Ileana Macalinao defaulted on payments for her BPI credit card and was charged a 3% monthly interest rate and additional 3% monthly penalty fee, amounting to 36% annual interest. The RTC reduced this to a 2% monthly interest rate. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the interest rates valid as contracts of adhesion are generally enforceable. The Supreme Court then held the 36% annual interest rate unconscionable and reduced it to a 2% monthly interest rate (24% annual). Courts must consider the circumstances of each case to determine what interest rates are unjust or inequitable.
Ileana Macalinao defaulted on payments for her BPI credit card and was charged a 3% monthly interest rate and additional 3% monthly penalty fee, amounting to 36% annual interest. The RTC reduced this to a 2% monthly interest rate. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the interest rates valid as contracts of adhesion are generally enforceable. The Supreme Court then held the 36% annual interest rate unconscionable and reduced it to a 2% monthly interest rate (24% annual). Courts must consider the circumstances of each case to determine what interest rates are unjust or inequitable.
Ileana Macalinao defaulted on payments for her BPI credit card and was charged a 3% monthly interest rate and additional 3% monthly penalty fee, amounting to 36% annual interest. The RTC reduced this to a 2% monthly interest rate. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the interest rates valid as contracts of adhesion are generally enforceable. The Supreme Court then held the 36% annual interest rate unconscionable and reduced it to a 2% monthly interest rate (24% annual). Courts must consider the circumstances of each case to determine what interest rates are unjust or inequitable.
FACTS: Petitioner Ileana Macalinao defaulted on the payment of her BPI credit card dues. There was a stipulation in a contract that the charges and/or balance shall earn 3% per month and additional penalty fee of another 3% per month. The Regional Trial Court reduced the 3%monthly interest to 2%. On appeal of the case, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC holding that petitioner Macalinao freely availed herself of the credit card facility offered by respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands to general public; contracts of adhesion are not invalid per se. Petitioner assailed the appellate courts decision alleging that the interest rate and penalty charges are unconscionable and iniquitous at 36% per annum. ISSUE: Whether or not the interest rate and penalty charges are unconscionable and iniquitous at 36% per annum. HELD: The interest rate and penalty charges are unconscionable and iniquitous at 36% per annum. The Supreme Court held that the interest rate and penalty charge of 3% per month or the36% per annum should be reduced to 2% per month or 24% per annum. In a long line of cased decided by the Supreme Court, it considered the 36% per annum to be excessive and unconscionable. Citing Article1229, in exercising this power to determine what is iniquitous and unconscionable; courts must consider the circumstances of each case since what maybe iniquitous and unconscionable in one maybe totally just and equitable in another. In the instant case, Macalinao made partial payments to BPI .Therefore, the interest rate and penalty charge of 3% per month or 36% per annum should be reduced to 2% per month or 24% per annum.