Jaka Vs CIR

G.R. No.
181045 July 2, 2014
SPOUSES EDUARDO and LYDIA SILOS, Petitioners,

vs.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
In loan agreements, it cannot be denied that the rate of interest is a principal condition, if not the
most important component. Thus, any modification thereof must be mutually agreed upon;
otherwise, it has no binding effect. Moreover, the Court cannot consider a stipulation granting a party
the option to prepay the loan if said party is not agreeable to the arbitrary interest rates imposed.
Premium may not be placed upon a stipulation in a contract which grants one party the right to
choose whether to continue with or withdraw from the agreement if it discovers that what the other
party has been doing all along is improper or illegal.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 questions the May 8, 2007 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 79650, which affirmed with modifications the February 28, 2003
Decision3 and the June 4, 2003 Order4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6 of Kalibo, Aklan
in Civil Case No. 5975.
Factual Antecedents
Spouses Eduardo and Lydia Silos (petitioners) have been in business for about two decades of
operating a department store and buying and selling of ready-to-wear apparel. Respondent
Philippine National Bank (PNB) is a banking corporation organized and existing under Philippine
laws.
To secure a one-year revolving credit line of P150,000.00 obtained from PNB, petitioners constituted
in August 1987 a Real Estate Mortgage5 over a 370-square meter lot in Kalibo, Aklan covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. (TCT) T-14250. In July 1988,the credit line was increased to P1.8
million and the mortgage was correspondingly increased to P1.8 million.6
And in July 1989, a Supplement to the Existing Real Estate Mortgage7 was executed to cover the
same credit line, which was increased to P2.5 million, and additional security was given in the form
of a 134-square meter lot covered by TCT T-16208. In addition, petitioners issued eight Promissory
Notes8 and signed a Credit Agreement.9This July 1989 Credit Agreement contained a stipulation on
interest which provides as follows:
1.03. Interest. (a) The Loan shall be subject to interest at the rate of 19.5% per annum. Interest shall
be payable in advance every one hundred twenty days at the rate prevailing at the time of the
renewal.
(b) The Borrower agrees that the Bank may modify the interest rate in the Loan depending on
whatever policy the Bank may adopt in the future, including without limitation, the shifting from the
floating interest rate system to the fixed interest rate system, or vice versa. Where the Bank has
imposed on the Loan interest at a rate per annum, which is equal to the Bank’s spread over the
current floating interest rate, the Borrower hereby agrees that the Bank may, without need of notice
to the Borrower, increase or decrease its spread over the floating interest rate at any time depending
on whatever policy it may adopt in the future.10 (Emphases supplied)
The eight Promissory Notes, on the other hand, contained a stipulation granting PNB the right to
increase or reduce interest rates "within the limits allowed by law or by the Monetary Board."11
The Real Estate Mortgage agreement provided the same right to increase or reduce interest rates
"at any time depending on whatever policy PNB may adopt in the future."12
Petitioners religiously paid interest on the notes at the following rates:
1. 1st Promissory Note dated July 24, 1989 – 19.5%;
2. 2nd Promissory Note dated November 22, 1989 – 23%;
3. 3rd Promissory Note dated March 21, 1990 – 22%;
4. 4th Promissory Note dated July 19, 1990 – 24%;
5. 5th Promissory Note dated December 17, 1990 – 28%;
6. 6th Promissory Note dated February 14, 1991 – 32%;
7. 7th Promissory Note dated March 1, 1991 – 30%; and
8. 8th Promissory Note dated July 11, 1991 – 24%.13
In August 1991, an Amendment to Credit Agreement14 was executed by the parties, with the
following stipulation regarding interest:
1.03. Interest on Line Availments. (a) The Borrowers agree to pay interest on each Availment from
date of each Availment up to but not including the date of full payment thereof at the rate per annum
which is determined by the Bank to be prime rate plus applicable spread in effect as of the date of
each Availment.15 (Emphases supplied)
Under this Amendment to Credit Agreement, petitioners issued in favor of PNB the following 18
Promissory Notes, which petitioners settled – except the last (the note covering the principal) – at
the following interest rates:
1. 9th Promissory Note dated November 8, 1991 – 26%;
2. 10th Promissory Note dated March 19, 1992 – 25%;
6. 14th Promissory Note dated July 12, 1993 – 17.5%;

11. 19th Promissory Note dated April 10, 1995 – 21%;
12. 20th Promissory Note dated July 19, 1995 – 18.5%;
13. 21st Promissory Note dated December 18, 1995 – 18.75%;
14. 22nd Promissory Note dated April 22, 1996 – 18.5%;
15. 23rd Promissory Note dated July 22, 1996 – 18.5%;
17. 25th Promissory Note dated May 30, 1997 – 17.5%; and
18. 26th Promissory Note (PN 9707237) dated July 30, 1997 – 25%.16
The 9th up to the 17th promissory notes provide for the payment of interest at the "rate the Bank
may at any time without notice, raise within the limits allowed by law x x x."17
On the other hand, the 18th up to the 26th promissory notes – including PN 9707237, which is the
26th promissory note – carried the following provision:
x x x For this purpose, I/We agree that the rate of interest herein stipulated may be increased or
decreased for the subsequent Interest Periods, with prior notice to the Borrower in the event of
changes in interest rate prescribed by law or the Monetary Board of the Central Bank of the
Philippines, or in the Bank’s overall cost of funds. I/We hereby agree that in the event I/we are not
agreeable to the interest rate fixed for any Interest Period, I/we shall have the option top repay the
loan or credit facility without penalty within ten (10) calendar days from the Interest Setting
Date.18 (Emphasis supplied)
Respondent regularly renewed the line from 1990 up to 1997, and petitioners made good on the
promissory notes, religiously paying the interests without objection or fail. But in 1997, petitioners
faltered when the interest rates soared due to the Asian financial crisis. Petitioners’ sole outstanding
promissory note for P2.5 million – PN 9707237 executed in July 1997 and due 120 days later or on
October 28, 1997 – became past due, and despite repeated demands, petitioners failed to make
good on the note.
Incidentally, PN 9707237 provided for the penalty equivalent to 24% per annum in case of default,
as follows:
Without need for notice or demand, failure to pay this note or any installment thereon, when due,
shall constitute default and in such cases or in case of garnishment, receivership or bankruptcy or
suit of any kind filed against me/us by the Bank, the outstanding principal of this note, at the option
of the Bank and without prior notice of demand, shall immediately become due and payable and
shall be subject to a penalty charge of twenty four percent (24%) per annum based on the defaulted
principal amount. x x x19 (Emphasis supplied)
PNB prepared a Statement of Account20 as of October 12, 1998, detailing the amount due and
demandable from petitioners in the total amount of P3,620,541.60, broken down as follows:
Principal P 2,500,000.00
Interest 538,874.94
Penalties 581,666.66
Total P 3,620,541.60
Despite demand, petitioners failed to pay the foregoing amount. Thus, PNB foreclosed on the
mortgage, and on January 14, 1999, TCTs T-14250 and T-16208 were sold to it at auction for the
amount of P4,324,172.96.21 The sheriff’s certificate of sale was registered on March 11, 1999.
More than a year later, or on March 24, 2000, petitioners filed Civil Case No. 5975, seeking
annulment of the foreclosure sale and an accounting of the PNB credit. Petitioners theorized that
after the first promissory note where they agreed to pay 19.5% interest, the succeeding stipulations
for the payment of interest in their loan agreements with PNB – which allegedly left to the latter the
sole will to determine the interest rate – became null and void. Petitioners added that because the
interest rates were fixed by respondent without their prior consent or agreement, these rates are
void, and as a result, petitioners should only be made liable for interest at the legal rate of 12%.
They claimed further that they overpaid interests on the credit, and concluded that due to this
overpayment of steep interest charges, their debt should now be deemed paid, and the foreclosure
and sale of TCTs T-14250 and T-16208 became unnecessary and wrongful. As for the imposed
penalty of P581,666.66, petitioners alleged that since the Real Estate Mortgage and the Supplement
thereto did not include penalties as part of the secured amount, the same should be excluded from
the foreclosure amount or bid price, even if such penalties are provided for in the final Promissory
Note, or PN 9707237.22
In addition, petitioners sought to be reimbursed an alleged overpayment of P848,285.00 made

