already denied specifically and categorically that they owe Plaintiff any monetary obligation,

that Defendant owes an obligation of sum of money to the Plaintiff, the charging of the Plaintiff
of 10 percent per month is utterly baseless, unenforceable, and unlawful since the same is
unconscionable and exorbitant. Plaintiff’s application in the alleged sum of money owing her
has been cumulated with the exorbitant and unconscionable finance charges with the principal
in her given computation notwithstanding the absence of a valid and binding stipulation since
the rate stipulated had been declared already by the Supreme Court of the Philippines to be
null and void. It is on this premise that rendered the action of the Plaintiff, assuming that she
can substantiate such obligation, premature and not actionable, not until a re-computation of
the obligation has been made without the exorbitant interests. Hence, it becomes necessary
condition precedent before a right of action can be had by the Plaintiff in her Complaint that a
recomputation of the obligation has to be made to make due and demandable. In fact, in one of
the latest landmark Supreme Court decisions similar to this case, in the case of ILEANA DR.
MACALINO VS. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, G.R. NO. 175490 dated September 17,
2009, the highest court declared, to wit:

“Indeed, in the Terms and Conditions Governing the issuance of and Use of BPI Credit
Card, there was a stipulation on the 3% interest rate. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this
is not the first time that this Court has considered the interest rate of 36% per annum as
excessive and unconscionable. Xxxxxxxxxx.

Since the stipulation on the interest rate is void, it is as if there was no express
contract thereon. Hence, courts may reduce the interest rate as reason and equity demand.

The same is true with respect to the penalty charges. Notably, under the Terms and
Conditions Giverning the issuance and Use of the BPI Credit Card, it was also stated therein that
respondent BPI shall impose and additional penalty charge of 3% per month. Pertinently, Art.
1229 of the Civil Code states:

Art. 1229. The judge shall equity reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has
been party or irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there has been no performance,
the penalty may also be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.”

10. The latest Bangko Sentral Circular lowering the legal interests from 12% to 6% per
annum and the nullity of any agreement stipulation on interests higher than 12% per annum
must also be taken into consideration in the determination of the Defendant’s obligation
Which the plaintiff willfully ignored. The finances charges of 40.8% per annum or 3.4% per
month and the penalty charges for late payment is 72% per annum or 6% per month based on
the average balance or a total of 112.8% per annum or 9.4% finance charges per month is
undoubtedly excessive, iniquitous, and unconscionable. This is in stark contrast to the current
legal interest of 6% per annum pursuant to the CIRCULAR NO. 799 (s. 2013) issued by the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. 1

11. By way of alternative defense, the extremely onerous and unconscionable finance
charges being claimed by the Plaintiff, assuming she can validly establish with such
preponderance that we owe her money, which we had been repeatedly and categorically
denied, is unenforceable and should not be acted upon by this Honorable Court as this has
been ruled upon in the aforecited cases and by virtue of the circular of the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas.

12. Defendant reiterate that they owe the Plaintiff no money and that whatever
transaction they had previously with the Plaintiff had long been settled or paid. Hence, the
instant case, should be dismissed for utter lack of merit and total absence of preponderant
evidence to support Plaintiff’s cause of action.

PRAYER

W H E R E F O R E, premises considered Defendant respectfully move for the dismissal of the

Complaint for utter lack of preponderant evidence of our obligation, and/or the least and in
the alternative, strike upon the unconscionable and exorbitant finance charges by ordering the
re-computation of Defendants preponderantly established obligation from the start based on
the interest rates laid down by the Supreme Court in the Macalinao Case and in relation to the
latest Bangko Sentral Circular No. 799 (Series of 2013) on applicable legal interest which is six
(6) percent per annum since the finance charge is deemed void, hence, no such stipulation as to
the interest or finance charges actually exist between the parties. That it becomes a matter of
course that this Honorable Court cannot render a favorable judgement until such time that
preponderance of evidence is adduced supporting Plaintiff’s Complaint against us, otherwise
the dismissal of this unsubstantiated Complaint becomes a matter of course.

1
The rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or credits and the arte allowed in
judgements, in the absence of an express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be six percent (6%) per annum.
Defendant further prays for such other just and equitable reliefs under the foregoing premises.

Makati City, June 28, 2018

RENATO F. CRUZ
Defendant

NOTICE/SERVICE EXPLANATION

For lack of time and messengerial facility, a copy of this Answer was sent by registered mail
with return card to the Plaintiff.

RENATO F. CRUZ

Copy furnished:

DEMETRIA T. FLORES
B 10 L57 Dexterville
Malagasang 1-A, Imus Citu
Cavite