This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-01-20 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, the courts have authority to reduce penalty charges when these are unreasonable and iniquitous.[50] Considering that BPI had already received over P2.7 million in interest and that it seeks to impose the penalty charge of 3% per month or 36% per annum on the total amount due--principal plus interest, with interest not paid when due added to and becoming part of the principal and also bearing interest at the same rate--the Court finds the ruling of the RTC in its original decision[51] reasonable and fair. Thus, the penalty charge of 12% per annum or 1% per month[52] is imposed. | |||||
|
2006-05-19 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| While the Court recognizes the right of the parties to enter into contracts and who are expected to comply with their terms and obligations, this rule is not absolute. Stipulated interest rates are illegal if they are unconscionable[10] and the Court is allowed to temper interest rates when necessary.[11] In exercising this vested power to determine what is iniquitous and unconscionable, the Court must consider the circumstances of each case.[12] What may be iniquitous and unconscionable in one case, may be just in another. In a number of cases,[13] this Court equitably reduced the interest rate agreed upon by the parties for being iniquitous, unconscionable, and/or exhorbitant. | |||||