REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 66
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
Plaintiff,
- versus -

CIVIL CASE No. 108394

MA. ELENA L. SUSE,

Defendants.
x------------------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
COMES NOW, the herein plaintiff, Bank of the Philippine Islands,
by the undersigned counsel before this Honorable Court respectfully submit
their position paper:
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CASE
1. This is a complaint for sum of money against the defendant upon
the specification presented in the complaint which is quoted as follows:
1. Plaintiff is a domestic commercial banking
corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of
Philippine laws with principal business address at BPI
Building, Ayala Avenue cor Paseo de Roxas Makati City. It has
a Credit Card Collection Department with address at 18 th
Floor, BPI Card Center Bldg., 8753 Paseo de Roxas, Makati
City. Plaintiff is represented herein by the affiant signatory to
the VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM
SHOPPING who has been appointed by the Board of Directors
as its duly authorized representative to file this case and
represent it in all court proceedings. Photocopy of the
Secretarys Certificate incorporating the Board Resolution
passed to that effect is hereto attached as Annex A;
2.
Defendant MA ELENA L SUSE, is a Filipino, of
legal age, whose address is 531 GONDOLA ST SFV MUZON
TAYTAY 1920 RIZAL, where summons and other court
processes may be served;
3.
BPI issues credit cards wherein through its credit
card system, it extends credit accommodations to its

cardholders for the purchase of goods and other services from

accredited establishments and availments of cash advances
from its authorized branches or Automated Teller Machines
(ATM) to be paid later on by the cardholders;
4.
Defendant was issued a BPI Credit Card under
Customer No. 0201001100959270; Certified photocopy of the
Terms and Conditions and Delivery Receipt which is hereto
attached as Annexes B and C;
5.
By the terms and conditions governing the
issuance and use of a BPI Credit Card, defendant undertook to
pay all charges incurred through the use of the aforesaid credit
card within a period of twenty (20) calendar days from
defendants assigned cut-off date without the necessity of
demand;
6.
The defendant is given the option to pay the
amount billed in full or only the minimum payment required in
the statement of account;
7.
Should defendant decide to pay only the minimum
payment required, a finance charge of 3.25% based on the
average balance is added to the unpaid balance;
8.
On the other hand, should defendant fail to pay on
the due date indicated in the statement of account, an
additional late payment charge of 6% for every month or a
fraction of a months delay is added to the unpaid balance;
9.
Defendant
availed
of
plaintiffs
accommodation by using the aforesaid credit card;

credit

10. Through the use of the aforesaid credit card,

defendant incurred an outstanding obligation resulting in
plaintiffs principal claim / amount of demand in the sum
P176,406.97 of as of November 12, 2012 per Statement of
Account dated November 12, 2012
is hereto attached as
Annexes D and D-1;
11. Based on plaintiffs records, defendants last
payment prior to cancellation of the credit card was on
September 04, 2012. Photocopy of the Statement of Account
dated September 12, 2012 showing the last payment made is
hereto attached as Annexes E and E-1;
12. Demands for payment of the outstanding
obligation were made upon defendant, but despite such
demands, defendant failed and refused to settle the obligation.

Photocopy of the demand letter/s sent to and received by the

defendant is hereto attached as Annexes F and F-1;
13. By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff was
constrained to engage the services of counsel and has agreed to
pay 25% of defendants obligation as and by way of attorneys
fees exclusive of appearance fee for every court hearing.
PR AYE R
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed before this
Honorable Court, that judgment be rendered against the
defendant by ordering him/her to pay plaintiff, as follows:
a)

The principal claim / amount of demand in the sum of

P176,406.97 as of November 12, 2012.

b)

The total amount of P207,045.44 as representing the 3.25%

finance charge per month and 6% late payment charges per
month of the said principal claim/amount of demand, from
December 2012 up to September 2013.

c)

Finance charge at the rate of 3.25% per month and late

payment charges equivalent to 6% per month or a fraction of
months delay starting October 2013, until the obligation is
fully paid;

d)

Attorneys fees equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of the

total claims due and demandable exclusive of appearance fee
for every court hearing;

e)

The costs of suit.

[Ref.: Complaint dated 23 October 2013]
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

2. The Factual presentation is more specifically described as

presented in the judicial affidavit executed by Michael Alvin A. Gianan, the
significant portion of which is quoted as follows:
xxx

xxx

xxx

4. Q: Do you have any authority to speak on behalf of Bank of the

Philippine Islands?

