1/2/2017 G.R. No. 88880 April 30, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v.

COURT OF APPEALS : APRIL 1991 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUD

ChanRobles Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com

Like Share 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supre m e C ourt Jurisprude nce > Ye ar 1991 > April 1991 De cisions > G.R . No. 88880 April 30,
1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIO NAL BANK v. C O UR T O F APPEALS:

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 88880. April 30, 1991.]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and AMBROSIO
PADILLA, Respondents.

The Chief Legal Counsel for Petitioner.

Ambrosio Padilla, Mempin & Reyes Law Offices for Private Respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. C OMMERC IAL LAW; BANKING LAWS; RATE OF INTEREST; INC REASE OF INTEREST RATE; NOT TO
BE MADE OFTENER THAN ONC E A YEAR. PNB, over the objection of the private respondent, and
without authority from the Monetary Board, within a period of only four (4) months, increased the
18% interest rate on the private respondents loan obligation three (3) times: (a) to 32% in July
1984; (b) to 41% in October 1984; and (c) to 48% in November 1984. Those increases were null and
void. Although Section 2, P.D. No. 116 of January 29, 1973, authorizes the Monetary Board to
prescribe the maximum rate or rates of interest for loans or renewal thereof and to change such rate
or rates whenever warranted by prevailing economic and social conditions, it expressly provides that
"such changes shall not be made oftener than once every twelve months. "If the Monetary Board
itself was not authorized to make such changes oftener than once a year, even less so may a bank
which is subordinate to the Board.
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; MAY BE INC REASED WITHIN LIMITS OF LAW; PNB C IRC ULARS AND
RESOLUTION ARE NEITHER LAWS NOR RESOLUTIONS OF MONETARY BOARD. While the private
respondent-debtor did agree in the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage (Exh. 5) that the interest rate may
be increased during the life of the contract "to such increase within the rate allowed by law, as the
Board of Directors of the MORTGAGEE may prescribe" (Exh. 5-e-1) or "within the limits allowed by
law" (Promissory Notes, Exhs. 2, 3, and 4), no laws was ever passed in July to November 1984
increasing the interest rates on loans or renewals thereof to 32%, 41% and 48% (per annum), and
no documents were executed and delivered by the debtor to effectuate the increases. The PNB relied
on its own Board Resolution No. 681 (Exh. 10), PNB C ircular No. 40-79-84 (Exh. 13), and PNB
C ircular No. 40-129-84 (Exh. 15), but those resolution and circulars are neither laws nor resolutions
of the Monetary Board.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; REMOVAL OF USURY LAW C EILING ON INTEREST RATES DOES NOT AUTHORIZE
BANKS TO UNILATERALLY AND SUC C ESSIVELY INC REASE INTEREST RATES. C B C ircular No. 905,
Series of 1982 (Exh. 11) removed the Usury law ceiling on interest rates but it did not authorize
the PNB, or any bank for that matter, to unilaterally and successively increase the agreed interest
rates from 18% to 48% within a span of four (4) months, in violation of P.D. 116 which limits such
changes to "once every twelve months." c r al aw v i r t ua 1a w l i br ar y

ChanRobles Intellectual Property 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; UNILATERAL AC TION TO INC REASE INTEREST RATES, A VIOLATION OF ARTIC LE
1308 OF C IVIL C ODE. Besides violating P.D. 116, the unilateral action of the PNB in increasing the
Division interest rate on the private respondents loan, violated the mutuality of contracts ordained in Article
1308 of the civil C ode: "ART. 1308. The contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or
compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them." c r al aw v i r t ua 1a w l i br ar y

