Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1928 > October 1928 Decisions > G.R. No. 29077 October 27, 1928 - JUAN DE ROTAECHE v. "LA URBANA

052 Phil 299:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 29077. October 27, 1928.]

JUAN DE ROTAECHE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. "LA URBANA," Mutual Building and Loan Association, Defendant-Appellee.

Eiguren & Razon for Appellant.

Alfredo Chicote and Jose Arnaiz for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CORPORATION LAW; BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS; PREMIUMS. — Section 181 of the Corporation Law (Act No. 1459) allows mutual building and loan associations two ways of collecting the premiums for the sum loaned: The first, by deducting them from the amount of the loan, and the second, by deducting the proportion prescribed by the by-laws of the association. It was so held by this court in the case of Lopez and Javelona v. El Hogar Filipino (47 Phil., 249).

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — Of the two ways of collecting the premiums provided in said Corporation Law, Act No. 3291 (amending the Usury Law) deals only with the second, that is, the case of charging "a premium the percentage of which shall be fixed from time to time by their boards of directors." This last law does not prohibit the first way of collecting the premiums and therefore, the power conferred by the Corporation Law on such societies to deduct them all from the amount of the loan subsists.

3. ID.; ID.; ID. — The phrase "computado por anualidades" (computed in annual payments) appearing in section 1 of Act No. 3291 has not and cannot have the effect of prohibiting or abrogating the first way referred to of collecting the premiums authorized by the Corporation Law, and is not alluded to either directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, in any part of said section 1 of Act No. 3291, except with respect to the limit of the amount of the premium.


D E C I S I O N


ROMUALDEZ, J.:


The plaintiff being a common-stock holder of the defendant, applied for and obtained from the same a loan of P7,000 for ten years, executing the proper mortgage deed, acknowledging an indebtedness to defendant of P8,050, of which P7,000 represents the loan obtained, and the P1,050, the 15 per cent premium for the ten years fixed by the board of directors of the defendant.

The plaintiff, however, does not consider himself bound to pay the premium for the whole ten years, but only for one year, that is, the sum of P150. Hence, of the P1,050 which he paid for premiums, he claims the sum of P900 in this action which is the premium for nine years at the rate of 1 � per centum per annum.

As a basis, he contends that while section 181 of the Corporation Law (Act No. 1459) authorizes mutual building and loan societies such as the herein defendant, to deduct the amount of the premium from the loan, nevertheless, Act No. 3291, amending Act No. 2655 (Usury Law) provides that the premium which such societies may collect "shall in no case exceed two per centum per annum, computed in annual payments from the date when the loan was made until the day when the obligation is totally extinguished," maintaining that the phrase "computado por anualidades" contained in the quotation, of which the official English version is "Computed in annual payments" means that the payment of such premiums cannot be for more than one year.

The Court of First Instance of Rizal that tried the case held said deduction of P1,050 made by the defendant from the loan given to the plaintiff, to be perfectly legal and absolved the defendant.

The plaintiff impugns said judgment, basing his appeal on two grounds, which constitute the errors as committed by the lower court, to wit: (a) In holding that Act No. 3291 authorizes mutual building and loan societies to collect the total amount of the premiums in advance; and therefore,(b) in not ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff the P900 claimed.

Section 181 of the Corporation Act (No. 1459), provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The moneys in the hands of the treasurer of the corporation and such sums as may be borrowed by the corporation for the purpose shall be loaned out in open meeting to the stockholders who shall pay the highest premium for such loan, or said moneys may be loaned at such premium as may be fixed from time to time by the board of directors. The premium may be deducted from the amount of the loan or such proportion may be so deducted as may be prescribed in the by-laws. Where only a part of the premium is deducted the balance thereof must be paid to the corporation in such installments as the by-laws shall determine: Provided, however, That the number of installments into which the premium is divided shall be uniform for all loans made by the corporation, and that the time and manner of payment of such installments shall be prescribed in the by-laws."cralaw virtua1aw library

This section, as may be seen, allows two ways of collecting the premiums: The first by deducting them from the amount of the loan ("the premium may be deducted from the amount of the loan"), and the second, by deducting the proportion prescribed by the by-laws of the association ("or such proportion may be so deducted as may be prescribed in the by-laws"). It was so held by this court in the case of Lopez and Javelona v. El Hogar Filipino (47 Phil., 249.)

Section 1 of Act No. 3291, amending section 2 of Act No. 2655 (Usury Law), in its pertinent part provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Mutual building and loan societies incorporated under Act Numbered Fourteen hundred and fifty-nine, known as the ’Corporation Act’ may, however, charge in addition a premium the percentage of which shall be fixed from time to time by their boards of directors but shall in no case exceed two per centum per annum, computed in annual payments from the date when the loan was made until the day when the obligation is totally extinguished."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is to be noted that of the two ways of collecting the premiums provided in the Corporation Law, Act No. 1459, Act No. 3291 deals only with the second, that is, the case of charging "a premium the percentage of which shall be fixed from time to time by their boards of directors." This last law does not prohibit the first way of collecting the premiums, and therefore, the power conferred by the Corporation Law on such societies of deducting them totally from the amount of the loan, subsists. The only thing in Act No. 3291 that may affect said first way of collecting the premiums is that referring to the rate of the latter, which, according to the last law, must not exceed two per centum per annum.