A: Yes, sir. I have with me the the Secretarys Certificate and

Special Power of Attorney.
ATTY. REMONTE:
We request, your Honor, that these documents be marked as our
Exhibits A & B.
COURT:
Mark them.
5.

Q: Do you know this particular case, BPI vs. MA ELENA L

SUSE as Civil Case No. 108394?
A: Yes, sir.

6.

Q: Do you know the defendant in this case?

A: Yes, sir.

7.

Q: Why do you know her?

A: Defendant Ma Elena Suse used to be a bonafide credit card
holder of BPI Credit Card under |Customer Number
0201001100959270.
Her acceptance was covered by the Delivery Receipt and the Terms
and Conditions of such usage.

8.

Q: What is your evidence with respect to the foregoing?

A: I have with me and I am presenting the Delivery Receipt and
the Terms and Conditions for the usage of the credit card.

9.

Q: I am showing to you this document that you presented. Is this

the documents you are referring to?
A: Yes, sir.

ATTY. REMONTE:
We request, Your Honor, that this document be marked as
follows:
a] Delivery Receipt to be marked as our Exhibit C
b] Terms and Conditions to be marked as our Exhibit D
COURT:
Mark them.
10. Q: What was the status of this account?
A: Well, initially, this was a bonafide account. The cardholder
diligently paid and settled the Statements of Account that
were transmitted to her.
11. Q: Now what happened to the account?
A: Unfortunately, Ms. Ma Elena Suse became delinquent and
failed to pay her accountability as they fell due.

12. Q: Do you have the corresponding Statements of Account

showing her current status?
A: Yes, sir. I have with me the Statements of Account covering
the periods concerned showing her transactions using the subject
credit cards until she became delinquent.
ATTY. REMONTE:
We request, your Honor, the following Statements of Account
presented by the witness to be marked as follows:
Statement of Account
December 12, 2011
January 12, 2012
February 12, 2012
March 12, 2012
April 12, 2012
May 13, 201
June 12, 2012
July 12, 2012
August 12, 2012
September 12, 2012
October 14, 2012

Marked as
Exhibit
E. E-1,
E-2
F. F-1,
F-2
G. G-1,
G-2
H. H-1,
H-2
I. I-1, I2
J. J-1, J2
K. K-1,
K-2
L. L-1, L2
M. M-1,
M-2
N. N-1
O. O-1

COURT:
Mark them.
13. Q: Because of such delinquency, what did you do?
A: Because of such delinquency, the necessary follow-ups and
request were done, but to no avail, hence, the company had
no choice but to endorse the matter to counsel, who
transmitted Demand Letter dated November 12, 2012
together with the Transmittal Slip attached thereto.
ATTY. REMONTE:
Witness hereof producing the Demand Letter dated November 12,
2012 with the attached Transmittal Slip, which we request that the
same be marked as our Exhibits P & P-1.
COURT:

Mark it.
14. Q: After transmittal of this Demand Letter, was there any
payment at all made by the defendants?
A: None, sir.
15. Q: What now is the final accountability of the defendants?
A: I am presenting herewith the Statements of Account as of
November 12, 2012.
ATTY. REMONTE:
We request, your Honor the Statement of Account with a total
amount of P176,406.97 to be marked as our Exhibits Q & Q-1.
, (Certified copies of which are already part of the records).
COURT:
Mark it.
16. Q: What now is your final prayer?
A: Considering that no settlement had been made, we had been
constrained to initiate this case before this Honorable Court and we
now pray that judgment be rendered ordering defendants to pay to
the plaintiff the total amount of P176,406.97 representing total
updated credit charges.. As of November 12, 2012 we also pray for
the imposition of interest at the rate of 3.25%, penalties at 6%, and
also for the payment of Attorneys fees, 25%, and appearance fee of
P500.00 per hearing together with the litigation expenses and
judicial cost.
ATTY. REMONTE:
That is all, your Honor. We are now ready to make our Formal
Offer of Evidence.

