Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, Ayaw Kho, a registered nurse, 24 years old, Filipino, single and a resident
of Digos, Davao Del Sur, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
do hereby despose and state that:
1. On July 20, 2017, at about 10:00 pm, I was working and doing my reports
at Digos Doctor’s Hospital when suddenly Luod Kha hugged me with one
hand touching my “pepe” (private part);
3. Mrs. AAA asked me what the man did to me, got mad and scolded at
Luod Kha;
4. Mrs. AAA and I sought help from Melanie Luz Labana and Arturo Bunyi
Carceres of the VAWC Helpdesk of the barangay. In the presence of my
Mrs. AAA, Melanie Labanza, a personnel of the Barangay VAWC
Helpdesk and PI Arandia, the chief of the Women and Children’s Protection
Desk of the Digos City Police Station took my statement regarding the
incident (herein attached as Annex “A”);
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25th of July, 2017 in
Digos City, Davao Del Sur, Philippines.
Ayaw Kho
Complainant
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, Luod Kha, a registered nurse, 30 years old, Filipino, single and a resident
of Digos, Davao Del Sur, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
do hereby despose and state that:
3. That paragraph 2 and 3 is also denied. That Mrs. AAA was mad and
scolded me due to our heated argument with Ayaw Kho and not because of
fondling the latter;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26th of July, 2017 in
Digos City, Davao Del Sur, Philippines.
Luod Kha
Defendant
REPLY-AFFIDAVIT
I, Ayaw Kho, a registered nurse, 24 years old, Filipino, single and a resident of
Digos, Davao Del Sur, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do
hereby despose and state that:
3. Respondent wanted to prove and convince this Honorable court that the
story he had invented as shown in paragraph 2 of his Counter-affidavit will
save them all and hide their true guilt.
4. That there was no such thing as heated argument between me and Luod
Kha which he claim that this was the reason why I filed a case against him.
5. That he will concentrate on this idea believing that this is the best defense
he can use to evade his liabilities by denial of his acts through false
representation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 7th of August, 2017
in Digos City, Davao Del Sur, Philippines.
Ayaw Kho
Complainant
JUANITO TARONA,
Plaintiff Civil Case No. _____________
-versus-
ANICIA VALDEZ-TALLORIN,
Defendant For: Annulment of Tax
Declaration No. 0089
X ------------------------------------------------- X
COMPLAINT
3. That the plaintiff alleged that unknown to them, in 1981, the Assessor’s
Office of Davao City cancelled Tax Declaration 463 in the name of their
father, Juanito Tarona (Juanito), covering 6,186 square meters of land in
Ma-a, Davao City;
4. The cancellation was said to be based on an unsigned though notarized
affidavit that Juanito allegedly executed in favor of defendant TALLORIN;
5. In place of the cancelled one, the Assessor’s Office issued Tax Declaration
0089 in the name of TALLORIN;
6. That the plaintiff further alleged that, without their fathers affidavit on file, it
followed that his tax declaration had been illegally cancelled and a new one
illegally issued in favor of TALLORIN;
a. The tax declaration no. 0089 be annulled and reinstate the tax declaration no.
463;
b. That the defendant be ordered to pay damages and attorney’s fees;
JUANITO TARONA,
Plaintiff Civil Case No. _____________
-versus-
ANICIA VALDEZ-TALLORIN,
Defendant For: Annulment of Tax
Declaration No. 0089
X ------------------------------------------------- X
COMPLAINT
10. That the plaintiff alleged that unknown to them, in 1981, the Assessor’s
Office of Davao City cancelled Tax Declaration 463 in the name of their
father, Juanito Tarona (Juanito), covering 6,186 square meters of land in
Ma-a, Davao City;
11. The cancellation was said to be based on an unsigned though notarized
affidavit that Juanito allegedly executed in favor of defendant TALLORIN;
12. In place of the cancelled one, the Assessor’s Office issued Tax Declaration
0089 in the name of TALLORIN;
13. That the plaintiff further alleged that, without their fathers affidavit on file, it
followed that his tax declaration had been illegally cancelled and a new one
illegally issued in favor of TALLORIN;
c. The tax declaration no. 0089 be annulled and reinstate the tax declaration no.
