Excessive Interest Charges and Loan Restructuring Denial

Below is a broad overview and discussion of excessive interest charges and loan restructuring denial under Philippine law. While this article provides general information, please consult a qualified attorney for legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.

I. Introduction

In the Philippines, most credit and loan arrangements are primarily governed by the Civil Code, the Revised Penal Code (for criminal aspects, such as estafa), and special laws or regulations issued by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). One common issue encountered by borrowers is the imposition of excessive or unconscionable interest on a loan. This may happen in bank loans, credit card accounts, pawnshops, informal financing, or private lending.

When borrowers experience financial distress and seek to renegotiate payment terms, loan restructuring becomes an option. However, some creditors (both institutional and private) refuse loan restructuring requests. The question then arises whether creditors may deny such requests without legal liability, and what remedies are available to debtors faced with excessive interest charges and the denial of loan restructuring.

II. Legal Basis and Background on Interest Rates

A. The Usury Law (Act No. 2655) and BSP Circulars

  1. Historical Context

    • The Usury Law (Act No. 2655) originally imposed ceilings on interest rates. However, through various Central Bank (now BSP) Circulars—particularly Central Bank Circular No. 905 (Series of 1982)—the government effectively suspended the imposition of statutory interest ceilings.
    • As a result, parties to a loan agreement became largely free to stipulate whatever interest rates they wished, subject to the overarching requirement that such interest rates must not be “excessive, iniquitous, unconscionable or exorbitant.”

  2. Current Legal Landscape

    • Although usury is technically no longer in effect (given that interest rate ceilings have been lifted), courts in the Philippines can and do interfere when contractual interest rates are found to be excessive.
    • The power of the courts stems from equity considerations, the Civil Code (particularly Articles 1229 and 1306), and established jurisprudence.

B. Supreme Court Jurisprudence on Excessive Interest

  1. Medel v. Court of Appeals (299 SCRA 481 [1998])

    • The Court ruled that a stipulated interest rate may be void for being unconscionable.
    • In this case, the Court reduced the interest rate from 5.5% per month (66% per annum) to 12% per annum, in line with equitable considerations.

  2. Imperial v. Jaucian (G.R. No. 185132, October 2, 2009)

    • The Supreme Court reiterated that while parties are generally free to stipulate interest rates, courts may reduce the same if they are found to be unconscionable or iniquitous.

  3. Other Cases

    • Many subsequent rulings, such as Spouses Bacolor v. Banco Filipino and Chua v. Timan, confirm that courts possess the authority to reduce interest to a reasonable rate—even if the parties voluntarily agreed to a higher rate—when equity and fairness so require.

C. Legal Principles Governing Interest Reduction

  • Article 1229 of the Civil Code empowers the courts to reduce a penalty (or interest that is effectively a penalty) “if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.”
  • Article 1306 of the Civil Code provides that the stipulations in contracts must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
  • These provisions have led to the well-settled rule that while parties have freedom of contract, courts retain the power to intervene when an interest rate is excessive and oppressive.

III. What Constitutes Excessive Interest?

A. General Considerations

  • There is no fixed statutory threshold that automatically deems an interest rate to be excessive, because the old Usury Law ceilings are effectively suspended.
  • The determination of what is excessive is case-by-case. Factors include:
    1. The nature of the loan (consumer loan, business loan, short-term vs. long-term).
    2. The borrower’s circumstances (e.g., if the borrower is vulnerable, unsophisticated, or in dire financial need).
    3. Prevailing market rates at the time of contracting.
    4. Whether the interest rate leads to unjust enrichment.

B. Indicators of Unconscionability

  • Annual interest rates exceeding 36% have often been challenged in courts, but the Supreme Court has not provided a uniform cap.
  • Monthly interest rates of 5%, 6%, or higher (which translates to 60% to 72% annually) are frequently struck down as excessively high, though each situation is evaluated on its merits.

IV. Loan Restructuring: Definition and Legal Status

A. What is Loan Restructuring?

  • Loan restructuring refers to modifying or extending the payment schedule, lowering the interest rate, or otherwise altering the terms of an existing loan to accommodate the borrower’s new financial reality.
  • It is typically done through a restructuring agreement or amendment to the original loan contract.