[Ref.: Judicial Affidavit dated March 17, 2014]

***

*** ***

The exhibits submitted are more specifically presented in the

tabulation on page 8 thereof which is hereto presented again as follows:
EXHIBITS PRESENTED
Document

Con
ditio
n

Marked as
Exhibit

Secretarys Certificate**

Certified Copy

Special Power of Attorney*

Original Copy

Delivery Receipt

Certified Copy

BPI Express Credits

Terms and Conditions**

Certified Copy

Statements of Account* dated

December 12, 2011
January 12, 2012
February 12, 2012
March 12, 2012
April 12, 2012
May 13, 201
June 12, 2012
July 12, 2012
August 12, 2012
September 12, 2012
October 14, 2012

Original Copies

E. E-1, E-2
F. F-1, F-2
G. G-1, G-2
H. H-1, H-2
I. I-1, I-2
J. J-1, J-2
K. K-1, K-2
L. L-1, L-2
M. M-1, M2
N. N-1
O. O-1

dated

Original Copy

P, P-1

Updated Statement of Account

dated January 12, 2012

Original Copy

Q, Q-1

Judicial
Affidavit*
Signature

Original Copy

R, R-1,, R-2

Demand
Letter
November 12, 2012
Transmittal Slip

[Ref.: Exhibits as presented above, are already part of the records of

this Honorable Court.]
3. Due to the failure of the defendant to appear despite notice of
several hearings, they were declared as in waiver and hence the presentation
of this Position Paper.
ISSUES
The basic issues would be :
a] whether or not the defendant should be held accountable for her
liability under the terms and conditions of the credit card she obtained.
b] How much should be entitled to the plaintiff;

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Whether or not the defendant
should be held accountable for her
liability under the terms and conditions
of the credit card she obtained.
--- -----------------------Our humble position is that defendant has utilised her credit card and
it has resulted in her accountability. She has obtained purchases using the
funds of the bank, and under the terms and condition, she has to pay for such
purchases.
As testified by the witness for BPI:
10. Q: What was the status of this account?
A: Well, initially, this was a bonafide account. The cardholder
diligently paid and settled the Statements of Account that
were transmitted to her.
11. Q: Now what happened to the account?
A: Unfortunately, Ms. Ma Elena Suse became delinquent and
failed to pay her accountability as they fell due.
12. Q: Do you have the corresponding Statements of Account
showing her current status?
A: Yes, sir. I have with me the Statements of Account covering
the periods concerned showing her transactions using the subject
credit cards until she became delinquent.

The usage therefore of the credit card is undisputed.

The documentary evidence is likewise clear on this point.

Statements of Account*
dated
E. E-1, EDecember 12, 2011
2
January 12, 2012
F. F-1, FFebruary 12, 2012
2
March 12, 2012
Original Copies G. G-1, GApril 12, 2012
2
May 13, 201
H. H-1, HJune 12, 2012
2
July 12, 2012
I. I-1, I-2
August 12, 2012
J. J-1, J-2
September 12, 2012
K. K-1, KOctober 14, 2012
2
L. L-1, L2
M. M-1,
M-2
N. N-1
O. O-1
Original Copy

P, P-1

Updated Statement of Original Copy

Account dated January 12,
2012

Q, Q-1

Demand Letter dated

November 12, 2012
Transmittal Slip

How much should be entitled to

plaintiff;
---- -----------------------The accountability is likewise beyond dispute, as testified by the
witness, and established by the documentary evidence:
15. Q: What now is the final accountability of the defendants?
A: I am presenting herewith the Statements of Account as of
November 12, 2012.
ATTY. REMONTE:
We request, your Honor the Statement of Account with a total
amount of P176,406.97 to be marked as our Exhibits Q & Q-1.
, (Certified copies of which are already part of the records).
COURT:
Mark it.
16. Q: What now is your final prayer?
A: Considering that no settlement had been made, we had been
constrained to initiate this case before this Honorable Court and we
now pray that judgment be rendered ordering defendants to pay to
the plaintiff the total amount of P176,406.97 representing total
updated credit charges.. As of November 12, 2012 we also pray for
the imposition of interest at the rate of 3.25%, penalties at 6%, and
also for the payment of Attorneys fees, 25%, and appearance fee of
P500.00 per hearing together with the litigation expenses and
judicial cost.

Should defendant be ordered to pay the full

interest and penalties?
--- -----------------------1. The only potential issue at bar is the imposition of 3.5% interest per
month plus penalty of 6% per month. As per the monthly statement of
account, the interest is automatically included on the charges and
currently the interest that had been presented in the Statement of
Account. It was a varying and fluctuating interest rate and dependent
upon the market forces.
2. We respectfully take exception to the blanket application of the
Macalinao Doctrine and now as cited in the said decision the case of

Eastern Shipping Lines vs.

Gallery Frames Decision.

Court of Appeals and the Nacar vs.

