BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SPOUSES BUENA SALMORIN-PINEDA, GUILLERMO P. PINEDA, WARREN S. PINEDA AND WINDELL S. PINEDA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
BUESER, J.:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered declaring defendants Sps. Buena Salmorin-Pineda, Guillermo P. Pineda, Warren S. Pineda and Windell S. Pineda are liable to pay to plaintiff Bank of the Philippine Islands the following: a) P577,105.24 plus interest of 1% per month and penalty of 1% per month from demand on 20 June 2007 until full payment; b) P139,276.31 as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses; and c) cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.”
The Facts
As culled from the records of the trial court –
Bank of the Philippine Islands (“appellee BPI”) filed a complaint for sum of money against Spouses Buena Salmorin-Pineda, Guillermo P. Pineda, Warren S. Pineda and Windell S. Pineda alleging that Buena Salmorin-Pineda (“appellant Buena”) was issued a BPI Credit Card under customer no. 020100 400 1085109 while extension cards were issued to Guillermo Pineda (“appellant Guillermo”), Warren Pineda (“appellant Warren”) and Windell Pineda (“appellant Windell”). By the terms and conditions governing the issuance and use of a BPI Card, appellants Buena, Guillermo, Warren and Windell (collectively “appellants”) undertook to pay all the charges incurred through the use of the cards within a period of twenty (20) calendar days, from their assigned cut-off date, without the necessity of a demand. Cardholders are given the option to pay the amount billed in full, or the minimum payment required in the statement of account. Should the cardholder opt to pay the minimum required only, a finance charge of 3.25% based on the average balance is added to the account. Additionally, in case of the card holder’s failure to pay on the due date indicated in the billing statement , the unpaid balance shall be subject to late payment charge at the rate of 6% for every month, or a fraction of a month’s delay. Appellants used the card issued to them in various establishments and incurred credit charges in the amount of P577,105.24 as reflected in the statement of account dated May 20, 2007. Thereafter, appellants made irregular partial payments. Their last payment was on March 12, 2007 in the amount of P1,000.00. Demand letters were sent to the appellants but to no avail.
Appellants admitted that appellant Buena was issued a credit line under Credit Card No. 020100 400 1085109 and extension cards were granted to appellants Guillermo, Warren and Windell. However, the line did not last long because appellant Buena asked it to be cut. Their obligation to appellee BPI do not exceed P200,00.00 and they have been religiously paying their monthly bills, without delay.
The Trial Court’s Ruling
After due proceedings, the trial court rendered its assailed Decision dated May 22, 2012 finding appellants liable for P577,105.24 representing their unpaid obligation to appellee BPI, the pertinent portion reads –
“From the evidence presented, it is gathered that plaintiff Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI, for brevity) extends credit accommodations to its cardholders for the purchase of goods and other services from accredited establishments and availment of cash advances from authorized branches or Automated Teller Machines (ATM) to be paid later on by the cardholders. Defendants Buena S. Pineda was issued a BPI Credit Card under customer No. 020100 400 1085109 while extension cards were issued to defendants Guillermo, Warren and Windell. xxx Defendants made use of the credit card, and as of 22 April 2007, defendants obligation stood at P577,105.24 including interest and penalty. When they failed to pay, demand letters were sent to defendant Buena S. Pineda. On the other hand, defendants failed to rebut these matters.”
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
Whether the appellants are liable to appellee BPI for the whole obligation.
Whether the excessive interest rate, penalty charges and other surcharge being imposed by appellee BPI is proper.
The use of a bank issued credit card carries with it the responsibility to be prudent in paying your cash advances and purchases. Upon the issuance of the card, the cardholder knows for a fact that its use is governed by terms and conditions, including the imposition of interest and finance charges in the event that the full amount advanced by the bank to the merchant is not paid by the cardholder in full upon arrival of the payment cut-off date. By applying for a credit card and extension cards, appellants agreed to the terms and conditions governing the issuance and use of a BPI credit card. The last sentence of the paragraph, appearing at the lower portion of the delivery receipt,[2] states –
“xxx By signing and using the card when delivered to me or in my behalf, I signify my agreement to the terms and conditions printed at the back of the card carrier accompanying the said card. I accept liability for all charges on the principal card and extension cards.”
