Violation of the "Truth In Lending Act", RA

3765; sample complaint-affidavit

JOINT COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
OF THE COMPLAINANTS
Xxx AND xxx
THE UNDERSIGNED COMPLAINANTS-AFFIANTS xxx and xxx, both of legal
age and residing at xxx Subdivision, xxx, xxx, xxx City, under oath, respectfully state:
1.

RESPONDENT. The Respondent in this criminal complaint is xxx, of legal age,

married, Filipino, and resident of Block xxx, Lot xxx, xxx St., xxx Homes, xxx, xxx,
xxx, where summons/subpoenas may be served by this Honorable Office for purposes
of preliminary

2.

CRIME CHARGED. The herein Complainants hereby charge the abovenamed

Respondent for violation of the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT, or R.A. No. 3765.

3.

ULTIMATE FACTS. On 14 December 2015, the Respondent executed a Sworn

Statement before Asst. City Pros. xxx of the Office of the City Prosecutor of xxx City. A
copy of the said sworn statement, together with the related documents thereto (e.g.,
Police Referral, dated 14 December 2015; Barangay Kasunduan, dated 7 October
2015; Final Demand Letter, dated 12 November 2015; and Special Power of Attorney,
dated 14 December 2015) are attached hereto asAnnex A, with sub-markings. In
the said sworn statement, the Respondent charged the herein Complainant xxx for the
alleged crime of Estafa. It was docketed as xxx, entitled xxx. It is undergoing
preliminary investigation before Asst. City Prosecutor xxx.

3.1.

In Question and Answer Nos. 4, 6, and 7 of the said Sworn Statement of the
Respondent, he perjuriously alleged the following under oath:
x x x.
O4. T Bakit mo e-reklamo (sic) yung taong iyong nabanggit? (i.e., herein Complainant
Xxx).
S
- Dahil po sa hindi pag bayad sa akin ng perang hiniram nya na
nagkakahalagang PhP326,000.00.
O5. T

- Kailan, saan, at anong oras naganap ang sinasabi mong pangyayari?

S
Ganito po yun noong petsang nabanggit at nagkasundo po kami ni
XXX XXX na magnenegosyo kung saan magpapahiram po kami sa kasamahan niyang
hapon (sic) at may tubo poi to, kaya sinimulan po namin ito sa akin po siya kumukuha
ng pera at siya ang nagpapalabas, noong unang buwan at maganda pa ang negosyo
namin at bumabalik and puhunan ngunit dumaan na ang ilang buwan kumukuha siya ng
pera sa akin ngunit hindi na ito bumabalik kasama na ang tubo at umabot na poi to ng
halagang PhP326,000.00 at noong kinausap ko na po siya ay puro kanalang
PANGAKO NG PANGAKO (sic).
X x x.
3.2.

The aforecited statements of the Respondent XXX under oath were false and
perjurious. The truth of the matter is that the Estafa complaint filed by the Respondent
(as Complainant therein) against the herein Complainant XXX (as Respondent therein)
was a perjurious, malicious, felonious, baseless, unfounded and unjust FABRICATION
intended by the Respondent XXX: (a) To collect a loan that the herein Complainants
had already paid in full; and (b) To earn unjust, huge and usuri0us interests and/or
penalties/surcharges on the said fully paid loan, without any legal and contractual
basis, for the selfish financial benefit of the Respondent SAMPAMNG and his
anonymous Financier.

3.3.

The truth of the matter is that: The Complainant XXX does not owe any amount
whatsoever to the Respondent XXX ; and The act of the Respondent XXX of initiating
the aforementioned Estafa case against the herein Complainant XXX, without any legal
and factual basis, has caused him to suffer mental anguish, extreme anxieties,
sleepless nights, and besmirched reputation on the part of the herein
Complainants.

3.4.

The CHRONOLOGY OF RELEVANT FACTS AND EVENTS in support of this

Complaint for Perjury as discussed hereinbelow.

3.5.

It appears that the Respondent and his anonymous Financier are regularly
engaged in the business of lending money to individuals/borrowers at usurious
and unconscionable interest rates. There is no showing that their lending business is
single proprietorship or a partnership or a corporation. There is no showing that they
are licensed, registered or authorized to engage in the business of money
lending.

3.6.