463;
d. That the defendant be ordered to pay damages and attorney’s fees;
-versus-
X ------------------------------------------------- X
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges:
2. Defendant RON WEASLY is of legal age, Filipino and may be served with
summons, orders and other processes of this Honorable Court at (his/her) last
known address at Bolton St., Davao City, Philippines;
3. Defendant JOHN DOE, whose real name and address is presently unknown
to Plaintiff, is herein joined as an alternative party defendant being the person in
whose possession or custody the mortgaged chattel subject of this action may have
been transferred or could be found considering that the subject chattel, by its
nature, is easily transferable;
5. In order to secure the payment of the above mentioned Promissory Note and
other obligations defined in the Chattel Mortgage Contract, Defendant RON
WEASLEY executed in favor of the herein plaintiff on the same date, a Chattel
Mortgage over the motor vehicle described below, a copy of which is hereto
attached as Annex "B" and made integral part hereof:
9. Despite the foreclosure however, and despite notice and demand to the
Defendant RON WEASLEY to surrender the subject motor vehicle subject for
foreclosure, Defendant failed and continued to fail to surrender the same without
any legal or justifiable cause. A copy of the said demand letter dated October 1,
2017 is hereto attached as Annex "E";
10. By virtue of the unjustifiable failure and refusal of the Defendant to turn-
over the possession of the subject chattel / motor vehicle for purposes of
foreclosure, plaintiff was constrained to institute the instant action and secure the
services of the undersigned counsel for attorney's fees equivalent to eighty percent
( 80 %) percent of the total amount due and outstanding on the Promissory Note
and Chattel Mortgage, liquidated damages and expenses incurred in relation with
the manual delivery of the above-described motor vehicle, including the expenses
for the payment of the premium on the replevin bond filed in support of the prayer
for the issuance of a warrant for the seizure thereof;
12. That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a
fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of executed or preliminary attachment,
or otherwise placed under custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such
seizure or custody;
13. That the estimated actual market value of the said motor vehicle is P 125,
000.00;
14. Plaintiff is ready, willing and able to put up a good and solvent bond of
double the actual market value of the above-described motor vehicle conditioned
on the return of the same to the Defendants if such return be adjudged, and for
payment of such sum as they may recover from the plaintiff in the instant action.
PRAYER
c) In either case, to order Defendants to pay Plaintiff the sum of eighty percent
(80 %) percent of the total amount due as Attorney's Fees, and to reimburse
plaintiff its expenses for getting a replevin bond, litigation expenses as may be
proved during trial, and other expenses incurred in the seizure of the said motor
vehicle, and the cost of suit.
Other relief as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises are likewise
prayed for.
Charice Ford
Complainant, Docket No: __________
-versus-
Xander Ford
Respondent. For: Violation of R.A. 9262
Violence Against Women and
Children
X ------------------------------------------------- X
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, Charice Ford, of legal age, Filipino, married to the respondent, and a resident of
#3 Notre Dame Avenue, Cotabato City, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state:
3. That we were married on February 10, 2006 at Regional Trial Court – Branch 13
before the sala of Hon. Judge XYZ. The copy of marriage certificate is hereto
attached as Annex “A”;
4. That our lawful marriage, we begot two (2) children. The first child is Jake Ford
who was born on December 2, 2006 and our second child is Zyrus Ford was born
on December 3, 2009. Copies of their certificate of live birth are hereto attached
and marked as Annexes “B” and “C” respectively;
6. That while he was in the Armed Forces of the Philippines assigned at Camp
Bonifacio, Taguig City, he used to regularly go home and visit us;
7. That when he transferred his service to the PNP starting March 2011, he did not
go home regularly and did not even spare sometime to visit us, worst is he did not
even send support to us;
8. I was constrained to seek legal assistance from the Public Attorney’s Office
which immediately assisted me in preparing and sending demand letter requesting
