FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228530. January 21, 2019.]
MONDRAGON INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC. AND JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ, petitioners,vs. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 21, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 228530 (Mondragon International Philippines, Inc. and Jose Antonio U. Gonzalez vs. Union Bank of the Philippines)
After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure of petitioners Mondragon International Philippines, Inc. and Jose Antonio U. Gonzalez to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed reversible error in denying the petition.
Nonetheless, the Court observed that respondent Union Bank of the Philippines did not appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) respecting the amount of the principal obligation on the short term promissory notes in the amount of One Hundred Sixteen Million (P116,000,000.00).
Settled is the rule that an issue not properly raised on appeal constitutes a waiver of that issue on appeal, which precludes the Court from acquiring jurisdiction to review and alter judgment. 1 An appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the decision of the court below. 2
Bearing this in mind, the CA erred in unilaterally correcting the amount of the principal obligation on the short term promissory notes since the record of the case showed that respondent did not appeal the February 28, 2014 Decision of the RTC. Hence, the amount of One Hundred Sixteen Million (P116,000,000.00), as stated in the RTC decision must be upheld.
In addition, there is a need to modify the rate of penalty charge to be imposed. The stipulated two percent (2%) per month penalty charge is separate and distinct from the monetary interest on the principal amount of the loan. The stipulated penalty charge of two percent (2%) per month or twenty-four percent (24%) per annum, in addition to the regular interests, is indeed iniquitous and unconscionable. Thus, under the circumstances, the Court finds it equitable to reduce the interest rate stipulated by the parties at two percent (2%) per month to one percent (1%) monthly or a total of twelve percent (12%) per annum in accordance with Article 1229 of the Civil Code which provides that:
Art. 1229. The judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable.
Considering that petitioners are liable under the principal obligation on the promissory notes for the two percent (2%) penalty charge per month on the total amount due for almost twenty (20) years since their default in 1999, the Court finds it fair and equitable to reduce the penalty charge to a straight twelve percent (12%) per annum on the total amount due starting November 23, 1999.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated August 3, 2016 and Resolution dated November 29, 2016 in CA-G.R. CV No. 103671 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the principal obligation on the short term promissory notes is One Hundred Sixteen Million (P116,000,000.00) and that the penalty charge of two percent (2%) per month on the total amount due is hereby reduced to a straight twelve percent (12%) per annum starting from November 23, 1999.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Catherine Hiponia-Mayuga v. MBTC, et al., 761 Phil. 521, 530 (2015).
2.Javines v. XLibris, G.R. No. 214301, June 7, 2017, 826 SCRA 640, 647.