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1991aprildecisions.php?id=303 1/5
1/2/2017 G.R. No. 88880 April 30, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS : APRIL 1991 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUD
Flying to Boracay?
1,288
Grab Your
Tickets Online
Now!
airasia.com
April-1991 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 74854 A pril 2, 1991 - JESUS DA COYCOY v.
INTERMEDIA TE A PPELLA TE COURT
G.R. No. 75504 A pril 2, 1991 - VICENTE CU v. COURT
OF A PPEA LS
G.R. No. 79981 A pril 2, 1991 - ENGRA CIA BA CA TE
A MBERTI v. COURT OF A PPEA LS
A .M. No. P-88-238 A pril 8, 1991 - GENEROSO V.
MIRA SOL v. JOSE O. DE LA TORRE, JR.
A .M. No. P-89-348 A pril 8, 1991 - ESTELITA
PA DRONES v. MELCHOR DIVINA GRA CIA
G.R. No. 49470 A pril 8, 1991 - DA RIO N. LOZA NO v.
IGNA CIO BA LLESTEROS
G.R. No. 52179 A pril 8, 1991 - MUN. OF SA N
FERNA NDO, LA UNION v. ROMEO N. FIRME
G.R. No. 55109 A pril 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. EDUA RDO M. A USTRIA
G.R. No. 73647 A pril 8, 1991 - JOSE G. BUSMENTE, JR.
v. NA TIONA L LA BOR RELA TIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 83959 A pril 8, 1991 - RUPERTO DE GUZMA N
v. COURT OF A PPEA LS
G.R. No. 87416 A pril 8, 1991 - CECILIO S. DE VILLA v.
COURT OF A PPEA LS
G.R. No. 89745 A pril 8, 1991 - RUFINO O. ESLA O v.
COMMISSION ON A UDIT
G.R. No. 90580 A pril 8, 1991 - RUBEN SA W v. COURT
OF A PPEA LS
G.R. No. 90596 A pril 8, 1991 - SOLID MA NILA
CORPORA TION v. BIO HONG TRA DING CO., INC.
G.R. No. 94284 A pril 8, 1991 - RICA RDO C. SILVERIO
v. COURT OF A PPEA LS
A .M. No. 90-11-2709-RTC A pril 16, 1991 - MERIT
SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOA RD v. RODOLFO P.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1991aprildecisions.php?id=303
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUC C ESSIVE INC REASE OF INTEREST RATES, A VIOLATION OF ARTIC LE 1956 OF
C IVIL C ODE. PNBs successive increases of the interest rate on the private respondents loan, over
the latters protest, were arbitrary as they violated an express provision of the C redit Agreement
(Exh. 1) Section 9.01 that its terms "may be amended only by an instrument in writing signed by the
party to be bound as burdened by such amendment." The increases imposed by PNB also contravene
Art. 1956 of the C ivil C ode which provides that "no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly
stipulated in writing."
DE CISION
GRIO-AQUINO, J.:
The Philippine National Bank (PNB) has appealed by certiorari from the decision promulgated on June
27, 1989 by the C ourt of Appeals in C A-G.R. C V No. 09791 entitled, "AMBROSIO PADILLA, plaintiff-
appellant versus PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, defendant-appellee," reversing the decision of the trial
court which had dismissed the private respondents complaint "to annul interest increases." (p. 32,
Rollo.) The C ourt of Appeals rendered judgment: j gc : c hanr obl e s . c om . ph
". . . declaring the questioned increases of interest as unreasonable, excessive and arbitrary and
ordering the defendant-appellee [PNB] to refund to the plaintiff-appellant the amount of interest
collected from July, 1984 in excess of twenty-four percent (24%) per annum. C osts against the
defendant-appellee." (pp 14-15, Rollo.)
In July 1982, the private respondent applied for, and was granted by petitioner PNB, a credit line of
321.8 million, secured by a real estate mortgage, for a term of two (2) years, with 18% interest per
annum. Private respondent executed in favor of the PNB a C redit Agreement, two (2) promissory
notes in the amount of P900,000.00 each, and a Real Estate Mortgage C ontract.
The C redit Agreement provided that
"9.06 Other C onditions. The Borrowers hereby agree to be bound by the rules and regulations of the