during the period August 21, 1991 to March 5, 1998,resulting from respondent’s imposition of the
alleged illegal and steep interest rates. They also prayed to be awarded P200,000.00 by way of
attorney’s fees.23
In its Answer,24 PNB denied that it unilaterally imposed or fixed interest rates; that petitioners agreed
that without prior notice, PNB may modify interest rates depending on future policy adopted by it;
and that the imposition of penalties was agreed upon in the Credit Agreement. It added that the
imposition of penalties is supported by the all-inclusive clause in the Real Estate Mortgage
agreement which provides that the mortgage shall stand as security for any and all other obligations
of whatever kind and nature owing to respondent, which thus includes penalties imposed upon
default or non-payment of the principal and interest on due date.
On pre-trial, the parties mutually agreed to the following material facts, among others:
a) That since 1991 up to 1998, petitioners had paid PNB the total amount
of P3,484,287.00;25 and
b) That PNB sent, and petitioners received, a March 10, 2000 demand letter.26
During trial, petitioner Lydia Silos (Lydia) testified that the Credit Agreement, the Amendment to
Credit Agreement, Real Estate Mortgage and the Supplement thereto were all prepared by
respondent PNB and were presented to her and her husband Eduardo only for signature; that she
was told by PNB that the latter alone would determine the interest rate; that as to the Amendment to
Credit Agreement, she was told that PNB would fill up the interest rate portion thereof; that at the
time the parties executed the said Credit Agreement, she was not informed about the applicable
spread that PNB would impose on her account; that the interest rate portion of all Promissory Notes
she and Eduardo issued were always left in blank when they executed them, with respondent’s mere
assurance that it would be the one to enter or indicate thereon the prevailing interest rate at the time
of availment; and that they agreed to such arrangement. She further testified that the two Real
Estate Mortgage agreements she signed did not stipulate the payment of penalties; that she and
Eduardo consulted with a lawyer, and were told that PNB’s actions were improper, and so on March
20, 2000, they wrote to the latter seeking a recomputation of their outstanding obligation; and when
PNB did not oblige, they instituted Civil Case No. 5975.27
On cross-examination, Lydia testified that she has been in business for 20 years; that she also
borrowed from other individuals and another bank; that it was only with banks that she was asked to
sign loan documents with no indicated interest rate; that she did not bother to read the terms of the
loan documents which she signed; and that she received several PNB statements of account
detailing their outstanding obligations, but she did not complain; that she assumed instead that what
was written therein is correct.28
For his part, PNB Kalibo Branch Manager Diosdado Aspa, Jr. (Aspa), the sole witness for
respondent, stated on cross-examination that as a practice, the determination of the prime rates of
interest was the responsibility solely of PNB’s Treasury Department which is based in Manila; that
these prime rates were simply communicated to all PNB branches for implementation; that there are
a multitude of considerations which determine the interest rate, such as the cost of money, foreign
currency values, PNB’s spread, bank administrative costs, profitability, and the practice in the
banking industry; that in every repricing of each loan availment, the borrower has the right to
question the rates, but that this was not done by the petitioners; and that anything that is not found in
the Promissory Note may be supplemented by the Credit Agreement.29
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On February 28, 2003, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing Civil Case No. 5975.30
It ruled that:
1. While the Credit Agreement allows PNB to unilaterally increase its spread over the floating
interest rate at any time depending on whatever policy it may adopt in the future, it likewise
allows for the decrease at any time of the same. Thus, such stipulation authorizing both the
increase and decrease of interest rates as may be applicable is valid,31 as was held in
Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (SOLIDBANK) v. Court of Appeals;32
2. Banks are allowed to stipulate that interest rates on loans need not be fixed and instead
be made dependent on prevailing rates upon which to peg such variable interest rates;33
3. The Promissory Note, as the principal contract evidencing petitioners’ loan, prevails over
the Credit Agreement and the Real Estate Mortgage.
As such, the rate of interest, penalties and attorney’s fees stipulated in the Promissory Note
prevail over those mentioned in the Credit Agreement and the Real Estate Mortgage
agreements;34
4. Roughly, PNB’s computation of the total amount of petitioners’ obligation is correct;35
5. Because the loan was admittedly due and demandable, the foreclosure was regularly
made;36
6. By the admission of petitioners during pre-trial, all payments made to PNB were properly
applied to the principal, interest and penalties.37
The dispositive portion of the trial court’s Decision reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the respondent and against
the petitioners by DISMISSING the latter’s petition.
Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.38
Petitioners moved for reconsideration. In an Order39 dated June 4, 2003, the trial court granted only a
modification in the award of attorney’s fees, reducing the same from 10% to 1%. Thus, PNB was
ordered to refund to petitioner the excess in attorney’s fees in the amount of P356,589.90, viz:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered upholding the validity of the interest rate charged by
the respondent as well as the extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings and the Certificate of Sale.
However, respondent is directed to refund to the petitioner the amount of P356,589.90 representing
the excess interest charged against the latter.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.40
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Petitioners appealed to the CA, which issued the questioned Decision with the following decretal
portion:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The modified
Decision of the Regional Trial Court per Order dated June 4, 2003 is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS, to wit:
1. [T]hat the interest rate to be applied after the expiration of the first 30-day interest period
for PN. No. 9707237 should be 12% per annum;
2. [T]hat the attorney’s fees of10% is valid and binding; and

3. [T]hat [PNB] is hereby ordered to reimburse [petitioners] the excess in the bid price
of P377,505.99 which is the difference between the total amount due [PNB] and the amount
of its bid price.
SO ORDERED.41
On the other hand, respondent did not appeal the June 4,2003 Order of the trial court which reduced
its award of attorney’s fees. It simply raised the issue in its appellee’s brief in the CA, and included a
prayer for the reversal of said Order.
In effect, the CA limited petitioners’ appeal to the following issues:
1) Whether x x x the interest rates on petitioners’ outstanding obligation were unilaterally and
arbitrarily imposed by PNB;
2) Whether x x x the penalty charges were secured by the real estate mortgage; and
3) Whether x x x the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale are valid.42
The CA noted that, based on receipts presented by petitioners during trial, the latter dutifully paid a
total of P3,027,324.60 in interest for the period August 7, 1991 to August 6, 1997, over and above
the P2.5 million principal obligation. And this is exclusive of payments for insurance premiums,
documentary stamp taxes, and penalty. All the while, petitioners did not complain nor object to the
imposition of interest; they in fact paid the same religiously and without fail for seven years. The
appellate court ruled that petitioners are thus estopped from questioning the same.
The CA nevertheless noted that for the period July 30, 1997 to August 14, 1997, PNB wrongly
applied an interest rate of 25.72% instead of the agreed 25%; thus it overcharged petitioners, and
the latter paid, an excess of P736.56 in interest.
On the issue of penalties, the CA ruled that the express tenor of the Real Estate Mortgage
agreements contemplated the inclusion of the PN 9707237-stipulated 24% penalty in the amount to
be secured by the mortgaged property, thus –
For and in consideration of certain loans, overdrafts and other credit accommodations obtained from
the MORTGAGEE and to secure the payment of the same and those others that the MORTGAGEE
may extend to the MORTGAGOR, including interest and expenses, and other obligations owing by
the MORTGAGOR to the MORTGAGEE, whether direct or indirect, principal or secondary, as
appearing in the accounts, books and records of the MORTGAGEE, the MORTGAGOR does hereby
transfer and convey by way of mortgage unto the MORTGAGEE x x x43 (Emphasis supplied)
The CA believes that the 24% penalty is covered by the phrase "and other obligations owing by the
mortgagor to the mortgagee" and should thus be added to the amount secured by the mortgages.44
The CA then proceeded to declare valid the foreclosure and sale of properties covered by TCTs T-
14250 and T-16208, which came as a necessary result of petitioners’ failure to pay the outstanding
obligation upon demand.45The CA saw fit to increase the trial court’s award of 1% to 10%, finding the
latter rate to be reasonable and citing the Real Estate Mortgage agreement which authorized the
collection of the higher rate.46
Finally, the CA ruled that petitioners are entitled to P377,505.09 surplus, which is the difference
between PNB’s bid price of P4,324,172.96 and petitioners’ total computed obligation as of January
14, 1999, or the date of the auction sale, in the amount of P3,946,667.87.47
Hence, the present Petition.
Issues
The following issues are raised in this Petition:
A. THE COURT OF APPEALS AS WELL AS THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT

NULLIFYING THE INTEREST RATE PROVISION IN THE CREDIT AGREEMENT
DATED JULY 24, 1989 X X X AND IN THE AMENDMENT TO CREDIT
AGREEMENT DATEDAUGUST 21, 1991 X X X WHICH LEFT TO THE SOLE
UNILATERAL DETERMINATION OF THE RESPONDENT PNB THE ORIGINAL
FIXING OF INTEREST RATE AND ITS INCREASE, WHICH AGREEMENT IS
CONTRARY TO LAW, ART. 1308 OF THE [NEW CIVIL CODE], AS ENUNCIATED
IN PONCIANO ALMEIDA V. COURT OF APPEALS,G.R. [NO.] 113412, APRIL 17,
1996, AND CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC INTEREST, AND IN
APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL ARISING FROM THE ALLEGED
DELAYED COMPLAINT OF PETITIONER[S], AND [THEIR] PAYMENT OF THE
INTEREST CHARGED.
B. CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE LOWER COURT

ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT PNB IS NOT AT ALL ENTITLED TO ANY
INTEREST EXCEPT THE LEGAL RATE FROM DATE OF DEMAND, AND IN NOT
APPLYING THE EXCESS OVER THE LEGAL RATE OF THE ADMITTED
PAYMENTS MADE BY PETITIONER[S] FROM 1991-1998 IN THE ADMITTED
TOTAL AMOUNT OF P3,484,287.00, TO PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL
OF P2,500,000.[00] LEAVING AN OVERPAYMENT OFP984,287.00 REFUNDABLE
BY RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER[S] WITH INTEREST OF 12% PER ANNUM.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PENALTIES
ARE INCLUDEDIN THE SECURED AMOUNT, SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE, WHEN NO
PENALTIES ARE MENTIONED [NOR] PROVIDED FOR IN THE REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE AS A
SECURED AMOUNT AND THEREFORE THE AMOUNT OF PENALTIES SHOULDHAVE BEEN
EXCLUDED FROM [THE] FORECLOSURE AMOUNT.
III
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE RULING OF THE LOWER COURT,
WHICH REDUCED THE ATTORNEY’S FEES OF 10% OF THE TOTAL INDEBTEDNESS
CHARGED IN THE X X X EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE TOONLY 1%, AND [AWARDING]
10% ATTORNEY’S FEES.48
Petitioners’ Arguments
Petitioners insist that the interest rate provision in the Credit Agreement and the Amendment to
Credit Agreement should be declared null and void, for they relegated to PNB the sole power to fix
interest rates based on arbitrary criteria or factors such as bank policy, profitability, cost of money,
foreign currency values, and bank administrative costs; spaces for interest rates in the two Credit
Agreements and the promissory notes were left blank for PNB to unilaterally fill, and their consent or
agreement to the interest rates imposed thereafter was not obtained; the interest rate, which
consists of the prime rate plus the bank spread, is determined not by agreement of the parties but by
PNB’s Treasury Department in Manila. Petitioners conclude that by this method of fixing the interest
rates, the principle of mutuality of contracts is violated, and public policy as well as Circular 90549 of
the then Central Bank had been breached.
Petitioners question the CA’s application of the principle of estoppel, saying that no estoppel can
proceed from an illegal act. Though they failed to timely question the imposition of the alleged illegal
interest rates and continued to pay the loan on the basis of these rates, they cannot be deemed to
have acquiesced, and hence could recover what they erroneously paid.50
Petitioners argue that if the interest rates were nullified, then their obligation to PNB is deemed
extinguished as of July 1997; moreover, it would appear that they even made an over payment to
the bank in the amount of P984,287.00.
Next, petitioners suggest that since the Real Estate Mortgage agreements did not include nor
specify, as part of the secured amount, the penalty of 24% authorized in PN 9707237, such amount
of P581,666.66 could not be made answerable by or collected from the mortgages covering TCTs T-
14250 and T-16208. Claiming support from Philippine Bank of Communications [PBCom] v. Court of
Appeals,51 petitioners insist that the phrase "and other obligations owing by the mortgagor to the
mortgagee"52 in the mortgage agreements cannot embrace the P581,666.66 penalty, because, as
held in the PBCom case, "[a] penalty charge does not belong to the species of obligations
enumerated in the mortgage, hence, the said contract cannot be understood to secure the
penalty";53while the mortgages are the accessory contracts, what items are secured may only be
determined from the provisions of the mortgage contracts, and not from the Credit Agreement or the
promissory notes.
Finally, petitioners submit that the trial court’s award of 1% attorney’s fees should be maintained,
given that in foreclosures, a lawyer’s work consists merely in the preparation and filing of the
petition, and involves minimal study.54 To allow the imposition of a staggering P396,211.00 for such
work would be contrary to equity. Petitioners state that the purpose of attorney’s fees in cases of this
nature "is not to give respondent a larger compensation for the loan than the law already allows, but
to protect it against any future loss or damage by being compelled to retain counsel x x x to institute
judicial proceedings for the collection of its credit."55 And because the instant case involves a simple
extrajudicial foreclosure, attorney’s fees may be equitably tempered.
Respondent’s Arguments
For its part, respondent disputes petitioners’ claim that interest rates were unilaterally fixed by it,
taking relief in the CA pronouncement that petitioners are deemed estopped by their failure to
question the imposed rates and their continued payment thereof without opposition. It adds that
because the Credit Agreement and promissory notes contained both an escalation clause and a de-
escalation clause, it may not be said that the bank violated the principle of mutuality. Besides, the
increase or decrease in interest rates have been mutually agreed upon by the parties, as shown by
petitioners’ continuous payment without protest. Respondent adds that the alleged unilateral
imposition of interest rates is not a proper subject for review by the Court because the issue was
never raised in the lower court.
As for petitioners’ claim that interest rates imposed by it are null and void for the reasons that 1) the
Credit Agreements and the promissory notes were signed in blank; 2) interest rates were at short
periods; 3) no interest rates could be charged where no agreement on interest rates was made in
writing; 4) PNB fixed interest rates on the basis of arbitrary policies and standards left to its
choosing; and 5) interest rates based on prime rate plus applicable spread are indeterminate and
arbitrary – PNB counters:
a. That Credit Agreements and promissory notes were signed by petitioner[s] in blank –
Respondent claims that this issue was never raised in the lower court. Besides, documentary
evidence prevails over testimonial evidence; Lydia Silos’ testimony in this regard is self-
serving, unsupported and uncorroborated, and for being the lone evidence on this issue. The
fact remains that these documents are in proper form, presumed regular, and endure,
against arbitrary claims by Silos – who is an experienced business person – that she signed
questionable loan documents whose provisions for interest rates were left blank, and yet she
continued to pay the interests without protest for a number of years.56
b. That interest rates were at short periods – Respondent argues that the law which governs
and prohibits changes in interest rates made more than once every twelve months has been
removed57 with the issuance of Presidential Decree No. 858.58
c. That no interest rates could be charged where no agreement on interest rates was made
in writing in violation of Article 1956 of the Civil Code, which provides that no interest shall be
due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing – Respondent insists that the stipulated
25% per annum as embodied in PN 9707237 should be imposed during the interim, or the
period after the loan became due and while it remains unpaid, and not the legal interest of
12% as claimed by petitioners.59
d. That PNB fixed interest rates on the basis of arbitrary policies and standards left to its
choosing – According to respondent, interest rates were fixed taking into consideration
increases or decreases as provided by law or by the Monetary Board, the bank’s overall
costs of funds, and upon agreement of the parties.60
e. That interest rates based on prime rate plus applicable spread are indeterminate and
arbitrary – On this score, respondent submits there are various factors that influence interest
rates, from political events to economic developments, etc.; the cost of money, profitability
and foreign currency transactions may not be discounted.61
On the issue of penalties, respondent reiterates the trial court’s finding that during pre-trial,
petitioners admitted that the Statement of Account as of October 12, 1998 – which detailed and
included penalty charges as part of the total outstanding obligation owing to the bank – was correct.
Respondent justifies the imposition and collection of a penalty as a normal banking practice, and the
standard rate per annum for all commercial banks, at the time, was 24%.
Respondent adds that the purpose of the penalty or a penal clause for that matter is to ensure the
performance of the obligation and substitute for damages and the payment of interest in the event of
non-compliance.62 And the promissory note – being the principal agreement as opposed to the
mortgage, which is a mere accessory – should prevail. This being the case, its inclusion as part of
the secured amount in the mortgage agreements is valid and necessary.
Regarding the foreclosure of the mortgages, respondent accuses petitioners of pre-empting