an amount of Seven Thousand Pesos Php 7, 000 shall be directly deducted from
the net pay of my husband and the amount be sent to me in form of a check. The
copy of the said letter is hereto attached as Annex “C”;
9. That his act of continuous failure to give support since year 2011 tantamount to
economic abuse which is defined under R.A. 9262 of Violence against Women and
their Children;
10. That on August 24, 2011, I found out, to my surprise, that he is already married
with another woman in the name of Mrs. Liza Dizon, a copy of their Certificate of
Marriage is hereto attached as Annex “D”;
11. That although the respondent is legally married to the complainant and the
marriage is legally subsisting; he contracted subsequent marriage which is a
violation of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code;
12. That the acts of marrying another woman and cohabiting with several women
caused substantial and emotional distress to me and our children which are in
violation of paragraph (h) Section 5 of R.A. 9262;
13. Moreover, our continuous suffering of mental and emotional anguish, public
ridicule and humiliation upon his contracting of his subsequent marriage and denial
of financial of financial support to our children is a violation of paragraph (i)
Section 5 of R.A. 9262;
14. That because of this criminal act and gross misconduct, my husband deserves
to suffer from consequences of his act and be discharged from service which shall
serve as an exemplary act as a PNP Officer and especially as a husband and parent;
CHARICE FORD
Complainant-Affiant
Plaintiff,
Accused,
X---------------------------------------------------------X
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
That on or about the 16th day of August 2017, in the city of Caloocan, Metro
Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, armed with a short firearms (sic), with intent to kill, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot KIAN DELOS SANTOS, in
muddy and dark alley near his house, at the back penetrating through the
neck which cause(d) the instant death of said victim and that he had no
chance to avoid or defend himself from the attack.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
WITNESSES:
1. LEILA HONTIVEROS
20 Block 4 Mars St. Caloocan City, Metro Manila
2. FRANKLIN TRILLANES
33 Block 6 Pluto St. Caloocan City, Metro Manila
CERTIFIACTION
ANGELINA JOLIE,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. _______
BRAD PITT,
Defendant
x--------------------------------------------------------------------x
PETITION
COMES NOW, the plaintiff together with the undersigned counsel to this
most honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT;
1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 143 Argonne St., San
Juan City while respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident
of 91 Tripoli St. cor. London St. Project 8, Quezon City, where he may be served
with summons, orders and other legal processes of this Honorable Court;
2. Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been legally married on
July 24, 2008 at Sto. Nino Parish Shrine, in Bago Bantay Quezon City, a copy of
their marriage certificate is hereto attached as Annex “A”;
3. Three (3) children were born in wedlock namely, Chelsea, aged 8 years old,
Beatrice, aged 6 years old and William, aged 4 years old. A copy of his Certificate
of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex “B”;
4. That the parties acquired the following properties during marriage namely, a
mansion in Forbes Park, 5 cars, P 25,000,000 in the bank, an Italian Restaurant
attached as Annex “C”.
5. Petitioner and Respondent met sometime in 2007 at the Hollywood where they
were both actors;
6. The Petitioner and Respondent became romantically involved immediately after
the Karaoke night through the match making efforts of their companions. This
situation went on for several occasions.
7. Not long after, their sexual encounters resulted to the Petitioner getting
pregnant;
8. Even before their marriage, the Petitioner had observed that the Respondent
displayed eccentricity and irresponsibility to the extent that he oftentimes
would not care for her feelings. However, in the hope that the Respondent
would change once they get married, Petitioner gave in to the pressure of marrying
the Respondent despite not knowing him too well;
a. During their relationship before the marriage, Brad was a “party boy.”
After quitting on becoming an actor, he often went out with friends to drink
until the wee hours of the nights in various bars in San Pablo City. He would
often go out together with his friends to meet new girls.