C entral Bank and the current and general policies of the Bank and those which the Bank may adopt
in the future, which may have relation to or in any way affect the Line, which rules, regulations and
policies are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth herein in full. Promptly upon receipt of a
written request from the Bank, the Borrowers shall execute and deliver such documents and
instruments, in form and substance satisfactory to the Bank, in order to effectuate or otherwise
comply with such rules, regulations and policies." (p. 85, Rollo.)
The Promissory Notes, in turn, uniformly authorized the PNB to increase the stipulated 18% interest
per annum "within the limits allowed by law at any time depending on whatever policy it [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."
(pp. 85-86, Rollo; Emphasis ours.)
The Real Estate Mortgage C ontract likewise provided that: j gc : c hanr obl e s . c om . ph
"(k) INC REASE 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 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." (p. 86, Rollo;
Emphasis supplied.)
Four (4) months advance interest and incidental expenses/charges were deducted from the loan, the
net proceeds of which were released to the private respondent by crediting or transferring the
amount to his current account with the bank. c hanr obl e s . c om : v i r t ual l aw l i br ar y
On June 20, 1984, PNB informed the private respondent that (1) his credit line of P1.8 million "will
expire on July 4, 1984," (2)" [i]f renewal of the line for another year is intended, please submit
soonest possible your request," and (3) the "present policy of the Bank requires at least 30%
reduction of principal before your line can be renewed." (pp. 86-87, Rollo.) C omplying, private
respondent on June 25, 1984, paid PNB P540,000 00 (30% of P1.8 million) and requested that "the
balance of P1,260,000.00 be renewed for another period of two (2) years under the same
arrangement" and that "the increase of the interest rate of my mortgage loan be from 18% to 21%"
(p. 87, Rollo.).
On July 4, 1984, private respondent paid PNB P360,000.00.
On July 18, 1984, private respondent reiterated in writing his request that "the increase in the rate of
interest from 18% be fixed at 21% of 24%. (p. 87, Rollo.)
On July 26, 1984, private respondent made an additional payment of P100,000.
On August 10, 1984, PNB informed private respondent that "we can not give due course to your
request for preferential interest rate in view of the following reasons: Existing Loan Policies of the
bank requires 32% for loan of more than one year; our present cost of funds has substantially
increased." (pp. 8788, Rollo.)
On August 17, 1984, private respondent further paid PNB P150,000.00.
In a letter dated August 24, 1984 to PNB, private respondent announced that he would "continue
making further payments, and instead of a loan of more than one year, I shall pay the said loan
before the lapse of one year or before July 4, 1985. . . . I reiterate my request that the increase of
my rate of interest from 18% be fixed at 21% or 24%." (p. 88, Rollo.)
On September 12, 1984, private respondent paid PNB P160,000.00.
In letters dated September 12, 1984 and September 13, 1984, PNB informed private respondent that
"the interest rate on your outstanding line/loan is hereby adjusted from 32% p.a. to 41% p.a. (35%
prime rate + 6%) effective September 6, 1984;" and further explained "why we can not grant your
request for a lower rate of 21% or 24%." (pp. 88-89, Rollo.)
In a letter dated September 24, 1984 to PNB, private respondent registered his protest against the
increase of interest rate from 18% to 32% on July 4, 1984 and from 32% to 41% on September 6,
1984.