On 20 September 2014 or thereabout, the Complainant XXX was in need of P15,

000.00 for the tuition fees of his child enrolled at the xxx. He sought the assistance
of the Respondent. The Respondent said he could lend the herein Complainant XXX
the amount that he needed. It later appeared that the Respondent was acting as an
agent of an anonymous Financier, who provided the Respondent with regular
funds to lend out to his clients/borrowers for a huge and usurious interest rates.

On 30 September 2014, when the herein Complainant XXX was ready to pay in full
his said P15, 000.00 loan, the Respondent demanded an additional amount of P6,
000.00 as interest on the P15, 000.00 principal loan for the period of ten (10) days. The
Respondent alleged that the said amount was being required by his anonymous
Financier. The herein Complainant XXX was surprised by such a statement of the
Respondent because the latter had earlier said that the amount of P15, 000.00 was the
Complainants own personal savings. The Complainants started to suspect the
honesty of the Complainant.
The P6, 000.00 interest on the P15, 000.00 principal loan for a very short period of ten
(10) days was usurious, unacceptable, unconscionable, iniquitous, and immoral.
Nonetheless, to avoid unnecessary interpersonal problems with the Respondent, the
Complainants paid, via a deposit to the bank account of the Respondent, to the
Respondent the principal loan of P15,000.00 and the interest of P6, 000.00 that the
Respondent and his anonymous Financier were demanding.
3.7.

As earlier stated, the Complainants paid the Respondent on30 September 2014 the
total amount of P21, 000.00,broken down as follows: (a) P15, 000.00 as principal loan;
and (b) P6, 000.00 as interest. Please note that the said P6, 000.00 interest amounted
to an incredible, usurious, iniquitous, unconscionable and immoral forty percent (40%)
interest rate for the very short period of ten (10) days (i.e., 20 September 2014 to
30 September 2014).

3.8.

The abovementioned verbal loan transaction involving a principal amount of P15,

000.00 that took place on 20 September 2014 was not evidenced by any promissory
note, contract of loan, voucher, official receipt, or similar financial or contractual
document. It was a verbal loan transaction. There was no oral or written
stipulation whatsoever as to the interest, penalties, or surcharges of the said
verbal loan.
Please note, too, that the Respondent did not attach to his Estafa Complaint any
promissory note, contract of loan, voucher, official receipt, or similar financial or
contractual document to prove his claim against the herein Complainants. What were
attached to the Respondents Estafa Complainant were only the following
documents: (a)Barangay Kasunduan dated 7 October 2015 between the
Complainant and the Respondent; (b) Final Demand Letter, dated 12 November
2015, which was based solely on the Barangay Kasunduan; and (c) Special Power of
Attorney (SPA), dated 14 December 2015, executed by the Respondent in favor of
xxx XXX (his daughter) and xxx (his sister) on the pretext that he would be going abroad
soon.

3.9.

Two (2) weeks after 30 September 2014 (the date when the herein Complainants paid
to the Respondent the said amount of P21,000.00) -- or sometime in the middle of
October 2014, -- the Respondent called up the Respondent alleging:(a) That his
anonymous Financier (whom the Complainant did not identify) had allegedly
rejected the payment of P21, 000.00 earlier made by the Respondent; and ( b) That

the unidentified Financier of the Complainant was allegedly

demanding double the said amount of P21, 000.00, that is, a total of P42,
000.00. The Respondent rejected such an unfair, unjust, iniquitous, unconscionable,
immoral, usurious, and unacceptable demand for P42, 000.00.
3.10.

Please note that the Respondents demand for P42, 000.00 as of 15 October 2014 or
thereabout, in relation to the original verbal loan of P15, 000.00 contracted by the
herein Complainant XXX on 20 September 2014, would amount to a huge and unjust
interest of thirty-five percent (35%) for very short period of twenty-five (25) days
(i.e., 20 September 2014 to 15 October 2014). This was clearly usurious, immoral,
unacceptable, iniquitous, unconscionable, and unjustified, considering that no interest
was formally agreed upon or stipulated when the verbal loan for P15, 000.00 was
consummated between the Complainant XXX and the Respondent on 20 September
2014.
The Respondent did not present to the herein Complainants at that time and up to the
present time any credible documentary proof identifying his anonymous Financier.
Neither did the Respondent present to the herein Complainants at that time and up to
the present time anydocumentary proof of demand/collection, statement of
account, billing, letter, or any written request or instruction from his anonymous
Financier to prove the allegation of the Respondent that his anonymous Financier was
indeed demanding P42, 000.00 at that time.

