G.R. No. 77735 January 29, 1988
WILFREDO VERDEJO, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SOFRONIO G. SAYO, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. III, Pasay City, and HERMINIA PATINIO, ET AL., respondents.
PADILLA, J.:
Facts:
On 20 December 1984, the herein petitioner filed a complaint against the private respondent Herminia Patinio and one John Doe before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, for collection of a sum of money amounting to P60,500.00, which said Herminia Patinio had allegedly borrowed from him but failed to pay when it became due, notwithstanding demands.
In her answer, Herminia Patinio admitted having obtained loans from the petitioner but claimed that the amount borrowed by her was very much less than the amount demanded in the complaint, which amount she had already paid or settled, and that the petitioner had exacted or charged interest on the loan ranging from 10% to 12% per month, which is exorbitant and in gross violation of the Usury Law. Wherefore she prayed that she be reimbursed the usurious interests charged and paid. She also asked for damages, attorneys fee and costs of suit.
After trial court on 3 September 1986, the trial court rendered Judgment, as follows:WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for lack of merit.
The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, to annul RTC Order of 8 October 1986.The appellate court, however, as aforestated, dismissed the petition in a Decision dated 28 November 1986. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision, but his motion was denied in a Resolution dated 5 March 1987.
Issues:
Whether or not defendant defense claim for being charged usuriously is correct?
Held:
Article 1413. Interest in excess of the interest allowed by the usury laws may be recovered by the debtor, with interest thereon from the date of the payments.
This Court has ruled in one case, that with the promulgation of Central Bank Circular No. 905, series of 1982, usury has become “legally inexistent” as the lender and the borrower can agree on any interest that may be charged on the loan. This Circular was also given retroactive effect. But, whether or not this Circular should also be given retroactive effect and applied in this case is yet to be determined by the appellate court at the proper time.
The trial court merely added the amounts paid by the private respondent to the petitioner and, thereafter, deducted therefrom the amounts given as loan to the private respondent and considered the excess amount usurious, without apparently considering the lawful interest that may be collected on said loans.
Only usurious interests may be reimbursed.