On October 15, 1984, private respondent reiterated his request that the interest rate should not be
increased from 18% to 32% and from 32% to 41%. He also attached (as payment) a check for
2/5
1/2/2017 G.R. No. 88880 April 30, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS : APRIL 1991 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUD
TORRELLA
G.R. No. 85718 A pril 16, 1991 - FEDERICO
CA RA NDA NG v. COURT OF A PPEA LS
G.R. No. 87119 A pril 16, 1991 - GEMILIA NO C. LOPEZ,
JR. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
G.R. No. 88589 A pril 16, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. CA RLITO D. LINSA NGA N
G.R. No. 91259 A pril 16, 1991 - PHILIPPINE PORTS
A UTHORITY v. RENA TO A . FUENTES
G.R. No. 91925 A pril 16, 1991 - EDUA RDO M.
COJUA NGCO, JR. v. A NTONIO J. ROXA S
A .M. No. P-89-327 A pril 19, 1991 - THELMA GA RCIA
v. ROMEO EULLA RA N
A .M. No. RTJ-90-570 A pril 19, 1991 - A NTONIO
SOYA NGCO v. ROMEO G. MA GLA LA NG
A .C. No. 2152 A pril 19, 1991 - TEODORO I. CHA VEZ v.
ESCOLA STICO R. VIOLA
A .C. No. 2697 A pril 19, 1991 - JOSE S. SA NTOS v.
CIPRIA NO A . TA N
A .C. No. 2731 A pril 19, 1991 - GLORIA DELA ROSA
OBIA v. BA SILIO M. CA TIMBA NG
G.R. No. 73610 A pril 19, 1991 - PHILIPPINE
COMMERCIA L INTERNA TIONA L BA NK v.
INTERMEDIA TE A PPELLA TE COURT
G.R. No. 78162 A pril 19, 1991 - J. A NTONIO M.
CA RPIO v. ROMEO G. MA GLA LA NG
G.R. Nos. 85939 & 86968 A pril 19, 1991 - NEW
PA NGA SINA N REVIEW, INC. v. NA TIONA L LA BOR
RELA TIONS COMMISSION, ET A L.
G.R. No. 92299 A pril 19, 1991 - REYNA LDO R. SA N
JUA N v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET A L.
G.R. No. 95861 A pril 19, 1991 - FRA NCISCO L.
A BA LOS v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
G.R. No. 96080 A pril 19, 1991 - MIGUEL P.
PA DERA NGA v. FRA NKLIN M. DRILON
G.R. No. 31408 A pril 22, 1991 - DIRECTOR OF LA NDS
v. COURT OF A PPEA LS
G.R. No. 42725 A pril 22, 1991 - REPUBLIC BA NK v.
COURT OF A PPEA LS
G.R. No. 45125 A pril 22, 1991 - LORETA SERRA NO v.
COURT OF A PPEA LS
G.R. No. 50501 A pril 22, 1991 - RODOLFO GUIA NG v.
RICA RDO C. SA MA NO
G.R. No. 74783 A pril 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ROBERTO B. SORIA NO
G.R. No. 75389 A pril 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. HERNA NDO B. MA NA NTA N
G.R. No. 75894 A pril 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. SA NTIA GO TUGBO, JR.
G.R. No. 76562 A pril 22, 1991 - ROGER B. PA TRICIO
v. ENRIQUE P. SUPLICO
G.R. No. 76953 A pril 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. PONCIA NO MA NDA PA T
G.R. No. 77315 A pril 22, 1991 - CIRCLE FINA NCIA L
CORPORA TION v. COURT OF A PPEA LS
G.R. No. 80767 A pril 22, 1991 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. NA TIONA L LA BOR RELA TIONS
COMMISSION, ET A L.
G.R. No. 82985 A pril 22, 1991 - MERVILLE PA RK
HOMEOWNERS A SSOCIA TION v. FRA NCISCO X. VELEZ
G.R. No. 85647 A pril 22, 1991 - MERCA NTILE
INSURA NCE CO. v. COURT OF A PPEA LS, ET A L.
G.R. No. 92570 A pril 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. EVA NGELINE NUNA G, ET A L.
G.R. No. 93666 A pril 22, 1991 - GENERA L MILLING
CORPORA TION v. RUBEN D. TORRES
G.R. No. 94571 A pril 22, 1991 - TEOFISTO T.
GUINGONA , JR. v. GUILLERMO CA RA GUE
G.R. No. 94925 A pril 22, 1991 - BPI-FA MILY
SA VINGS BA NK v. COURT OF A PPEA LS
G.R. No. 94951 A pril 22, 1991 - A PEX MINING
COMPA NY, INC. v. NA TIONA L LA BOR RELA TIONS
COMMISSION, ET A L.
G.R. No. 95011 A pril 22, 1991 - MY SA N BISCUITS
INC. v. BIENVENIDO E. LA GUESMA
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1991aprildecisions.php?id=303
P140,000.00. c hanr obl e s . c om . ph : v i r t ual l aw l i br ar y
Like rubbing salt on the private respondents wound, the petitioner informed private respondent on
