You are on page 1of 6

WON Keng Hua accepted the bill of lading

Crismina Garments vs CA

FACTS:
 February 1979 - April 1979: Crismina Garments, Inc. contracted the
services of D'Wilmar Garments, for the sewing of 20,762 pieces of
assorted girls denims for P76,410
 At first, the Crismina was told that the sewing of some of the pants were
defective so it offered to take them back but then she was told it was
good already and asked her to return for her check.
 Crismina failed to pay and told her that 6,164 pairs were defective and
asked for actual damages of P49,925.51
 RTC: favored D'Wilmar P76,140 at 12% per annum, P5,000 attorney's
fees and cost of suit
 CA: affirmed but delete the attorney's fees
ISSUE: W/N they should impose 12% interest for an obligation which is not
a loan in the absence of stipulation

HELD: NO. Appealed Decision is MODIFIED. The rate of interest shall be


6%/annum, computed from the time of the filing of the Complaint in the trial
court until the finality of the judgment. If the adjudged principal and the
interest (or any part thereof) remain unpaid thereafter, the interest rate
shall be 12% per annum computed from the time the judgment becomes
final and executory until it is fully satisfied.

 Article 1589 on the Civil Code


 [t]he vendee [herein petitioner] shall owe interest for the period between
the delivery of the thing and the payment of the price . . . should he be in
default from the time of judicial or extrajudicial demand for the payment
of the price.
 Article 2209 of the Civil Code
 If the obligation consists in the payment of money and the debtor incurs
in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to the
contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the
absence of stipulation, the legal interest, which is 6%/annum
 Usury Law
 rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits
and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of express contract as
to such rate of interest, shall be twelve per cent (12%) per annum
 award of interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages, the
rate of interest, as well as the accrual thereof
 When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum
of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be
that which may have been stipulated in writing
 interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially
demanded
 In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum
to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand
under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code
 When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is
breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded may be
imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum.
 No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or
damages except when or until the demand can be established with
reasonable certainty
 where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest
shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or
extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code) but when such certainty cannot be
so reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest
shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made
(at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have
been reasonably ascertained).
 The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be
. . . the amount finally adjudged.
 When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final
and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under
paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such
finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by
then an equivalent to forbearance of credit
 amount due in this case arose from a contract for a piece of work, not
from a loan or forbearance of money, the legal interest of six percent
(6%) per annum should be applied.
 Furthermore, since the amount of the demand could be established with
certainty when the Complaint was filed, the six percent (6%) interest
should be computed from the filing of the said Complaint.
 But after the judgment becomes final and exuecutory until the obligation
is satisfied, the interest should be reckoned at twelve percent (%12) per
year

First Metro Investment Corporation vs. Este del Sol Mountain Reserve, Inc.
(362 SCRA 101)

FACTS:

Petitioner FMIC granted respondent a loan of Seven Million Three Hundred Eighty
Five Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P7,385,500.00) to finance the construction of a
sports complex at Montalban, Rizal. Respondent also executed, as provided for by
the Loan Agreement, an Underwriting Agreement with underwriting fee, annual
supervision fee and consultancy fee with Consultancy Agreement for four (4) years,
coinciding with the term of the loan. The said fees were deducted from the first
release of loan. Respondent failed to meet the schedule of repayment. Petitioner
instituted an instant collection suit. The trial court rendered its decision in favor of
petitioner. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in favor of
herein respondents after its factual findings and conclusion.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Underwriting and Consultancy Agreements were mere


subterfuges to camouflage the usurious interest charged by the petitioner.

RULING:

YES. In the instant case, several facts and circumstances taken altogether show
that the Underwriting and Consultancy Agreements were simply cloaks or devices to
cover an illegal scheme employed by petitioner FMIC to conceal and collect
excessively usurious interest. “Art. 1957. Contracts and stipulations, under any
cloak or device whatever, intended to circumvent the laws against usury shall be
void. The stipulated penalties, liquidated damages and attorney’s fees, excessive,
iniquitous and unconscionable and revolting to the conscience as they hardly allow
the borrower any chance of survival in case of default. Hence, the instant petition
was denied and the assailed decision of the appellate court is affirmed.

G.R. No. 176479 October 6, 2010 `

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioner,

vs. PEDRO P. BUENAVENTURA, Respondent

Facts:

Respondent Pedro P. Buenaventura and his first wife (now deceased) owned a townhouse unit in Casa
Nueva Manila Townhouse, Quezon City. On December 27, 1994, they obtained a loan from petitioner.
As security for the loan, they mortgaged the townhouse to petitioner. Under the loan agreement,
respondent was to pay RCBC a fixed monthly payment with adjustable interest for five years. For this
purpose, respondent opened an account with RCBCs Binondo branch from which the bank was to
deduct the monthly amortizations. On April 19, 1999, respondent received a Notice of Public Auction of
the mortgaged townhouse unit. He wrote Atty. Saturnino Basconcillo, the notary public conducting the
auction sale, demanding the cancellation of the auction sale. However, the notary public proceeded with
the public sale on May 25, 1999, where RCBC emerged as the highest bidder. The Notary Publics
Certificate of Sale was registered with the Register of Deeds on September 28, 2000. On September 18,
2001, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City a complaint for Annulment of
Sale and Damages against RCBC

Issue:

Whether or not there was payment

Held:

Art. 1176. The receipt of the principal by the creditor, without reservation with respect to the interest,
shall give rise to the presumption that the said interest has been paid. The receipt of a later installment
of a debt without reservation as to prior installments, shall likewise raise the presumption that such
installments have been paid. Respondents passbooks indicate that RCBC continued to receive his
payments even after it made demands for him to pay his past due accounts, and even after the auction
sale. RCBC cannot deny receipt of the payments, even when it claims that the deposits were "not
withdrawn." It is not respondents fault that RCBC did not withdraw the money he deposited. His
obligation under the mortgage agreement was to deposit his payment in the savings account he had
opened for that purpose, in order that RCBC may debit the amount of his monthly liabilities therefrom.
He complied with his part of the agreement. This bolsters the conclusion of the CA that respondent had
no unpaid installments and was not in default as would warrant the application of the acceleration
clause and the subsequent foreclosure and auction sale of the property.
Rate
compound
ed
monthly”

You might also like