In this regards, it is our humble assertion that the Macalinao1 case

never laid down a doctrine that the 3.5 % interest is automatically
declared illegal. In fact what the Honorable Supreme Court said was
that in a plethora of cases we have declared the 3.5 interest as
unconscionable. Hence we quote herewith the said declaration of the
Honorable Supreme Court.
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. XXXXXX (Macalinao v. Bank of the Philippine Islands,
G.R No. 175490, September 17, 2009) (Emphasis supplied.)
4. We have to be very careful about interpreting this ruling by the
Honorable Supreme Court. What the Honorable Supreme Court was
simply saying was that there were these plethora of cases that they
ruled to reduce the 3.5% interest to a 1% interest. The Honorable
Supreme Court never made any declaration that would read something
like:
Henceforth all 3.5% interest is hereby declared illegal and
unconscionable and be allowed interest of only 1% interest per
month.
No, the Hon. Supreme Court never gave the henceforth decision.
5. The same is also true with the case cited by this Honorable Court
because there is that delineation regarding the justifiability or
unjustifiability, conscionability or unconscionability of the case, we
quote herewith:
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]

1 Macalinao v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R No. 175490, September 17, 2009

[Ref.: Macalinao v. BPI, GR NO. L- 175490, RGM Industries

v. United Pacific Capital Corporation, G.R. No. 194781]
6. This, we respectfully argue, is the real Macalinao Doctrine. This is
real jurisprudential and doctrinal declaration, couched in such
beautiful, near poetic composition. One can only admire and marvel at
the way this doctrine is so aptly worded. Very classic, so brief, so
concise, yet direct to the point, and full of judicial wisdom. So
therefore we have here a situation wherein a technical matter with
regard the imposition of interest is now the issue at bar.
7. Before we proceed further we have to accept the fact that interest rate
at 3.5% and penalty at 3.5% was not something that was taken out of
the blue. This was duly coordinated and under the full regulation of
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. This interest rate is not like the interest
during the medieval times wherein it was a free-wheeling imposition
of interest by the loan sharks which at the time was dominated by the
Jewish merchants.
8. Todays imposition of interest and penalties are all regulated by BSP
and this is dictated by the market forces involving the supply and
demand of credit versus cash. The inter play of International
Economics in relation to the economic index of our country as a
member of the international community plays a major and vital role in
the determination of the interest and penalties. The interest rates and
penalties are all interrelated and intertwined in the market forces and
the most visible representation of this market forces is in the stock
exchange wherein the selling price and the buying price of stocks as
well as the currency exchange are all determined by market forces
involving supply and demand.
9. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas is the regulatory agency and it was
this very agency that lifted the interest rate ceiling that was originally
set by the Usury Law. This was done in order to promote and spur the
economic growth of the investments sector in our country.
10.The dictates of market forces are all intended to spur economic
growth. The undersigned does not wish to present any dissertation on
books because what the undersigned is saying are all matters of
judicial notice. High interest rates attract investment and low interest
rates drive away cash investments. That is the law of supply in
demand that nobody can dictate upon.

11.The undersigned with all due permission and with all humility would
like to refer by analogy the parable of King Canute, the proverbial
fairy tale king who commanded the waves to turn back. Likewise we
would like to make reference to a (not so intelligent) President in the
past that we had that mandated the congress (to amend the law of
supply in demand.) Maybe it was only a joke but the joke reverberates
until the present time and nobody is laughing. Restricting the interest
rates and penalties is exactly a parallel to the above metaphor. And
the solution is the Macalinao case itself.
12.Our humble assertion is that the Macalinao doctrine was not about the
lowering of interest / penalty rates but rather, on the case to case
evaluation by all courts to see if the matter involving conscience can
be activated so as to decide whether the situation is unconscionable or
not. The trial courts are now given the unenviable task of using the
yardstick of conscience which is an abstract field in order to measure
the righteousness of an interest rate which is calibrated and/or based
on technical numbers involving the law of supply and demand, a
matter that falls within the field of actuarial science.
13.It is now therefore a question of conscionability, or unconscionability.
Conscience or no conscience? Our humble assertion is that we need to
refer to the timeless wisdom that has pervaded over the years, and
became the sacrosanct guideline on matters involving conscience. We
humbly and in all reverence make reference to St. Thomas Aquinas:
Conscience is not a power, but an act. This is evident both
from the very name and from those things which in the common
way of speaking are attributed to conscience. For conscience,
according to the very nature of the word, implies the relation
of knowledge to something: for conscience may be resolved into
"cum alio scientia," i.e. knowledge applied to an individual case.
But the application of knowledge to something is done by some act.
Wherefore from this explanation of the name it is clear
that conscience is an act.
The same is manifest from those things which
are attributed to conscience. For conscience is said to witness, to
bind, or incite, and also to accuse, torment, or rebuke. And all these
follow the application of knowledge or science to what we do:
which application is made in three ways. One way in so far as we
recognize that we have done or not done something;
"Thy conscience knoweth that thou hast often spoken evil of
others" (Ecclesiastes 7:23), and according to this, conscience is
said to witness. In another way, so far as through

