G.R. NO. 169551 - SPOUSES ORLANDO M. LAMBINO AND CARMELITA C. LAMBINO, VS. HON. PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 172, VALENZUELA CITY, AND BPI FAMILY BANK.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the imposition of escalating and arbitrary rate of interest as well as the unilateral manipulations of interest rate, penalties and other charges be declared null and void/annulled/rescinded and rendered without force and effect, and that plaintiffs be extended other legal and equitable reliefs. [10] On August 11, 2000, the trial court issued an Order [11] denying the motion of petitioners in its finding that the alleged escalating and arbitrary rate of interest and other charges imposed by private respondent had accrued long before the complaint was filed. It held that under Section 6, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court, only transactions, occurrences, or events which accrued after the date of the complaint may be set forth in the supplemental complaint. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order, alleging therein that the escalating, arbitrary rate of interest, and other charges referred to under paragraphs III, IV and V of their supplemental complaint took place after the filing of their complaint. They insist that it was discovered for the first time only after they had been furnished with the statements of account by defendant during pretrial. However, on January 2, 2001, the court issued an Order [12] denying the motion of petitioners. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the CA seeking to nullify the Orders of the RTC. They alleged that the RTC committed grave abuse of its discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing the Orders. Petitioners reiterated that they came to know of the escalating and arbitrary charges, liquidated damages, and attorneys fees only when they received the statements of account dated June 5, 1996, November 15, 1996, and August 15, 1998, after the filing of their original complaint; hence, they could not have been alleged as an integral part of their causes of action in their original complaint. On March 7, 2005, the CA rendered judgment dismissing the petition. [13] According to the appellate court: It is a normal practice for banks to provide stipulations with respect to interest rates, penalties, damages, attorneys fees and other charges in the loan documents. After the release of the loan, interest starts to run until the obligation is fully paid. When a party defaults in the payment of his obligations, late payment charges or penalties are imposed as stipulated. In case of litigation, provisions for attorneys fees are provided for as well as payment of damages. The imposition of interests and other charges, therefore, on the loan obligations are but mere consequences of the execution of the mortgage loan agreement. They cannot be considered supervening events because after the loans have been incurred, interests and/or other charges start to accrue until the full payment of the account. Whether or not these interests and/or charges are arbitrary or in violation of the terms and conditions of their agreement is