October 29, 1984, that "the interest rate on your outstanding line/loan is hereby adjusted from 41%
p.a. to 48% p.a. (42% prime rate plus 6% spread) effective 25 October 1984." (p. 89, Rollo.)
In November 1984, private respondent paid PNB P50,000.00 thus reducing his principal loan
obligation to P300,000.00.
On December 18, 1984, private respondent filed in the Regional Trial C ourt of Manila a complaint
against PNB entitled, "AMBROSIO PADILLA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK" (C ivil C ase No. 84-
28391), praying that judgment be rendered: j gc : c hanr obl e s . c om . ph
"a. Declaring that the unilateral increase of interest rates from 18% to 32%, then to 41% and again
to 48% are illegal, not valid nor binding on plaintiff, and that an adjustment of his interest rate from
18% to 24% is reasonable, fair and just;
"b. The interest rate on the P900,000.00 released on September 27, 1982 be counted from said date
and not from July 4, 1984;
"c. The excess of interest payment collected by defendant bank by debiting plaintiffs current account
be refunded to plaintiff or credited to his current account;
"d. Pending the determination of the merits of this case, a restraining order and or a writ of
preliminary injunction be issued (1) to restrain and or enjoin defendant bank for [sic] collecting from
plaintiff and/or debiting his current account with illegal and excessive increases of interest rates; and
(2) to prevent defendant bank from declaring plaintiff in default for non-payment and from instituting
any foreclosure proceeding, extrajudicial or judicial, of the valuable commercial property of plaintiff."
(pp. 89-90, Rollo.)
In its answer to the complaint, PNB denied that the increases in interest rates were illegal, unilateral
excessive and arbitrary and recited the reasons justifying said increases.
On March 31, 1985, the private respondent paid the P300,000 balance of his obligation to PNBN (Exh.
5).
The trial court rendered judgment on April 14, 1986, dismissing the complaint because the increases
of interest were properly made.
The private respondent appealed to the C ourt of Appeals. On June 27, 1989, the C ourt of Appeals
reversed the trial court, hence, NBs recourse to this C ourt by a petition for review under Rule 45 of
the Rules of C ourt.
The assignments of error raised in PNBs petition for review can be resolved into a single legal issue
of whether the bank, within the term of the loan which it granted to the private respondent, may
unilaterally change or increase the interest rate stipulated therein at will and as often as it pleased.
The answer to that question is no.
In the first place, although Section 2, PD. No. 116 of January 29, 1973, authorizes the Monetary
Board to prescribe the maximum rate or rates of interest for loans or renewal thereof and to change
such rate or rates whenever warranted by prevailing economic and social conditions, it expressly
provides that "such changes shall not be made oftener than once every twelve months." c r al aw v i r t ua 1a w l i br ar y
In this case, PNB, over the objection of the private respondent, and without authority from the
Monetary Board, within a period of only four (4) months, increased the 18% interest rate on the
private respondents loan obligation three (3) times: (a) to 32% in July 1984; (b) to 41% in October
1984; and (c) to 48% in November 1984. Those increases were null and void, for if the Monetary
Board itself was not authorized to make such changes oftener than once a year, even less so may a
bank which is subordinate to the Board. c hanr obl e s l aw l i br ar y : r ed
Secondly, as pointed out by the C ourt of Appeals, while the private respondent-debtor did agree in
the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage (Exh. 5) that the interest rate may be increased during the life of
