Firstly, The Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) Cannot Unduly Limit The
Firstly, The Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) Cannot Unduly Limit The
Firstly, The Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) Cannot Unduly Limit The
However, the said IRR provision on accrued interest shall be struck down for the
following reasons:
Firstly, the Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) cannot unduly limit the
substantive law on which it is based.
In the recent case of Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison v. De Lima (G.R. Nos.
212719 & 214637, June 25, 2019) the Court made the following
pronouncements:
Clearly, respondents went outside the bounds of their legal mandate when
they provided for rules beyond what was contemplated by the law to be
enforced.
In the present case, the IRR cannot be construed in a way that it will unduly limit
the coverage of the relief for loans on “interest on interest” when the substantive
law, R.A. No. 11469, unambiguously provides that:
Finally, R.A. No. 11469 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) shall
be harmonized.
It is a basic tenet of statutory construction that the original statute and the
supplemental act should be read and construed together to make an intelligible
whole.
Based on the aforementioned premise, the IRR shall be construed in a way that it
is meant to clarify that the mandatory grace period includes the prohibition of
imposition of interest on interest. If the payment of interest fell due within the
period of the ECQ, interest on interest shall not accrue even if it is judicially
demanded. It is should be taken as a clarification, instead of taking it as a
limitation of R.A. No. 11469.
It is necessary to make the clarification since R.A. No. 11469 only mentioned the
payment of loans with respect to the non-payment of interest: “… to implement a
minimum of a thirty (30)-day grace period for the payment of all loans, including
but not limited to salary, personal, housing and motor vehicle loans, as well as
credit card payments, falling due within the period of the enhanced Community
Quarantine without incurring interests, penalties, fees or other charges”
On the other hand, the IRR states that “borrowers whose loan/s with principal
and/or interest falling due within the ECQ Period…” It elucidated that the loan
contemplated by law consists of both the payment of (1) principal; and (2)
interest that fell due within the said period.
Finally, Section 5.02 provides for the treatment of accrued interest, to wit:
Clearly, since the IRR used the term “accrued” interest, it can only contemplate
two situations when compensatory interest may be demanded: (1) the principal
amount fell due before the ECQ; or (2) the principal amount fell due during the
ECQ but was not paid even after applying the mandatory 30-day grace period.
Accrued interest is the amount of loan interest that has already occurred, but has
not yet been paid by the borrower and not yet received by the lender. It is the
amount already incurred.
How can compensatory interest accrue for loans falling due within the period of
ECQ when there is a mandatory 30-day grace period imposed? The period for
payment will automatically be moved and thus, the borrowers cannot be in
default yet. If the borrower is not yet in default, compensatory interest cannot.
Accrue. Hence, imposition of the interest cannot even have a legal basis.
In light of the foregoing, the bank cannot collect interest on the outstanding
balance which fell due on March 23, 2020.
Since it fell due on the period of Enhanced Community Quarantine (i.e. March
17, 2020 to April 12, 2020 cited in Proclamation No. 929 dated March 16, 2020),
he has a grace period of 30 days to pay the outstanding balance. The new due
date of the outstanding balance, by adding the 30-day mandatory grace period, is
April 23, 2020.
Thus, Abel shall not be charged of any interest during the 30-day grace period if
he will pay the total outstanding balance on or before the new due date (April 23,
2020). If Abel will not pay on April 23, 2020, that is the only time that interest will
accrue.
Argument 2
The interest of Php 2,474.63 on his outstanding balance of Php68,367.03 which
fell due on March 23, 2020 partakes the nature of a monetary interest since it is
an interest imposed for the mere use of money of the Bank.
1
http://www.bsp.gov.ph/downloads/Publications/FAQs/BayanihanActFAQs.pdf