With the suspension of the Usury Law and the removal of interest ceilings, the parties are generally free to stipulate the interest rates to be imposed on monetary obligations. As a rule, the interest rate agreed by the creditor and the debtor is binding upon them. This rule, however, is not absolute.
In a recent case, the SC again dealt with the validity of interest agreed by the parties, stating that:
Stipulated interest rates are illegal if they are unconscionable and the Court is allowed to temper interest rates when necessary. In exercising this vested power to determine what is iniquitous and unconscionable, the Court must consider the circumstances of each case. What may be iniquitous and unconscionable in one case, may be just in another.
In that case, the SC reduced the interest rate from 18% to 12% per annum, noting, among others, that the amount involved has ballooned to an outrageous amount four times the principal debt.
Indeed, there is no hard and fast rule to determne the reasonableness of interest rates. Stipulated interest rates of 21%, 23% and 24% per annum had been sustained in certain cases.
On the other hand, there are plenty of cases when the SC equitably reduced the stipulated interest rates; for instance, from 18% to 10% per annum. The SC also voided the stipulated interest of 5.5% per month (or 66% per annum), for being “excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant, hence, contrary to morals (”contra bonos mores”), if not against the law”. The same is true with cases involving 36% per annum, 6% per month (or 72% per annum), and 10% and 8% per month. In these instances, the SC imposed the legal interest of 12%.
Just to be clear, “legal interest” doesn’t mean that anything beyond 12% is “illegal”. It simply means that in a loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that stipulated in writing, and in the absence thereof, the rate shall be 12% per annum.
——————–
Sources: Trade & Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines vs. Roblett Industrial Construction Corporation (G.R. No. 139290, 9 May 2006); Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeal; Garcia vs. Court of Appeals; Medel vs. Court of Appeals; Security Bank and Trust Company vs. RTC Makati; Spouses Solangon vs. Salazar; Cuaton vs. Salud; Ruiz vs. CA; Eastern Shipping vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97412 July 12, 1994.
You may also want to read these related posts:
Networking, Pyramiding and Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) by Atty. Fred on September 1st, 2006
Computation of pay for holidays: Regular, special non-working, special working by Atty. Fred on July 28th, 2006
"No Return, No Exchange" store policy prohibited by Atty. Fred on November 9th, 2006
How about the 7% interest/penalty imposed by collection agencies of some credit card companies on delinquent accounts? I informed them of my intention to pay my account on installment. They insisted that if the installment is for one year, they will charge 7% interest per month, maybe because they know that the Usury Law is now inexistent. I requested for a fair interest rate, a lower rate based on the remaining balance. They refused to listen. Perhaps they would want to see me in court. Is there an alternative for me?
Others talk directly with people from the credit card company, although most have been told to discuss the matter with the collection agency because the account had already been referred to that agency. Still, there are instances when a credit card company directly responds to proposals, so it’s worth the try. The “see me in court” option that you mentioned should be the last recourse.
As to the reasonableness of the 7%, this is gauged by taking into consideration all the surroundng circumstances (e.g., amount of loan, amount of previous interests/penalties charged and paid, etc.). I cannot ask for these details (specifics of your case) and give an opinion, as it would be tantamount to a legal advice. I hope you understand that ethical considerations prohibit us from doing that. Nevertheless, this general issue may be covered in our subsequent articles.
hi, some lending institutions charge more than 12% per annum rates and at times charge penalties for failure to pay on time on top of interest, could you say this is unconsionable? will the courts temper this? can’t just exhorbitant penalty substitute the payment of
interest?
As mentioned above, whether a particular rate is unconscionable depends on the facts of each case. Interests and penalties are different, and may be separately considered valid (or invalid) depending on the circumstances.