Third, for a few (3) times this new petitioner available to accept his mortgage obligation that have respondent CCP

This new demo legal gave four (5) grounds within the governing in support of respondent CCP. Second, while, arguendo, the petitioner didn’t directly take advantage of the told you mortgage, he must have filed a third party issue against Wilson Lucmen, the fresh alleged covered team but he failed to. 4th, petitioner will most likely not stop his accountability to invest their duty significantly less than brand new promissory note (Exh. “A”) he have to adhere to in good-faith pursuant to help you Blog post 1159 of your The new Civil Password. Fifth, petitioner try estopped regarding doubting his responsibility otherwise mortgage duty to the private respondent.

New petitioner appealed the selection of demo judge towards Court away from Appeals insofar because it billed attract, surcharges, attorney’s charge and you may exemplary problems resistant to the petitioner. He quit their so-called defense regarding the trial judge he merely accommodated his pal, Wilson Lucmen, for the having the financing, and you can alternatively accepted new authenticity of the identical. To your August 31, 1993, this new appellate legal made a decision, this new dispositive portion of which checks out:

The audience is struggling to undertake appellant’s (petitioner’s) claim to own amendment based on so-called limited or irregular performance, there being nothing. Appellant’s bring or delicate regarding commission can not be considered since the a great partial otherwise abnormal results of your own package, not an individual centavo appears to have been paid off because of the accused.

Although not, this new appellate court modified the choice of one’s trial courtroom by deleting new prize for excellent damages and you may reducing the amount of awarded attorney’s fees to five per cent (5%), by ratiocinating the following:

Basic, they gave nothing weight to the petitioner’s assertion your mortgage try merely into rental from Wilson Lucmen to your reasoning your defense propounded was not credible in itself

Because of the affairs of one’s instance, Mississippi title loans as well as the fact that plaintiff are portrayed of the a government attorneys, We feel the latest award of 25% as the attorney’s fees and you can P500, given that excellent injuries may be out of proportion to the actual wreck because of the new non-abilities of package and that is excessively, unconscionable and iniquitous.

From inside the a resolution dated July 13, 1994, the brand new appellate courtroom declined the latest petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of one’s said choice.

In the notice, the fresh petitioner wanted the fresh new reduced amount of the latest punishment and you may costs on his financing duty

The fresh new Honorable Legal Regarding Appeals The full time An error From inside the Offering The IMPRIMATUR To the Choice Of one’s Demo Legal And that Combined Interest To the SURCHARGES.

Rather, new petitioner doesn’t concern his accountability having their restructured mortgage underneath the promissory mention designated Exhibit “A”. The initial question as solved in case from the bar is whether there are contractual and you will legal angles on imposition of penalty, focus with the penalty and you will attorney’s charge.

The new petitioner imputes error for the new appellate legal when you look at the perhaps not totally removing brand new prize from attorney’s costs and in not decreasing the charges because petitioner, contrary to the appellate court’s results, has presumably made partial money towards the loan. And in case penalty will be granted, the petitioner is actually asking for brand new non-imposition interesting for the surcharges inasmuch since the compounding regarding attract into the surcharges isn’t given about promissory mention marked Exhibit “A”. The petitioner takes different towards the calculation of your private respondent in which the attention, surcharge and also the prominent was indeed extra together with her which with the complete share notice are imposed. Petitioner and additionally says that there surely is no basis in-law having the battery charging of great interest into surcharges simply because the fresh Civil Password was without having people provision making it possible for the imposition interesting with the surcharges.