Philippine Supreme Court Upholds Right to Strike Down Unconscionable Interest Rates

TLDR: Even with the suspension of the Usury Law, Philippine courts retain the power to invalidate and reduce excessively high or ‘unconscionable’ interest rates in loan agreements. This landmark case clarifies that while parties can freely agree on interest, this freedom is not absolute and is limited by principles of fairness and equity as enshrined in the Civil Code.

G.R. No. 131622, November 27, 1998: LETICIA Y. MEDEL DR. RAFAEL MEDEL AND SERVANDO FRANCO, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES VERONICA R. GONZALES AND DANILO G. GONZALES, JR., DOING LENDING BUSINESS UNDER THE TRADE NAME AND STYLE “GONZALES CREDIT ENTERPRISES”, RESPONDENTS.

INTRODUCTION

Imagine needing urgent funds and turning to a lender who offers quick cash but at an astronomical interest rate. This scenario, unfortunately, is a reality for many Filipinos. While the free market generally allows parties to agree on contract terms, including interest rates, Philippine law steps in when these rates become outrageously unfair. The Supreme Court case of Medel v. Court of Appeals provides crucial insights into when interest rates cross the line from high to ‘unconscionable,’ and what remedies are available to borrowers.

In this case, the Medel family and Servando Franco obtained a loan from Veronica Gonzales, a money lender. The dispute centered on the interest rate of 5.5% per month, plus additional charges, stipulated in their loan agreement. The Supreme Court was tasked to determine if this rate, while not technically ‘usurious’ under current regulations, was legally permissible and enforceable.

LEGAL CONTEXT: USURY LAW AND UNCONSCIONABLE INTEREST

Historically, the Philippines had the Usury Law, which set ceilings on interest rates for loans. However, this law’s effectivity was suspended by Central Bank Circular No. 905 in 1982. This circular, issued under Presidential Decree No. 116, effectively removed the legal limits on interest rates that lenders could charge. The prevailing interpretation after this circular was that parties were free to agree on any interest rate, no matter how high.

However, this deregulation did not mean that borrowers were left completely unprotected. Philippine law, specifically the Civil Code, still embodies principles of fairness and equity in contractual relations. Article 1306 of the Civil Code states:

“The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.”

Furthermore, Article 2227 of the Civil Code addresses liquidated damages, which can include penalties and charges in loan agreements:

“Liquidated damages, whether intended as an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.”

These provisions form the legal basis for courts to intervene when contractual terms, particularly interest rates, are deemed excessively onerous or ‘unconscionable.’ The Supreme Court in Medel v. CA had to reconcile the deregulation of interest rates with these fundamental principles of contractual fairness.

CASE BREAKDOWN: FROM LOAN TO LITIGATION

The story began with a series of loans obtained by Leticia Medel and Servando Franco from Veronica Gonzales’ lending business. Initially, there were smaller loans in November 1985, each with a 6% monthly interest rate. By July 1986, these were consolidated into a larger loan of P500,000 with a stipulated interest rate of 5.5% per month, plus a 2% service charge per annum, and a 1% per month penalty for late payment. This agreement was formalized in a promissory note.

When the borrowers failed to pay, Gonzales sued to collect the full amount plus all stipulated charges. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acknowledged the validity of the loan but found the 5.5% monthly interest rate “unconscionable and revolting to the conscience.” Applying what it considered a more reasonable rate, the RTC lowered the interest to 12% per annum and reduced the penalty charges.

Gonzales appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that with the suspension of the Usury Law, parties were free to agree on any interest rate. The CA agreed with Gonzales, upholding the 5.5% monthly interest, the 2% service charge, and the 1% monthly penalty. The CA essentially ruled that as long as it wasn’t legally usurious (which it wasn’t, due to Circular 905), the rate was enforceable.

Dissatisfied, the Medels and Franco elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The core issue before the Supreme Court was: Can courts still intervene and reduce interest rates if they are deemed unconscionable, even if the Usury Law’s ceilings are no longer in effect?

The Supreme Court sided with the borrowers and reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court emphasized that while Central Bank Circular No. 905 removed the *ceiling* on interest rates, it did not grant lenders unchecked power to impose exorbitant rates. The Supreme Court stated:

“We agree with petitioners that the stipulated rate of interest at 5.5% per month on the P500,000.00 loan is excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant… Nevertheless, we find the interest at 5.5% per month, or 66% per annum, stipulated upon by the parties in the promissory note iniquitous or unconscionable, and, hence, contrary to morals (“contra bonos mores”), if not against the law. The stipulation is void.”

