Dagdag-tubo ng nagpautang nang hindi sinasabi sa nangutang, bawal!

Dr. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta / Magtanong Kay Attorney

Dear Chief Acosta, Last month ay nangutang ako sa kapitbahay namin. Pero nang babayaran ko na ito ay nagulat ako dahil tinaasan niya ang interest nito nang hindi man lang ako inabisuhan. Nainis ako pero sabi niya ay karapatan niya ito. Ito raw ay napapaloob sa “escalation clause” sa aming kontrata. Totoo ba ‘yun? - Doray

Dear Doray, Para sa iyong kaalaman, ang iyong sitwasyon ay mayroong pagkakahalintulad sa naging desisyon ng Korte Suprema sa Spouses Eduardo and Lydia Silos vs. Philippine National Bank (G.R. No. 181045, 2 Hulyo 2014) sa panulat ni Mahistrado Mariano C. del Castillo. Ayon sa nasabing desisyon:

“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.” [Binigyang-diin]

Samakatwid, ang sarilinang pagdesisyon ng nagpapautang na taasan ang interest ng babayarang halaga ng taong nagkakautang sa kanya ay itinuturing na paglabag sa principle of mutuality of contracts base sa ating Civil Code.

Ayon pa sa mataas na hukuman, sa nasabing desisyon:

“… 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 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.” [Binigyang-diin.]

Nawa ay nasagot namin ang inyong katanungan. Nais naming ipaalala sa inyo na ang opinyong ito ay nakabase sa inyong mga naisalaysay sa inyong liham at sa pagkakaintindi namin dito. Maaaring maiba ang opinyon kung mayroong karagdagang impormasyong ibibigay. Mas mainam kung personal kayong sasangguni sa abogado.

Maraming salamat sa patuloy ninyong pagtitiwala.