3.11.

The Complainants at that time demanded that the Respondent the name, address
and contact details of the anonymous Financier so that the herein Complainants could
personally discuss and explain his position to the Financier. But the Respondent
refused and continues to refuse to this very day to give to the herein Complainants the
name, address and contact details of the anonymous Financier.

3.12.

After the said telephone call of the Respondent to the herein Complainant XXX made
on 15 October 2014 or thereabout, the Respondent kept quiet for two (2) months. Then
sometime in December 2014 or thereabout the Respondent again called up the
herein Complainant XXX alleging that the past-due interest of the latter on the
original principal loan of P15,000.00 made on 20 September 2014 had already
escalated to P100,000.00 as of the date of his call in December 2014. The
Respondent alleged that he had mortgaged his house to his anonymous Financier to
pay for the said unpaid interest of the herein Complainant XXX.
The herein Complainants, doubting the sincerity and truthfulness of the allegation of the
Respondent, demanded the name, address and contact details of the Financier so that
the herein Complainants could forthwith talk and discuss the issue with the said
Financier. They also demanded copies of any documentary proof justifying the claim
of P100, 000.00 interest as of that time (December 2014). But the Respondent failed
and refused and continues to fail and refuse to this very day to provide the herein
Complainants such information and documentary proof/s.

3.13.

On 7 October 2015 or thereabout the Respondent again called up the herein

Complainant XXX, saying that the former was at that time waiting inside Xxx
Subdivision near the home of the herein Complainants, inside his van, and that the
Respondent to talk with the herein Complainant XXX for a while about his loan. The
herein Complainant XXX agreed to meet with the Respondent outside his home. When
they met, the Respondent asked the herein Complainant XXX to go inside his van for a
more private discussion. When the herein Complainant XXX the van of the
Respondent, he was surprised to see a man who identified himself as XXX XXX, who
showed the Respondent a government ID. XXX threatened the Respondent with the
following words:
HOY, IKAW, LOKO KA HA! MAY UTANG KA PALA NANG GANITO KALAKI KAY
ANNIVER. HINDI MO BA AKO KILALA? VICE PRESIDENT AKO NG ASSOCIATION
NG XXX. SUMAMA KA SA AKIN SA BARANGAY. PAG HINDI KA SUMAMA,
PAPALABASIN KO KAYO SA XXX AT HINDI NA KAYO PWEDE TUMIRA DITO.

3.14.

Although the herein Complainant XXX, being a xxx national, has no perfect mastery
of the Tagalog language, he understood the context of the threatening words of XXX
based on his facial expressions and hand movements and based on the harassing
presence of the Respondent. Despite the fact that there was no pending formal
Barangay complaint against the herein Complainant XXX and despite the fact that there
was no official Barangay summons issued to him at that time, he was forced by XXX
and the Respondent to go with them to the Barangay Hall of Barangay xxx, xxx City
right that very moment.

3.15.

At the Barangay Hall, the herein Complainant XXX told the Barangay officer, by the
name of Deputy R. XXX, (a) That he had not received any formal Barangay
complaint or formal Barangay summons; and (b) That the claim of the Respondent
for P366, 000.00 was baseless, unfounded, untrue, false, and fabricated.

3.16.

The herein Complainant XXX, without the aid of an interpreter, was forced by
Barangay Deputy XXX, XXX, and the Respondent to sign a page of the Barangay
logbook, which turned out later to be a KASUNDUAN.

3.17.

The herein Complainant XXX was misled by Barangay Deputy XXX, XXX, and the
Respondent that the document was only aharmless record or minutes of the
Barangay meeting. The contents and the legal effects of the said documentwere not
explained and interpreted to the herein Complainant XXX by Barangay Deputy XXX
or any Barangay Kagawad or by the Barangay Secretary or by any Lupon Officer or
Member.

3.18.

