G.R. No. 243838 (Notice) Spouses Aquino, Jr. v. Bank of the Philippine Islands (2024)

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 243838. September 29, 2021.]

SPOUSES NORLITO E. AQUINO, JR. and RAQUEL AQUINO, petitioners,vs. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLAND n,respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 29, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 243838 (Spouses Norlito E. Aquino, Jr. and Raquel Aquino v. Bank of the Philippine Island n)

Sometime in 2010, petitioner Norlito E. Aquino, Jr. (Norlito) was issued a Bank of Philippine Island n (BPI) credit card under Customer No. 0201006006078869. His wife petitioner Raquel Aquino (Raquel) was also issued a supplemental credit card under the same account. Per its terms and conditions, petitioner spouses were required to settle their account on or before the due date indicated in the statement of account, subject to payment of finance charge of three and one quarter percent (3.25%) per month plus late payment charge of six percent (6%) for every month of delay or a fraction of a month's delay. 1

Raquel then made use of her supplemental credit card (5455122-909558190) for her purchases, and for a while paid her obligations on time. 2 Later on, however, she defaulted. And as of August 12, 2013, she incurred an unpaid balance of P522,630.58, inclusive of unpaid installments, interests and late payment charges. Consequently, she was served a formal letter of demand which she and her husband received on August 17, 2013, but they both failed to heed the same. Thus, on January 21, 2014, respondent BPI filed a complaint for sum of money in the amount of P522,630.58, plus interest and late payment charges, attorney's fees, and costs of suit. The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC)-Branch 62, Makati City. 3

In her Answer dated May 21, 2014, 4 Raquel admitted that her husband Norlito owns the credit card but denied liability for the amounts charged in the statement of account. As special and affirmative defense, Raquel averred that the 3.25% monthly finance charge and additional 6% late payment monthly charge are void for being unconscionable. 5 The contract does not state the specific terms and conditions under which these interest rates and charges are being imposed. Also, these terms and conditions are written in fine small font which she and her husband would hardly be able to read. 6

In her judicial affidavit, though, she admitted to have used her supplementary credit card. She, nonetheless argued that her outstanding balance as of April 2013 was only P212,354.66, hence, to make her pay for P522,630.58 with additional 3.25% monthly finance charge and additional 6% late payment monthly charge would be unconscionable, hence, should be struck down. 7

Norlito did not file his Answer. 8

The Trial Court's Ruling

By Decision 9 dated December 16, 2016, the trial court partially granted the complaint, thus: CAIHTE

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS against defendants NORLITO and RAQUEL AQUINO, ordering the latter to pay BPI, jointly and severally, the following:

1.The amount of Four Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Two Hundred Sixty & 92/100 (Php486,260.92) Philippine currency plus finance charge of twelve percent (12%) and late payment charge of another twelve percent (12%), both per annum, reckoned from September 1, 2013 until fully paid;

2.Ten percent (10%) of the total amount due as and for attorney's fees; and

3.Costs.

SO ORDERED. 10

The trial court held that respondent was able to establish that petitioner spouses were issued principal and supplemental credit cards, respectively, which they used for their purchases. Respondent had the right to collect payments therefor, including other specified charges. 11

The trial court nonetheless reduced for being unconscionable the bank imposed interest rate from 3.25% per month to one percent (1%) per month and penalty charge rate from three percent (3%) per month to 1% per month starting September 1, 2013 until the outstanding balance of P486,260.92 12 shall have been paid in full, following Macalinao v. Bank of the Philippine Islands. 13 Also, since the Statements of Account (SOAs) showed that the purchases were expenses for groceries, appliances, gasoline and medicine which are deemed to have redounded to the benefit of the family, the conjugal partnership may be held accountable for the obligation. 14 The trial court likewise awarded 10% attorney's fees. 15

The Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

Both parties appealed.

The bank submitted that the trial court erroneously applied the Macalinao doctrine to the case. Macalinao allegedly did not allow the automatic nullification of imposed interest or penalties exceeding 1% per month. It called for a case to case application of the peculiar circ*mstances attendant in each case. 16

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

By Decision 17 dated September 19, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

It found that petitioner spouses actually received, accepted, and used their respective credit cards and that they defaulted in the payment for their purchases, interests and charges. They are liable to pay respondent the principal amount P486,260.92 representing their total obligation as of August 12, 2013. 18

Through Resolution 19 dated December 27, 2018, petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.