12. These traits reveal her psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family
Code of the Philippines and is more appropriately labeled “Histrionic
Personality Disorder coupled with Dependent Personality Disorder”
associated with severe inadequacy that renders her psychologically
incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of a wife ;
13. That said psychological defect or illness is grave, serious and incurable;
14. Petitioner is filing this petition to declare his marriage a nullity. Respondent
showed no concern for his obligation towards his family in violation of Art. 68 of
the New Family Code which provides that husband and wife are obliged to
live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual
help and support. Petitioner is also filing this case under Art. 36 of the same
Code as the respondent manifested apparent personality disorder and
psychological dysfunction, i.e. his lack of effective sense of rational
judgment and responsibility by being psychologically immature and failing
to perform his responsibilities as a husband;
PRAYER
LK LAW FIRM
Suite 204, Puso ng Baguio
Session Road, San Juan City
By:
DIAMOND SUPNET KELSCH
IBP: 994543, 2/17/13, San Juan City
PTR No. 23434, 1/16/13; San Juan City
Roll No. 34534, 4/8/12; Manila
MCLE Compliance No. IV-443456, 7/7/14; San Juan City
Telefax No. (074) 442 -3495-08653, Mobile no. 09173435235
LAUREL LIMNMAYOG
IBP: 99434543, 2/17/12, San Juan City
PTR No. 23434, 1/16/12; San Juan City
Roll No. 34534, 4/8/11; Manila
MCLE Compliance No. IV-45546, 7/7/14; San Juan City
Telefax No. (074) 442 -3495-08653, Mobile no. 09394354456
Copy Furnished:
Office of the City Prosecutor (Personal Service)
Justice Hall, San Juan City
Petition for nullity - Answer
ANGELINA JOLIE,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. _______
BRAD PITT,
Defendant
x--------------------------------------------------------------------x
ANSWER
Defendant, BRAD PITT, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully avers the following in response to the Petition
for Declaration of Nullity.
1. Paragraph 9.a is DENIED. The truth of the matter is that Defendant went out
with his friends to drink occasionally but not often and he does this only to
unwind.
2. Paragraph 9.b is DENIED. The truth of the matter is that Defendant is not
immature or irresponsible. Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant is squandering his
money with his peers as well as having drinks with female companions were mere
stories invented by the former. Defendant also denies the lack of attention to their
children as he continually supports the latter such as attending their events at
school, birthdays and several family occasions.
3. Paragraph 9.c is DENIED. The truth of the matter is that Defendant is not an
incorrigible liar. Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant lied about getting a job as an
insurance sales agent and going to his parents’ house to drink and play mahjong
were blatant lies. These are also stories invented by the Plaintiff in order to
strengthen his petition. Defendant also denies that he threw a fit and told Plaintiff
that he wanted to do anything he likes with his time just like before they got
married.
5. Defendant avers that he can still satisfactorily perform the essential marital
obligations provided for under Articles 68 to 73 of the Family Code as regards the
husband and wife as well as those under Articles 220, 221, and 225 of the same
Code in regard to parents and their children. The Defendant contends that he
continues to render support to his wife and children such as giving them
allowances. Thus, his illness is NOT GRAVE enough to bring about the disability
in his part to assume essential obligations of marriage.
6. Defendant also contends that Plaintiff has not proven that the alleged
Psychological Incapacity is existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage
mandated by the Supreme Court in the case of Navarro, Jr. vs. Cecilio-Navarro,
G.R. No. 162049, April 13, 2007. The Plaintiff merely stated in her petition found
in paragraph 8 that even before their marriage, the Plaintiff had observed that the
Defendant displayed eccentricity and irresponsibility to the extent that
she oftentimes would not care for her feelings. Such statement are untrue
and mere invented stories.
7. The Defendant raises by way of an affirmative defense that the petition FAILS
TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION. Hence, Defendant respectfully prays that the
petition be DISMISSED.
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
That in accordance with A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, which prescribes the use
of judicial affidavits to serve as the direct examination testimony of the witness, on
the basis of which the adverse party may conduct their cross-examination on such a
witness, I hereby execute this judicial affidavit in a question and answer format;
That conformably with section 3 (b) of the said A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, I
also state that it was Atty. Daenerys Targaryen, with office address at San Juan
City, Philippines, who conducted the examination of the undersigned affiant;
That conformably also with section 3 (c) thereof, I hereby state under the
pain of perjury that in answering the questions asked of me, as appearing herein
below, I am fully conscious that I did so under oath, and that I may face criminal
liabilities for false testimony or perjury;
1. Q: Please state your name and other personal circumstances for the
record.
2. Q: Are you the same BRAD PITT, the defendant in this case?
A: Yes ma’am.
I also deny Paragraph 9.b. The truth of the matter is that I am not
immature or irresponsible. Plaintiff’s allegations that I am
squandering his money with his peers as well as having drinks with
female companions were mere stories invented by the former.
