I pointed out that the LAW, specifically the in duplum rule states that at the time that a debt is settled, the interested charged may not exceed the amount that was borrowed. The lender can demand P10,500 from the victim for a P1,000 loan but no court will issue a ruling saying they have to pay that amount. The court will only require the victim to pay P2,000.
Recently I got this response:
Frankly, do I care?
Actually I DO care. I DO care that reasonable businesses are treated reasonably, but ONLY if they behave reasonably themselves. Only if they obey the law. Whether you like it or not the in duplum rule is there and it's LAW. It certainly applies to this particular case. If loan sharks can't cope with it then they shouldn't be in the moneylending business.
As Judge J Dow said in a ruling at the High Court in Lobatse in August 2008:
"The in duplum rule serves to aid debtors in financial difficulties by holding that it is unlawful to recover interest equal to or more than the capital sum upon which interest had accrued.So, on reflection, I'm not very sympathetic.
The rule serves an important social function by protecting debtors and providing that any clause in a contract that seeks to deprive a person of the protection afforded to them by the law is unenforceable by reason of its illegality or on the basis that it offends public policy."