Rivera vs Spouses Chua

RIVERA VS SPOUSES CHUA GR NO. 184458 JANUARY 14, 2015 FACTS: The parties were friends and kumpadres for a long time already. Rivera obtained a loan from the Spouses Chua evidenced by a Promissory Note. The relevant parts of the note are the following: (a) FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I, RODRIGO RIVERA promise to pay spouses SALVADOR C. CHUA and VIOLETA SY CHUA, the sum of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Philippine Currency (_120,000.00) on December 31, 1995. (b) It is agreed and understood that failure on my part to pay the amount of (_120,000.00) One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos on December 31, 1995. I agree to pay the sum equivalent to FIVEPERCENT (5%) interest monthly from the date of default until the entire obligation is fully paid for. Three years from the date of payment stipulated in the promissory note, Rivera, issued and delivered to Spouses Chua two (2) checks drawn against his account at Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) but upon presentment for payment, the two checks were dishonored forthe reason “account closed.” As of 31 May 1999, the amount due the Spouses Chua was pegged at P366,000.00 covering the principal of P120,000.00 plus five percent (5%) interest per month from 1 January 1996 to 31 May 1999. The Spouses Chua alleged that they have repeatedly demanded payment from Rivera to no avail. Because of Rivera’s unjustified refusal to pay, the Spouses Chua were constrained to file a suit before the MeTC, Branch 30, Manila. The MeTC ruled against Rivera requiring him to pay the spouses Chua P120,000.00 plus stipulated interest at the rate of 5% per month from 1 January 1996, and legal interest at the rate of 12% percent per annum fromn11 June 1999 and was affirmed by the RTC of Manila. The Court of Appeals further affirmed the decision upon appeal of the two inferior courts but with modification of lowering the stipulated interest to 12% per annum. Hence, a petition at the Supreme Court. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the Promissory Note executed as evidence of loan falls under Negiotiable Instruments Law. 2. Whether or not a demand from spouses Chua is needed to make Rivera liable. 3. Whether or not the stipulated interest is unconscionable and should really be lowered.

RULINGS: 1. NO, the Promissory Note executed as evidence of loan does not fall under Negotiable Instruments Law. The instrument is still governed by the Civil Code as to interpretation of their obligations. The Supreme Court held that the Instrument was not able to meet the requisites laid down by Section 1 of the Negotiable Instruments Law as the instrument was made out to specific persons, herein respondents, the Spouses Chua, and not to order or to bearer, or to the order of the Spouses Chua as payees. 2. NO, a demand from spouses Chua is not needed to make Rivera liable. Even if Rivera’s Promissory Note is not a negotiable instrument and therefore outside the coverage of Section 70 of the NIL which provides that presentment for payment is not necessary to charge the person liable on the instrument, Rivera is still liable under the terms of the Promissory Note that he issued. Article 1169 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that the demand by the creditor shall not be necessary in order that delay may exist when the obligation or the law expressly so declare. The clause in the Promissory Note containing the stipulation of interest (letter B in the above facts) which expressly requires the debtor (Rivera) to pay a 5% monthly interest from the “date of default” until the entire obligation is fully paid for. Theparties evidently agreed that the maturity of the obligation at a date certain, 31 December 1995, will give rise to the obligation to pay interest. 3. YES, the stipulated interest is unconscionable and should really be lowered. The Supreme

Court held that as observed by Rivera, the stipulated interest of 5% per month or 60% per annum in addition to legal interests and attorney’s fees is, indeed, highly iniquitous and unreasonable and stipulated interest rates if illegal and are unconscionable the Court is allowed to temper interest rates when necessary. Since the interest rate agreed upon is void, the parties are considered to have no stipulation regarding the interest rate, thus, the rate of interest should be 12% per annum computed from the date of judicial or extrajudicial demand. However, the 12% per annum rate of legal interest is only applicable until 30 June 2013, before the advent and effectivity of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Circular No. 799, Series of 2013 reducing the rate of legal interest to 6% per annum. Pursuant to our ruling in Nacar v. Gallery Frames,30 BSP Circular No. 799 is prospectively applied from 1 July 2013.