I also deny the lack of attention to our children as I continually
support the latter such as attending their events at school, birthdays
and several family occasions.
Moreover, I also deny Paragraph 9.c. The truth of the matter is that
I am not an incorrigible liar. Plaintiff’s allegations that I lied about
getting a job as an insurance sales agent and going to my parents’
house to drink and play mahjong were blatant lies. These are also
stories invented by the Plaintiff in order to strengthen his petition.
I also deny that I threw a fit and told Plaintiff that I wanted to do
anything I like with my time just like before we got married.
A: Yes ma’am.
8. Q: How can you prove that you still comply with your marital
obligations?
9. Q: Are you willing to sign this affidavit consisting of four (4) pages,
to certify that all the statements you made are true.
A: Yes ma’am.
---------END OF STATEMENT----------
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand below this 31th day of
August, 2017 at San Juan City, Philippines.
Brad Pitt
Affiant
NOTARY PUBLIC
That I have faithfully recorded and translated into English language the
questions asked of him/her and the corresponding answers that he/she gave in
response to the questions asked;
Neither I nor any other person/s coached this witness-affiant regarding the
answers given by her.
NOTARY PUBLIC
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
That in accordance with A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, which prescribes the use
of judicial affidavits to serve as the direct examination testimony of the witness, on
the basis of which the adverse party may conduct their cross-examination on such a
witness, I hereby execute this judicial affidavit in a question and answer format;
That conformably with section 3 (b) of the said A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, I
also state that it was Atty. Jon Snow, with office address at San Juan City,
Philippines, who conducted the examination of the undersigned affiant;
That conformably also with section 3 (c) thereof, I hereby state under the
pain of perjury that in answering the questions asked of me, as appearing herein
below, I am fully conscious that I did so under oath, and that I may face criminal
liabilities for false testimony or perjury;
1. Q: Please state your name and other personal circumstances for the
record.
2. Q: Are you the same ANGELINA JOLIE, the plaintiff in this case?
A: Yes sir.
A: Yes sir. We had three (3) children namely, Chelsea, aged 8 years
old, Beatrice, aged 6 years old and William, aged 4 years old.
9. Q: How come you have said in your petition that BRAD PITT is
suffering from psychological incapacity?
12. Q : Are you willing to sign this affidavit consisting of five (5) pages,
to certify that all the statements you made are true.
A : Yes sir.
---------END OF STATEMENT----------
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand below this 30th day of
August, 2017 at San Juan City, Philippines.
ANGELINA JOLIE
Affiant
That I have faithfully recorded and translated into English language the
questions asked of him/her and the corresponding answers that he/she gave in
response to the questions asked;
Neither I nor any other person/s coached this witness-affiant regarding the
answers given by her.
NOTARY PUBLIC
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, the plaintiff together with the undersigned counsel to this
most honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT;
THE PARTIES
4. That his case need not pass through the Katarungang Pambarangay as it falls
within the exception since the plaintiff is a juridical person whose office is located
at Quiapo, Manila and that as provided under the law, only natural persons shall be
parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents.
(Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
CAUSES OF ACTION
5. That plaintiff entered in a contract for the company with the defendant to rent a
car for a week;
6. That the car rented by the defendant is FORD ECHO MODEL 2015 with Plate
No. LOI-203;
7. That they agreed that the said car will be rented out from October 1-7, 2016;
8. That, however, the car was not returned by the defendant on the date agreed
upon;
9. That upon failure to return the car on time, the plaintiff sent a demand letter to
the defendant by the latter did not act on it nor respond. Copy of the demand letter
is hereto attached as Annex “A”;
10. That after the lapse of three (3) days, the defendant still did not return the said
car to the prejudice of the plaintiff;
11. That due to the failure of the defendant to heed to the first demand letter, the
plaintiff sent a final demand letter. Copy of the final demand letter is hereto
attached as Annex “B”;
12.That due to the defendant’s failure to return the rented car on time, even after
several demands, the plaintiff suffered losses and probable income had it been
returned as agreed upon. As such, plaintiff is entitled for compensation for
damages suffered by the plaintiff in the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 150, 000) as the daily rent car is Php 5,000 multiplied
by thirty (30) days from October 08, 2016, the date when it was agreed to be return
to the time this case is instituted.