the contract "to such increase within the rate allowed by law, as the Board of Directors of the
MORTGAGEE may prescribe" (Exh. 5-e-1) or "within the limits allowed by law" (Promissory Notes,
Exs. 2, 3, and 4), no law was ever passed in July to November 1984 increasing the interest rates on
loans or renewals thereof to 32%, 41% and 48% (per annum), and no documents were executed and
delivered by the debtor to effectuate the increases. The C ourt of Appeals observed.
". . . We focus Our attention first of all on the agreement between the parties as embodied in the
following instruments, to wit: (1) Exhibit 1 C redit Agreement dated July 1, 1982; (2) Exhibit 2
Promissory Note dated July 5, 1982; (3) Exhibit (3) Promissory Note dated January 3, 1983; (4)
Exhibit 4 Promissory Note, dated December 13, 1983; and (5) Exhibit 5 Real Estate Mortgage
contract dated July 1, 1982.
"Exhibit 1 states in its portion marked Exhibit 1-g-1:
c ha nr ob1e s v i r t ua l 1a w l i br ar y
9 .06 Other C onditions. The Borrowers hereby agree to be bound by the rules and regulations of the
C entral Bank and the current and general policies of the Bank and those which the Bank may adopt
in the future, which may have relation to or in any way affect the Line, which rules, regulations and
policies are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth herein in full. Promptly upon receipt of a
written request from the Bank, the Borrowers shall execute and deliver such documents and
instruments, in form and substance satisfactory to the Bank, in order to effectuate or otherwise
comply with such rules, regulations and policies.
"Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 in their portions respectively marked Exhibits 2-B, 3-B, and 4-B uniformly
authorize the defendant bank to increase the stipulated interest rate of 18% per annum 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 note shall be correspondingly decreased in the event that the applicable
maximum interest rate is reduced by law or by the Monetary Board.
"Exhibit 5 in its portion marked Exhibit 5-e-1 stipulates: c ha nr ob1e s v i r t ua l 1a w l i br ar y
(k) INC REASE 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 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.
"C learly, then, the agreement between the parties authorized the defendant bank to increase the
interest rate beyond the original rate of 18% per annum but within the limits allowed by law or
within the rate allowed by law, it being declared the obligation of the plaintiff as borrower to execute
3/5
1/2/2017 G.R. No. 88880 April 30, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS : APRIL 1991 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUD
G.R. No. 78254 A pril 25, 1991 - JOINT MOH-MOLE
A CCREDITA TION COMMITTEE v. COURT OF A PPEA LS
G.R. No. 78556 A pril 25, 1991 - A LFA RO
FORTUNA DO, ET A L. v. COURT OF A PPEA LS, ET A L.
G.R. No. 83354 A pril 25, 1991 - LEON MA TEO v.
COURT OF A PPEA LS
G.R. No. 90296 A pril 25, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
and deliver the corresponding documents and instruments to effectuate the increase." (pp. 11-12,
Rollo.)
In Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Navarro, 15 SC RA 346 (1987), this C ourt
disauthorized the bank from raising the interest rate on the borrowers loan from 12% to 17% despite
an escalation clause in the loan agreement signed by the debtors authorizing Banco Filipino "to
correspondingly increase the interest rate stipulated in this contract without advance notice to me/us
in the event a law should be enacted increasing the lawful rates of interest that may be charged on
this particular kind of loan." (Emphasis supplied.) c hanr obl e s v i r t ual l aw l i br ar y