The Present Petition

Raquel now seeks affirmative relief. She argues that the bank will be justly enriched if it is not ordered to reimburse the portion of the excessive charges imposed on her. 20

In its Comment dated January 31, 2020, 21 the bank reiterates that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it made a blanket application and outright declaration here that the 3.25% interest and 6% penalty charge are void. For the Macalinao doctrine on which this pronouncement was based is meant to be applied on a case to case basis. 22 It cannot be guilty of unjust enrichment since it did not impose any interest and penalty on the obligation until after Raquel incurred delay in the payment of her obligation. And there could be no unjust enrichment because she has not paid the bank even a single centavo of her obligation. 23

It was Raquel who acted in bad faith when she splurged knowing she had no money to pay for her credit card purchases. 24 And despite her failure to pay her bills for several months in a row, she had the impudence to still make further purchases on installment worth P185,000.00. 25

To call upon the Court to resolve her claim for "reimbursem*nt" is to require the Court to recalibrate the evidence on record which is not allowed in Rule 45 petitions. 26

Ruling

We affirm.

Raquel raises the lone argument that the trial court's computation resulted in the imposition of exorbitant interest and penalty charges of 3.25% and 6% per month. 27

The record speaks for itself. In their respective decisions, both the trial court and the appellate court had already substantially reduced the bank imposed interest and penalty charges to 1% per month or 12% per annum each. Both did on considerations of equity and justice, following Macalinao. DETACa

The bank, however, asserts that Macalinao should be applied on a case to case basis and that there should be no sweeping declaration that all rates of interest and penalties exceeding the 1% limit are outrightly unconscionable.

For perspective, in Macalinao, the debtor settled her credit card obligations religiously for at least two (2) years. But starting October 2002, she sadly became delinquent in paying her credit card purchases. In computing her obligation to the bank, the Court took into consideration the debtor's good faith and good credit standing at least before she turned delinquent in paying her obligations for the next succeeding ten (10) months.

Here, Raquel had been religiously paying her obligations for three (3) years since the issuance of the credit card up until March 2013 when she started to become delinquent in her payments, which delinquency spilled over three (3) months.

As in Macalinao, Raquel here demonstrated good faith in conscientiously paying her obligations for three (3) consecutive years prior to her default in March 2013. As in Macalinao, too, equitable considerations compel the reduction of the exorbitant bank imposed interest and penalty charges.

In any case, Raquel cannot evade her obligation to pay her credit card purchases including those she incurred under its installment plan. To allow her to evade this obligation amounts to solutio indebiti.

Going now to her demand for reimbursem*nt of the excessive bank imposed interest and late payment charges, how can she make this demand when she has not paid a single centavo of her obligation? Besides, there is no excessive interest or charges to speak of since as stated, the courts below had already substantially reduced the same in the final computation of her obligation to the bank.

To repeat, Raquel used her credit card to pay for her various purchases, which she failed to settle with the bank. Quite ironically, though, she wants to be reimbursed for something she has not even paid for. In other words, though she is the debtor, she now wants to play the creditor. It simply does not make sense.

All told, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the trial court's order for Spouses Raquel and Norlito Aquino to pay the reduced amount of P486,260.92 plus finance charge of 12% per annum and late payment charge of another 12% per annum, reckoned from September 1, 2013 until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 19, 2018 and Resolution dated December 27, 2018 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 37.

2.Id. at 47.

3.Id. at 37-38.

4.Id. at 40-45.

5.Id. at 41-42.

6.Id. at 42.

7.Id. at 77.

8.Id.

9. Penned by Presiding Judge Selma Palacio Alaras, id. at 46-51.

10.Id. at 51.

11.Id. at 48.

12.

13. 616 Phil. 60, 69-70 (2009).

14.Rollo, pp. 48-49.

15.Id. at 48.

16.Id. at 22.

17. Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao (now a member of this Court) and Manuel M. Barrios; Id at 16-27.

18.Id. at 24-25.

19.Id. at 34-35.

20.Id. at 3-11.

21.Id. at 62-108.

22.Id. at 95.

23.Id. at 98.

24.Id. at 100-102.

25.Id. at 159.

26.Id. at 106-107.

27. Republic Act No. 8484 otherwise known as "Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998"

Section 3.

xxx xxx xxx

(h) Finance Charges — represent the amount to be paid by the debtor incident to the extension of credit such as interest or discounts, collection fees, credit investigation fees, and other service charges; x x x

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document. "ISLAND" should be "ISLANDS".

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document. "Island" should be "Islands".

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document. "Island" should be "Islands".