"Hingi lang po sana advice umutang po papa ko sa tao lang. may hand written po silang usapan na mag babayad ng 20% kada buwan sa utang.
70k po utang ng papa ko pero every month po ang nababayad nya sa tubo lang which is 14,700 kada buwan nasa 9 months na puro tubo lang ang nahuhulugan ng papa ko at hindi nababawasan ang katawan ng utang total na nabayad na kung susumahin is 132K na pero wala pa din po nababawas sa katawan dahil wala po ganun kalaking halaga na biglaan. ngayon po na stress na kasi ang papa ko dahil puro tubo ang binabayad kada buwan lahos lagpas na sa katawan ng utang. i rereklamo daw po ang papa ko sa brgy kasi na delay na po. ano po kaya pwede gawin?"
RELATED
"The imposition of an [unconscionable rate of interest] on a money debt, even if knowingly and voluntarily assumed, is immoral and unjust.
It is [tantamount to] a repugnant spoliation and an iniquitous deprivation of property, repulsive to the common sense of man. It has no support in law, in principles of justice, or in the human conscience nor is there any reason whatsoever which may justify such imposition as righteous and as one that may be sustained within the sphere of public or private morals. "(Emphasis supplied)
While we agree with petitioners that [parties to a loan agreement have wide latitude to stipulate on any interest rate] in view of the Central Bank Circular No. 905 s. 1982 which suspended the Usury Law ceiling on interest effective January 1, 1983, it is also worth stressing that interest rates whenever unconscionable [may still] be declared illegal. (Emphasis supplied)
There is certainly [nothing] in said circular which grants lenders carte blanche authority to raise interest rates to levels which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets. (Emphasis supplied)
In several cases, we have ruled that stipulations authorizing iniquitous or unconscionable interests are contrary to morals, if not against the law:
-In Medel v. Court of Appeals
We annulled a stipulated 5.5% per month or 66% per annum interest on a ₱500,000.00 loan and a 6% per month or 72% per annum interest on a ₱60,000.00 loan, respectively, for being excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant.
-In Ruiz v. Court of Appeals
We declared a 3% monthly interest imposed on four separate loans to be excessive. In both cases, the interest rates were reduced to 12% per annum. (End of emphasis)
In this case, (G.R. No. 168940 ) we similarly hold the 5% monthly interest to be excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant, contrary to morals, and the law. It is therefore void ab initio for being violative of Article 1306 of the Civil Code. With this, and in accord with the "Medel and Ruiz" cases, we hold that the Court of Appeals correctly imposed the legal interest of 12% per annum in place of the excessive interest stipulated in the Kasulatan.
Latest Jurisprudence
The rate of interest for the "loan" or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the [a]bsence of an express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be six percent (6%) per annum. (G.R. No. 189871 August 13, 2013) (Emphasis supplied)
(Circular No. 799 Series of 2013, effective July 1, 2013)
SUGGESTED READINGS
FOLLOW US!
❤️ SUPPORT
⚖️ BLOG
🛒 SHOP
コメント