In Rodrigo Rivera v. Spouses Salvador and Violeta Chua, the Supreme Court addressed the obligations arising from a promissory note, particularly focusing on default, the necessity of demand, and the determination of interest rates. The Court clarified that even if a promissory note is not a negotiable instrument, the borrower is still liable under its terms. The ruling highlights how crucial it is to understand the specific stipulations within financial agreements, especially regarding interest and the conditions that trigger default.

Loan Agreements and Missed Deadlines: Delving into Contractual Obligations

The case revolves around a loan obtained by Rodrigo Rivera from Spouses Salvador and Violeta Chua, documented through a promissory note dated February 24, 1995. Rivera promised to pay P120,000.00 by December 31, 1995, with a stipulation of 5% monthly interest in case of default. Rivera made partial payments via checks that were later dishonored. When Rivera failed to settle the debt, the Spouses Chua filed a collection suit. Rivera denied the validity of the promissory note, claiming forgery. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) ruled in favor of the Spouses Chua, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), although the RTC deleted the award of attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld Rivera’s liability, reduced the interest rate from 60% to 12% per annum, and reinstated attorney’s fees. These conflicting decisions led to consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court.

The primary contention of Rivera was that the promissory note was a forgery and that he never incurred such a debt. To support his claim, Rivera argued that previous loans from the Spouses Chua were always secured by collateral, unlike this particular note. Rivera’s assertion of forgery was refuted by the Spouses Chua, who presented the promissory note and the testimony of an NBI handwriting expert. The expert’s testimony concluded that the signature on the note matched Rivera’s specimen signatures. The lower courts relied heavily on this expert testimony, alongside the Spouses Chua’s assertions, to establish the note’s authenticity.

The Supreme Court emphasized the established principle that factual findings of trial courts, particularly when affirmed by the appellate court, are generally conclusive. The Court noted that Rivera failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim of forgery, leading to the affirmation of the lower courts’ findings. The burden of proof lies on the party making the allegation. In this case, Rivera did not overcome the evidence presented by the Spouses Chua. Rivera’s bare denial was insufficient to outweigh the expert testimony and the existence of the promissory note itself.

Rivera further argued that even if the promissory note were valid, a demand for payment was necessary to make him liable. He contended that the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL) should apply. The Court clarified that the subject promissory note was not a negotiable instrument because it was made out to specific individuals (the Spouses Chua) rather than to order or bearer. Thus, the provisions of the NIL regarding presentment for payment did not apply. However, the Court emphasized that even without the NIL, Rivera was still liable under the terms of the promissory note itself.

The Court referred to Article 1169 of the Civil Code, which addresses when a debtor incurs delay. According to this article, demand by the creditor is generally necessary for delay to exist. However, demand is not required when the obligation or the law expressly declares it, when the time of performance is a controlling motive, or when demand would be useless. In the promissory note, the parties agreed that failure to pay on the specified date (December 31, 1995) would result in a default. The note explicitly stated that interest would accrue from the date of default until the obligation was fully paid. Therefore, the Court concluded that demand was not necessary, as the promissory note itself stipulated the consequences of non-payment on the due date. From January 1, 1996, Rivera was in default and liable for the stipulated interest.

The promissory note specified a 5% monthly interest rate, which the appellate court reduced to 12% per annum, deeming the original rate iniquitous and unconscionable. The Supreme Court upheld this reduction. Although the promissory note specified the interest rate, the courts have the power to temper such rates when they are deemed excessive. Regarding the applicable legal interest, the Court considered Central Bank (CB) Circular No. 416, which set the legal interest rate at 12% per annum at the time the obligation was incurred. Later, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Circular No. 799 reduced the rate to 6% per annum, effective July 1, 2013. As a result, the interest calculation was divided into two periods, reflecting the changes in legal interest rates. From January 1, 1996, to June 30, 2013, the interest rate was 12% per annum. From July 1, 2013, until the finality of the decision, the rate was 6% per annum.

The Spouses Chua also sought legal interest on the interest due from the time of judicial demand (June 11, 1999), which the Court granted based on Article 2212 of the Civil Code. This article states that interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. Citing Nacar v. Gallery Frames, the Court reiterated the guidelines for awarding interest in cases involving breach of obligations. The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount finally adjudged. This meant that legal interest would accrue on the outstanding amounts, as well as on the interest that was due and demanded judicially.

Finally, the Court addressed the award of attorney’s fees. The Court agreed with the appellate court’s decision to reinstate attorney’s fees, albeit in a reduced amount of P50,000.00. This was based on the premise that the Spouses Chua were compelled to litigate to protect their interests. The Court clarified that while the interest imposed in the promissory note served as liquidated damages for Rivera’s default, attorney’s fees were warranted to compensate the Spouses Chua for the expenses they incurred in pursuing legal action.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The primary issue was whether Rodrigo Rivera was liable under a promissory note he claimed was forged, and if so, what the applicable interest rates should be. The case also addressed the necessity of demand for payment and the award of attorney’s fees.
Was the promissory note considered a negotiable instrument?	No, the Supreme Court ruled that the promissory note was not a negotiable instrument because it was made out to specific individuals (the Spouses Chua) rather than to order or bearer. This meant that the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Law did not apply.
Did Rodrigo Rivera successfully prove forgery?	No, Rivera failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that his signature on the promissory note was a forgery. The NBI handwriting expert’s testimony confirmed that the signature matched Rivera’s specimen signatures, undermining his claim.
Was a demand for payment necessary in this case?	No, the Supreme Court ruled that demand was not necessary because the promissory note itself stipulated that default would occur if payment was not made by December 31, 1995. The note also stated that interest would accrue from the date of default.
What interest rate was initially stipulated in the promissory note?	The promissory note initially stipulated a 5% monthly interest rate (60% per annum) in case of default. However, the appellate court reduced this to 12% per annum, which the Supreme Court upheld.
How did the Supreme Court calculate the legal interest?	The Court applied different interest rates based on the prevailing regulations at different times. From January 1, 1996, to June 30, 2013, the legal interest rate was 12% per annum. From July 1, 2013, until the finality of the decision, it was 6% per annum.
Did the Spouses Chua receive legal interest on the interest due?	Yes, the Court granted legal interest on the interest due from the time of judicial demand (June 11, 1999), based on Article 2212 of the Civil Code. This meant that the interest that was due and demanded judicially also earned legal interest.
Why were attorney’s fees awarded in this case?	Attorney’s fees were awarded because the Spouses Chua were compelled to litigate to protect their interests. The Court recognized that they incurred expenses in pursuing legal action to collect the debt.
What was the final outcome of the case?	The Supreme Court denied Rivera’s petition and ordered him to pay the principal amount of P120,000.00, legal interest calculated according to the periods mentioned above, and attorney’s fees of P50,000.00.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rivera v. Spouses Chua provides clarity on the enforcement and interpretation of promissory notes, particularly concerning default and interest. It underscores the importance of clearly defining terms within financial agreements and reinforces the principle that borrowers are bound by the stipulations they agree to, even if the agreement is not a negotiable instrument. The ruling serves as a reminder to carefully review and understand contractual obligations to avoid potential legal repercussions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Rodrigo Rivera, vs. Spouses Salvador Chua and S. Violeta Chua, G.R. No. 184458, January 14, 2015