13. That the actual value of the car is ONE MILLION NINETY THOUSAND
PESOS (Php 1,090, 000.00) and plaintiff is ready and willing to post a surety
redelivery bond, in the amount fixed by the court conditioned to answer for the
release of the same to the defendant if and when the return thereof will be adjudged
and for the payment of such sum as may be recovered by the defendant in the
action;
14. That due to the malicious failure of the defendant to return the rented car,
plaintiff was forced to institute the instant suit and hire the services of a lawyer to
protect its interest to whom it is obligated to pay FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 50,000.00) as acceptance fee plus THREE THOUSAND PESOS (Php 3,
000) per court appearance and other expenses relative thereto;
15. To deter others who are similarly bent, defendant should be assessed the
amount of Php 50, 000.00 representing the amount of exemplary damages;
PRAYER
1.For the seizure of the above property wherever it may be found and that the same
be delivered to the plaintiff;
2. That after due notice and hearing on the merits, defendant be ordered to pay
plaintiff the following:
c. For attorney’s fees in the amount of Php 50, 000.00 plus Php 3, 000.00 per
court appearance;
Further, plaintiff pray for such other relief as the Honorable Court may deem
just and equitable under the premises.
Represented by:
SERAFIN CHRISTENSEN
General Manager
Assisted by
ATTY. JUAN DE LA CRUZ
Counsel for the Plaintiff
MCLE Compliance Cert. No. V, 0001234, Jan. 30, 2015
PTR No. 1405432 / 01-06-16 / Metro Manila
IBP O.R. No. 872099 / 12-08-15 / Metro Manila
TIN No. 143-089-251 / Roll No. 41499
422, Sales Street, corner Ronquillo Street, Quiapo, Manila
Telephone/Fax No. (02)-733-4575
Cellular Phone No. 0998-123-4567
Email address: atty.juandelacruz@yahoo.com
Replevin - Answer
ANSWER
COMES NOW, the defendant together with the undersigned counsel to this
most honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT;
JOHN DOE
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 10th day of November 2016, in
the Manila, Philippines and I further certify that I have personally examined the
affiant and I convinced and satisfied that he voluntarily executed the foregoing
Answer and understood all the contents hereof and that they are true and correct as
to his own personal knowledge.
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
1.1 Plantiff claims that he entered in a contract for the company with the defendant
to rent a car for a week;
1.2 That the car rented by the defendant is FORD ECHO MODEL 2015 with Plate
No. LOI-203; That they agreed that the said car will be rented out from October 1-
7, 2016;
1.3 That they agreed that the said car will be rented out from October 1-7, 2016;
1.4 That, however, the car was not returned by the defendant on the date agreed
upon;
1.5 That upon failure to return the car on time, the plaintiff sent a demand letter
to the defendant by the latter did not act on it nor respond. Copy of the demand
letter is hereto attached as Annex “A”;
1.6 That after the lapse of three (3) days, the defendant still did not return the said
car to the prejudice of the plaintiff;
1.7 That due to the failure of the defendant to heed to the first demand letter, the
plaintiff sent a final demand letter. Copy of the final demand letter is hereto
attached as Annex “B”;
1.8 That due to the defendant’s failure to return the rented car on time, even after
several demands, the plaintiff suffered losses and probable income had it been
returned as agreed upon. As such, plaintiff is entitled for compensation for
damages suffered by the plaintiff in the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 150, 000) as the daily rent car is Php 5,000 multiplied
by thirty (30) days from October 08, 2016, the date when it was agreed to be return
to the time this case is instituted.