consolidation of its ownership over TCTs T-14250 and T-16208; that petitioners filed Civil Case No.
5975 ostensibly to question the foreclosure and sale of properties covered by TCTs T-14250 and T-
16208 in a desperate move to retain ownership over these properties, because they failed to timely
redeem them.
Respondent directs the attention of the Court to its petition in G.R. No. 181046,63 where the propriety
of the CA’s ruling on the following issues is squarely raised:
1. That the interest rate to be applied after the expiration of the first 30-day interest period for
PN 9707237 should be 12% per annum; and
2. That PNB should reimburse petitioners the excess in the bid price of P377,505.99 which is
the difference between the total amount due to PNB and the amount of its bid price.
Our Ruling
The Court grants the Petition.
Before anything else, it must be said that it is not the function of the Court to re-examine or re-
evaluate evidence adduced by the parties in the proceedings below. The rule admits of certain well-
recognized exceptions, though, as when the lower courts’ findings are not supported by the evidence
on record or are based on a misapprehension of facts, or when certain relevant and undisputed facts
were manifestly overlooked that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. This
case falls within such exceptions.
The Court notes that on March 5, 2008, a Resolution was issued by the Court’s First Division
denying respondent’s petition in G.R. No. 181046, due to late filing, failure to attach the required
affidavit of service of the petition on the trial court and the petitioners, and submission of a defective
verification and certification of non-forum shopping. On June 25, 2008, the Court issued another
Resolution denying with finality respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the March 5, 2008
Resolution. And on August 15, 2008, entry of judgment was made. This thus settles the issues, as
above-stated, covering a) the interest rate – or 12% per annum– that applies upon expiration of the
first 30 days interest period provided under PN 9707237, and b)the CA’s decree that PNB should
reimburse petitioner the excess in the bid price of P377,505.09.
It appears that respondent’s practice, more than once proscribed by the Court, has been carried
over once more to the petitioners. In a number of decided cases, the Court struck down provisions in
credit documents issued by PNB to, or required of, its borrowers which allow the bank to increase or
decrease interest rates "within the limits allowed by law at any time depending on whatever policy it
may adopt in the future." Thus, in Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals,64 such stipulation and
similar ones were declared in violation of Article 130865 of the Civil Code. In a second case,
Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals,66 the very same stipulations found in the credit
agreement and the promissory notes prepared and issued by the respondent were again invalidated.
The Court therein said:
The Credit Agreement provided inter alia, that —
(a) The BANK reserves the right to increase the interest rate within the limits allowed by law at any
time depending on whatever policy it may adopt in the future; Provided, that the interest rate on this
accommodation shall be correspondingly decreased in the event that the applicable maximum
interest is reduced by law or by the Monetary Board. In either case, the adjustment in the interest
rate agreed upon shall take effect on the effectivity date of the increase or decrease in the maximum
interest rate.
The Promissory Note, in turn, authorized the PNB to raise the rate of interest, at any time without
notice, beyond the stipulated rate of 12% but only "within the limits allowed by law."
The Real Estate Mortgage contract likewise provided that —
(k) INCREASE OF INTEREST RATE: The rate of interest charged on the obligation secured by this
mortgage as well as the interest on the amount which may have been advanced by the
MORTGAGEE, in accordance with the provision hereof, shall be subject during the life of this
contract to such an increase within the rate allowed by law, as the Board of Directors of the
MORTGAGEE may prescribe for its debtors.
xxxx
In making the unilateral increases in interest rates, petitioner bank relied on the escalation clause
contained in their credit agreement which provides, as follows:
The Bank reserves the right to increase the interest rate within the limits allowed by law at any time
depending on whatever policy it may adopt in the future and provided, that, the interest rate on this
interest rate is reduced by law or by the Monetary Board. In either case, the adjustment in the
interest rate agreed upon shall take effect on the effectivity date of the increase or decrease in
maximum interest rate.
This clause is authorized by Section 2 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1684 which further
amended Act No. 2655 ("The Usury Law"), as amended, thus:
Section 2. The same Act is hereby amended by adding a new section after Section 7, to read as
follows:
Sec. 7-a. Parties to an agreement pertaining to a loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits
may stipulate that the rate of interest agreed upon may be increased in the event that the applicable
maximum rate of interest is increased bylaw or by the Monetary Board; Provided, That such
stipulation shall be valid only if there is also a stipulation in the agreement that the rate of interest
agreed upon shall be reduced in the event that the applicable maximum rate of interest is reduced
by law or by the Monetary Board; Provided further, That the adjustment in the rate of interest agreed
upon shall take effect on or after the effectivity of the increase or decrease in the maximum rate of
interest.
Section 1 of P.D. No. 1684 also empowered the Central Bank’s Monetary Board to prescribe the
maximum rates of interest for loans and certain forbearances. Pursuant to such authority, the
Monetary Board issued Central Bank (C.B.) Circular No. 905, series of 1982, Section 5 of which
provides:
Sec. 5. Section 1303 of the Manual of Regulations (for Banks and Other Financial Intermediaries) is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 1303. Interest and Other Charges.
— The rate of interest, including commissions, premiums, fees and other charges, on any loan, or
forbearance of any money, goods or credits, regardless of maturity and whether secured or
unsecured, shall not be subject to any ceiling prescribed under or pursuant to the Usury Law, as
amended.
P.D. No. 1684 and C.B. Circular No. 905 no more than allow contracting parties to stipulate freely
regarding any subsequent adjustment in the interest rate that shall accrue on a loan or forbearance
of money, goods or credits. In fine, they can agree to adjust, upward or downward, the interest
previously stipulated. However, contrary to the stubborn insistence of petitioner bank, the said law
and circular did not authorize either party to unilaterally raise the interest rate without the other’s
consent.
It is basic that there can be no contract in the true sense in the absence of the element of
agreement, or of mutual assent of the parties. If this assent is wanting on the part of the one who
contracts, his act has no more efficacy than if it had been done under duress or by a person of
unsound mind.
Similarly, contract changes must be made with the consent of the contracting parties. The minds of
all the parties must meet as to the proposed modification, especially when it affects an important
aspect of the agreement. In the case of loan contracts, it cannot be gainsaid that the rate of interest
is always a vital component, for it can make or break a capital venture. Thus, any change must be
mutually agreed upon, otherwise, it is bereft of any binding effect.
We cannot countenance petitioner bank’s posturing that the escalation clause at bench gives it
unbridled right to unilaterally upwardly adjust the interest on private respondents’ loan. That would
completely take away from private respondents the right to assent to an important modification in
their agreement, and would negate the element of mutuality in contracts. In Philippine National Bank
v. Court of Appeals, et al., 196 SCRA 536, 544-545 (1991) we held —
x x x The unilateral action of the PNB in increasing the interest rate on the private respondent’s loan
violated the mutuality of contracts ordained in Article 1308 of the Civil Code:
Art. 1308. The contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or compliance cannot be left to
the will of one of them.
In order that obligations arising from contracts may have the force of law between the parties, there
must be mutuality between the parties based on their essential equality. A contract containing a
condition which makes its fulfillment dependent exclusively upon the uncontrolled will of one of the
contracting parties, is void . . . . Hence, even assuming that the . . . loan agreement between the
PNB and the private respondent gave the PNB a license (although in fact there was none) to
increase the interest rate at will during the term of the loan, that license would have been null and
void for being violative of the principle of mutuality essential in contracts. It would have invested the
loan agreement with the character of a contract of adhesion, where the parties do not bargain on
equal footing, the weaker party’s (the debtor) participation being reduced to the alternative "to take it
or leave it" . . . . Such a contract is a veritable trap for the weaker party whom the courts of justice
must protect against abuse and imposition.67 (Emphases supplied)
Then again, in a third case, Spouses Almeda v. Court of Appeals,68 the Court invalidated the very
same provisions in the respondent’s prepared Credit Agreement, declaring thus:
The binding effect of any agreement between parties to a contract is premised on two settled
principles: (1) that any obligation arising from contract has the force of law between the parties; and
(2) that there must be mutuality between the parties based on their essential equality. Any contract
which appears to be heavily weighed in favor of one of the parties so as to lead to an
unconscionable result is void. Any stipulation regarding the validity or compliance of the contract
which is left solely to the will of one of the parties, is likewise, invalid.
It is plainly obvious, therefore, from the undisputed facts of the case that respondent bank
unilaterally altered the terms of its contract with petitioners by increasing the interest rates on the
loan without the prior assent of the latter. In fact, the manner of agreement is itself explicitly
stipulated by the Civil Code when it provides, in Article 1956 that "No interest shall be due unless it
has been expressly stipulated in writing." What has been "stipulated in writing" from a perusal of
interest rate provision of the credit agreement signed between the parties is that petitioners were
bound merely to pay 21% interest, subject to a possible escalation or de-escalation, when 1) the
circumstances warrant such escalation or de-escalation; 2) within the limits allowed by law; and 3)
upon agreement.
Indeed, the interest rate which appears to have been agreed upon by the parties to the contract in
this case was the 21% rate stipulated in the interest provision. Any doubt about this is in fact readily
resolved by a careful reading of the credit agreement because the same plainly uses the phrase
"interest rate agreed upon," in reference to the original 21% interest rate. x x x
xxxx
Petitioners never agreed in writing to pay the increased interest rates demanded by respondent bank
in contravention to the tenor of their credit agreement. That an increase in interest rates from 18% to
as much as 68% is excessive and unconscionable is indisputable. Between 1981 and 1984,
petitioners had paid an amount equivalent to virtually half of the entire principal (P7,735,004.66)
which was applied to interest alone. By the time the spouses tendered the amount
of P40,142,518.00 in settlement of their obligations; respondent bank was
demanding P58,377,487.00 over and above those amounts already previously paid by the spouses.
Escalation clauses are not basically wrong or legally objectionable so long as they are not solely
potestative but based on reasonable and valid grounds. Here, as clearly demonstrated above, not
only [are] the increases of the interest rates on the basis of the escalation clause patently