The Court clarified that the suspension of the Usury Law did not eliminate the concept of unconscionable interest. It reiterated that courts have the power, based on Articles 1306 and 2227 of the Civil Code, to reduce interest rates that are deemed excessively high and against public policy. Quoting further, the Supreme Court explained its rationale:

“Consequently, the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the stipulation of the parties. Rather, we agree with the trial court that, under the circumstances, interest at 12% per annum, and an additional 1% a month penalty charge as liquidated damages may be more reasonable.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court reinstated the Regional Trial Court’s decision, reducing the interest rate to 12% per annum and the penalty charges to 1% per month, deeming these rates fair and equitable under the circumstances.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING BORROWERS FROM PREDATORY LENDING

Medel v. Court of Appeals serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing the principle that contractual freedom has limits, especially in loan agreements. It clarifies that even in a deregulated interest rate environment, Philippine courts will not hesitate to strike down interest rates that are deemed unconscionable. This case offers crucial protection to borrowers, particularly those in vulnerable situations who may be compelled to agree to unfair loan terms due to urgent financial needs.

For lenders, this case is a reminder that while they can set interest rates based on market factors and risk assessment, they cannot impose rates that are outrageously disproportionate and exploitative. Reasonableness and fairness must always be considered. Imposing excessively high interest rates not only risks legal challenges but also damages their reputation and long-term sustainability.

Key Lessons from Medel v. Court of Appeals:

• Unconscionable Interest is Still Unlawful: Despite the suspension of the Usury Law’s ceilings, interest rates deemed ‘unconscionable’ by courts are unenforceable under Philippine law.
• Courts Can Reduce Iniquitous Rates: Courts have the power to equitably reduce interest rates and penalty charges if they find them to be excessively high or unfair, based on Articles 1306 and 2227 of the Civil Code.
• Reasonableness is Key: Lenders should strive for reasonable and fair interest rates that reflect market conditions and risk, but are not exploitative of borrowers’ vulnerabilities.
• Borrower Protection: Borrowers should be aware of their rights and challenge loan terms with excessively high interest rates. Legal remedies are available to protect them from predatory lending practices.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: What is considered an ‘unconscionable’ interest rate in the Philippines?

A: There is no fixed percentage. The Supreme Court assesses ‘unconscionability’ on a case-by-case basis, considering factors like prevailing market rates, the borrower’s circumstances, the risk involved for the lender, and the overall fairness of the terms. Rates significantly higher than market averages and deemed ‘revolting to the conscience’ are likely to be considered unconscionable.

Q: Does the suspension of the Usury Law mean lenders can charge any interest rate they want?

A: No. While the Usury Law’s *ceilings* are suspended, the principle against unconscionable contracts remains. Courts can still invalidate and reduce excessively high interest rates based on general principles of contract law and equity.

Q: What can I do if I believe my loan has an unconscionable interest rate?

A: You should first try to negotiate with the lender. If negotiation fails, you can seek legal advice. You may have grounds to file a case to have the interest rate reduced to a reasonable level.

Q: What is the legal basis for courts to reduce interest rates if there’s no Usury Law ceiling?

A: Articles 1306 and 2227 of the Civil Code provide the legal basis. Article 1306 allows parties to contract freely as long as it’s not against law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Unconscionable interest violates ‘morals’ and ‘public policy.’ Article 2227 specifically allows courts to reduce iniquitous liquidated damages, which includes excessive penalties and charges in loan agreements.

Q: Is a monthly interest rate of 5.5% always unconscionable?

A: Not necessarily. ‘Unconscionability’ is context-dependent. However, 5.5% per month (66% per annum), as seen in Medel v. CA, was deemed unconscionable by the Supreme Court in that specific case. Current prevailing market rates and the specific circumstances of the loan would be considered in similar cases.

Q: What is the current ‘legal interest rate’ in the Philippines?

A: For loans or forbearance of money, goods, or credits, and judgments, the legal interest rate is generally 6% per annum, unless otherwise stipulated in writing. However, this ‘legal interest rate’ is different from the interest rate lenders can charge; it’s more relevant for determining damages and legal obligations in the absence of a specific stipulated rate or when the stipulated rate is invalidated.

Q: How does this case affect loan agreements today?

A: Medel v. CA remains good law and is frequently cited in cases involving disputes over interest rates. It reinforces the principle that courts will scrutinize interest rates for fairness, even in the absence of usury law ceilings. It provides borrowers with legal recourse against predatory lending practices.

ASG Law specializes in banking and finance litigation and contract disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.