Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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:
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.
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:
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”