Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PNB Vs Padilla
PNB Vs Padilla
AMBROSIOPADILLA
BANK
vs
THE
HON.
COURT
OF
"PEALS
and
event that the maximum interest is lowered by law or by the Monetary board. In this
case, PNB merely relied on its own Board Resolutions, which are not laws nor
resolutions of the Monetary Board.
Despite the suspension of the Usury Law, imposing a ceiling on interest rates, this does
not authorize banks to unilaterally and successively increase interest rates in violation of
Sec. 2 PD 116.
Increases unilaterally effected by PNB was in violation of the Mutuality of Contracts
under Art. 1308. This provides that the validity and compliance of the parties to the
contract cannot be left to the will of one of the contracting parties. Increases made are
therefore void.
Increase on the stipulated interest rates made by PNB also contravenes Art. 1956. It
provides that, no interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in
writing. PR never agreed in writing to pay interest imposed by PNB in excess of 24%
per annum. Interest rate imposed by PNB, as correctly found by CA, is indubitably
excessive.