Republic of the Philippines
National Capital judicial Region
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MANILA
BRANCH 17, Manila
RIZAL TEACHERS KILUS ANG BAYAN
FOR CREDIT, INC., represented by MR.
WILLIAM G. HERNANDEZ
Plaintiffs,
- versus - Civil. Case No.177840-CV
CATALINA B. ESCOBIDO, ET. AL.,
Defendants.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------x
MANIFESTATION / MOTION
COMES NOW, defendants with the assistance of the Public
Attorney’s Office and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states
that:
1. Defendants admit that they failed to file their Answer on the
above-entitled case considering that they were not aware of the technical
rules to be observed by this Honorable Court. But such inadvertence
must not be viewed in a rigid and technical sense, especially when
technicality cease to function as an instrument of justice but as an
element of despair and prejudice;
2. Ultimately, and in the interest of substantial justice, we
humbly beg and implore this Honorable Court, that it allow the defendants
to file their answer so that their right to be present and defend themselves
before this Honorable Court will serve the ends of justice and will prevent
grave miscarriage thereof.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Court that to admit attached answer so that the actual merits of the
controversy be speedily determined.
Defendants likewise pray for such other relief just and equitable
under the premises.
October 15, 2004, Manila.
MARLON E. BUAN
Public Attorney II
NOTICE OF HEARING
Branch Clerk of Court
METC 17
Greetings,
Please take note of the foregoing manifestation with
motion and kindly submit the same for the consideration and
approval of this Honorable Court on November 17, 2004 at 8:30.
PATRICK F. DURAN
Copy Furnished:
Atty. Romeo V. Fullante
P.C. Nolasco & Associates
Rm. 548 Wellington Bldg.
Plaza Lorenzo Ruiz, Binondo, Manila
Republic of the Philippines
National Capital judicial Region
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MANILA
BRANCH 4, Manila
RIZAL TEACHERS KILUS ANG BAYAN
FOR CREDIT, INC., represented by MR.
CARLITO A. CENETA,
Plaintiffs,
- versus - Civil. Case No.180172-CV
ROSIE V. PELOTA,
Defendants.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------------x
ANSWER
Defendant ROSIE V. PELOTA, with the assistance of the Public
Attorney’s Office and undersigned counsel respectfully submit this
Answer:
1. Paragraph 1 of the complaint insofar as the juridical existence
of RIZAL TEACHERS KILUSANG BAYAN FOR CREDIT INC., is denied
for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a reasonable belief
as to their material truth.
2. Paragraph 2 of the complaint is admitted in so far as
Defendant Rosie Pelota but denies the rest on the ground of lack of
knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable belief as to the truth thereof.
3. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 are likewise specifically denied, the
truth are outlined and stated in the affirmative and special defenses.
4. Defendants likewise DENY specifically each and every
material allegation made in Paragraph 6, 7, and 8 for being a mere
recitation of claims or a conclusion of facts absence of legal anchorage to
support either legally or factually.
Still, the facts are those averred in the
SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
4. The complaint fails to sufficiently state a cause of action. All
the elements of a “right” on the part of the plaintiff, “duty” which
corresponds to the defendant. “Breach” thereof by the latter, and
“damage or injury” to the former, as against the defendants, are not
materially and ultimately averred with definiteness.
5. That likewise the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff’s
pleading has been paid and extinguished by virtue of the previous
payments made under the “authority to deduct” entered into by and
between Rizal Teachers Kilusang Bayan for Credit Inc., (RTKBC) and
Department of Education Culture and Sports (DECS).
6. That sometime in 1997, the DECS through the MANILA PUBLIC
SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION INC., (MPSTA) agreed to provide
additional loan contract for its members with RTKBC, as the lending
Company.
7. That under the scheme adopted by the DECS and RTKBC,
payment thereof will be made through salary deduction payable within
one (1) year from the approval of the loan.
11. That defendant could not have defaulted in payment as the
mode of payments was through salary deduction agreed upon by the
DECS and RTKBC.