Record is clear that appellants’ made use of the BPI credit card and as of April 22, 2007, their obligation stood at P577,105.24.[3] Appellants cannot renege on their obligation by crying that the interest rate, penalty charges and other surcharge being imposed by appellee BPI are excessive. Appellants, very well knew, how much interest rate and finance charge appellee BPI will charge if they fail to pay the amount, shown in the statement, in full on time. They have not protested with regard to the interest rate, finance charge and surcharge to be imposed, before they accepted the cards. There is no question in our mind that appellants have benefited from the use of the card and it is just but fair that they now settle their liabilities. Article 2142 of the Civil Code declares that no one should unjustly enrich and/or benefit himself at the expense of another. Appellants Guillermo, Warren and Windell cannot escape liability by arguing that it is only the principal cardholder, appellant Bueno, who should be held liable because the terms and conditions[4] governing the use of the credit card is explicit, viz –
“2. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CARDHOLDER – The cardholder and his extension(s) and/or surety(ies) shall be jointly and severally liable for all purchases and availments made through the use of the CARD, including all interests, penalties, fees and other charges without the necessity of proof of signed charge slips. The cardholder and his extension(s) and/or surety(ies) shall likewise be liable for any cash advance, made either through authorized Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) or BPI Family Bank (BPIFB) branches, or through any BPI Express Teller, BPI Express Net, Megalink or such other authorized/or to be authorized bank network, Automated Teller Machines (collectively, the “ATMs”) and hereby agrees to accept and pay for all cash advances including the corresponding interests, penalties, fees and other charges without the necessity of proof or ATM withdrawal/transaction record. To avail of cash advance through the ATMs, Cardholder shall first nominate a Personal Identification Number (PIN) and have it encoded on the CARD magnetic stripe by BPI at selected BPI/BPIFB branches. The PIN is strictly confidential and Cardholder agrees not to disclose this to any person. All cash advances shall be made personally by the Cardholder of his extension. The Cardholder further agrees to pay the service fees to be collected by BPI on purchases incurred in select merchant establishments such as, but not limited to supermarkets, drugstores and gas stations.
xxx xxx xxx
12. EXTENSIONS/SUPPLEMENTARY CARDS – Extension CARD(s) may be given to the Cardholder’s spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters or parents-in-law of the Cardholder or other persons who may be approved by BPI on a case to case basis upon payment of the necessary fees thereof and the submission of an application for the purpose. The use of the CARD as well as the extension CARD(s), shall be governed by this Agreement and secured by the Suretyship undertaking hereto. Any reference to the CARD issued to Cardholder hereafter shall also apply to extension CARD(s) and/or their renewals. Should extension CARD(s) be issued to the spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters, or parents-in-law, or brothers-in-law of the Cardholder or to other persons; the Cardholder or to any one of them shall be responsible for all such amounts incurred through the extension CARD(s) unless Cardholder requests in writing that the privileges of such extension Cardholder under this Agreement be terminated, provided all the TOB incurred shall have been fully paid and satisfied, in case of death of the principal cardholder, the Extension/Supplementary cardholder shall be jointly and severally liable to settle the TOB incurred.”[5]
The interest rate, penalty charges and other surcharges had already been reduced by the trial court, to wit-
“Plaintiff BPI having established its cause of action by preponderance of evidence, it is entitled to damages and attorney’s fees. Defendants Buena S. Pineda, Guillermo P. Pineda, Warren S. Pineda and Windell S. Pineda are liable to pay to plaintiff BPI P577,105.24 plus interest of 1% per month and penalty of 1% per month from demand on 20 June 2007 until the amount is fully paid.”
and we agree. Therefore, there is no more reason for appellants to complain that it is excessive.
We find the imposition of attorney’s fees proper since appellee BPI was constrained to litigate in order to protect its interest.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated May 22, 2012, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 132, Makati City is AFFIRMED en toto.
SO ORDERED.
Zalameda[*] (Acting Chairperson) and Sempio Diy,[**] JJ., concur.
[*] Vice Justice De Guia-Salvador per Office Order No. 184-14-ABR dated May 5, 2014.
[**] Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 187-14-ABR dated May 6, 2014.
[1] Rollo, pp.13-18.
[2] Records, p.236.
[3] Statements of Account Id. At 238-278.
[4] Id. at 237.
[5] Rollo, p. 237.