court's ruling.

Legal Errors Cited by Plaintiff-Appellant

In its appeal, IBAA raised multiple points of contention: (1) the court's failure to grant penalty charges of 2% monthly; (2) the incorrect interest rate application at 21%; (3) erroneous computation of the obligation; (4) insufficient attorney's fees; and (5) the court's failure to impose joint and several liability on the defendants for the obligation.

Escalation Clause and Interest Rate Validity

The escalation clause in the promissory note allowed IBAA to adjust the interest rate in accordance with Central Bank regulations. IBAA had increased the interest rate to 21% following Central Bank Circular No. 705 dated December 1, 1979. However, upon reviewing applicable legal statutes and precedents, particularly the dictates established in Banco Filipino v. Navarro, the court found the increase invalid as it failed the condition of having more than 730 days remaining in the maturity of the loan as of the regulation's effectivity.

Penalty Clause Considerations

The court also addressed the enforceability of the penalty clause of 2% per month. While such clauses are generally valid, the court noted the significance of proportionality reflected in Article 1229 of the Civil Code, which allows for the reduction of iniquitous penalties. Considering the defendants' efforts to pay, the trial court concluded that the penalties claimed by IBAA were unreasonable in relation to the actual damages incurred.

Attorney's Fees Determination

The court’s dismissal of IBAA's claim for heightened attorney's fees was justified on the grounds that it was unreasonable, with the trial court awarding ₱1,000 deemed adequate under the circumstances outlined. The court emphasized that while the contractual stipulation for attorney's fees could dictate higher claims, it retained discretion to curtail these amounts if found excessive or unconscionable.

Final Resolution

The Su

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.