12. That Sometime on March 2002, the then Secretary of DECS
RAUL ROCO, issued an order to cease and desist from the further
collection of RTBC LOAN as the same was found out to be engaged in
massive collection of UNREASONABLE and UNCONSIONABLE interest
among Public School Teachers who applied for loan under the said
scheme.
13. Hence, by virtue of the DECS order, RTKBC was left without
any recourse by commencing the instant action without ascertaining
members who had already paid more than the amount loaned. In effect,
RTKBC commenced a nationwide collection suit in a fishing expedition
case intended to harass and oppress public school teachers who had
long been paid and settled their corresponding obligation.
14. Assuming without admitting that the unpaid loan blossomed to
almost Php. 37,524.00, defendant could not be faulted for it was the
agreement that payment was to be made through salary deduction and
that the “demand Letter” dated 01 June 2002, was belatedly send
notwistanding its due date that it is payable on or before February 2000.
(See Annex “B” of plaintiff Complaint). On the contrary, delay (mora
acciependi) was legally attributable to RTKBC, who was forbid to collect
by virtue of the stoppage order of the DESC SECRETARY.
15. Herein defendant Rosie Pelota never received any demand
letter from RTKBC;
16. Moreover, the effect of the stoppage order renders the interest
as null and void as this was the very reason why RTKBC was prohibited
to collect from the public school teachers, not to say, the legal
impossibility imposed to deduct.
17. At any rate, considering the overdue payment deducted from
the salary of defendant in comparison to the unsigned and
unaccounting Statement of Accounts single handed and factiously
prepared by LIASON OFFICER, the former is much more credible to
show that the loan obtained thereof has been sufficiently paid and that the
overdue payment should be reimburse under the principle of Solutio
Indibiti.
As the elements of a “right” on the part of plaintiff RTKBC, “duty”
which corresponds to the defendant, “breach” thereof by the latter, and
“damage or injury” to the former, are evidentiary deficient, the Honorable
Court may moto propio dismiss the case pursuant to Section 3 of the
Rules on Summary Procedure.
And As By Way of
COUNTERCLAIM
18. All the foregoing ultimate averments are repleaded by way of
incorporation.
19. As a direct and logical consequences of the filing of the
present case, which is deliberately and evidently schemed to oppress,
harass and cause embarrassment to defendant, plaintiff must be adjudge
to pay actual or compensatory damages in the sum of at least Two
hundred thousand pesos (Php. 200, 000.00).
20. Having unnecessarily dragged and besmirched the good
name of herein defendants, plaintiff must pay moral damages in such
sum of not less than one hundred thousand pesos (Php. 100, 000.00).
21. Plaintiff, having acted in a wanton, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner, should be held to pay exemplary damages in the
sum of (Php. 150,000.00), for the correction of the public good.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed
that the complaint be DISMISSED en toto.
And per the COUNTERCLAIM, the plaintiff be adjudged to
pay thereon compensatory damages (Php. 200, 000.00); moral damages
(Php. 100, 000.00), and exemplary damages (Php. 150,000.00), plus the
cost of litigation.
Other reliefs are similarly prayed for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Manila, 5 October 2005
MARLON E. BUAN
Public Attorney II
Republic of the Philippines) : S.S
In the City of Manila )
VERIFICATION WITH CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, ROSIE V. PELOTA, of legal age, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state;
1. That I am the DEFENDANT in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer with Counter
Claim;
3. That I have read and understood the contents thereof and all the allegations
contained therein are true of my own personal knowledge and based on authentic
records;
4. That I further certify that I have not commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court , the Court of Appeals, or
any of its division and to other tribunal or agency; that to the best of my personal
knowledge and information no such action or proceeding same as of this case is
pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any of its division and to other
tribunal or agency; that in case otherwise, we undertake the responsibility to report to
this Office within five (5) days from discovery of any other pending cases in other court,
tribunal or agency of the same cause of action.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ___ day of
_________________ 2004 in the City of Manila, Philippines.
________________
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of
________________ 2004 in the City of Manila, Philippines.
Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2004.
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
The original copy of this Motion will be filed personally with this
Honorable Court, while a copy thereof will be sent to their counsel thru
registered mail for lack of adequate messengerial personnel to effect
personal service.