unreasonable and unconscionable, but also there are no valid and reasonable standards upon which
the increases are anchored.
xxxx
In the face of the unequivocal interest rate provisions in the credit agreement and in the law requiring
the parties to agree to changes in the interest rate in writing, we hold that the unilateral and
progressive increases imposed by respondent PNB were null and void. Their effect was to increase
the total obligation on an eighteen million peso loan to an amount way over three times that which
was originally granted to the borrowers. That these increases, occasioned by crafty manipulations in
the interest rates is unconscionable and neutralizes the salutary policies of extending loans to spur
business cannot be disputed.69 (Emphases supplied)
Still, in a fourth case, Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals,70 the above doctrine was
reiterated:
The promissory note contained the following stipulation:
For value received, I/we, [private respondents] jointly and severally promise to pay to the ORDER of
the PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, at its office in San Jose City, Philippines, the sum of FIFTEEN
THOUSAND ONLY (P15,000.00), Philippine Currency, together with interest thereon at the rate of
12% per annum until paid, which interest rate the Bank may at any time without notice, raise within
the limits allowed by law, and I/we also agree to pay jointly and severally ____% per annum penalty
charge, by way of liquidated damages should this note be unpaid or is not renewed on due dated.
Payment of this note shall be as follows:
*THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE DAYS* AFTER DATE
On the reverse side of the note the following condition was stamped:
All short-term loans to be granted starting January 1, 1978 shall be made subject to the condition
that any and/or all extensions hereof that will leave any portion of the amount still unpaid after 730
days shall automatically convert the outstanding balance into a medium or long-term obligation as
the case may be and give the Bank the right to charge the interest rates prescribed under its policies
from the date the account was originally granted.
To secure payment of the loan the parties executed a real estate mortgage contract which provided:
(k) INCREASE OF INTEREST RATE:
The rate of interest charged on the obligation secured by this mortgage as well as the interest on the
amount which may have been advanced by the MORTGAGEE, in accordance with the provision
hereof, shall be subject during the life of this contract to such an increase within the rate allowed by
law, as the Board of Directors of the MORTGAGEE may prescribe for its debtors.
xxxx
To begin with, PNB’s argument rests on a misapprehension of the import of the appellate court’s
ruling. The Court of Appeals nullified the interest rate increases not because the promissory note did
not comply with P.D. No. 1684 by providing for a de-escalation, but because the absence of such
provision made the clause so one-sided as to make it unreasonable.
That ruling is correct. It is in line with our decision in Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank v.
Navarro that although P.D. No. 1684 is not to be retroactively applied to loans granted before its
effectivity, there must nevertheless be a de-escalation clause to mitigate the one-sidedness of the
escalation clause. Indeed because of concern for the unequal status of borrowers vis-à-vis the
banks, our cases after Banco Filipino have fashioned the rule that any increase in the rate of interest
made pursuant to an escalation clause must be the result of agreement between the parties.
Thus in Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, two promissory notes authorized PNB to
increase the stipulated interest per annum" within the limits allowed by law at any time depending on
whatever policy [PNB] may adopt in the future; Provided, that the interest rate on this note shall be
correspondingly decreased in the event that the applicable maximum interest rate is reduced by law
or by the Monetary Board." The real estate mortgage likewise provided:
The rate of interest charged on the obligation secured by this mortgage as well as the interest on the
amount which may have been advanced by the MORTGAGEE, in accordance with the provisions
hereof, shall be subject during the life of this contract to such an increase within the rate allowed by
law, as the Board of Directors of the MORTGAGEE may prescribe for its debtors.
Pursuant to these clauses, PNB successively increased the interest from 18% to 32%, then to 41%
and then to 48%. This Court declared the increases unilaterally imposed by [PNB] to be in violation
of the principle of mutuality as embodied in Art.1308 of the Civil Code, which provides that "[t]he
contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one
of them." As the Court explained:
In order that obligations arising from contracts may have the force of law between the parties, there
must be mutuality between the parties based on their essential equality. A contract containing a
condition which makes its fulfillment dependent exclusively upon the uncontrolled will of one of the
contracting parties, is void (Garcia vs. Rita Legarda, Inc., 21 SCRA 555). Hence, even assuming that
the P1.8 million loan agreement between the PNB and the private respondent gave the PNB a
license (although in fact there was none) to increase the interest rate at will during the term of the
loan, that license would have been null and void for being violative of the principle of mutuality
essential in contracts. It would have invested the loan agreement with the character of a contract of
adhesion, where the parties do not bargain on equal footing, the weaker party’s (the debtor)
participation being reduced to the alternative "to take it or leave it" (Qua vs. Law Union & Rock
Insurance Co., 95 Phil. 85). Such a contract is a veritable trap for the weaker party whom the courts
of justice must protect against abuse and imposition.
A similar ruling was made in Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals. The credit agreement in
that case provided:
The BANK reserves the right to increase the interest rate within the limits allowed by law at any time
depending on whatever policy it may adopt in the future: Provided, that the interest rate on this
interest is reduced by law or by the Monetary Board. . . .
As in the first case, PNB successively increased the stipulated interest so that what was originally
12% per annum became, after only two years, 42%. In declaring the increases invalid, we held:
We cannot countenance petitioner bank’s posturing that the escalation clause at bench gives it
unbridled right to unilaterally upwardly adjust the interest on private respondents’ loan. That would
completely take away from private respondents the right to assent to an important modification in
their agreement, and would negate the element of mutuality in contracts.
Only recently we invalidated another round of interest increases decreed by PNB pursuant to a
similar agreement it had with other borrowers:
[W]hile the Usury Law ceiling on interest rates was lifted by C.B. Circular 905, nothing in the said
circular could possibly be read as granting respondent bank carte blanche authority to raise interest
rates to levels which would either enslave its borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets.
In this case no attempt was made by PNB to secure the conformity of private respondents to the
successive increases in the interest rate. Private respondents’ assent to the increases can not be
implied from their lack of response to the letters sent by PNB, informing them of the increases. For
as stated in one case, no one receiving a proposal to change a contract is obliged to answer the
proposal.71 (Emphasis supplied)
We made the same pronouncement in a fifth case, New Sampaguita Builders Construction, Inc. v.
Philippine National Bank,72 thus –
Courts have the authority to strike down or to modify provisions in promissory notes that grant the
lenders unrestrained power to increase interest rates, penalties and other charges at the latter’s sole
discretion and without giving prior notice to and securing the consent of the borrowers. This
unilateral authority is anathema to the mutuality of contracts and enable lenders to take undue
advantage of borrowers. Although the Usury Law has been effectively repealed, courts may still
reduce iniquitous or unconscionable rates charged for the use of money. Furthermore, excessive
interests, penalties and other charges not revealed in disclosure statements issued by banks, even if
stipulated in the promissory notes, cannot be given effect under the Truth in Lending
Act.73 (Emphasis supplied)
Yet again, in a sixth disposition, Philippine National Bank v. Spouses Rocamora,74 the above
pronouncements were reiterated to debunk PNB’s repeated reliance on its invalidated contract
stipulations:
We repeated this rule in the 1994 case of PNB v. CA and Jayme Fernandez and the 1996 case of
PNB v. CA and Spouses Basco. Taking no heed of these rulings, the escalation clause PNB used in
the present case to justify the increased interest rates is no different from the escalation clause
assailed in the 1996 PNB case; in both, the interest rates were increased from the agreed 12% per
annum rate to 42%. x x x
xxxx
On the strength of this ruling, PNB’s argument – that the spouses Rocamora’s failure to contest the
increased interest rates that were purportedly reflected in the statements of account and the demand
letters sent by the bank amounted to their implied acceptance of the increase – should likewise fail.
Evidently, PNB’s failure to secure the spouses Rocamora’s consent to the increased interest rates
prompted the lower courts to declare excessive and illegal the interest rates imposed. Togo around
this lower court finding, PNB alleges that the P206,297.47 deficiency claim was computed using only
the original 12% per annum interest rate. We find this unlikely. Our examination of PNB’s own
ledgers, included in the records of the case, clearly indicates that PNB imposed interest rates higher
than the agreed 12% per annum rate. This confirmatory finding, albeit based solely on ledgers found
in the records, reinforces the application in this case of the rule that findings of the RTC, when
affirmed by the CA, are binding upon this Court.75 (Emphases supplied)
Verily, all these cases, including the present one, involve identical or similar provisions found in
respondent’s credit agreements and promissory notes. Thus, the July 1989 Credit Agreement
executed by petitioners and respondent contained the following stipulation on interest:
1.03. Interest. (a) The Loan shall be subject to interest at the rate of 19.5% [per annum]. Interest
shall be payable in advance every one hundred twenty days at the rate prevailing at the time of the
renewal.
(b) The Borrower agrees that the Bank may modify the interest rate in the Loan depending on
imposed on the Loan interest at a rate per annum which is equal to the Bank’s spread over the
while the eight promissory notes issued pursuant thereto granted PNB the right to increase or
reduce interest rates "within the limits allowed by law or the Monetary Board"77 and the Real Estate
Mortgage agreement included the same right to increase or reduce interest rates "at any time
depending on whatever policy PNB may adopt in the future."78
On the basis of the Credit Agreement, petitioners issued promissory notes which they signed in
blank, and respondent later on entered their corresponding interest rates, as follows:
1st Promissory Note dated July 24, 1989 – 19.5%;
2nd Promissory Note dated November 22, 1989 – 23%;
3rd Promissory Note dated March 21, 1990 – 22%;
4th Promissory Note dated July 19, 1990 – 24%;
5th Promissory Note dated December 17, 1990 – 28%;
6th Promissory Note dated February 14, 1991 – 32%;
7th Promissory Note dated March 1, 1991 – 30%; and
8th Promissory Note dated July 11, 1991 – 24%.79
On the other hand, the August 1991 Amendment to Credit Agreement contains the following
stipulation regarding interest:
each Availment.80 (Emphases supplied)
and under this Amendment to Credit Agreement, petitioners again executed and signed the following
promissory notes in blank, for the respondent to later on enter the corresponding interest rates,
which it did, as follows:
9th Promissory Note dated November 8, 1991 – 26%;
10th Promissory Note dated March 19, 1992 – 25%;
14th Promissory Note dated July 12, 1993 – 17.5%;

