ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 130137 & 130434. January 13, 1999]

HOME SAVINGS BANK & TRUST CO. vs. AGUSTIN BENGZON, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 13, 1999.

G.R. No. 130137 and 1304351 [In its Resolution dated February 2, 1998, this Court noted that this petition was assigned two G.R. numbers (G.R. 130137 and G.R. 130435), the former when petitioner filed a motion of extension of time to file a petition, and the latter when the petition for review on certiorari itself was filed. Both G.R. numbers, however, refer to one and the same petition.] (Home Savings and Trust Company vs. Agustin Bengzon and Eliza Bengzon)

This is a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Bank on March 10, 1998, of the resolution of this Court dated January 28, 1998 denying its petition for review on certiorari.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

In 1979, spouses Bengzon obtained a loan from petitioner Bank amounting to P1,800,000.00, with interest at 19% per annum, payable in fifteen (15) years, secured by the real estate mortgage. The loan was restructured in 1984, pegging the interest rate at 21% per annum. In 1989, the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings against the mortgaged property claiming that the spouses filed a complaint with the RTC of Makati, for Recovery of a Sum of Money, Specific Performance with Damages, with prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff-spouses contended that they had fully settled their obligation and, in fact, even overpaid the bank. They maintained that the unilateral increase in the interest rate of the loan made by the bank, initially to 24% and later up to 38% thereby bloating the loan obligation, was not lawful. On the contrary, they averred that based on the 21% interest rate, they were entitled to reimbursement of the overpaid amount.

On November 23, 1993, the trial court2 [Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 67-80.] ruled in favor of the spouses stating that the unilateral increase of the interest rate, from 21% to 24% and then again to 38%, is unlawful since it was neither supported by any law nor any Monetary Board resolution. It therefore concluded that the spouses Bengzon had fully paid their obligation and were entitled to reimbursement of the overpayment made, amounting to P265,661.81, as well as P986,000 for actual damages representing loss of rental income, P400,000 for moral damages, P50,000 for exemplary damages and P50,000 for attorney's fees. It further ordered the Bank to release the mortgage constituted on the mortgaged property.

Petitioner Bank seasonably appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which promulgated its decision3 [Rollo, Vol. 2, pp. 8-19.] on June 9, 1997, affirming in toto the ruling of the lower court. A motion for reconsideration4 [Rollo, Vol 2, pp. 20-21.] filed by petitioner Bank was denied on August 6, 1997, for failure to show new matters which were not considered and passed upon extensively in its decision.

On September 19, 1997, petitioner filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari contending that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the spouses Bengzon were not bound by the increase in interest rate from 21% to 24% per annum; ruling that the spouses had fully paid their obligation and in awarding the damages abovementioned. In a resolution dated January 28, 1998, and received by petitioner on February 23, 19985 [Rollo, Vol. 2, p. 93.], this Court denied the petition since it was called upon to review the findings of facts of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review filed before this Court.6 [Revised Rules of Court, Rule 45, Section 1.]

Hence, this motion for reconsideration filed on March 9, 1998. Petitioner alleges that the Court of Appeals' ruling raised questions of law and that it committed reversible errors in its decision

We find petitioner's motion for reconsideration without merit. Petitioner admits that the basic issue of whether or not the spouses still have an outstanding obligation is a factual one. It rationalizes, however that the resolution of said issue is dependent upon the legality of the increases in interest rates, which is a legal question. It contends that if the increase in interest rates is valid, then the spouses have not settled their obligation.

The motion fails to raise any new matter. We reiterate the ruling that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on us as a general accepted rule. In any event, we see no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals, which is in accordance with law and jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DENY petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The denial is final.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE