Radiowealth Finance Company vs. Del Rosario, 335 SCRA 288

FACTS: 
1. Spouses  del Rosario (herein respondents), jointly and severally executed, signed and delivered in favor of Radiowealth Finance Company a Promissory Note  for P138,948. 
 
2. Thereafter, respondents defaulted on the monthly installments. Despite repeated demands, they failed to pay their obligations under their Promissory Note.
 
3. Petitioner claims that respondents are liable for the whole amount of their debt and the interest thereon, after they defaulted on the monthly installments.
 
4. Respondents, on the other hand, counter that the installments were not yet due and demandable. Petitioner had allegedly allowed them to apply their promotion services for its financing business as payment of the Promissory Note. This was supposedly evidenced by the blank space left for the date on which the installments should have commenced. 

• In other words, respondents theorize that the action for immediate enforcement of their obligation is premature because its fulfillment is dependent on the sole will of the debtor. Hence, they consider that the proper court should first fix a period for payment, pursuant to Articles 1180 and 1197 of the Civil Code. This contention is untenable.

 
ISSUE: 
1. W/N leaving the date/period blank for the monthly installments cancels out the obligation to pay in obligations with a period
 
2. W/N the obligation has become due and demandable despite the period to pay the obligation left blank
 
RULING: 
1. NO, If this was the intention of the parties, they should have so indicated in the Promissory Note. However, it did not reflect any such intention. 

• On the contrary, the Note expressly stipulated that the debt should be amortized monthly in installments of P11,579 for twelve consecutive months. While the specific date on which each installment would be due was left blank, the Note clearly provided that each installment should be payable each month.
• Furthermore, it also provided for an acceleration clause and a late payment penalty, both of which showed the intention of the parties that the installments should be paid at a definite date. Had they intended that the debtors could pay as and when they could, there would have been no need for these two clauses.

 
2. YES, SC said, onvincingly, petitioner has established not only a cause of action against the respondents, but also a due and demandable obligation. 

• The obligation of the respondents had matured and they clearly defaulted when their checks bounced. Per the acceleration clause, the whole debt became due one month (April 2, 1991) after the date of the Note because the check representing their first installment bounced. 

 WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. 

• The appealed Decision is MODIFIED in that the remand is SET ASIDE  and respondents are ordered TO PAY P138,948, plus 2.5 percent penalty charge per month beginning April 2, 1991 until fully paid,  and 10 percent of the amount due as attorneys fees.