19th Promissory Note dated April 10, 1995 – 21%;
20th Promissory Note dated July 19, 1995 – 18.5%;
21st Promissory Note dated December 18, 1995 – 18.75%;
22nd Promissory Note dated April 22, 1996 – 18.5%;
23rd Promissory Note dated July 22, 1996 – 18.5%;
25th Promissory Note dated May 30, 1997 – 17.5%; and
26th Promissory Note (PN 9707237) dated July 30, 1997 – 25%.81
The 9th up to the 17th promissory notes provide for the payment of interest at the "rate the Bank
may at any time without notice, raise within the limits allowed by law x x x."82 On the other hand, the
18th up to the 26th promissory notes – which includes PN 9707237 – carried the following provision:
x x x For this purpose, I/We agree that the rate of interest herein stipulated may be increased or
decreased for the subsequent Interest Periods, with prior notice to the Borrower in the event of
changes in interest rate prescribed by law or the Monetary Board of the Central Bank of the
Philippines, or in the Bank’s overall cost of funds. I/We hereby agree that in the event I/we are not
agreeable to the interest rate fixed for any Interest Period, I/we shall have the option to prepay the
loan or credit facility without penalty within ten (10) calendar days from the Interest Setting
Date.83 (Emphasis supplied)
These stipulations must be once more invalidated, as was done in previous cases. The common
denominator in these cases is the lack of agreement of the parties to the imposed interest rates. For
this case, this lack of consent by the petitioners has been made obvious by the fact that they signed
the promissory notes in blank for the respondent to fill. We find credible the testimony of Lydia in this
respect. Respondent failed to discredit her; in fact, its witness PNB Kalibo Branch Manager Aspa
admitted that interest rates were fixed solely by its Treasury Department in Manila, which were then
simply communicated to all PNB branches for implementation. If this were the case, then this would
explain why petitioners had to sign the promissory notes in blank, since the imposable interest rates
have yet to be determined and fixed by respondent’s Treasury Department in Manila.
Moreover, in Aspa’s enumeration of the factors that determine the interest rates PNB fixes – such as
cost of money, foreign currency values, bank administrative costs, profitability, and considerations
which affect the banking industry – it can be seen that considerations which affect PNB’s borrowers
are ignored. A borrower’s current financial state, his feedback or opinions, the nature and purpose of
his borrowings, the effect of foreign currency values or fluctuations on his business or borrowing, etc.
– these are not factors which influence the fixing of interest rates to be imposed on him. Clearly,
respondent’s method of fixing interest rates based on one-sided, indeterminate, and subjective
criteria such as profitability, cost of money, bank costs, etc. is arbitrary for there is no fixed standard
or margin above or below these considerations.
The stipulation in the promissory notes subjecting the interest rate to review does not render the
imposition by UCPB of interest rates on the obligations of the spouses Beluso valid. According to
said stipulation:
The interest rate shall be subject to review and may be increased or decreased by the LENDER
considering among others the prevailing financial and monetary conditions; or the rate of interest
and charges which other banks or financial institutions charge or offer to charge for similar
accommodations; and/or the resulting profitability to the LENDER after due consideration of all
dealings with the BORROWER.
It should be pointed out that the authority to review the interest rate was given [to] UCPB alone as
the lender. Moreover, UCPB may apply the considerations enumerated in this provision as it wishes.
As worded in the above provision, UCPB may give as much weight as it desires to each of the
following considerations: (1) the prevailing financial and monetary condition;(2) the rate of interest
and charges which other banks or financial institutions charge or offer to charge for similar
accommodations; and/or(3) the resulting profitability to the LENDER (UCPB) after due consideration
of all dealings with the BORROWER (the spouses Beluso). Again, as in the case of the interest rate
provision, there is no fixed margin above or below these considerations.
In view of the foregoing, the Separability Clause cannot save either of the two options of UCPB as to
the interest to be imposed, as both options violate the principle of mutuality of
contracts.84 (Emphases supplied)
To repeat what has been said in the above-cited cases, any modification in the contract, such as the
interest rates, must be made with the consent of the contracting parties. The minds of all the parties
1âwphi1
must meet as to the proposed modification, especially when it affects an important aspect of the
agreement. In the case of loan agreements, the rate of interest is a principal condition, if not the
most important component. Thus, any modification thereof must be mutually agreed upon;
otherwise, it has no binding effect.
What is even more glaring in the present case is that, the stipulations in question no longer provide
that the parties shall agree upon the interest rate to be fixed; -instead, they are worded in such a
way that the borrower shall agree to whatever interest rate respondent fixes. In credit agreements
covered by the above-cited cases, it is provided that:
The Bank reserves the right to increase the interest rate within the limits allowed by law at any time
depending on whatever policy it may adopt in the future: Provided, that, the interest rate on this
interest rate is reduced by law or by the Monetary Board. In either case, the adjustment in the
interest rate agreed upon shall take effect on the effectivity date of the increase or decrease in
maximum interest rate.85 (Emphasis supplied)
Whereas, in the present credit agreements under scrutiny, it is stated that:
IN THE JULY 1989 CREDIT AGREEMENT
(b) The Borrower agrees that the Bank may modify the interest rate on the Loan depending on
imposed on the Loan interest at a rate per annum, which is equal to the Bank’s spread over the
IN THE AUGUST 1991 AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT
each Availment.87 (Emphasis supplied)
Plainly, with the present credit agreement, the element of consent or agreement by the borrower is
now completely lacking, which makes respondent’s unlawful act all the more reprehensible.
Accordingly, petitioners are correct in arguing that estoppel should not apply to them, for "[e]stoppel
cannot be predicated on an illegal act. As between the parties to a contract, validity cannot be given
to it by estoppel if it is prohibited by law or is against public policy."88
It appears that by its acts, respondent violated the Truth in Lending Act, or Republic Act No. 3765,
which was enacted "to protect x x x citizens from a lack of awareness of the true cost of credit to the
user by using a full disclosure of such cost with a view of preventing the uninformed use of credit to
the detriment of the national economy."89 The law "gives a detailed enumeration of the specific
information required to be disclosed, among which are the interest and other charges incident to the
extension of credit."90 Section 4 thereof provides that a disclosure statement must be furnished prior
to the consummation of the transaction, thus:
SEC. 4. Any creditor shall furnish to each person to whom credit is extended, prior to the
consummation of the transaction, a clear statement in writing setting forth, to the extent applicable
and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Board, the following information:
(1) the cash price or delivered price of the property or service to be acquired;
(2) the amounts, if any, to be credited as down payment and/or trade-in;
(3) the difference between the amounts set forth under clauses (1) and (2);
(4) the charges, individually itemized, which are paid or to be paid by such person in
connection with the transaction but which are not incident to the extension of credit;
(5) the total amount to be financed;
(6) the finance charge expressed in terms of pesos and centavos; and
(7) the percentage that the finance bears to the total amount to be financed expressed as a
simple annual rate on the outstanding unpaid balance of the obligation.
Under Section 4(6), "finance charge" represents the amount to be paid by the debtor incident to the
extension of credit such as interest or discounts, collection fees, credit investigation fees, attorney’s
fees, and other service charges. The total finance charge represents the difference between (1) the
aggregate consideration (down payment plus installments) on the part of the debtor, and (2) the sum
of the cash price and non-finance charges.91
By requiring the petitioners to sign the credit documents and the promissory notes in blank, and then
unilaterally filling them up later on, respondent violated the Truth in Lending Act, and was remiss in
its disclosure obligations. In one case, which the Court finds applicable here, it was held:
UCPB further argues that since the spouses Beluso were duly given copies of the subject
promissory notes after their execution, then they were duly notified of the terms thereof, in
substantial compliance with the Truth in Lending Act.
Once more, we disagree. Section 4 of the Truth in Lending Act clearly provides that the disclosure
statement must be furnished prior to the consummation of the transaction:
SEC. 4. Any creditor shall furnish to each person to whom credit is extended, prior to the
consummation of the transaction, a clear statement in writing setting forth, to the extent applicable
and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Board, the following information:
(1) the cash price or delivered price of the property or service to be acquired;
(2) the amounts, if any, to be credited as down payment and/or trade-in;
(3) the difference between the amounts set forth under clauses (1) and (2);
(4) the charges, individually itemized, which are paid or to be paid by such person in
connection with the transaction but which are not incident to the extension of credit;
(5) the total amount to be financed;
(6) the finance charge expressed in terms of pesos and centavos; and
(7) the percentage that the finance bears to the total amount to be financed expressed as a
simple annual rate on the outstanding unpaid balance of the obligation.
The rationale of this provision is to protect users of credit from a lack of awareness of the true cost
thereof, proceeding from the experience that banks are able to conceal such true cost by hidden
charges, uncertainty of interest rates, deduction of interests from the loaned amount, and the like.
The law thereby seeks to protect debtors by permitting them to fully appreciate the true cost of their
loan, to enable them to give full consent to the contract, and to properly evaluate their options in
arriving at business decisions. Upholding UCPB’s claim of substantial compliance would defeat
these purposes of the Truth in Lending Act. The belated discovery of the true cost of credit will too
often not be able to reverse the ill effects of an already consummated business decision.
In addition, the promissory notes, the copies of which were presented to the spouses Beluso after
execution, are not sufficient notification from UCPB. As earlier discussed, the interest rate provision
therein does not sufficiently indicate with particularity the interest rate to be applied to the loan
covered by said promissory notes.92(Emphases supplied)
However, the one-year period within which an action for violation of the Truth in Lending Act may be
filed evidently prescribed long ago, or sometime in 2001, one year after petitioners received the
March 2000 demand letter which contained the illegal charges.
The fact that petitioners later received several statements of account detailing its outstanding
obligations does not cure respondent’s breach. To repeat, the belated discovery of the true cost of
credit does not reverse the ill effects of an already consummated business decision.93
Neither may the statements be considered proposals sent to secure the petitioners’ conformity; they
were sent after the imposition and application of the interest rate, and not before. And even if it were
to be presumed that these are proposals or offers, there was no acceptance by petitioners. "No one
receiving a proposal to modify a loan contract, especially regarding interest, is obliged to answer the
proposal."94
Loan and credit arrangements may be made enticing by, or "sweetened" with, offers of low initial
interest rates, but actually accompanied by provisions written in fine print that allow lenders to later
on increase or decrease interest rates unilaterally, without the consent of the borrower, and
depending on complex and subjective factors. Because they have been lured into these contracts by
initially low interest rates, borrowers get caught and stuck in the web of subsequent steep rates and
penalties, surcharges and the like. Being ordinary individuals or entities, they naturally dread legal
complications and cannot afford court litigation; they succumb to whatever charges the lenders
impose. At the very least, borrowers should be charged rightly; but then again this is not possible in
a one-sided credit system where the temptation to abuse is strong and the willingness to rectify is
made weak by the eternal desire for profit.
Given the above supposition, the Court cannot subscribe to respondent’s argument that in every
repricing of petitioners’ loan availment, they are given the right to question the interest rates
imposed. The import of respondent’s line of reasoning cannot be other than that if one out of every
hundred borrowers questions respondent’s practice of unilaterally fixing interest rates, then only the
loan arrangement with that lone complaining borrower will enjoy the benefit of review or re-
