Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    Spouses Lambino Versus Hon

    Uploaded by

    JessaMangadlao
    Spouses Lambino filed a complaint in 1995 seeking to annul a mortgage loan agreement and foreclosure sale by BPI. In 1998, attempts to settle the matter failed and the trial continued. In 2000, Spouses Lambino filed a supplemental complaint contending the interest rate and charges were arbitrary and void. The presiding judge denied the supplemental pleading, saying the interest and charges accrued before the original complaint. Spouses Lambino argued they only learned of the charges in 1996, but the ruling found the judge properly denied the pleading as the rules only allow events after the original complaint and Spouses Lambino were aware of the interest and charges from notices in 1994.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Spouses Lambino Versus Hon

    Uploaded by

    JessaMangadlao
    41 views1 page
    Spouses Lambino filed a complaint in 1995 seeking to annul a mortgage loan agreement and foreclosure sale by BPI. In 1998, attempts to settle the matter failed and the trial continued. In 2000, Spouses Lambino filed a supplemental complaint contending the interest rate and charges were arbitrary and void. The presiding judge denied the supplemental pleading, saying the interest and charges accrued before the original complaint. Spouses Lambino argued they only learned of the charges in 1996, but the ruling found the judge properly denied the pleading as the rules only allow events after the original complaint and Spouses Lambino were aware of the interest and charges from notices in 1994.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Spouses Lambino filed a complaint in 1995 seeking to annul a mortgage loan agreement and foreclosure sale by BPI. In 1998, attempts to settle the matter failed and the trial continued. In 2000, Spouses Lambino filed a supplemental complaint contending the interest rate and charges were arbitrary and void. The presiding judge denied the supplemental pleading, saying the interest and charges accrued before the original complaint. Spouses Lambino argued they only learned of the charges in 1996, but the ruling found the judge properly denied the pleading as the rules only allow events after the original complaint and Spouses Lambino were aware of the interest and charges from notices in 1994.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    41 views1 page

    Spouses Lambino Versus Hon

    Uploaded by

    JessaMangadlao
    Spouses Lambino filed a complaint in 1995 seeking to annul a mortgage loan agreement and foreclosure sale by BPI. In 1998, attempts to settle the matter failed and the trial continued. In 2000, Spouses Lambino filed a supplemental complaint contending the interest rate and charges were arbitrary and void. The presiding judge denied the supplemental pleading, saying the interest and charges accrued before the original complaint. Spouses Lambino argued they only learned of the charges in 1996, but the ruling found the judge properly denied the pleading as the rules only allow events after the original complaint and Spouses Lambino were aware of the interest and charges from notices in 1994.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SPOUSES LAMBINO versus HON.

    PRESIDING JUDGE
    In 1995, Spouses Lambino filed a complaint for the annulment of a Mortgage Loan
    Agreement and the extrajudicial foreclosure sale against BPI. In the meantime, the
    court suspended pretrial to enable the parties to settle the matter amicably. In
    1998, Spouses Lambino and BPI failed to come to a compromise and thus the trial
    continued. On 2000, Spouses Lambino filed a Motion to Admit their Supplemental
    Complaint where they contended the arbitrary rate of interest and the unilateral
    increase in the charges were null and void.
    The Presiding Judge of the RTC of Valenzuela City denied the supplemental pleading
    saying that the interest and charges incurred by Spouses Lambino accrued long
    before the complaint was filed.
    Spouses Lambino contend that their supplemental pleading should have been
    allowed given that they came to know only of the charges in 1996, which was about
    a year after they filed a complaint. They contend that they would suffer grave and
    irreparable damage if the court does not allow them to question the interest rates
    and the unlawful charges.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the supplemental pleading should have been
    allowed.
    RULING:
    No. It was proper for the Presiding Judge of the RTC to deny the supplemental
    pleading. Section 6, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court says than only
    transactions, occurrences or events which accrued after the date of the complaint
    may be set forth in a supplemental complaint.
    Before they filed the original complaint, Spouses Lambino were already aware of the
    deductions made from the proceeds of their loan for interest and other charges.
    First, they were sent notice as early as 1994. Second, it is a normal and expected
    practice for banks to impose interest and charges as a mere consequence to a
    mortgage agreement. Hence, Spouses Lambino cannot feign ignorance about the
    interest and thus these charges cannot be considered as a supervening event
    contemplated under Section 6, Rule 10.
    What Spouses Lambino should have done is to seek to nullify such charges in the
    original complaint, but they did not. They only raised the issue only two years after
    the failure of the parties to settle the case amicably. And since Section 6, Rule 10
    also grants the court the discretion to admit nor not admit a supplemental pleading,
    the Presiding Judge of the RTC of Valenzuela City rightfully exercised his right to
    deny the supplemental pleading on the ground that, in this case, it is found to be
    dilatory.

    You might also like