SCRA 439).

But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circular grants lende
rs carta blanche authority to raise interest rates to level which will either en
slave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda v
s. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while sti
pulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular
No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Suprem
e Court said that nothing in said circular grants lenders carta blanche authorit
y to raise interest rates to level which will either enslave their borrowers or
lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In
Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5%
per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must b
e equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing
in said circular grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest rates
to level which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of
their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 48
1, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is us
urious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for b
eing SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circular grants
lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest rates to level which will eith
er enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Alm
eda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that whil
e stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Cir
cular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the S
upreme Court said that nothing in said circular grants lenders carta blanche aut
hority to raise interest rates to level which will either enslave their borrower
s or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292)
. In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of
5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same m
ust be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that no
thing in said circular grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest
rates to level which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhagi
ng of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SC
RA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan
is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced
for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circular gr
ants lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest rates to level which will
either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citin
g Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that
while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to C
B Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But
the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circular grants lenders carta blanch
e authority to raise interest rates to level which will either enslave their bor
rowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS
292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interes
t of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the s
ame must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said th
at nothing in said circular grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise inte
rest rates to level which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemor
rhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 2
99 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a
loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably red
uced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circul
ar grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest rates to level which
will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (
citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled
that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant
to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439).
But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circular grants lenders carta b
lanche authority to raise interest rates to level which will either enslave thei
r borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256

SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated in
terest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905,
the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court sa
id that nothing in said circular grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise
interest rates to level which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a
hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs.
CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month
on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitabl
y reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said c
ircular grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest rates to level
which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their ass
ets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was
ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pur
suant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA
439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circular grants lenders ca
rta blanche authority to raise interest rates to level which will either enslave
their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA
, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulat
ed interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No.
905, the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Cou
rt said that nothing in said circular grants lenders carta blanche authority to
raise interest rates to level which will either enslave their borrowers or lead
to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel
vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per m
onth on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equ
itably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in s
aid circular grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest rates to l
evel which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of thei
r assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it
was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usuriou
s pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for being
SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circular grants lende
rs carta blanche authority to raise interest rates to level which will either en
slave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda v
s. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while sti
pulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular
No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Suprem
e Court said that nothing in said circular grants lenders carta blanche authorit
y to raise interest rates to level which will either enslave their borrowers or
lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In
Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5%
per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must b
e equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing
in said circular grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest rates
to level which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of
their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 48
1, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is us
urious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for b
eing SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circular grants
lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest rates to level which will eith
er enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Alm
eda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that whil
e stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Cir
cular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the S
upreme Court said that nothing in said circular grants lenders carta blanche aut
hority to raise interest rates to level which will either enslave their borrower
s or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292)
. In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of
5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same m
ust be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that no

thing in said circular grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest
rates to level which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhagi
ng of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SC
RA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan
is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced
for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circular gr
ants lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest rates to level which will
either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citin
g Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that
while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to C
B Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But
the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circular grants lenders carta blanch
e authority to raise interest rates to level which will either enslave their bor
rowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS
292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interes
t of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the s
ame must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said th
at nothing in said circular grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise inte
rest rates to level which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemor
rhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 2
99 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a
loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably red
uced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circul
ar grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest rates to level which
will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (
citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled
that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant
to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439).
But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circular grants lenders carta b
lanche authority to raise interest rates to level which will either enslave thei
r borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256
SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated in
terest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905,
the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court sa
id that nothing in said circular grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise
interest rates to level which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a
hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs.
CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month
on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitabl
y reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said c
ircular grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest rates to level
which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their ass
ets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was
ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pur
suant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA
439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circular grants lenders ca
rta blanche authority to raise interest rates to level which will either enslave
their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA
, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulat
ed interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No.
905, the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Cou
rt said that nothing in said circular grants lenders carta blanche authority to
raise interest rates to level which will either enslave their borrowers or lead
to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel
vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per m
onth on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equ
itably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in s
aid circular grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest rates to l
evel which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of thei
r assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it

was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usuriou
s pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for being
SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circular grants lende
rs carta blanche authority to raise interest rates to level which will either en
slave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda v
s. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while sti
pulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular
No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Suprem
e Court said that nothing in said circular grants lenders carta blanche authorit
y to raise interest rates to level which will either enslave their borrowers or
lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In
Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5%
per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must b
e equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing
in said circular grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest rates
to level which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of
their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 48
1, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is us
urious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for b
eing SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circular grants
lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest rates to level which will eith
er enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Alm
eda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that whil
e stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Cir
cular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the S
upreme Court said that nothing in said circular grants lenders carta blanche aut
hority to raise interest rates to level which will either enslave their borrower
s or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292)
. In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of
5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same m
ust be equitably reduced for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that no
thing in said circular grants lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest
rates to level which will either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhagi
ng of their assets (citing Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SC
RA 481, it was ruled that while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan
is usurious pursuant to CB Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced
for being SCRA 439). But the Supreme Court said that nothing in said circular gr
ants lenders carta blanche authority to raise interest rates to level which will
either enslave their borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets (citin
g Almeda vs. CA, 256 SCRS 292). In Medel vs. CA, 299 SCRA 481, it was ruled that
while stipulated interest of 5.5% per month on a loan is usurious pursuant to C
B Circular No. 905, the same must be equitably reduced for being