Title
Menchavez vs. Bermudez
Case
G.R. No. 185368
Decision Date
Oct 11, 2012
A loan agreement with a 5% monthly interest was deemed unconscionable; respondent fully repaid the principal with excess interest, voiding further claims.

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-94-971)

Loan Agreement and Payment Obligations

On November 17, 1993, Arthur F. Menchavez and Marlyn M. Bermudez entered into a loan agreement for PhP 500,000 with an interest rate of 5% per month. Respondent executed a promissory note, acknowledging her debt and stipulating the manner of repayment. Subsequent to the issuance of a check for the loan repayment, which Menchavez was requested not to present on maturity, Bermudez replaced it with five postdated checks totaling PhP 565,000. However, upon presentation, one check was dishonored, prompting a series of events leading to legal actions.

Criminal Proceedings

Following unpaid debts and further dishonor of checks associated with a verbal compromise agreement that altered repayment terms, Bermudez faced nine criminal charges in the Metropolitan Trial Court based on violations of the Bouncing Checks Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22). The charges included both checks associated with the compromise agreement and those from the original loan transaction.

Judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court

The MeTC acquitted Bermudez of all charges, finding a lack of proof that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court accepted her defense of payment, recognizing that she had made payments totaling PhP 925,000, which exceeded the principal loan amount and indicated an acknowledgment of some payments toward interest.

Regional Trial Court Ruling

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court modified the MeTC's ruling, concluding that despite the payments made by Bermudez, a balance of PhP 165,000 remained unpaid concerning specific checks associated with the compromise agreement. The RTC also determined that the original interest rate stipulated could not be enforced due to the absence of a written agreement, instead adopting a lower legal interest rate of 12% per annum.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals upheld the total payments made as satisfaction of the original loan. It ruled that the original loan obligation had been extinguished by the excess payments made by Bermudez. The CA also expressed that the interest rate of 5% per month was unconscionable and should not be enforceable. The appellate court characterized the compromise agreement as inherently linked to the original loan, therefore any attempt to enforce both obligations was viewed as unjust enrichment.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, dismissing Menchavez's claims that the compromise agreement constituted a separate and independent obligation from the original loan, while highlighting that permitting sim

...continue reading

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.