The brand new trial legal gave five (5) grounds for the governing and only respondent CCP. Next, while, arguendo, your petitioner don’t directly enjoy the told you financing, he need to have filed a 3rd party issue against Wilson Lucmen, brand new alleged covered team however, the guy don’t. Fourth, petitioner might not end his liability to spend his duty lower than the promissory note (Exh. “A”) that he need to adhere to into the good faith pursuant in order to Post 1159 of one’s Brand new Municipal Password. 5th, petitioner is estopped of doubt his liability otherwise mortgage duty so you can the non-public respondent.
Brand new petitioner appealed the decision of demonstration judge on Courtroom out-of Is attractive insofar as it billed interest, surcharges, attorney’s costs and you will exemplary damages against the petitioner. He given up his alleged security about trial court which he merely accommodated their pal, Wilson Lucmen, into the obtaining the financing, and you can alternatively accepted brand new validity of the same. To your August 31, 1993, the new appellate court rendered a choice, the brand new dispositive portion of hence checks out:
We have been not able to take on appellant’s (petitioner’s) allege getting amendment on such basis as alleged partial or abnormal overall performance, indeed there being not one. Appellant’s offer or tender out of commission can not be deemed while the a beneficial limited or unusual show of your own contract, not an individual centavo has been paid back by the accused.
Yet not, brand new appellate legal altered the option of one’s trial judge by removing the fresh new honor to possess excellent stay at website problems and reducing the quantity of granted attorney’s costs to five per cent (5%), by ratiocinating as follows:
Basic, they gave nothing lbs toward petitioner’s assertion that the mortgage was just for the rental off Wilson Lucmen on the cause the shelter propounded was not reliable in itself
Because of the activities of one’s case, while the simple fact that plaintiff is actually illustrated of the a government attorney, We feel the prize away from 25% due to the fact attorney’s charge and you can P500, due to the fact excellent problems is beyond ratio toward real destroy for the reason that brand new low-show of price and that is an excessive amount of, unconscionable and iniquitous.
From inside the a resolution dated July thirteen, 1994, this new appellate courtroom declined this new petitioner’s actions having reconsideration of your said choice.
Inside the notice, the latest petitioner required the newest decrease in brand new penalties and costs into the their mortgage obligations
The brand new Honorable Courtroom Off Is attractive The amount of time An error Into the Providing Their IMPRIMATUR On the Choice Of one’s Demo Courtroom And this Compounded Interest For the SURCHARGES.
Significantly, the brand new petitioner cannot concern his responsibility getting his restructured financing according to the promissory notice noted Showcase “A”. The original concern is resolved in the event in the club is whether or not you can find contractual and you can courtroom bases towards imposition of one’s punishment, notice into punishment and you will attorney’s costs.
The latest petitioner imputes error on the part of the brand new appellate legal during the not totally getting rid of the fresh honor out-of attorney’s costs and in maybe not decreasing the punishment due to the fact petitioner, resistant to the appellate court’s conclusions, have presumably produced partial repayments on the mortgage. And when penalty will be given, the fresh petitioner is actually asking for this new low-imposition interesting into the surcharges inasmuch because compounding out of interest towards the surcharges isn’t given in the promissory notice designated Display “A”. The latest petitioner requires different toward computation of the private respondent which the attention, surcharge while the dominating was basically extra together and this toward total sum appeal was enforced. Petitioner and says that there surely is zero base in-law to own the newest asking interesting to your surcharges it is because the new Municipal Password was with out people supply making it possible for this new imposition of great interest for the surcharges.