the conscience we judge that something should be done or not

done; and in this sense, conscience is said to incite or to bind. In
the third way, so far as by conscience we judge that something
done is well done or ill done, and in this sense conscience is said to
excuse, accuse, or torment. Now, it is clear that all these things
follow the actual application of knowledge to what we do.
Wherefore, properly speaking, conscience denominates an act. But
since habit is a principle of act, sometimes the name conscience is
given to the first natural habit--namely, "synderesis".
[Ref: Article 13, Q. 7, aa 1, Summa Theologiae as translated
literally by Fathers of English Dominican Province]
14.Clearly, conscience is the ability of one to distinguish right from wrong
through the use of reason. It is then our humble opinion that
conscience is always binding. Thus, if one acts against or contradicts
ones conscience, one certainly committed something wrong.
15.The basic thinking therefore revolves around whether the amount of
3.5% interest and 3.5% penalty is a down right illegality without
regard to the case at bar, and despite the clear pronouncement by the
Honorable Supreme Court that the situation must be weighed down
carefully on a case to case basis because what may be iniquitous and
unconscionable in one may be totally just and equitable in another.
[19]

16.In this regard therefore, we would like to respectfully make a cross

reference to the other agencies of our government namely, the National
Internal Revenue Code, which provides that an outright penalty of
25% shall be imposed as surcharge and an interest rate of 20% shall be
imposed, we quote herewith the following:
A. For late filing of Tax Returns with Tax Due to be paid, the
following penalties will be imposed upon filing, in addition to the tax
due:
1. Surcharge
SEC. 248. - Civil Penalties.
(A) There shall be imposed, in addition to the tax required to be paid,
a penalty equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount due,
in the following cases: (1) Failure to file any return and pay the tax
due thereon as required under the provisions of this Code or rules and
regulations on the date prescribed; or (2) Unless otherwise
authorized by the Commissioner, filing a return with an internal
revenue officer other than those with whom the return is required to
be filed; or (3) Failure to pay the deficiency tax within the time
prescribed for its payment in the notice of assessment; or (4) Failure

to pay the full or part of the amount of tax shown on any return
required to be filed under the provisions of this Code or rules and
regulations, or the full amount of tax due for which no return is
required to be filed, on or before the date prescribed for its payment.
2. Interest
SEC. 249. Interest. (A) In General. - There shall be assessed and collected on any
unpaid amount of tax, interest at the rate of twenty percent (20%) per
annum, or such higher rate as may be prescribed by rules and
regulations, from the date prescribed for payment until the amount is
fully paid.
[Ref: Section 248 -248, 1997 National Internal Revenue Code of
1997 (R.A 84240]
Likewise, the law on SSS provides for a penalty and interest which is more
than 1%. We quote herewith:
"SEC. 22. Remittance of Contributions. -- (a) The
contributions imposed in the preceding Section shall be remitted to
the SSS within the first ten (10) days of each calendar month
following the month for which they are applicable or within such time
as the Commission may prescribe. Every employer required to deduct
and to remit such contributions shall be liable for their payment and if
any contribution is not paid to the SSS as herein prescribed, he shall
pay besides the contribution a penalty thereon of three percent (3%)
per month from the date the contribution falls due until paid. If
deemed expedient and advisable by the Commission, the collection
and remittance of contributions shall be made quarterly or semiannually in advance, the contributions payable by the employees to be
advanced by their respective employers: Provided, That upon
separation of an employee, any contribution so paid in advance but
not due shall be credited or refunded to his employer.
[Ref: Section 22, Social Security Law (RA 82820)]
17.Likewise, borrowings from the Pag-IBIG Fund as provided for under
Republic Act 9679 makes provision for interest and penalty for more
than 1%.
Sec. 23. Remittance of Contributions. (a) It shall be the
duty of every employer, private or public, to set aside and remit
contributions required under this Act in accordance with a mechanism
determined by the Board of Trustees. (b) Every employer required to
set aside and remit such contributions as prescribed under this Act
shall be liable for their payment and non-payment shall further subject
the employer to a penalty of three percent (3%) per month of the
amounts payable from the date of contributions fall due until paid.