B. Is Loan Restructuring a Right or Privilege?

  • Under Philippine law, there is no absolute right granted by statute compelling a creditor to restructure a loan.
  • Rather, restructuring is generally seen as a privilege or contractual concession that banks or lenders extend to borrowers to mitigate the risk of default or to help the borrower recover financially.

C. Regulatory Guidance

  • The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, through its manuals and circulars, does encourage financial institutions to work with distressed borrowers in good faith. However, it does not impose a mandatory duty to restructure every delinquent loan.
  • BSP Circulars, such as Circular 855 (2014) on “Enhanced Framework on Managing Related Party Transactions,” highlight prudent lending practices but do not force loan restructuring.

D. Common Reasons for Denial

  • A lender might deny restructuring if it believes the borrower’s repayment capacity remains too precarious, or if the credit risk is too high.
  • Some lenders opt to pursue legal remedies (like filing a collection suit or foreclosing on collateral) rather than agree to potentially risky restructuring.

V. Remedies for Borrowers

A. Challenging Excessive Interest

  1. Legal Action (Civil Case)

    • A borrower can file a lawsuit for the declaration of nullity of the excessive interest.
    • Courts can order a reduction of the interest rate if they find it to be unconscionable or iniquitous.

  2. Defense in a Collection Suit

    • If the lender sues for collection, the borrower can raise the defense that the stipulated interest is unconscionable.
    • The court may reduce the interest rate, and the borrower will be liable only for the principal plus a judicially-imposed or revised interest rate.

  3. Reformation of the Contract

    • Under the Civil Code, if there is proof that the true intention of the parties does not match the literal stipulation on interest, the contract may be reformed or revised to reflect the real intention.

B. Attempting Negotiated Restructuring

  • Even if the lender denies an initial restructuring request, the borrower can continue to negotiate or propose feasible repayment plans.
  • It may be useful to present credible proof of ability to pay under revised terms, such as new streams of income or partial lump-sum payments.

C. Extra-Judicial Remedies

  • If collateral was given (e.g., real property mortgage), a borrower facing foreclosure can:
    1. Seek to cure the default by paying arrears prior to foreclosure.
    2. Request a grace period under special laws (e.g., if the property is a family home under certain conditions, or if certain pandemic-related moratoriums apply).

D. Claims under Consumer Protection Laws

  • If the borrower is a consumer (e.g., credit card user, personal loan) and the lender is a financial institution regulated by the BSP, the borrower can file a complaint with the BSP’s consumer assistance mechanisms.
  • The BSP can attempt conciliation, although it generally does not adjudicate private disputes.

VI. Practical Tips and Best Practices

  1. Document Everything

    • If you are a borrower, keep written records of all communication with your lender regarding interest rates and restructuring proposals.

  2. Check Interest Stipulations

    • Make sure you understand how your interest is calculated (simple vs. compounded) and whether there are additional penalty charges, default interest, or surcharges.

  3. Seek Legal Advice Early

    • Before signing any restructuring agreement or if you suspect the interest rate is unconscionable, consult an attorney. You can also approach government agencies like the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) or Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) chapters for assistance.

  4. Negotiate in Good Faith

    • Demonstrate to the lender that you are genuinely trying to pay and can honor the restructured terms if approved.

  5. Explore Mediation or Arbitration

    • If the lender is amenable, you can consider mediation or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods to avoid prolonged litigation.

  6. Stay Informed of Legislative and Regulatory Updates

    • Remain aware of any new BSP circulars or legislative changes that might offer relief or impose new limits on interest or restructuring practices.

VII. Conclusion

Excessive interest charges and denial of loan restructuring are key issues affecting both creditors and debtors in the Philippines. While current regulations grant parties wide latitude in setting interest rates, courts consistently intervene to strike down stipulations that are found to be unconscionable. Borrowers who are victims of excessive interest have strong legal grounds to seek judicial relief, including the possible reduction of the interest rate.

When it comes to loan restructuring, the law generally does not compel creditors to grant a restructuring request; however, good faith negotiations, backed by credible evidence of repayment capacity, can often lead to an amicable modification of loan terms. Should a lender refuse, the borrower’s recourses include negotiation, mediation, or raising the issue of unconscionability (if applicable) in court proceedings. Ultimately, the resolution of disputes relating to high interest rates or restructuring denials often relies on equitable principles, judicial discretion, and open communication between creditor and debtor.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For questions about specific situations, please consult a qualified Philippine lawyer or contact the appropriate government agency.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login