1.9 That the actual value of the car is ONE MILLION NINETY THOUSAND
PESOS (Php 1,090, 000.00) and plaintiff is ready and willing to post a surety
redelivery bond, in the amount fixed by the court conditioned to answer for the
release of the same to the defendant if and when the return thereof will be adjudged
and for the payment of such sum as may be recovered by the defendant in the
action;
1.10 That due to the malicious failure of the defendant to return the rented car,
plaintiff was forced to institute the instant suit and hire the services of a lawyer to
protect its interest to whom it is obligated to pay FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 50,000.00) as acceptance fee plus THREE THOUSAND PESOS (Php 3, 000)
per court appearance and other expenses relative thereto;
1.11 To deter others who are similarly bent, defendant should be assessed the
amount of Php 50, 000.00 representing the amount of exemplary damages;
1.12 Defendant denied the accusations against him stating that he is a former
employee of AVIS RENT-A-CAR (PHILIPPINES) INC., and the said company
gave him an option to purchase the subject car at book value pursuant to the
company car plan and to offset the value of the car with the proceeds of his
retirement pay and stock option plan. That he sought the (1) execution of a deed of
sale over the subject car; and (2) determination and payment of the net amount due
to him as retirement benefits under the stock option plan.
3.1 Whether or not there exists an option to purchase the subject car offered by the
company to the defendant.
It is respectfully requested that the trial dates be set during the pre-trial conference
dates most convenient to this Honorable Court and to all parties.
Respectfully submitted.
August 8, 2017, Taft Avenue, Manila
Copy Furnished:
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
1.1 Plantiff claims that he entered in a contract for the company with the defendant
to rent a car for a week;
1.2 That the car rented by the defendant is FORD ECHO MODEL 2015 with Plate
No. LOI-203; That they agreed that the said car will be rented out from October 1-
7, 2016;
1.3 That they agreed that the said car will be rented out from October 1-7, 2016;
1.4 That, however, the car was not returned by the defendant on the date agreed
upon;
1.5 That upon failure to return the car on time, the plaintiff sent a demand letter
to the defendant by the latter did not act on it nor respond. Copy of the demand
letter is hereto attached as Annex “A”;
1.6 That after the lapse of three (3) days, the defendant still did not return the said
car to the prejudice of the plaintiff;
1.7 That due to the failure of the defendant to heed to the first demand letter, the
plaintiff sent a final demand letter. Copy of the final demand letter is hereto
attached as Annex “B”;
1.8 That due to the defendant’s failure to return the rented car on time, even after
several demands, the plaintiff suffered losses and probable income had it been
returned as agreed upon. As such, plaintiff is entitled for compensation for
damages suffered by the plaintiff in the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 150, 000) as the daily rent car is Php 5,000 multiplied
by thirty (30) days from October 08, 2016, the date when it was agreed to be return
to the time this case is instituted.
1.9 That the actual value of the car is ONE MILLION NINETY THOUSAND
PESOS (Php 1,090, 000.00) and plaintiff is ready and willing to post a surety
redelivery bond, in the amount fixed by the court conditioned to answer for the
release of the same to the defendant if and when the return thereof will be adjudged
and for the payment of such sum as may be recovered by the defendant in the
action;
1.10 That due to the malicious failure of the defendant to return the rented car,
plaintiff was forced to institute the instant suit and hire the services of a lawyer to
protect its interest to whom it is obligated to pay FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 50,000.00) as acceptance fee plus THREE THOUSAND PESOS (Php 3, 000)
per court appearance and other expenses relative thereto;
1.11 To deter others who are similarly bent, defendant should be assessed the
amount of Php 50, 000.00 representing the amount of exemplary damages;
1.12 Defendant denied the accusations against him stating that he is a former
employee of AVIS RENT-A-CAR (PHILIPPINES) INC., and the said company
gave him an option to purchase the subject car at book value pursuant to the
company car plan and to offset the value of the car with the proceeds of his
retirement pay and stock option plan. That he sought the (1) execution of a deed of
sale over the subject car; and (2) determination and payment of the net amount due
to him as retirement benefits under the stock option plan.
4.2 Whether or not the defendant is liable for damages for not returning the said
car upon repeated demands.
V. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
5.1 Plaintiff intends to present one (1) or (2) witnesses to prove plaintiff’s
allegations and claims set forth in the complaint.
7.1 Plaintiff reserves the right to avail of the modes of discovery in addition to the
aforementioned request for stipulation.
8.1 The plaintiff grounds its claims on the provision of the New Civil Code and
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.
It is respectfully requested that the trial dates be set during the pre-trial conference
dates most convenient to this Honorable Court and to all parties.
Respectfully submitted.
August 7, 2017, Taft Avenue, Manila