Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The difference between a discount and a loan or forbearance is that the former does The allegation of plaintiff that defendant made the computation in a
not have to be repaid. The loan or forbearance is subject to repayment and is compounded manner is erroneous. Also after making its own computations
therefore governed by the laws on usury. 10 and after examining closely defendant's Annex 'A' of its memorandum, the
court finds that defendant did not charge 12% discount on the rentals due
for the first year so much so that the computation conforms with the
To constitute usury, "there must be loan or forbearance; the loan must be of money or provision of the Lease Agreement to the effect that the rentals shall be
something circulating as money; it must be repayable absolutely and in all events; 'payable yearly in advance within the 1st 20 days of each year. '
and something must be exacted for the use of the money in excess of and in addition
to interest allowed by law." 11
We do not agree. The above computation appears to be too much technical mumbo-
jumbo and could not have been the intention of the parties to the transaction. Had it
It has been held that the elements of usury are (1) a loan, express or implied; (2) an been so, then it should have been clearly stipulated in the contract. Contracts should
understanding between the parties that the money lent shall or may be returned; that be interpreted according to their literal meaning and should not be interpreted
for such loan a greater rate or interest that is allowed by law shall be paid, or agreed beyond their obvious intendment. 13
to be paid, as the case may be; and (4) a corrupt intent to take more than the legal
rate for the use of money loaned. Unless these four things concur in every
transaction, it is safe to affirm that no case of usury can be declared. 12 The plaintfff-appellant simply understood that for every year of advance payment
there would be a deduction of 12% and this amount would be the same for each of
the eight years. There is no showing that the intricate computation applied by the
Concerning the computation of the deductible discount, the trial court declared: trial court was explained to him by the defendant-appellee or that he knowingly
accepted it.
As above-quoted, the 'Lease Agreement' expressly provides that the lessee
(defendant) shag pay the lessor (plaintiff) eight (8) years in advance rentals The lower court, following the defendant-appellee's formula, declared that the
based on P2,930.20 per month discounted at 12% interest per annum. Thus, plaintiff-appellant had actually agreed to a 12% reduction for advance rentals for all
the total rental for one-year period is P35,162.40 (P2,930.20 multiplied by of twenty eight years. That is absurd. It is not normal for a person to agree to a
12 months) and that the interest therefrom is P4,219.4880 (P35,162.40 reduction corresponding to twenty eight years advance rentals when all he is
multiplied by 12%). So, therefore, the total interest for the first eight (8) receiving in advance rentals is for only eight years.
years should be only P33,755.90 (P4,129.4880 multiplied by eight (8) years
and not P98,828.03 as the defendant claimed it to be.
2
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS-A1
The deduction shall be for only eight years because that was plainly what the parties
intended at the time they signed the lease agreement. "Simplistic" it may be, as the
Solicitor General describes it, but that is how the lessor understood the arrangement.
In fact, the Court will reject his subsequent modification that the interest should be
limited to only seven years because the first year rental was not being paid in
advance. The agreement was for a uniform deduction for the advance rentals for each
of the eight years, and neither of the parties can deviate from it now.
On the annual rental of P35,168.40, the deducted 12% discount was P4,220.21; and
for eight years, the total rental was P281,347.20 from which was deducted the total
discount of P33,761.68, leaving a difference of P247,585.52. Subtracting from this
amount, the sum of P182,471.17 already paid will leave a balance of P65,114.35 still
due the plaintiff-appellant.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby modified, and the defendant-
appellee Petrophil Corporation is ordered to pay plaintiff-appellant the amount of
Sixty Five Thousand One Hundred Fourteen pesos and Thirty-Five Centavos
(P65,114.35), with interest at the legal rate until fully paid, plus Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00) as attorney's fees. Costs against the defendant-appellee.
SO ORDERED.
3
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS-A1