v. MOISES M. INDA YA
In the Banco Filipino case, the bank relied on Section 3 of C B C ircular No. 494 dated July 1, 1976 (72
A .M. No. RTJ-90-466 A pril 26, 1991 - DOMINGA A ZOR O.G. No. 3, p. 676-J) which provided that "the maximum rate of interest, including commissions
v. SOFRONIO G. SA YO premiums, fees and other charges on loans with a maturity of more than 730 days by banking
institution . . . shall be 19%." c r al aw v i r t ua 1a w l i br ar y

A .C. No. 1302,1391 and 1543 A pril 26, 1991 -

PA ULINO VA LENCIA v. A RSENIO FER. CA BA NTING
G.R. No. 45142 A pril 26, 1991 - SIMPROSA VDA . DE
ESPINA , ET A L. v. OTILIO A BA YA , ET A L.
This C ourt disallowed the increase for the simple reason that said "C ircular No. 494, although it has
the effect of law is not a law." Speaking through Mme. Justice Ameurfina M. Herrera, this C ourt
held:
j gc : c hanr obl e s . c om . ph

G.R. Nos. 49839-46 A pril 26, 1991 - JOSE B.L. REYES
v. PEDRO A LMA NZOR, ET A L.
G.R. No. 51461 A pril 26, 1991 - CRISPIN DA SA LLA ,
SR. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTA NCE OF NUEVA ECIJA
"It is now clear that from March 17, 1980, escalation clauses to be valid should specifically provide:
(1) that there can be an increase in interest if increased by law or by the Monetary Board; and (2) in
order for such stipulation to be valid, it must include a provision for reduction of the stipulated
interest in the event that the applicable maximum rate of interest is reduced by law or by the
Monetary Board." p. 111, Rollo.).

G.R. No. 69344 A pril 26, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL. v. INTERMEDIA TE A PPELLA TE COURT, ET A L.
G.R. No. 76212 A pril 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ROBERTO TUGBA NG
G.R. No. 83957 A pril 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. DA NILO CA BA NBA N
In the present case, the PNB relied on its own Board Resolution No. 681 (Exh. 10), PNB C ircular No.
40-79-84 (Exh. 13), and PNB C ircular No. 40-129-84 (Exh. 15), but those resolution and circulars are
neither laws nor resolutions of the Monetary Board.
C B C ircular No. 905, Series of 1982 (Exh. 11) removed the Usury Law ceiling on interest rates
". . . increases in interest rates are not subject to any ceiling prescribed by the Usury Law." c r al aw v i r t ua 1a w l i br ar y

G.R. No. 84728 A pril 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. but it did not authorize the PNB, or any bank for that matter, to unilaterally and successively increase
v. CESA R A TENTO the agreed interest rates from 18% to 48% within a span of four (4) months, in violation of PD. 116
which limits such changes to "once every twelve months." c r al aw v i r t ua 1a w l i br ar y

G.R. No. 86641 A pril 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

v. ERIC C. A NSING Besides violating PD. 116, the unilateral action of the PNB in increasing the interest rate on the
private respondents loan, violated the mutuality of contracts ordained in Article 1308 of the C ivil
G.R. No. 88838 A pril 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. C ode:
v. MOISES MOKA , ET A L.
j gc : c hanr obl e s . c om . ph

"ART. 1308. The contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or compliance cannot be left
G.R. No. 92586 A pril 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. EDGA RDO L. PUEDA N to the will of one of them." c r al aw v i r t ua 1a w l i br ar y

