In cases involving pre-approved credit cards, the provider must conclusively prove that the client understood and agreed to the terms and conditions. The Supreme Court has clarified that merely using a pre-approved credit card does not automatically bind the cardholder to the provider’s terms if consent to those specific terms hasn’t been explicitly demonstrated. This means that banks and credit card companies need to ensure customers are fully aware of, and agree to, the fine print before charges and penalties can be enforced.

Unsolicited Cards, Unclear Consent: Who Pays When Terms Aren’t Read?

The case of Spouses Yulo vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) centered on a pre-approved credit card issued to Rainier Yulo, with an extension card for his wife, Juliet. The Yulo spouses used the cards, initially settling their accounts regularly. However, they later defaulted, leading to a ballooning outstanding balance. BPI then filed a collection case when the Yulos failed to respond to demand letters. The Yulos admitted using the cards but contested the total liability and claimed they were not fully informed of the terms and conditions.

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of BPI, reducing the imposed interest and penalties. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision, stating that BPI had successfully proven that the Yulos agreed to be bound by the credit card’s terms. The Court of Appeals (CA) also sided with BPI, noting that the Yulos’ failure to contest the monthly statements implied acceptance of the charges. The Supreme Court, however, took a different view.

The Supreme Court emphasized that with pre-approved credit cards, where the usual application process is waived, the credit card provider has the burden of proving that the recipient explicitly agreed to the terms and conditions. The Court referenced the case of Alcaraz v. Court of Appeals, highlighting that cardholders cannot be bound by terms they didn’t clearly consent to. In this context, consent becomes a critical element for the enforceability of the credit card agreement.

The Court examined the evidence presented by BPI, particularly the Delivery Receipt for the credit card packet. While the receipt confirmed that Rainier’s authorized representative, Jessica Baitan, received the packet, it did not sufficiently prove that Baitan was authorized to agree to the credit card’s terms on Rainier’s behalf. According to the Supreme Court, the elements of agency were not sufficiently established between Rainier and Baitan. Thus, BPI failed to prove that Rainier read and agreed to the terms and conditions, which are required to bind the petitioners to said terms.

The Supreme Court underscored the importance of establishing an agency relationship, citing Rallos v. Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation. According to the Court, agency requires consent from both parties, a juridical act involving a third person, the agent acting as a representative, and the agent acting within their authority. Since BPI failed to substantiate Baitan’s authority to act on Rainier’s behalf, the Court concluded that the Yulos could not be bound by the credit card’s terms.

Despite this, the Court acknowledged that the Yulos used the credit cards and made purchases, creating a contractual relationship. Citing BPI Express Card Corporation v. Armovit, the Court recognized that the terms and conditions in a card membership agreement are generally considered the law between the parties. Rainier also admitted receiving the Statements of Account and did not dispute the transactions prior to his default. However, without proof of consent to the specific terms, the Court held that the Yulos could only be charged legal interest on their outstanding balance.

The Court then turned to calculating the outstanding balance, starting with the July 9, 2008 Statement of Account. After deducting finance charges, penalties, and interests (totaling P9,321.17), the adjusted outstanding balance was set at P220,057.51. The court applied a 12% legal interest per annum from November 11, 2008, until June 30, 2013, and then 6% legal interest per annum from July 1, 2013, until full payment. Additionally, the award of attorney’s fees to BPI was deleted due to a lack of factual or legal justification.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially granted the petition, modifying the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Yulos were directed to pay the adjusted outstanding balance with legal interest. This ruling emphasizes the necessity for credit card providers to prove explicit consent to the terms and conditions, especially in cases involving pre-approved credit cards.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The primary issue was whether Spouses Yulo were bound by the terms and conditions of a pre-approved credit card issued by BPI, especially since they claimed they had not explicitly consented to those terms.
What did the Court rule regarding pre-approved credit cards?	The Supreme Court ruled that for pre-approved credit cards, the credit card provider must prove that the recipient read and consented to the terms and conditions governing the use of the credit card. Without such proof, the cardholder cannot be bound by those terms.
What evidence did BPI present to prove consent?	BPI presented a Delivery Receipt showing that Rainier Yulo’s authorized representative, Jessica Baitan, received the credit card packet. However, the Court found this insufficient to prove Baitan’s authority to agree to the terms on Rainier’s behalf.
What is an agency relationship, and why was it important in this case?	An agency relationship exists when one person (the agent) is authorized to act on behalf of another (the principal). The Court needed proof of an agency relationship to establish that Baitan had the authority to agree to the credit card terms on Rainier Yulo’s behalf.
Were the Yulos completely absolved of their debt?	No, the Yulos were not absolved of their debt. The Court acknowledged that they used the credit cards and incurred charges. However, because BPI failed to prove their consent to the specific terms and conditions, the Court adjusted the outstanding balance and applied legal interest instead of the higher rates stipulated in the credit card agreement.
What charges were removed from the Yulos’ outstanding balance?	The Court deducted finance charges, penalties, and interests amounting to P9,321.17 from the outstanding balance. These charges were based on the unproven terms and conditions of the credit card agreement.
What interest rate was applied to the remaining balance?	The Court applied a 12% legal interest per annum from November 11, 2008, until June 30, 2013, and then a 6% legal interest per annum from July 1, 2013, until the entire obligation is fully paid.
What was the significance of the Alcaraz v. Court of Appeals case?	The Alcaraz v. Court of Appeals case was cited to support the principle that a cardholder cannot be bound by the terms and conditions of a credit card agreement without clear proof of their awareness and consent to those provisions.
Why was the award of attorney’s fees deleted?	The award of attorney’s fees was deleted because the Metropolitan Trial Court failed to state the factual or legal justification for awarding them to BPI.

This case underscores the importance of obtaining explicit consent from recipients of pre-approved credit cards regarding the terms and conditions of use. Banks and credit card companies must ensure that customers are fully aware of the fine print before enforcing charges and penalties. This ruling serves as a reminder that simply issuing and using a credit card does not automatically bind the cardholder to the provider’s terms if consent to those specific terms hasn’t been explicitly demonstrated.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Spouses Rainier Jose M. Yulo and Juliet L. Yulo vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 217044, January 16, 2019