Unconscionable interest rates can be nullified or reduced

While the parties to a loan agreement may freely agree on the interest rate that applies to their transaction, any imposition of interest rate must always be reasonable and fair.

In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that even the willingness of the debtor to assume an exorbitant and unconscionable interest rate does not validate the agreed rate as legally binding and enforceable. This principle was clearly explained in the case of Spouses Castro v. Tan [GR 168940, Nov. 24, 2009], penned by Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, which states:

“The imposition of an unconscionable rate of interest on a money debt, even if knowingly and voluntarily assumed, is immoral and unjust. It is tantamount to a repugnant spoliation and an iniquitous deprivation of property, repulsive to the common sense of man. It has no support in law, in principles of justice, or in the human conscience nor is there any reason whatsoever which may justify such imposition as righteous and as one that may be sustained within the sphere of public or private morals.”

Relative thereto, any loan agreement stipulating a grossly excessive interest rate is contrary to morals, and therefore void from the beginning, in consonance with Article 1409 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.

Moreover, to prevent lenders from exploiting borrowers with oppressive rates of interest, the courts are granted the power to reduce unjust or unconscionable contractual interest rates, pursuant to Article 1229 of the said Code, which provides:

“Art. 1229. 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.”

With the foregoing, any debtor who enters into a loan agreement with an excessive interest rate may seek judicial relief to declare the interest void and unenforceable, or to reduce it to a fair and reasonable rate as warranted by the circumstances.

In this regard, one may, therefore, file a civil suit through the courts, either for the annulment of the interest rate in your loan agreement or the reformation of the instrument to fix the appropriate interest rate.

Source: Manila Times

Failure to pay within the period stipulated

In a sales contract involving real property, the agreement that the vendee’s failure to make full payment on the agreed time will render the sale rescinded, the vendee may still pay as long as the vendor does not make a demand for rescission.

Article 1592 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines provides that “in the sale of immovable property, even though it may have been stipulated that upon failure to pay the price at the time agreed upon the rescission of the contract shall of right take place, the vendee may pay, even after the expiration of the period, as long as no demand for rescission of the contract has been made upon him either judicially or by a notarial act. After the demand, the court may not grant him a new term.”

Clearly, Article 1592 of the said Code allows a vendee to pay as long as no demand for rescission has been made by the vendor or seller. This is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Province of Cebu vs. Heirs of Rufina Morales, GR 170115, Feb. 19, 2008, penned by Honorable Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, which held:

“Thus, respondents could still tender payment of the full purchase price as no demand for rescission had been made upon them, either judicially or through notarial act. While it is true that it took a long time for respondents to bring suit for specific performance and consign the balance of the purchase price, it is equally true that petitioner or its predecessor did not take any action to have the contract of sale rescinded.

Article 1592 allows the vendee to pay as long as no demand for rescission has been made. The consignation of the balance of the purchase price before the trial court thus operated as full payment, which resulted in the extinguishment of respondents’ obligation under the contract of sale.”

Further, in the earlier case of The City of Cebu vs. Heirs of Rubi, GR 128579, April 29, 1999, penned by Honorable Associate Justice Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes, the high court ruled:

“It is not disputed that the City of Cebu did not give notice of rescission much less make a judicial or notarial demand for rescission. The only subsequent action taken by petitioner was to send to the respondents a ‘Formal Notice’ dated March 4, 1989 ordering the latter to vacate the premises within fifteen days from receipt of notice for the reason that the occupancy of lot 1141-D is presumed to be illegal as the lot is still registered in the name of the City of Cebu. This letter did not amount to a demand for rescission, as indeed there was no reference to the sale much less a declaration that the sale was being rescinded or abrogated from the beginning. It was only when the City of Cebu filed its Answer on June 15, 1989 to the instant complaint for specific performance that the city invoked ‘automatic rescission’ and prayed for relief allowing it to rescind the contract.”

In case, you failed to make the full payment on the stipulated date, you may still tender payment despite the expiration of the period as long as no demand for rescission has been made by the vendor, either through a judicial action or notarial act.

Source: Manila Times

AMLC: Philippine remains off global dirty money list

The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) confirmed that the Philippines remains off the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)’s gray list following its removal in February this year and has not received similar reports of outdated foreign references still linking the country to the list.

In a statement, AMLC said the Philippines was officially delisted from the FATF gray list on Feb. 21, during the global watchdog’s plenary meeting in Paris, France. The delisting came after the country successfully addressed all 18 action items required to strengthen its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing framework.

“The Philippines remains delisted,” AMLC said, adding that the government continues to implement various initiatives to ensure continued compliance with international standards and prevent relisting.

The clarification comes after the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) reported that a close relative of journalist Gretchen Ho was denied foreign exchange service at an Oslo airport on Oct. 6. The incident reportedly stemmed from the use of an outdated list that still included the Philippines under the FATF gray list.

The DFA said it has reached out to the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway to clarify the matter.

The AMLC, however, said it “has not received similar reports of outdated references being used abroad.” It added that the country’s delisting was “disseminated through news coverage, foreign governmental regulatory bulletins, foreign financial institutions’ mechanisms and Philippine embassy or trade channels.”

Among the various initiatives it implemented to ensure continued compliance with FATF standards is the conduct of the third National Risk Assessment, a multi-agency initiative led by the AMLC that evaluates the country’s exposure to money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing risks. The results will help shape targeted mitigation strategies.

The AMLC also cited ongoing work to strengthen its supervisory framework, including updates to enforcement manuals and guidelines to align with FATF recommendations and improve regulatory oversight.

In addition, the council said it continues to enhance inter-agency cooperation by working closely with law enforcement bodies to ensure a “whole-of-nation approach” in investigating and prosecuting financial crimes.

On the legislative front, the AMLC said amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 are being pursued to address emerging threats and maintain alignment with evolving FATF standards.

The Philippines was first placed under the FATF’s increased monitoring list, or gray list, in June 2021 for deficiencies in its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing systems.

Its removal in February marked the culmination of years of reform efforts by the AMLC, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and other key agencies.

Source: Philstar