0% found this document useful (0 votes)
18 views1 page

Gobonseng Vs Unicard

The case involved a dispute over penalties charged by a credit card company to a customer who defaulted on payments. The court had to determine if penalties of 5% per month in addition to interest violated the Civil Code provision on contractual penalties. The court ultimately found that since the contract stipulated penalties in addition to interest, this was allowed unless the amounts were found to be unconscionable.

Uploaded by

Mirella
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
18 views1 page

Gobonseng Vs Unicard

The case involved a dispute over penalties charged by a credit card company to a customer who defaulted on payments. The court had to determine if penalties of 5% per month in addition to interest violated the Civil Code provision on contractual penalties. The court ultimately found that since the contract stipulated penalties in addition to interest, this was allowed unless the amounts were found to be unconscionable.

Uploaded by

Mirella
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Gobonseng vs.

Unibancard Corporation
G. R. No. 160026/ 539 SCRA 561
December 10, 2007

Facts:
Gobonseng applied with Unibancard for the issuance of a credit card with a
credit limit of P10,000 per month. In case of default, the following are required to
be paid: 3% interest per month; penalties at 5% of the amount due for every month
and 25% of the amount due as attorneys fees.
Gobonsengs purchases accumulated to P179,638.74. He defaulted in his
monthly payments and was required to pay the principal amount and interest,
penalties and attorneys fees based on the aforementioned terms.

Issue:
Whether or not the penalty of 5% per month violates Article 1226 of the Civil
Code, which states that in obligations with a penal clause, the penalty shall
substitute the indemnity for damages and the payment of interest in case of
noncompliance.

Held:
Article 1226 of the Civil Code states that in obligations with a penal clause,
the penalty shall substitute the indemnity for damages and the payment of interests
in case of noncompliance, if there is no stipulation to the contrary. In this case,
there is a stipulation for the payment of penalties apart from the payment of
interest.
Thus, unless the stipulated amounts are unconscionable, the court will
sustain the amounts agreed upon by the parties because obligations arising from
contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be
complied with in good faith.

You might also like