G.R. No. 93559 A pril 26, 1991 - ROMEO G. ELEPA NTE
v. JOB B. MA DA YA G
G.R. No. 50098 A pril 30, 1991 - A SSOCIA TED
CITIZENS BA NK v. RA MON V. JA PSON
G.R. No. 69999 A pril 30, 1991 - LUZVIMINDA
VISA YA N, ET A L. v. NA TIONA L LA BOR RELA TIONS
COMMISSION
G.R. No. 71835 A pril 30, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHIL. v. INTERMEDIA TE A PPELLA TE COURT
G.R. Nos. 74670-74 A pril 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. CHA RLY S. GA NOHON
G.R. No. 76211 A pril 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. A LEJO M. CUYO
G.R. No. 76585 A pril 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
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 v. Rita Legarda, Inc., 21 SC RA 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 partys (the debtor) participation being
reduced to the alternative "to take it or leave it" (Qua v. Law Union & Rock Insurance C o., 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.
PNBS successive increases of the interest rate on the private respondents loan, over the latters
protest, were arbitrary as they violated an express provision of the C redit Agreement (Exh. 1)
Section 9.01 that its terms "may be amended only by an instrument in writing signed by the party to
be bound as burdened by such amendment." The increases imposed by PNB also contravene Art.
1956 of the C ivil C ode which provides that "no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly
stipulated in writing." c r al aw v i r t ua 1a w l i br ar y

v. RODOLFO BA GUIO
The debtor herein never agreed in writing to pay the interest increases fixed by the PNB beyond 24%
G.R. No. 81374 A pril 30, 1991 - JOSE R. BA UTISTA v.
per annum, hence, he is not bound to pay a higher rate than that.
SEC. OF LA BOR A ND EMPLOYMENT

G.R. No. 85322 A pril 30, 1991 - A LFREDO M. A LMEDA , That an increase in the interest rate from 18% to 48% within a period of four (4) months is
ET A L. v. COURT OF A PPEA LS, ET A L. excessive, as found by the C ourt of Appeals, is indisputable.

G.R. No. 86042 A pril 30, 1991 - FEA GLE WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of the C ourt of Appeals in C A-G.R. C V No.
CONSTRUCTION CORPORA TION v. MA URO DORA DO, 09791, the C ourt resolved to deny the petition for review for lack of merit, with costs against the
ET A L. petitioner.

G.R. No. 86517 A pril 30, 1991 - A NDRES MA MA , JR., SO ORDERED.

ET A L. v. COURT OF A PPEA LS, ET A L.
Narvasa, C ruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 86760 A pril 30, 1991 - CITY OF
ZA MBOA NGA , ET A L. v. PELA GIO S. MA NDI

G.R. No. 87215 A pril 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

v. ORLA NDO I. DE LA S MA RINA S Ads by Google CA GR The Family Law PNB
Ads by Google The Family Law Financial Loan GR L
G.R. No. 87928 A pril 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MA TIA S F. GRA ZA
Ads by Google The Family Law Financial Loan Court Cases

G.R. No. 88631 A pril 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

v. FERNA NDO COLLA DO, ET A L. Back to Home | Back to Main

G.R. No. 88880 A pril 30, 1991 - PHILIPPINE

NA TIONA L BA NK v. COURT OF A PPEA LS
QUICK SEARCH
G.R. No. 92505 A pril 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. A LEJA NDRO MOTA R, ET A L.

G.R. No. 92591 A pril 30, 1991 - CITYTRUST BA NKING

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
CORPORA TION v. COURT OF A PPEA LS, ET A L.
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
G.R. No. 92658 A pril 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
v. A RMA NDO P. VA SQUEZ, ET A L.
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R. No. 94151 A pril 30, 1991 - EA STERN SHIPPING
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
LINES, INC. v. COURT OF A PPEA LS
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
G.R. No. 94209 A pril 30, 1991 - FEA TI BA NK & TRUST
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1991aprildecisions.php?id=303 4/5
1/2/2017 G.R. No. 88880 April 30, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS : APRIL 1991 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUD
CO. v. COURT OF A PPEA LS, ET A L. 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. No. 94436 A pril 30, 1991 - LA GRIMA S V. 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
A BA LOS v. COURT OF A PPEA LS, ET A L. 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Flying to Boracay? 2013 2014 2015 2016

1,288
Grab Your
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
Tickets Online
Now!
airasia.com

Copyright 1998 - 2017 ChanRobles Publishing Com pany | Disclaim er | E-m ail Restrictions ChanRobles Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com R ED

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1991aprildecisions.php?id=303 5/5