sps.mallari.vs.prudential.2013

7/25/2019 Sps.mallari.vs.Prudential.2013

1/8

THIRD DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 197861, June 05, 2013 ]

SPOUSS !"ORNTINO T. #$""$RI $ND $UR$ V. #$""$RI,

PTITIONRS, VS. PRUDNTI$" %$N& 'NO( %$N& O! TH

PHI"IPPIN IS"$NDS), RSPONDNT.

D * I S I O N

PR$"T$, J.+

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailing theDecision[1] dated June 17, 21 and the Resolution[2]dated Jul! 2, 211 of the

"ourt of #$$eals %"#& in "#'()R) "* +o) 5--.)

/he antecedent facts are as follows0

n Dece3er 11, 1-4, $etitioner lorentino /) 6allari %lorentino& o3tained fro

res$ondent Prudential Ban'/arlac Branch %res$ondent 3an&, a loan in the aount

of P.,) as evidenced 3! Proissor! +ote %P+& +o) BD 4'55)[.]8nder the$roissor! note, the loan was su39ect to an interest rate of 21: $er annu

%$)a)&, attorne!;s fees eed the res$ondent 3an to $a! his loan with his

tie de$osit with the latter in the aount of P.,))

n Dece3er 22, 1--, $etitioners s$ouses lorentino and #urea 6allari

%$etitioners& o3tained again fro res$ondent 3an another loan of P1)7 illion as

evidenced 3! P+ +o) BD? '-[5]with a aturit! date of 6arch 22, 1--) /he!

sti$ulated that the loan will 3ear 2.: interest $)a), attorne!;s fees e


2/8

n e3ruar! 25, 1--2, res$ondent 3an filed with the Regional /rial "ourt %R/"&of /arlac, a $etition for the e=tra9udicial foreclosure of $etitioners; ortgaged

$ro$ert! for the satisfaction of the latter;s o3ligation of P1,7,) secured 3!

such ortgage, thus, the auction sale was set 3! the Provincial ?heriff on #$ril 2.,

1--2)[7]

n #$ril 1, 1--2, res$ondent 3an;s #ssistant 6anager sent $etitioners two %2&

se$arate ?tateents of #ccount as of #$ril 2., 1--2, i)e), the loan of P.,)

was increased to P5-4,4.)54, while the P1,7,) loan was alread!P.,171,.)1)

n #$ril 2, 1--2, $etitioners filed a co$laint for annulent of ortgage, deeds,

in9unction, $reliinar! in9unction, te$orar! restraining order and daagesclaiing, aong others, that0 %1& the P.,) loan o3ligation should have

3een considered $aid, 3ecause the tie de$osit with the sae aount under

"ertificate of /ie De$osit +o) 2451 had alread! 3een assigned to res$ondent

3anA %2& res$ondent 3an still added the P.,) loan to the P1)7 illionloan o3ligation for $ur$oses of a$$l!ing the $roceeds of the auction saleA and %.&

the! reali>ed that there were onerous ters and conditions i$osed 3! res$ondent

3an when it tried to unilaterall! increase the charges and interest over and a3ove

those sti$ulated) Petitioners ased the court to restrain res$ondent 3an fro$roceeding with the scheduled foreclosure sale)

Res$ondent 3an filed its #nswer with counterclai arguing that0 %1& the interest

rates were clearl! $rovided in the $roissor! notes, which were used in co$utingfor interest chargesA %2& as earl! as Januar! 1-, $etitioners; tie de$osit was

ade to a$$l! for the $a!ent of interest of their P.,) loanA and %.& the

stateent of account as of #$ril 1, 1--2 $rovided for a co$utation of interestand $enalt! charges onl! fro 6a! 2, 1--, since the $roceeds of $etitioners;tie de$osit was a$$lied to the $a!ent of interest and $enalt! charges for the

$receding $eriod) Res$ondent 3an also claied that $etitioners were full! a$$rised

of the 3an;s ters and conditionsA and that the e=tra9udicial foreclosure was

sought for the satisfaction of the second loan in the aount of P1)7 illion covered3! P+ +o) BD? '- and the real estate ortgage, and not the P.,) loan

covered 3! another P+ +o) 4'55)

n an rder[]dated +ove3er 1, 1--2, the R/" denied the #$$lication for a Critof Preliinar! n9unction) owever, in $etitioners; ?u$$leental 6otion for ssuance

of a Restraining rder andEor Preliinar! n9unction to en9oin res$ondent 3an and

the Provincial ?heriff fro effecting or conducting the auction sale, the R/"reversed itself and issued the restraining order in its rder[-]dated Januar! 14,1--.)

