USURY LAW (ACT.

2655)
MACALINAO V. BPI, 600 SCRA 67

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 the 36% 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 may be 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.

1962
TRIPLE-V FOOD SERVICES INC. vs. FILIPINO
MERCHANTS INSURANCE COMPANY, GR. No.
160554, February 21, 2005

FACTS: Mary Jo-Anne De Asis dined at petitioner's
Kamayan Restaurant. De Asis was using a Mitsubishi
Galant Super Saloon Model 1995 issued by her
employer Crispa Textile Inc.. On said date, De Asis
availed of the valet parking service of petitioner and
entrusted her car key to petitioner's valet counter.
Afterwards, a certain Madridano, valet attendant,
noticed that the car was not in its parking slot and its
key no longer in the box where valet attendants
usually keep the keys of cars entrusted to them. The
car was never recovered. Thereafter, Crispa filed a
claim against its insurer, herein respondent Filipino
Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. Having
indemnified Crispa for the loss of the subject vehicle,
FMICI, as subrogee to Crispa's rights, filed with the
RTC at Makati City an action for damages against
petitioner Triple-V Food Services, Inc. Petitioner
claimed that the complaint failed to adduce facts to
support the allegations of recklessness and
negligence committed in the safekeeping and custody
of the subject vehicle. Besides, when De Asis availed
the free parking stab which contained a waiver of
petitioners liability in case of loss, she had thereby
waived her rights.

ISSUE: Whether Triple-V Food Services, Inc. is liable
for the loss.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. In
a contract of deposit, a person receives an object
belonging to another with the obligation of safely
keeping it and returning the same. A deposit may be
constituted even without any consideration. It is not
necessary that the depositary receives a fee before it
becomes obligated to keep the item entrusted for
safekeeping and to return it later to the depositor.
Petitioner cannot evade liability by arguing that
neither a contract of deposit nor that of insurance,
guaranty or surety for the loss of the car was
constituted when De Asis availed of its free valet
parking service.