Scribd
Upload
54 views1 page

US V Diaz Conde

The case involved Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Lianco who had taken out a loan of 300 pesos from Vicente Diaz Conde with 5% monthly interest in 1915. In 1916, Act No. 2655 (The Usury Law) was passed. In 1921, Diaz Conde was found guilty in a lower court of violating the Usury Law based on interest collected after it passed. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Diaz Conde, finding that since the contract was signed before the law, applying the law retroactively would be unconstitutional. The ruling of the lower court was revoked and the complaint dismissed.

Uploaded by

feliz ecap
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
54 views1 page

US V Diaz Conde

The case involved Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Lianco who had taken out a loan of 300 pesos from Vicente Diaz Conde with 5% monthly interest in 1915. In 1916, Act No. 2655 (The Usury Law) was passed. In 1921, Diaz Conde was found guilty in a lower court of violating the Usury Law based on interest collected after it passed. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Diaz Conde, finding that since the contract was signed before the law, applying the law retroactively would be unconstitutional. The ruling of the lower court was revoked and the complaint dismissed.

Uploaded by

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

The United States v Vicente Diaz Conde

G.R. No. L-18208 // February 14, 1922 // Johnson, J.

Nature of case: Certiorari

Summary: Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Lianco (plaintiff) entered into a contract
with Vicente Diaz Conde and Apolinaria Conde (defendant) concerning a debt of 300
pesos with a 5% interest per month within the first ten day of every month. On May
6, 1921 a complaint was filed against the defendant claiming that they had violated
Act No. 2655 The Usury Law. The defendants were found guilty by the lower court
on the grounds that they collected a usurious rate of interest after the adoption of
the Usury Law.

Facts

1. On December 30, 1915 Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Linaco Entered in to


Contract with Vicente Diaz Conde for a debt of 300 pesos with 5% interest per
month.
2. On February 24, 1916 Act No. 2655 The Usury Law was enacted.
3. On May 6, 1921 a complaint was filed against Vicente Diaz Conde and Apolinaria
Conde for violating the Usury Law, of which they were found guilty of and was
sentenced to pay a fine of 120 pesos and incase of solvency , to suffer subsidiary
imprisonment in accordance with the law

Issue

- Whether or not the defedant violated Act No. 2655 The Usury law. NO

Ruling

- The courts ruled in favour of the defendant thereby revoking the ruling of the lower
court. The court stated that the defendants actions that were complained about did
not constitute a crime since the contract was created before the Usury law came
into effect. This is because Ex post facto laws are prohibited by article 20 and 21 of
the previous penal code that governed the Philippines, and also because the
constitution (Jones Law) prohibits the impairment of obligation of contracts.
Wherefore, it is hereby ordered and decreed that the complaint be dismissed, and
that the defendants be discharged from the custody of the law, with costs de oficio.
So ordered

You might also like