Este del Sol took out a loan from FMIC to finance a sports complex with an interest rate of 16% annually on the diminishing balance. FMIC also charged Este del Sol fees under consulting and underwriting agreements. When Este del Sol defaulted, FMIC foreclosed and was the highest bidder at auction. FMIC then sued for deficiency plus additional interest of 21% annually. The court of appeals found the fees were meant to disguise usurious interest rates. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that contracts intended to circumvent usury laws are void, and the borrower can recover based on usury laws.
Este del Sol took out a loan from FMIC to finance a sports complex with an interest rate of 16% annually on the diminishing balance. FMIC also charged Este del Sol fees under consulting and underwriting agreements. When Este del Sol defaulted, FMIC foreclosed and was the highest bidder at auction. FMIC then sued for deficiency plus additional interest of 21% annually. The court of appeals found the fees were meant to disguise usurious interest rates. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that contracts intended to circumvent usury laws are void, and the borrower can recover based on usury laws.
Original Description:
Original Title
First Metro Investment vs Estate of Del Sol 420 Phil 902 (2001)
Este del Sol took out a loan from FMIC to finance a sports complex with an interest rate of 16% annually on the diminishing balance. FMIC also charged Este del Sol fees under consulting and underwriting agreements. When Este del Sol defaulted, FMIC foreclosed and was the highest bidder at auction. FMIC then sued for deficiency plus additional interest of 21% annually. The court of appeals found the fees were meant to disguise usurious interest rates. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that contracts intended to circumvent usury laws are void, and the borrower can recover based on usury laws.
Este del Sol took out a loan from FMIC to finance a sports complex with an interest rate of 16% annually on the diminishing balance. FMIC also charged Este del Sol fees under consulting and underwriting agreements. When Este del Sol defaulted, FMIC foreclosed and was the highest bidder at auction. FMIC then sued for deficiency plus additional interest of 21% annually. The court of appeals found the fees were meant to disguise usurious interest rates. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that contracts intended to circumvent usury laws are void, and the borrower can recover based on usury laws.
FACTS 1. FMIC granted Este del Sol a loan to finance a sports/resort complex in Montalban, Rizal. 2. Under the agreement, the interest was 16% pa based on the diminishing balance. In case of default, an acceleration clause was provided and the amount due is subject to 20% one-time penalty on the amount due and such amount shall bear interest at the highest rate permitted by law. 3. respondent executed a REM, individual continuing suretyship and an underwriting agreement whereby FMIC shall underwrite the public offering of one P120,000 common shares of respondents capital stock for one-time underwriting fee of P200,000. 4. For failure to pay its obligation, FMIC caused the foreclosure of the REM. 5. At the public auction, FIC was the highest bidder. 6. Petitioner filed to collect for alleged deficiency balance against respondents since it failed to collect from the sureties, plus interest at 21% pa. the trial court ruled in favor of FMIC. 7. Respondents appealed before the CA which held that the fees provided for in the Underwriting and Consultancy Agreements were mere subterfuges to camouflage the excessively usurious interest charged. 8. The CA ordered FMIC to reimburse petitioner representing what is due to petitioner and what is due to respondent. ISSUE Whether or not the interests are lawful HELD No. an apparently lawful loan is usurious when it is intended that additional compensation for the loan be disguised by an ostensibly unrelated contract for the payment by the borrower for the lenders services which are of little value or which are not in fact to be rendered. Article 1957 clearly provides: contracts and stipulations, under any cloak or device whatever, intended to circumvent the law against usury shall be void. The borrower may recover in accordance with the laws on usury