REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 24, Manila
SEAN KIM CREDIT AND LOANS
CORPORATION, represented by
Its Manager Irish M. Magallanes,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

Civil Case No. 190710

For: SUM OF MONEY

CELESTE M. LOPEZ,
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER
COMES NOW, defendant CELESTE M. LOPEZ, by herself and unto this
Honorable Court, by way of answer to the plaintiffs complaint, most respectfully
aver that:

1.

Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 of the complaint are admitted;

2.

Paragraph 4 of the complaint is likewise admitted in so far as the

amount of loan is concerned but with a reservation as to the terms
of payment which is outlined and set forth in the special and
affirmative defenses.

3.

Paragraphs 6 and 7 are likewise admitted but with a reservation

which are also outlined and set forth in the special and affirmative
defenses.

4.

Paragraph 11 is admitted with a qualification as stated likewise in

the special and affirmative defenses.

5.

Defendant DENIES specifically each and every material allegation

in Paragraphs 9, 10 and 12 for being a mere recitation of facts or
conclusions of facts absence of legal anchorage to support either
legally or factually.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

6.

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, as breach thereof by

the latter, and damage or injury to the former, as against the
defendant, are not materially and ultimately averred with
definiteness.
7.

That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiffs pleading

had been paid by the defendant by virtue of withdrawals made
by the former using the pledged ATM Card.

8.

This despite the fact that Plaintiff did not fully disclosed and
itemized properly the schedules of payments even though
there was an execution of the alleged Disclosure Statement
of Loan/Credit Transaction, thus, defendant had no
knowledge whatsoever on how his LOAN obligation ballooned
up to the amount of TWO HUNDRED EIGHT THOUSAND
FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY FOUR PESOS AND FORTY FOUR
CENTAVOS (208, 534.44). Hence, the same is void for being
in violation of Act 3765 or The Truth in Lending Law.

9.

Further, the EIGHTEEN (18) MONTH INSTALLMENTS OF

P4, 222.22 or the 5% interest per month though stipulated in
the Loan Agreement is excessive, inequitable and exorbitant,
hence, the same must be struck down as void and
unenforceable. As aptly held by the Supreme Court in the
case of Macalinao vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands (G.R.
No. 175490, September 17, 2009) that the three (3) percent
per month or higher interest rate and penalty charge for credit
card charges is excessive, inequitable and exorbitant.

10.

Prescinding from the foregoing, the defendant herein cannot

be compelled anymore by the plaintiff to pay the interest and
charges (service charges etc). If paid already, the same is
recoverable.

11.

Thus, upon computation of payments made by the defendant

herein she had been paid already. In fact, there are already
overpayments made, hence, the same is likewise recoverable
against the plaintiff.

12.

Further, that the aforesaid claim or demand as embodied in a

Loan Agreement is in the nature of an adhesion contract.

Hence, the same shall be construed strictly against the plaintiff

who solely prepared the contract and that defendant was only
made to sign the same.
13.

In view of the aforementioned circumstances, it is futile to

discuss anymore the issue of an execution of an Affidavit of
Loss for the same had been rendered moot and academic.

14.

As to the issue of other loans extended by the plaintiff, the

claim is couched in general terms