April 29, 2017

Ms. Maria Clara

22 Fatima Street Barangay Plainview, Mandaluyong City

Re: Dishonoured post-dated cheques by Banco De Oro

Dear Ms. Clara,

The main subject is the dishonoured post-dated cheques which was deposited in
Banco De Oro (BDO) by Mr. Juan dela Cruz, which were dated as January 10 to Feb 10,
2015. The said cheques were stamped by BDO as Drawn Against Insufficient Funds
(DAIF).

The contract with Mr. dela Cruz was entered on April 5, 2014. It was a lease
contract to use a commercial property in Mandaluyong City. Under the said contract of
lease, both parties agreed upon the issuance of twelve (12) post-dated cheques. The
parties have agreed that there shall be an issuance of such post-dated cheques on the 10th
day of each month. Such cheques have a face value of two hundred thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00), which is drawn against your respective account, numbered 2345677-
2345688. The terms of payment shall be each month, beginning May 10, 2014 until April
10, 2015.

On January 12, 2015, Mr. dela Cruz went to Banco De Oro to deposit the
cheques, which were dated as January 10, 2015 to February 10, 2015. However, upon the
receipt of the cheques, BDO dishonoured the respective cheques, and stamped it with the
DAIF (or Drawn Against Insufficient Funds). The respective cheques, which were
stamped in the said acronym, are attached as Exhibit A and B.

Due to the dishonoured cheques, Mr. dela Cruz is pleading that new cheques be
issued to him for the payment of the lease in the commercial property in Mandaluyong
City. According to Batas Pambansa 22 (B.P. 22) or An Act Penalizing the Making or
Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and For other
Purposes, specifically Section 1, paragraph 1 of the said statute, any person who makes or
draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue
that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of
such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonoured by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonoured for the
same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more
than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of
the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both
such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court1 (emphasis added).

Such cheques have been delared by BDO as DAIF. With this, it is the
responsibility of the debtor to issue new cheques in order not to further breach the
obligation to pay. It is expressly stipulated in Section 1, paragraph 1 of B.P. 22 that the
bank for reasons of insufficiency of funds or credit dishonours a cheque2. With this

1
An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check without Sufficient
Funds or Credit and for Other Purposes, Batas Pambansa BLG. 22, 1(1) (1979).
2 Id.
regard, Mr. dela Cruz is asking for the compliance of your obligation to issue new
cheques with sufficient funds. The deadline shall be within a period of ninety (90) days
from the date the respective cheques were dishonoured3. Failure to produce such cheques
shall result to the imposition of the respective penalties provided in Section 1, paragraph
1 of B.P. 224.

Sincerely,

Atty. Shannin Mae M. Olivarez

sosolivarez@gmail.com

3 Id at 1(2)
4 Id at 1(1)
April 29, 2017

Mr. Jericho Roces

135 Palm Circle Drive, Ayala Alabang

Re: Support for medical expenses and tuition fee of Christine and Victor Roces:

Dear Mr. Roces,

The main subject is the demand for the support of the medical expenses and
tuition fee of Mr. Christine Roces and Mr. Victor Roces, which is being represented by
their mother, Mrs. Kim Jonas-Roces. On behalf of her children, Mrs. Roces mentioned
certain expenditures which are needed to be given support since her departure in the
conjugal home on November 23, 2013 with the two (2) children.

The marriage with Mrs. Roces (then Ms. Kim Jonas), was on October 13, 2005.
The marriage resulted to two children, namely Christine who was born on July 31, 2008,
and Victor, who was born on September 9, 2010. Mrs. Roces has cited that the marriage
was abusive, which culminated to an argument on November 23, 2013. In the said date, it
was stated that you have made Mrs. Roces leave the house, which resulted her to bring
the two children. It was also stated that you and Mrs. Roces have continued such
communication via SMS, but you have refused to support the medical and tuition
expenses of your two children.

The following are the expenditures that need support:

1.) Christines tuition fee, which is P158,000.00 per year at Maria Montessori;
2.) Victors tuitition fee, which is P145,000 per year at Maria Montessori;
3.) Electricity bills, which is P3,500 per month;
4.) Water bills, which is P400 per month;
5.) Rent, which is P15,000 per month;
6.) School bus service of Christine and Victor, which is P1,500 per month;
7.) Hospital bill of Victor when he was ill for dengue, which is P35,000

The receipts of the hospital bills, the assessment forms of the tuition fee for both
children, as well as the other bills are attached, and are found in Annex A and B
respectively.

Such demand for support of expenditures must take into consideration the
economic status of Mrs. Roces; he occupation as a florist and the money she earns from
such business is not enough to pay for all the expenditures, given that she only has limited
clientele, and also lacks adequate capital.

With this regard, on behalf of the two children, Mrs. Roces is pleading for your
support in the expenditures listed above. According to Title VIII of the Family Code
entitled Support, specifically Article 194, paragraph 1: support comprises everything
indispensable of sustenance, dwelling clothing, medical assistance, education and
transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family5. In addition to this, it
is also stipulated in Article 105, paragraph 1 and 2 of the same Code, that spouses,

5
The Family Code of the Philippines, Executive Order 209, Article 194 (1) (1987).
parents and their legitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the
latter (emphasis added) are obliged to support each other to the whole extent6.

Following the stipulations of the said laws, it is necessary that as the husband of
Mrs. Roces and the father of the two children, it is expected that you give support to the
expenditures stipulated above because it is the obligation of the husband to support his
spouse and his children. It is valid for Mrs. Roces to get support for the tuition fees of the
two children, because it is within the ambit of the support defined and enumerated in
Article 194. Such stipulation also goes the same for the Victors hospital bills.

In terms of the bills pertaining to water, electricity and the school bus, it is also
covered under Article 194 and it is also the responsibility of the spouses to help and
support each other7, regardless of whether the marriage is sour. With this, the bills
pertaining to the house as well as the rent of Mrs. Roces, is still a valid resource on your
part.

Mrs. Roces respectfully demands for the expenditures of the tuition fee and other
bills for the two children immediately. Failure to deliver such will render a penalty
provided in R.A. 9262. For the other expenditures, Mrs. Roces demands for support one
week after such demand letter has been received by you.

Sincerely,

Atty. Shannin Mae M. Olivarez

sosolivarez@gmail.com

6 Id at Article 105 (1) (2)
7 The Family Code of the Philippines, Executive Order 209, Article 68 (1987).