ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | Nov. 30, 2024
Dear Chief Acosta,
Nangutang ako sa aking kapitbahay. May kasunduan kami na magbabayad ako ng monthly interest hanggang sa mabayaran ko ang aking utang. Pumayag ako rito sa kadahilanang kailangang-kailangan ko ang pera noong mga araw na iyon. Ngunit napagtanto kong lagpas ito sa legal interest rate. Maaari bang maningil ng interest na higit pa sa itinakdang legal interest rate para sa pautang? — Catness
Dear Catness,
Ang isang kontrata na malayang napagkasunduan ay may puwersa ng batas sa pagitan ng mga partido. Subalit, hindi sa lahat ng pagkakataon ay umiiral ang prinsipyong ito ng awtonomiya ng mga kontrata. Binabalanse ito ng Artikulo 1306 ng ating New Civil Code of the Philippines na nagsasaad na ang mga partido ay hindi maaaring magtakda ng mga tuntunin na salungat sa batas, moralidad, mabuting kaugalian, kaayusan ng publiko, o patakarang pampubliko.
Kaugnay nito, sa kasong Megalopolis Properties Inc. (now, Kaizen Builders, Inc.), et al. vs. D’Nhew Lending Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 243891, 07 Mayo 2021, na isinulat ni Kagalang-galang na Kasamang Mahistrado Edgardo L. Delos Santos, ipinaliwanag ng Korte Suprema na ang interest ay kailangan na makatwiran at hindi ito dapat maging isang mekanismo para sa hindi makatarungang pagpapayaman ng nagpautang sa kapinsalaan ng iba:
“Nonetheless, the Court rules that the willingness of the debtor in assuming an unconscionable rate of interest is inconsequential to its validity, as it had earlier held in Spouses Castro v. Tan, viz.:
The imposition of an unconscionable rate of interest on a money debt, even if knowingly and voluntarily assumed, is immoral and unjust. It is tantamount to a repugnant spoliation and an iniquitous deprivation of property, repulsive to the common sense of man. It has no support in law, in principles of justice, or in the human conscience nor is there any reason whatsoever which may justify such imposition as righteous and as one that may be sustained within the sphere of public or private morals.
In Spouses Abella v. Spouses Abella, the Court expounded on the criteria in determining whether an interest rate is unconscionable and consequently void ab initio as follows:
The imposition of an unconscionable interest rate is void ab initio for being ‘contrary to morals, and the law.’
In determining whether the rate of interest is unconscionable, the mechanical application of pre-established floors would be wanting. The lowest rates that have previously been considered unconscionable need not be an impenetrable minimum. What is more crucial is a consideration of the parties’ contexts. Moreover, interest rates must be appreciated in light of the fundamental nature of interest as compensation to the creditor for money lent to another, which he or she could otherwise have used for his or her own purposes at the time it was lent. It is not the default vehicle for predatory gain. As such, interest need only be reasonable. It ought not be a supine mechanism for the creditor’s unjust enrichment at the expense of another. xxx
The legal rate of interest is the presumptive reasonable compensation for borrowed money. While parties are free to deviate from this, any deviation must be reasonable and fair. Any deviation that is far-removed is suspect. Thus, in cases where stipulated interest is more than twice the prevailing legal rate of interest, it is for the creditor to prove that this rate is required by prevailing market conditions. Here, petitioners have articulated no such justification. xxx
From the above-cited discussions in jurisprudence, it can be clearly said that there is no general or universal numerical limit on conscionability as regards a validly binding rate of interest. Nevertheless, we find the rate of 36% per annum, which is three times more than the prevailing legal rate of interest at the time the loan was contracted, far greater than those previously upheld by the Court. Thus, we find the same excessive and unconscionable. This is more apparent upon considering that petitioners’ loan obligation, with a principal amount of P3,219,000.00, had increased by P2,317,680.00 (or 72%) immediately upon assumption thereof.”
Ipinapalagay na ang legal rate of interest ay ang makatwirang kabayaran para sa hiniram na pera. Habang maaaring magkasundo ang mga partido na lumihis dito, ang anumang paglihis ay dapat na makatwiran at patas. Ang anumang malayong paglihis ay pinaghihinalaan. Kaya, sa mga kaso kung saan ang itinakdang interest ay higit sa dalawang beses sa umiiral na legal interest rate, kinakailangang mapatunayan/maipakita ng nagpautang na ang interest na ito ay makatwiran sa umiiral na mga kondisyon ng merkado.
Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.
Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.
Komentarze