Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 882 views

    Imperial Vs Jaucian

    Uploaded by

    Brian Jonathan Paraan
    1) Restituta Imperial obtained six separate loans from Alexa Jaucian for which she executed promissory notes and checks. When the loans became overdue and unpaid, Jaucian demanded payment but Imperial did not pay. 2) The RTC and CA ruled in favor of Jaucian, finding her computation of Imperial's outstanding debt convincing. Imperial appealed. 3) The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that Imperial did not fully pay her obligations and that while the interest rate of 16% per month was excessive, Imperial's partial payments showed good faith so penalties were reasonably reduced.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Imperial Vs Jaucian

    Uploaded by

    Brian Jonathan Paraan
    882 views2 pages
    1) Restituta Imperial obtained six separate loans from Alexa Jaucian for which she executed promissory notes and checks. When the loans became overdue and unpaid, Jaucian demanded payment but Imperial did not pay. 2) The RTC and CA ruled in favor of Jaucian, finding her computation of Imperial's outstanding debt convincing. Imperial appealed. 3) The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that Imperial did not fully pay her obligations and that while the interest rate of 16% per month was excessive, Imperial's partial payments showed good faith so penalties were reasonably reduced.

    Original Description:

    Oblicon case digest

    Original Title

    Imperial vs Jaucian

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Restituta Imperial obtained six separate loans from Alexa Jaucian for which she executed promissory notes and checks. When the loans became overdue and unpaid, Jaucian demanded payment but Imperial did not pay. 2) The RTC and CA ruled in favor of Jaucian, finding her computation of Imperial's outstanding debt convincing. Imperial appealed. 3) The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that Imperial did not fully pay her obligations and that while the interest rate of 16% per month was excessive, Imperial's partial payments showed good faith so penalties were reasonably reduced.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    882 views2 pages

    Imperial Vs Jaucian

    Uploaded by

    Brian Jonathan Paraan
    1) Restituta Imperial obtained six separate loans from Alexa Jaucian for which she executed promissory notes and checks. When the loans became overdue and unpaid, Jaucian demanded payment but Imperial did not pay. 2) The RTC and CA ruled in favor of Jaucian, finding her computation of Imperial's outstanding debt convincing. Imperial appealed. 3) The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding that Imperial did not fully pay her obligations and that while the interest rate of 16% per month was excessive, Imperial's partial payments showed good faith so penalties were reasonably reduced.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Restituta M.

    Imperial vs Alexa Jaucian


    G.R. No. 149004
    FACTS:
    Controversy Arose from a case of collection of money, filed by Alex A.
    Jaucian (now respondent) against Restituta Imperial (now petitioner).
    The complaint alleges that defendant now petitioner obtained from
    plaintiff now respondent six separate loans for which the former
    executed in favour of the latter 6 separate promissory notes and issued
    several checks as guarantee for payment.
    When said loans became overdue and unpaid, defendants
    (petitioners) checks were dishonoured, respondent made repeated
    oral and written demands for payment.
    RTC and CA held that the respondents clear and detailed computation
    of petitioners outstanding obligation was convincing and satisfactory.
    ISSUES:
    1) Whether or not the petitioner has fully paid her obligations even
    before filing of the case.
    2) Whether or not the charging of 28% interest per annum without any
    writing is legal.
    3) Whether or not charging of excessive penalties is a guise of hidden
    interest.
    HELD:
    The court held that the petition has NO MERIT.
    1) involves a question of fact. Such question exists when a doubt or
    difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts;
    and when there is need for a calibration of the evidence,
    considering mainly the credibility of witnesses and the existence
    and the relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their
    relation to each other and to the whole, and the probabilities of the
    situation. It is a well-entrenched rule that pure questions of fact may
    not be the subject of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the
    Rules of Court, as this remedy is generally confined to questions of
    law.

    2) The records show that there was a written agreement between the
    parties for the payment of interest on the subject loans at the rate
    of 16 percent per month. As decreed by the lower courts, this rate
    must be equitably reduced for being iniquitous, unconscionable and
    exorbitant. While the Usury Law ceiling on interest rates was lifted
    by C.B. Circular No. 905, nothing in the said circular grants lenders
    carte blanche authority to raise interest rates to levels which will
    either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their
    assets.
    3)

    Article 1229 of the Civil Code states thus: The judge shall
    equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been
    partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there has
    been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced by the
    courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable. Nevertheless, it appears
    that petitioners failure to comply fully with her obligation was not
    motivated by ill will or malice. The twenty-nine partial payments she
    made were a manifestation of her good faith. Again, Article 1229 of
    the Civil Code specifically empowers the judge to reduce the civil
    penalty equitably, when the principal obligation has been partly or
    irregularly complied with. Upon this premise, we hold that the RTCs
    reduction of attorneys fees -- from 25 percent to 10 percent of the
    total amount due and payable -- is reasonable.

    You might also like