negotiation; as to the 99 others, the questionable practice will continue unchecked, and respondent
will continue to reap the profits from such unscrupulous practice. The Court can no more condone a
view so perverse. This is exactly what the Court meant in the immediately preceding cited case
when it said that "the belated discovery of the true cost of credit does not reverse the ill effects of an
already consummated business decision;"95 as to the 99 borrowers who did not or could not
complain, the illegal act shall have become a fait accompli– to their detriment, they have already
suffered the oppressive rates.
Besides, that petitioners are given the right to question the interest rates imposed is, under the
circumstances, irrelevant; we have a situation where the petitioners do not stand on equal footing
with the respondent. It is doubtful that any borrower who finds himself in petitioners’ position would
dare question respondent’s power to arbitrarily modify interest rates at any time. In the second place,
on what basis could any borrower question such power, when the criteria or standards – which are
really one-sided, arbitrary and subjective – for the exercise of such power are precisely lost on him?
For the same reasons, the Court cannot validly consider that, as stipulated in the 18th up to the 26th
promissory notes, petitioners are granted the option to prepay the loan or credit facility without
penalty within 10 calendar days from the Interest Setting Date if they are not agreeable to the
interest rate fixed. It has been shown that the promissory notes are executed and signed in blank,
meaning that by the time petitioners learn of the interest rate, they are already bound to pay it
because they have already pre-signed the note where the rate is subsequently entered.
Besides, premium may not be placed upon a stipulation in a contract which grants one party the right
to choose whether to continue with or withdraw from the agreement if it discovers that what the other
party has been doing all along is improper or illegal.
Thus said, respondent’s arguments relative to the credit documents – that documentary evidence
prevails over testimonial evidence; that the credit documents are in proper form, presumed regular,
and endure, against arbitrary claims by petitioners, experienced business persons that they are, they
signed questionable loan documents whose provisions for interest rates were left blank, and yet they
continued to pay the interests without protest for a number of years – deserve no consideration.
With regard to interest, the Court finds that since the escalation clause is annulled, the principal
amount of the loan is subject to the original or stipulated rate of interest, and upon maturity, the
amount due shall be subject to legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum. This is the uniform ruling
adopted in previous cases, including those cited here.96 The interests paid by petitioners should be
applied first to the payment of the stipulated or legal and unpaid interest, as the case may be, and
later, to the capital or principal.97 Respondent should then refund the excess amount of interest that it
has illegally imposed upon petitioners; "[t]he amount to be refunded refers to that paid by petitioners
when they had no obligation to do so."98 Thus, the parties’ original agreement stipulated the payment
of 19.5% interest; however, this rate was intended to apply only to the first promissory note which
expired on November 21, 1989 and was paid by petitioners; it was not intended to apply to the whole
duration of the loan. Subsequent higher interest rates have been declared illegal; but because only
the rates are found to be improper, the obligation to pay interest subsists, the same to be fixed at the
legal rate of 12% per annum. However, the 12% interest shall apply only until June 30, 2013.
Starting July1, 2013, the prevailing rate of interest shall be 6% per annum pursuant to our ruling in
Nacar v. Gallery Frames99 and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas-Monetary Board Circular No. 799.
Now to the issue of penalty. PN 9707237 provides that failure to pay it or any installment thereon,
when due, shall constitute default, and a penalty charge of 24% per annum based on the defaulted
principal amount shall be imposed. Petitioners claim that this penalty should be excluded from the
foreclosure amount or bid price because the Real Estate Mortgage and the Supplement thereto did
not specifically include it as part of the secured amount. Respondent justifies its inclusion in the
secured amount, saying that the purpose of the penalty or a penal clause is to ensure the
performance of the obligation and substitute for damages and the payment of interest in the event of
non-compliance.100 Respondent adds that the imposition and collection of a penalty is a normal
banking practice, and the standard rate per annum for all commercial banks, at the time, was 24%.
Its inclusion as part of the secured amount in the mortgage agreements is thus valid and necessary.
The Court sustains petitioners’ view that the penalty may not be included as part of the secured
amount. Having found the credit agreements and promissory notes to be tainted, we must accord
the same treatment to the mortgages. After all, "[a] mortgage and a note secured by it are deemed
parts of one transaction and are construed together."101 Being so tainted and having the attributes of
a contract of adhesion as the principal credit documents, we must construe the mortgage contracts
strictly, and against the party who drafted it. An examination of the mortgage agreements reveals
that nowhere is it stated that penalties are to be included in the secured amount. Construing this
silence strictly against the respondent, the Court can only conclude that the parties did not intend to
include the penalty allowed under PN 9707237 as part of the secured amount. Given its resources,
respondent could have – if it truly wanted to – conveniently prepared and executed an amended
mortgage agreement with the petitioners, thereby including penalties in the amount to be secured by
the encumbered properties. Yet it did not.
With regard to attorney’s fees, it was plain error for the CA to have passed upon the issue since it
was not raised by the petitioners in their appeal; it was the respondent that improperly brought it up
in its appellee’s brief, when it should have interposed an appeal, since the trial court’s Decision on
this issue is adverse to it. It is an elementary principle in the subject of appeals that an appellee who
does not himself appeal cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those
granted in the decision of the court below.
x x x [A]n appellee, who is at the same time not an appellant, may on appeal be permitted to make
counter assignments of error in ordinary actions, when the purpose is merely to defend himself
against an appeal in which errors are alleged to have been committed by the trial court both in the
appreciation of facts and in the interpretation of the law, in order to sustain the judgment in his favor
but not when his purpose is to seek modification or reversal of the judgment, in which case it is
necessary for him to have excepted to and appealed from the judgment.102
Since petitioners did not raise the issue of reduction of attorney’s fees, the CA possessed no
authority to pass upon it at the instance of respondent. The ruling of the trial court in this respect
should remain undisturbed.
For the fixing of the proper amounts due and owing to the parties – to the respondent as creditor and
to the petitioners who are entitled to a refund as a consequence of overpayment considering that
they paid more by way of interest charges than the 12% per annum103 herein allowed – the case
should be remanded to the lower court for proper accounting and computation, applying the
following procedure:
1. The 1st Promissory Note with the 19.5% interest rate is deemed proper and paid;
2. All subsequent promissory notes (from the 2nd to the 26th promissory notes) shall carry
an interest rate of only 12% per annum.104 Thus, interest payment made in excess of 12% on
the 2nd promissory note shall immediately be applied to the principal, and the principal shall
be accordingly reduced. The reduced principal shall then be subjected to the 12%105 interest
on the 3rd promissory note, and the excess over 12% interest payment on the 3rd
promissory note shall again be applied to the principal, which shall again be reduced
accordingly. The reduced principal shall then be subjected to the 12% interest on the 4th
promissory note, and the excess over12% interest payment on the 4th promissory note shall
again be applied to the principal, which shall again be reduced accordingly. And so on and
so forth;
3. After the above procedure is carried out, the trial court shall be able to conclude if
petitioners a) still have an OUTSTANDING BALANCE/OBLIGATION or b) MADE
PAYMENTS OVER AND ABOVE THEIR TOTAL OBLIGATION (principal and interest);
4. Such outstanding balance/obligation, if there be any, shall then be subjected to a 12% per
annum interest from October 28, 1997 until January 14, 1999, which is the date of the
auction sale;
5. Such outstanding balance/obligation shall also be charged a 24% per annum penalty from
August 14, 1997 until January 14, 1999. But from this total penalty, the petitioners’ previous
payment of penalties in the amount of P202,000.00made on January 27, 1998106 shall be
DEDUCTED;
6. To this outstanding balance (3.), the interest (4.), penalties (5.), and the final and
executory award of 1% attorney’s fees shall be ADDED;
7. The sum total of the outstanding balance (3.), interest (4.) and 1% attorney’s fees (6.) shall
be DEDUCTED from the bid price of P4,324,172.96. The penalties (5.) are not included
because they are not included in the secured amount;
8. The difference in (7.) [P4,324,172.96 LESS sum total of the outstanding balance (3.),
interest (4.), and 1% attorney’s fees (6.)] shall be DELIVERED TO THE PETITIONERS;
9. Respondent may then proceed to consolidate its title to TCTs T-14250 and T-16208;
10. ON THE OTHER HAND, if after performing the procedure in (2.), it turns out that
petitioners made an OVERPAYMENT, the interest (4.), penalties (5.), and the award of 1%
attorney’s fees (6.) shall be DEDUCTED from the overpayment. There is no outstanding
balance/obligation precisely because petitioners have paid beyond the amount of the
principal and interest;
11. If the overpayment exceeds the sum total of the interest (4.), penalties (5.), and award of
1% attorney’s fees (6.), the excess shall be RETURNED to the petitioners, with legal interest,
under the principle of solutio indebiti;107
12. Likewise, if the overpayment exceeds the total amount of interest (4.) and award of 1%
attorney’s fees (6.), the trial court shall INVALIDATE THE EXTRAJUDICIAL
FORECLOSURE AND SALE;
13. HOWEVER, if the total amount of interest (4.) and award of 1% attorney’s fees (6.)
exceed petitioners’ overpayment, then the excess shall be DEDUCTED from the bid price
of P4,324,172.96;
14. The difference in (13.) [P4,324,172.96 LESS sum total of the interest (4.) and 1%
attorney’s fees (6.)] shall be DELIVERED TO THE PETITIONERS;
15. Respondent may then proceed to consolidate its title to TCTs T-14250 and T-16208. The
outstanding penalties, if any, shall be collected by other means.
From the above, it will be seen that if, after proper accounting, it turns out that the petitioners
made payments exceeding what they actually owe by way of principal, interest, and
attorney’s fees, then the mortgaged properties need not answer for any outstanding secured
amount, because there is not any; quite the contrary, respondent must refund the excess to
petitioners. In such case, the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale of the properties shall be
1âwphi1
declared null and void for obvious lack of basis, the case being one of solutio indebiti
instead. If, on the other hand, it turns out that petitioners’ overpayments in interests do not
exceed their total obligation, then the respondent may consolidate its ownership over the
properties, since the period for redemption has expired. Its only obligation will be to return
the difference between its bid price (P4,324,172.96) and petitioners’ total obligation
outstanding – except penalties – after applying the latter’s overpayments.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The May 8, 2007 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 79650 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Judgment is hereby
rendered as follows:
1. The interest rates imposed and indicated in the 2nd up to the 26th Promissory Notes are
DECLARED NULL AND VOID, and such notes shall instead be subject to interest at the rate
of twelve percent (12%) per annum up to June 30, 2013, and starting July 1, 2013, six
percent (6%) per annum until full satisfaction;
2. The penalty charge imposed in Promissory Note No. 9707237 shall be EXCLUDED from
the amounts secured by the real estate mortgages;
3. The trial court’s award of one per cent (1%) attorney’s fees is REINSTATED;
4. The case is ordered REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6 of Kalibo, Aklan for
the computation of overpayments made by petitioners spouses Eduardo and Lydia Silos to
respondent Philippine National Bank, taking into consideration the foregoing dispositions,
and applying the procedure hereinabove set forth;
5. Thereafter, the trial court is ORDERED to make a determination as to the validity of the
extrajudicial foreclosure and sale, declaring the same null and void in case of overpayment
and ordering the release and return of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-14250 and TCT T-
16208 to petitioners, or ordering the delivery to the petitioners of the difference between the
bid price and the total remaining obligation of petitioners, if any;
6. In the meantime, the respondent Philippine National Bank is ENJOINED from

