SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225484. September 26, 2016.]
JOSE GO, petitioner, vs. BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 26 September 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225484 — Jose Go vs. Banco de Oro Universal Bank
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolved to DENY the Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 97568 committed any reversible error in affirming with modifications the December 10, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 212 (RTC).
According to Jose Go (Go), Banco de Oro Universal Bank (BDO) has no cause of action against him because the suretyship agreement he and Spouses Lorenzo and Violeta Sison (Sps. Sison) executed to secure the loan of Jaclyn Marketing, Inc. (JMI) was a contract of adhesion and is thus void. He also insists that he was not given the opportunity to examine the suretyship agreement because he signed it in blank.
Go likewise argues that the Complaint against JMI, Sps. Sison and him was premature there being no prior demand to pay made by BDO upon them. He further avers that the interest, penalty charge, and attorney's fees imposed against them are void for being unconscionable and illegal.
Go's arguments are without merit.
First, a contract of adhesion, like herein suretyship agreement, is not per se invalid. It is also not completely prohibited considering that one who adheres to a contract is free to reject the same in its entirety; and if a person enters it, then he or she consents to be bound by its stipulations. 1 As held by the CA, Go freely entered the suretyship agreement and accepted all its terms, including his solidary liability to pay JMI's loan in case the latter failed to settle its obligation on the due date. Hence, this agreement is valid and binding on Go.
Second, as regards the issues on whether Go signed the suretyship agreement without the opportunity to examine it; whether no prior demand to pay was made by BDO; and, whether such demand is even necessary, the Court holds that these matters are factual in nature and are not proper subject of this Petition as only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 Petition. 2
Lastly, the Court affirms the interest rate of 20.5% per annum on the principal amount, which, as the CA stressed, is less than 2% per month and is thus reasonable. The penalty charge of 1% per month is also not excessive, 3 as well as 10% attorney's fees on the sum due to BDO. 4
In view of the foregoing, the CA correctly affirmed with modifications the December 10, 2010 RTC Decision. EADSIa
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to AFFIRM the assailed October 27, 2015 Decision and June 30, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 97568.
SO ORDERED.(Carpio, J., on official leave; Brion, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 2374 dated September 14, 2016)."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Saludo, Jr. vs. Security Bank Corporation, 647 Phil. 569, 579 (2010).
2. Rule 45 — Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court
Section 1. Filing of Petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (1a, 2a)
3. Spouses Mallari vs. Prudential Bank, 710 Phil. 490, 497-500 (2013).
4. See Sinamban vs. China Banking Corp., G.R. No. 193890, March 11, 2015, 752 SCRA 621, 641.