G.R. No. 172139
December 8, 2010
JOCELYN JOCELYN M. TOLEDO vs. MARLO! M. "YDEN #ACT$% This Petition Petition for Review Review on Certiorari1 Certiorari1 assails assails the Decision dated dated August 24, 2005 of the Court of Appeals CA! in CA"#$R$ C% &o$ '()05, which a*r+ed the Decision dated arch 10, 200-- of the Regional Trial Court RTC!, .ranch 22, Ce/u Cit in Civil Case &o$ C." 22)'$ Also assailed is the Resolution Resolution dated arch arch ), 200 dening the +otion for reconsideration$ Petitioner 3oceln $ Toledo 3oceln!, who was then the %ice"President of the College Assurance Plan CAP! Phils$, nc$, o/tained several loans fro+ respondent arilou $ den arilou! with stipulation stipulation of 6 +onthl interest fro+ August 15, 1((- to 7cto/er (, 1((5 and '6 interest on a 22, 1(('$ 8ro+ August 15, 1((- up to Dece+/er -1, 1((', 3oceln had /een religiousl paing arilou the stipulated +onthl interest / issuing chec9s and depositing su+s of +one in the /an9 account of the latter$ owever, the total principal a+ount of P2(0,000$00 re+ained unpaid$ 7n April 1((), a docu+ent entitled :Ac9nowledg+ent of De/t:5 for the a+ount of P2(0,000$00 was signed / 3oceln with two of her su/ordinates as witnesses$ 3oceln also issued ;ve chec9s to arilou representing renewal pa+ent of her ;ve previous loans$ 7n 3une 1((), 3oceln 3oceln as9ed as9ed arilou for the recall recall of Chec9 Chec9 &o$ 0010'1 0010'1 in the a+ount of P-0,000$00 and replaced the sa+e with si< chec9s in staggered a+ounts$ owever, after honoring Chec9 &os$ 00104(4, 00104(5 and 00104(, 3oceln ordered the stop pa+ent on the re+aining chec9s and on 7cto/er 2', 1((), ;led with the RTC of Ce/u Cit a co+plaint against arilou for Declaration Declaration of &ullit and Pa+ent, Annul+ent, Annul+ent, =u+ of one, n>unction and Da+ages$ 3oceln is now now alleging that she was was forced, threatened threatened and inti+idated inti+idated into signing signing the :Ac9nowledg+ent of De/t: and at the sa+e ti+e forced her to issue the seven postdated chec9s$ =he clai+ed that arilou even threatened to sue her for violation of .atas Pa+/ansa Pa+/ansa .P! .lg$ 22 or the .ouncing Chec9s ?aw if she will not sign the said docu+ent and draw the a/ove"+entioned chec9s$ 3oceln further clai+ed that the application of her total pa+ent of P52),550$00 to interest alone is illegal, unfounded, un>ust, oppressive and contrar to law /ecause there was no written agree+ent to pa interest$ $$!E$% 1$ @hether the CA gravel gravel erred erred when it held that the i+position i+position of interest interest at the rate of si< percent 6! to seven percent '6! is not contrar to law, +orals, good custo+s, pu/lic order or pu/lic polic$ 2$ @hether the CA gravel gravel erred erred when it failed to declare declare that the :Ac9nowledg+ent :Ac9nowledg+ent of De/t: is an ine
which suspended the sur ?aw ceiling on interest eBective 3anuar 1, 1()-, parties to a loan agree+ent have wide latitude to stipulate interest rates$ &evertheless, such stipulated interest rates +a /e declared as illegal if the sa+e is unconsciona/le$ t was clearl shown that /efore 3oceln availed of said loans, she 9new full well that the sa+e carried with it an interest rate of 6 to '6 per +onth, et she did not co+plain$ n fact, when she availed of said loans, an advance interest of 6 to '6 was alread deducted fro+ the loan a+ount, et she never uttered a word of protest$ After ears of /ene;ting fro+ the proceeds of the loans /earing an interest rate of 6 to '6 per +onth and paing for the sa+e, 3oceln cannot now go to court to have the said interest rate annulled on the ground that it is e