consolidating title to Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-14250 and T-16208 until all the
steps in the procedure above set forth have been taken and applied;
7. The reimbursement of the excess in the bid price of P377,505.99, which respondent
Philippine National Bank is ordered to reimburse petitioners, should be HELD IN ABEYANCE
until the true amount owing to or owed by the parties as against each other is determined;
8. Considering that this case has been pending for such a long time and that further
proceedings, albeit uncomplicated, are required, the trial court is ORDERED to proceed with
dispatch.
SO ORDERED.

Jaka Vs CIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jaka Vs CIR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jaka Vs CIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

181045 July 2, 2014

SPOUSES EDUARDO and LYDIA SILOS, Petitioners,

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Petitioners religiously paid interest on the notes at the following rates:

1. 1st Promissory Note dated July 24, 1989 – 19.5%;

2. 2nd Promissory Note dated November 22, 1989 – 23%;

3. 3rd Promissory Note dated March 21, 1990 – 22%;

4. 4th Promissory Note dated July 19, 1990 – 24%;

5. 5th Promissory Note dated December 17, 1990 – 28%;

6. 6th Promissory Note dated February 14, 1991 – 32%;

7. 7th Promissory Note dated March 1, 1991 – 30%; and

8. 8th Promissory Note dated July 11, 1991 – 24%.13

1. 9th Promissory Note dated November 8, 1991 – 26%;

2. 10th Promissory Note dated March 19, 1992 – 25%;

3. 11th Promissory Note dated July 11, 1992 – 23%;

4. 12th Promissory Note dated November 10, 1992 – 21%;

5. 13th Promissory Note dated March 15, 1993 – 21%;

6. 14th Promissory Note dated July 12, 1993 – 17.5%;

8. 16th Promissory Note dated March 28, 1994 – 21%;

9. 17th Promissory Note dated July 13, 1994 – 21%;

10. 18th Promissory Note dated November 16, 1994 – 16%;

11. 19th Promissory Note dated April 10, 1995 – 21%;

12. 20th Promissory Note dated July 19, 1995 – 18.5%;

13. 21st Promissory Note dated December 18, 1995 – 18.75%;

14. 22nd Promissory Note dated April 22, 1996 – 18.5%;

15. 23rd Promissory Note dated July 22, 1996 – 18.5%;

16. 24th Promissory Note dated November 25, 1996 – 18%;

In addition, petitioners sought to be reimbursed an alleged overpayment of P848,285.00 made

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

4. Roughly, PNB’s computation of the total amount of petitioners’ obligation is correct;35

The dispositive portion of the trial court’s Decision reads:

Costs against the petitioners.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

2. [T]hat the attorney’s fees of10% is valid and binding; and

In effect, the CA limited petitioners’ appeal to the following issues:

3) Whether x x x the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale are valid.42

Hence, the present Petition.

The following issues are raised in this Petition:

A. THE COURT OF APPEALS AS WELL AS THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT

B. CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE LOWER COURT

Regarding the foreclosure of the mortgages, respondent accuses petitioners of pre-empting

The Court grants the Petition.

The Credit Agreement provided inter alia, that —

The Real Estate Mortgage contract likewise provided that —

Sec. 1303. Interest and Other Charges.

The promissory note contained the following stipulation:

Payment of this note shall be as follows:

*THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE DAYS* AFTER DATE

(k) INCREASE OF INTEREST RATE:

1st Promissory Note dated July 24, 1989 – 19.5%;

2nd Promissory Note dated November 22, 1989 – 23%;

3rd Promissory Note dated March 21, 1990 – 22%;

4th Promissory Note dated July 19, 1990 – 24%;

5th Promissory Note dated December 17, 1990 – 28%;

6th Promissory Note dated February 14, 1991 – 32%;

7th Promissory Note dated March 1, 1991 – 30%; and

8th Promissory Note dated July 11, 1991 – 24%.79

THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE DAYS AFTER DATE