Res$ondent 3an filed its 6otion to Fift Restraining rder, which the R/" granted in

its rder[1] dated 6arch -, 1--.) Res$ondent 3an then $roceeded with thee=tra9udicial foreclosure of the ortgaged $ro$ert!) n Jul! 7, 1--., a "ertificate

of ?ale was issued to res$ondent 3an 3eing the highest 3idder in the aount of


3/8

P.,5,))

?u3se


4/8

hos$ita3le or e


5/8

Court of Appeals,[1]Toring v. Spouses Ganzon-Olan,[1-]and Chua v. Timan.[2]

Ce are not $ersuaded)

n Medel v. Court of Appeals,[21]we found the sti$ulated interest rate of : $)a) or

a 5)5: $er onth on a P5,) loan e=cessive, unconsciona3le ande=or3itant, hence, contrar! to orals if not against the law and declared such

sti$ulation void) n Toring v. Spouses Ganzon-Olan,[22]the sti$ulated interest rates

involved were .: and .)1: $er onth on a P1 illion loan, which we find under

the circustances e=cessive and reduced the sae to 1: $er onth) Chile inChua v. Timan,[2.]where the sti$ulated interest rates were 7: and 5: a onth,

which are e


6/8

"learl!, 9uris$rudence esta3lish that the 24: $)a) sti$ulated interest rate was notconsidered unconsciona3le, thus, the 2.: $)a) interest rate i$osed on $etitioners;

loan in this case can 3! no eans 3e considered e=cessive or unconsciona3le)

Ce also do not find the sti$ulated 12: $)a) $enalt! charge e=cessive orunconsciona3le)

n &uiz v. CA,[27]we held0

/he 1: surcharge on the $rinci$al loan for ever! onth of default is valid) /his

surcharge or $enalt! sti$ulated in a loan agreeent in case of default $artaes of

the nature of lied 3! law) t is an accessor! undertaing to assue greater

lia3ilit! on the $art of an o3ligor in case of 3reach of an o3ligation) /he o3ligor

would then 3e 3ound to $a! the sti$ulated aount of indenit! without the

necessit! of $roof on the e=istence and on the easure of daages caused 3! the3reach) = = =[2]

#nd in $evelopment !an# of the 'hilippines v. "amil% "oods Manufaturing Co.,(td.,[2-]we held that0

= = = /he enforceent of the $enalt! can 3e deanded 3! the creditor onl! when

the non'$erforance is due to the fault or fraud of the de3tor) /he non'

$erforance gives rise to the $resu$tion of faultA in order to avoid the $a!ent of

the $enalt!, the de3tor has the 3urden of $roving an e=cuse the failure of the$erforance was due to either force a9eure or the acts of the creditor hiself)[.]

ere, $etitioners defaulted in the $a!ent of their loan o3ligation with res$ondent

3an and their contract $rovided for the $a!ent of 12: $)a) $enalt! charge, andsince there was no showing that $etitioners; failure to $erfor their o3ligation was

due to fore ma)eureor to res$ondent 3an;s acts, $etitioners cannot now 3ac out

on their o3ligation to $a! the $enalt! charge) # contract is the law 3etween the

$arties and the! are 3ound 3! the sti$ulations therein)

(HR!OR, the $etition for review is DNID) /he Decision dated June 17,

21 and the Resolution dated Jul! 2, 211 of the "ourt of #$$eals are here3!

$!!IR#D)

SO ORDRD.

Velaso, *r., +Chairperson, Aad, Mendoza, and (eonen, **.,concur)

Ju- 25, 2013

N O T I * O! J U D G # N T


7/8

?irsE6esdaes0

Please tae notice that on KKKJune 5, 2013KKK a Decision, co$! attachedherewith, was rendered 3! the ?u$ree "ourt in the a3ove'entitled case, the

original of which was received 3! this ffice on Jul! 25, 21. at -0. a))

*er! trul! !ours,

'SGD)

"U*IT$ $%J"IN$ SORI$NO

$ivision Cler# of Court

[1]Penned 3! #ssociate Justice Juan L) @nri, Jr), with #ssociate Justices Raon

6) Bato, Jr) and lorito ?) 6acalino, concurringA rollo, $$) .'.7)

[2]d) at 4'41)

[.]d) at 4.)

[4]d) at 47)

[5]d at 44)

[]d) at 45'4)

[7]d) at 4)

[]Per Presiding Judge @dil3erto #


8/8

[17]d) at 1-)

[1].5- Phil) 2 %1--&)

[1-]()R) +o) 172, cto3er 1, 2, 5 ?"R# .7)

[2]()R) +o) 17452, #ugust 1., 2, 52 ?"R# 14)

[21]?u$ra note 1)

[22]?u$ra note 1-)

[2.]?u$ra note 2)

[24]d) at 14-'15)

[25]()R) +o) 1.4.., #ugust 22, 211, 55 ?"R# 77)

[2] d) at 71'717) %talics in the original&

[27]44- Phil) 41- %2.&)

[2] d) at 4.5)

[2-]()R) +o) 145, Jul! ., 2-, 5-4 ?"R# 41)

[.]$evelopment !an# of the 'hilippines v. "amil% "oods Manufaturing Co., (td.,

su$ra, at 47., citing$evelopment !an# of the 'hilippines v. Go,()R) +o) 177-,?e$te3er 14, 27, 5.. ?"R# 4, 47'471)

?ource0 ?u$ree "ourt @'Fi3rar! M Date created0 #ugust 5, 21.

/his $age was d!naicall! generated 3! the @'Fi3rar! "ontent 6anageent ?!ste

Supreme Court -(irar%

sps.mallari.vs.prudential.2013

Documents