The phrase "computado por anualidades" or its translation "computed in annual payments" does not mean that premiums cannot be collected for more than one year. It will be noted that the law does not say "collected" or "paid," but "computed." What such expression means is that "computed in annual payments from the date when the loan was made until the day when the obligation is totally extinguished," the rate per cent collected as premium, "shall in no case exceed two per centum per annum." Moreover, said phrase ’’computado por anualidades" ("Computed in annual payments") has not, and cannot have the effect of prohibiting or abrogating the first way referred to of collecting the premium authorized by the Corporation Law, and is not alluded to either directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication in any part of section 1 of Act No. 3291, except with respect to the limit of the amount of the premium.

Consequently, so long as the premium keeps within these specified bounds, the law still sanctions its total deduction from the loan unless the same is prohibited by the by-laws of the society.

The rate of the premiums in question does not exceed 2 per centum per annum (it is 1 1/2 per centum per annum), and the by-laws of the defendant society permit its total deduction from the loan, according to the stipulation of facts submitted by the parties. Therefore, the defendant acted with the authority conferred on it by the law and its by-laws in deducting the P900 from the loan granted to plaintiff.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1928 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 28328 October 2, 1928 - BEATRICE BABCOCK TEMPLETON v. WILLIAM RIDER BABCOCK

    052 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 29010 October 2, 1928 - CITY OF MANILA v. ASUNCION MITCHEL

    052 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 29044 October 2, 1928 - GEORGE R. SAUL v. MAGDALENA HICETA

    052 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 29075 October 2, 1928 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. ALFRED BERWIN & COMPANY

    052 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 29184 October 3, 1928 - AQUILINO F. PANDO v. CARMEN KETTE

    052 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 28613 October 5, 1928 - ORIA HERMANOS Y COMPAÑIA EN LIQUIDACION v. GUTIERREZ HERMANOS

    052 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. 28721 October 5, 1928 - MARTIN MENDOZA, ET AL. v. MANUEL DE GUZMAN

    052 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 28792 October 6, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORO RUBIA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 28896 October 10, 1928 - JOSE ATIENZA v. DOMINGA MANALOTO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 28595 October 11, 1928 - TANG AH CHAN, ET AL. v. EDUARDO B. GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    052 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 28863 October 11, 1928 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF BATANGAS

    052 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. 29120 October 11, 1928 - MIGUEL PEREZ v. JUAN BARCIA

    052 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. 28864 October 13, 1928 - PAUL KRAPFENBAUER v. JUAN L. ORBETA

    052 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 28985 October 18, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACARIO SERA JOSEP

    052 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 30270 October 19, 1928 - ANACLETA CORTES v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAPIZ, ET AL.

    052 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. 29197 October 20, 1928 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GO CHONG BING, ET AL.

    052 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 29268 October 20, 1928 - TIBURCIO LUTERO, ET AL. v. ROSARIO ESLER

    052 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. 28394 October 22, 1928 - ENGRACIO L. VALMONTE v. PEDRO VILLAROMAN

    052 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 29166 October 22, 1928 - AUGUSTO LOPEZ v. JUAN DURUELO

    052 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. 29179 October 22, 1928 - JORGE YAMBAO, ET AL. v. PO HUAT SUY, ET AL.

    052 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 29295 October 22, 1928 - J. M. PO PAUCO v. DOLORES SIGUENZA ET AL.

    052 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 27694 October 24, 1928 - ZAMBOANGA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC.

    052 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. 28847 October 24, 1928 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDORO ABAJA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 29009 October 24, 1928 - ESTANISLAO NICOLAS v. REMIGIO NICOLAS

    052 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. 29027 October 25, 1928 - SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA v. FLORENCIO GONZALEZ DIEZ

    052 Phil 271

  • G.R. Nos. 29048-29 October 25, 1928 - PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY v. F. M. YAP TICO & CO., LTD., ET AL.

    052 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. 29564 October 25, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL SASOTA

    052 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 30364 October 26, 1928 - JOSE MORENTE v. E. V. FILAMOR

    052 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 29077 October 27, 1928 - JUAN DE ROTAECHE v. "LA URBANA

    052 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. 29416 October 27, 1928 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GREGORIO NIEVA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 28609 October 31, 1928 - FLORENCIO GONZALEZ DIEZ v. ROMARICO AGCAOILE

    052 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 29481 October 31, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAMBAYA BAYAMBAO

    052 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 30188 October 2, 1928 - FELIPE TAYKO v. NICOLAS CAPISTRANO

    053 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. 29278 October 3, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YU CHAI HO

    053 Phil 874

  • G.R. No. 28457 October 15, 1928 - COMPANY "BIGHANI v. PABLO PABLO

    053 Phil 886

  • G.R. No. 28920 October 24, 1928 - MAXIMO GUIDOTE v. ROMANA BORJA

    053 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. 29182 October 24, 1928 - LEONCIA VIUDA DE CHAN DIACO v. JOSE S. Y. PENG

    053 Phil 906

  • G.R. No. 27939 October 30, 1928 - FORTUNATA SOLIS v. MAXIMA BARROSO ET AL.

    053 Phil 912