REYES, Patricia Ann Nicole M.

1A 2020147236

Conduct a survey of Philippine jurisprudence on unconscionable rate of interest on loans.

Derive a general rule as to what rate of interest which would make it unconscionable in
character. Cite the cases as premises and thereafter, derive the general rule based
thereon as your conclusion. Make sure also to give a complete citation of the cases you
used in your answer and to also make a short quotation of the pertinent portions thereof
to show its relevance/applicability.
P1: ROLANDO C. DE LA PAZ, vs. L & J DEVELOPMENT COMPANY G.R.183360
“A 6% monthly interest rate on a loan is unconscionable, regardless of who between the
parties proposed the rate.”
P2: SPOUSES SALVADOR ABELLA AND ALMA ABELLA vs.
SPOUSES ROMEO ABELLA AND ANNIE ABELLA G.R. 195116
“The conventional interest due on the principal amount loaned by respondents from
petitioners is held to be 12% per annum.”
P3: CATALINA F. ISLA, ELIZABETH ISLA, AND GILBERT F. ISLA vs. GENEVIRA* P.
ESTORGA G.R. 233974
“the stipulated interest of ten percent (10%) per month was exorbitant and grossly
unconscionable.”
C: Any interest rate which exceeds the legal rate imposed by PD 116 the amendment of
the Usury law which made the percentage to a fixed 6% or such rate as may be prescribed
by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank of the Philippines is unconscionable.
ANALOGOUS REASONING

Subject: The theft of bag of Andrea by his co-employee Arnold.

Issue: Whether Arnold’s act of stealing the bag of Andrea be considered an act analogous
to serious misconduct in connection with his work and thereby be a ground for his
dismissal from work.

Conclusion:

Yes, given the facts of the case at bar, it constitutes a serious misconduct and be a ground
for dismissal from work. The actions of Arnolds actions is in violation of company’s code
of conduct as required by the Department of Labor and Employment. Also, in line with
Art. 297 of the Labor Code, it stated those causes which are valid to dismiss an employee,
to wit: the cause must involve voluntary and/or willful act or omission of the employee.
If the act of Arnold is voluntary or willful, it can be presumed that the act of taking the bag
of a fellow employee is a ground for misconduct. However, the misconduct must be then
proven if it was really induced by a perverse and wrongful intent. Thus, previous actions
oof Arnold should also be dissected to see if there are previous infractions with the similar
act, this is to see that the dismissal should be justified. With regards to the penalty for the
dismissal, it should be in accordance with the offense, in Arnold’s case, it would be
amount of dismissal should be proportionate to the offense. The taking of the bag of
Andrea should amount to theft. We ought to likewise take note of that the locale of the
court is restricted to auditing the inquiries of law. Theft submitted against a co-
representative is considered as a case practically equivalent to genuine offense, for which
the punishment of excusal from administration might be allotted to the blundering worker.
On another note, Article 297 of the Labor Code talks of other analogous causes or those
which are susceptible of comparison to another in general or in specific detail. For an
employee to be validly dismissed for a cause analogous to those enumerated in Article
297, the cause must involve a voluntary and/or willful act or omission of the employee.
A cause closely resembling to genuine unfortunate behavior may be an intentional or
willful act of exclusion confirming to an employee’s ethical evil. Theft committed by a
worker against an individual other than his employer, if demonstrated by significant prove,
may be a cause closely resembling to genuine misconduct. Possible administering that
the past infractions may be cited as a defense for rejecting a worker as it were in the
event that they are related to the ensuing offense. In any case, it must be famous that
such act is pointless since theft, taken in confinement from Arnold’s was in itself a
substantial cause for the termination of his employment.
Exercise 2: De Leon V. Soriano Case

Q1. State factors used by the Supreme Court in partially affirming the decision of
the Appellate Court to allow execution of the judgment of the lower court pending
appeal.

The factors used by the SC in partially affirming the decision are: old age and current
health problems together with Article 1182 of the civil code which stated that "Any
obligation which consists in the delivery of a determinate thing shall be extinguished if
such thing should be lost or destroyed without fault on the part of the debtor and before
he is in default.” However, in this case, the obligation was not extinguished for the reason
that it was an indeterminate thing except as to quality and quantity the first is generic and
the contract did not set bounds or limits to the “palay” which are to be paid and there was
no stipulation that it was to be produced in any particular land. It only means that any
“palay” that could be acquired for as long as it is lawfully obtained could have been given
to Soriano for the extinguishment of the obligation. Therefore, the alleged failure of crops
through the fortuitous events did not excuse the performance of the said obligation.

Q2. Would the decision of the court be applicable if the age of the plaintiff which
filed a motion for execution pending appeal is 73?

No, the Supreme Court’s decision would not be applicable. The only instance that it would
be applicable is when it falls under the requisites which are “(a) there must be a motion
therefor by the prevailing party; (b) there must be a good reason for issuing the writ of
execution; and (c) the good reason must be stated in a special order.” Also, it was stated
that under Rules of Civil Procedure that discretionary execution is permissible only when
good reasons exist for immediately executing the judgment before finality or pending
appeal or even before the expiration of the period to appeal. Thus, in line with the premise
of old age and current health condition as legal ground for the execution of the motion
pending the appeal, even if the age of the plaintiff is 73, the decision would still subsist.

Q3. What if the plaintiff is a billionaire but he is already 80 years old? Explain your
answer.

In this instance that the plaintiff is a billionaire, I would say no, the decision would not be
applicable for the reason that during the lapse of the time there would not really be an
impact to the plaintiff if the sacks of rice will not be received, given that the same is a
billionaire and the amount of money that would be obtained from the sacks of rice will not
really affect her since she has more than enough for the rest of remaining life to enjoy.
Q4. Would the decision of the court be applicable if the plaintiff in the case is only
40 years old, but he, however, is suffering from Lung Cancer, Stage 4? Explain your
answer.

Yes, it would be applicable. With cancer, we won’t know how much time a person still has
left. Let alone having it at stage 4. In the premise stated by the Court in allowing the
execution of the judgment pending the appeal, the court stated that “the trial court may in
its discretion still disregard said supersedeas bond and order immediate execution
provided that there are special and compelling reasons justifying immediate execution.”
The act of the other party delaying the fulfilment of the obligation would cause a great
effect on the plaintiff for the income that could have come from the sacks of rice may have
been used for her medical treatments and the like. Thus, it can be presumed that there is
an effect on the enjoyment on her part and that could be the reason why the court has
set a supersedeas bond for her to have the benefits of enjoyment of the fruits that should
be given to her while she is still alive.