Case Digest: Ledda vs. BPI
G.R. No. 200868 : November 21, 2012
ANITA A. LEDDA, Petitioner, v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Respondent.
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
As one of BPIs valued clients, Anita Ledda (Ledda) was issued a pre-approved BPI credit card. Thereafter, Ledda used the credit card for various purchases of goods and services and cash advances. Ledda defaulted in the payment of her credit card obligation. Consequently, BPI sent her demand letters but to no avail. Thus, BPI filed an action for collection of sum of money against Ledda. The RTC gave due course to BPIs complaint and ordered Ledda to pay her obligation.
On appeal to the CA, Ledda argued that the document containing the Terms and Conditions governing the use of the BPI credit card is an actionable document contemplated in Sec.7, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the document should have been set forth in and attached in BPIs complaint. Ledda also averred that since there was no written agreement to pay a higher interest, the interest rate to be imposed is only 6% pursuant to Article 2209 of the Civil Code. The CA rejected Leddas arguments.
ISSUES:
I. Whether or not the document containing the Terms and Conditions governing the use of credit card is an actionable document?
II. Whether or not the imposable interest rate is 6%?
HELD: The petition is partially meritorious.
FIRST ISSUE: The document containing the Terms and Conditions governing the use of the BPI credit card is not an actionable document.
REMEDIAL LAW: actionable document
BPIs cause of action is primarily based on Leddas (1) acceptance of the BPI credit card, (2) usage of the BPI credit card to purchase goods, avail services and secure cash advances, and (3) non-payment of the amount due for such credit card transactions, despite demands. In other words, BPIs cause of action is not based only on the document containing the Terms and Conditions accompanying the issuance of the BPI credit card in favor of Ledda. Therefore, the document containing the Terms and Conditions governing the use of the BPI credit card is not an actionable document contemplated in Section 7, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.As such, it is not required by the Rules to be set forth in and attached to the complaint.
SECOND ISSUE: The imposable interest is 12% per annum.
CIVIL LAW: interest; forbearance of money
Since there is no dispute that Ledda received, accepted and used the BPI credit card issued to her and that she defaulted in the payment of the total amount arising from the use of such credit card,Ledda is liable to pay BPI P322,138.58 representing the principal amount of her unpaid credit card obligation. Ledda must also pay interest on the total unpaid credit card amount at the rate of 12% per annum since her credit card obligation consists of a loan or forbearance of money. We reject Leddas contention that, since there was no written agreement to pay a higher interest rate, the interest rate should only be 6%. Ledda erroneously invokes Article 2209 of the Civil Code. Article 2209 refers to indemnity for damages and not interest on loan or forbearance of money, which is the case here.
In accordance with Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., the 12% legal interest shall be reckoned from the date BPI extrajudicially demands from Ledda the payment of her overdue credit card obligation.
Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
ANITA A. LEDDA, Petitioner, v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Respondent.
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
As one of BPIs valued clients, Anita Ledda (Ledda) was issued a pre-approved BPI credit card. Thereafter, Ledda used the credit card for various purchases of goods and services and cash advances. Ledda defaulted in the payment of her credit card obligation. Consequently, BPI sent her demand letters but to no avail. Thus, BPI filed an action for collection of sum of money against Ledda. The RTC gave due course to BPIs complaint and ordered Ledda to pay her obligation.
On appeal to the CA, Ledda argued that the document containing the Terms and Conditions governing the use of the BPI credit card is an actionable document contemplated in Sec.7, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. Hence, the document should have been set forth in and attached in BPIs complaint. Ledda also averred that since there was no written agreement to pay a higher interest, the interest rate to be imposed is only 6% pursuant to Article 2209 of the Civil Code. The CA rejected Leddas arguments.
ISSUES:
I. Whether or not the document containing the Terms and Conditions governing the use of credit card is an actionable document?
II. Whether or not the imposable interest rate is 6%?
HELD: The petition is partially meritorious.
FIRST ISSUE: The document containing the Terms and Conditions governing the use of the BPI credit card is not an actionable document.
REMEDIAL LAW: actionable document
BPIs cause of action is primarily based on Leddas (1) acceptance of the BPI credit card, (2) usage of the BPI credit card to purchase goods, avail services and secure cash advances, and (3) non-payment of the amount due for such credit card transactions, despite demands. In other words, BPIs cause of action is not based only on the document containing the Terms and Conditions accompanying the issuance of the BPI credit card in favor of Ledda. Therefore, the document containing the Terms and Conditions governing the use of the BPI credit card is not an actionable document contemplated in Section 7, Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.As such, it is not required by the Rules to be set forth in and attached to the complaint.
SECOND ISSUE: The imposable interest is 12% per annum.
CIVIL LAW: interest; forbearance of money
Since there is no dispute that Ledda received, accepted and used the BPI credit card issued to her and that she defaulted in the payment of the total amount arising from the use of such credit card,Ledda is liable to pay BPI P322,138.58 representing the principal amount of her unpaid credit card obligation. Ledda must also pay interest on the total unpaid credit card amount at the rate of 12% per annum since her credit card obligation consists of a loan or forbearance of money. We reject Leddas contention that, since there was no written agreement to pay a higher interest rate, the interest rate should only be 6%. Ledda erroneously invokes Article 2209 of the Civil Code. Article 2209 refers to indemnity for damages and not interest on loan or forbearance of money, which is the case here.
In accordance with Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., the 12% legal interest shall be reckoned from the date BPI extrajudicially demands from Ledda the payment of her overdue credit card obligation.
Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