[Ref: Section 23, Home Development Mutual Fund Law 2009

otherwise known as PAG-IBIG (RA 9679)]
18.Our humble submission therefore, there is nothing wrong with the
imposition 3.5% interest and 3.5% penalty. This is a standard format
that is observed in our country as a fundamental necessity for
economic viability and survivability.
19.Upon the other hand, we would like to bring focus to the defendant.
What have they used the card for? Did they act with conscience when
they let themselves take liberty, and using the card as the access
devise, used the money that did not belong to them? They knew they
did not have the money to pay.
20.From the behavior of the defendants, we can easily discern that they
made full use of the card and they knew about the liability and
accountability that they would face. And yet, they still made use of the
card.
21.This situation can already be classified as similar to a situation of
estafa wherein a person knowing fully well that she does not have the
money still obtains lodging and/or still obtains food from a restaurant.
Naturally when finally she is unable to pay, she becomes accountable
under the Penal Code. Criminal liability, we respectfully submit is of a
heavier and deeper consequence than the mere imposition of a 3.5%
interest and 3.5% penalty. Criminal imprisonment goes beyond
monetary terms. It is a deprivation and confiscation of the fundamental
right to liberty which is priceless and which is more than the mere
imposition of interest/penalties.
22.And yet, we have here a situation wherein a cardholder/borrower
knowing fully well that she does not have the money and still obtained
the purchases under near similar and identical situation is only
penalized with a 3.5% interest and 3.5% penalty. Our humble
assertion therefore is that there is nothing unconscionable in this
situation involving card usage. The borrower had all the freedom, the
liberty, and the freewill not to use the card, so that she would not be
saddled and imposed the said interest and penalty.
23.Having done so against her better judgment, it is our humble assertion
that she should not seek succor under the umbrella of a downright
classification thereof as fraudulent. We respectfully say that the
defendant, after having enjoyed generously the money of the plaintiff,
should not be given, as they do not deserve the protection of the law.

24.On this matter, it is our humble assertion that the Honorable Lower
Court committed an error. The defendant should be held accountable
for her accountability under the credit card which she obtained and
used willingly, voluntarily, and freely knowing fully well that she did
not have the money.
25.On this score, therefore, it is our humble position that the blanket
imposition and the outright declaration of the 3.25% interest and 6%
interest rate/penalty as contrary to law is itself erroneous.
26.We therefore respectfully pray for the imposition of the interest and
penalties to the fullest extent.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing it is respectfully prayed to
this Honorable court that judgment be rendered as prayed for in the
Complaint:
a) The principal claim / amount of demand in the sum
of P176,406.97 as of November 12, 2012.
a)

The total amount of P207,045.44 as representing the 3.25%

finance charge per month and 6% late payment charges per
month of the said principal claim/amount of demand, from
December 2012 up to September 2013.

b)

Finance charge at the rate of 3.25% per month and late

payment charges equivalent to 6% per month or a fraction of
months delay starting October 2013, until the obligation is
fully paid;

c)

Attorneys fees equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of the

total claims due and demandable exclusive of appearance fee
for every court hearing;

d)

The costs of suit.

Other reliefs as may be just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Makati City; 15 June 2015

S.P. MADRID & ASSOCIATES

Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, BPI

Unit 1911, 19/F Herrera Tower
V.A. Rufino cor. Valero Streets
Makati City, Metro Manila
Tel. No. 892-5034 / 717-5200
By:
SIMEON P. MADRID
Roll No. 31543
PTR No.: 4748607; 01-05-15; Mkti.
IBP No.: 0983655; 01-06-15; Mkti.
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0007944; 09-08-2012 (2013-2015)
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. ARTURO A. DIMAIN
Counsel for the defendant
No. 2 Anonas Ext. cor. Kamias Road
Sikatuna Village, Quezon City]
EXPLANATION
Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a
copy of this Position Paper was served to the above respondent by JRS Express mail and not by
personal service due to time constraints and the distance of defendants address from our
office and considering further, the shortage of available manpower to effect service of said
Position Paper by personal delivery.