The herein Complainant XXX signed the Kasunduan UNDER DURESS. He was
MISLED by Barangay Deputy XXX to sign it. He was threatened/intimidated by XXX and
the Respondent to sign it. He did not understand its contents, consequences, and legal
effects because, as a Japanese national, he has no mastery of English and Tagalog,
although he could understand and speak some simple English and Tagalog words and

phrases. He was not assisted by an Interpreter or by a lawyer of his choice. All he

knew was that the said document was a harmless minutes of meeting, as
represented to him by Barangay Deputy XXX, XXX and the Respondent.
3.19.

Later, in his criminal complaint for Estafa against the herein Complainant XXX, the
Respondent would capitalize on the said KASUNDUAN as the sole basis of his FINAL
DEMAND LETTER to prove the alleged financial liability of the Respondent. The
Kasunduan was an entrapment document used by the Respondent to document
a verballoan agreement and to evade the degree of evidence required by the Statutes
of Frauds of the Civil Code.

3.20. Aside from the suspicious Kasunduan, the Respondent has not presented any credible
document, such as, but not necessarily limited to, a CONTRACT OF LOAN, a
PROMISSORY NOTE, a VOUCHER, a STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, or a
BILL executed or signed by the Lender and the Borrower: To prove the financial claim
of the Respondent and his anonymous Financier; To prove the veracity of the
computation/s of the usurious past-due interests of the herein Complainant XXX; and
To prove compliance by the Respondent and his anonymous Financier with the
mandatory provisions of the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT in re: the formal issuance by
the Lender to the Borrower of a FULL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, containing the
amount of the principal loan, the stipulated interest rate, the stimulated penalties
and surcharges, if any and other covenants related to the agreed loan.
3.21.

After a few days from 7 October 2015, the Respondent made a series of calls to the
herein Complainant XXX, pestering the latter to pay his alleged obligation. The
Respondent alleged and stated: That the payment should be made by the herein
Complainant AXXX at the home of XXX, xxx of the homeowners association of Xxx
Subdivision (who was not a party to the oral loan transaction); That the Respondent
would soon leave for abroad; That his wife would soon return from abroad; and That it
would be a great problem on his part if his wife would discover that he had allegedly
mortgaged his house (and, this time, allegedly including his van) to his anonymous
Financier to secure the alleged obligation of the herein Complainant XXX.

3.22. Sometime in the latter part of October 2015 or thereaboutthe Respondent visited the
home of the herein Complainants, accompanied by an unidentified man whose
appearance appeared to be suspicious. The Respondent repeated his demand to be
paid, this time, in the total amount of P366, 000.00. The herein Complainants insisted
that they had already settled in full his original verbal loan of P15, 000.00 with P6,
000.00 interest. They demanded that the Respondent show proofs of the alleged liability
of the herein Complainant XXX and the computations of the alleged past-due interests,
either in the form of a voucher or an official receipt or a statement of account or a
billing or a promissory note or a contract of loan or any other credible
document.Ignoring the foregoing demand of the herein Complainants, the Respondent
insisted that the herein Complainants pay the total amount he was claiming and that the
same be paid by them at the home of XXX. The Complainants were thus constrained to

tell the Respondent that it would be better for him to file a court case to prove his claim
so that the truth would come out.
3.23. Please note that in the Barangay KASUNDUAN, dated 7 October 2015, the alleged
financial obligation of the herein Complainant XXX, according to the Respondent,
was P366, 000.00. It contradicts the Final Demand Letter, dated 12 November 2015,
of the Respondent, which claimed the total amount of P326, 000.00 - or a huge and
unexplained difference of P40, 000.00.
3.24. On 26 November 2015 the herein Complainant XXX confronted XXX at his home in Xxx
Subdivision. She brought along with her, as her mediators/witnesses, the Spouses XXX.
Alex Xxx was a past president of the homeowners association of the subdivision. During
the said confrontation, the Respondent was mysteriously present inside the home of
XXX. In that confrontation, herein Complainant XXX told XXX: That the herein
Complainants have been residents/tenants of the subdivision for seven (7) years; That
as the vice president of the homeowners association with the legal duty to serve the
common good of the homeowners/tenants of the subdivision, XXX should have taken
steps to protect the herein Complainants as residents/tenants of the subdivision (i.e., as
his constituents in the subdivision) against the baseless and unfounded claim of the
Respondent; That at the very least XXX should have first consulted and heard the side
of the herein Complainants when the Respondent first sought his assistance to collect
from the herein Complainant XXX; and that he should not have believed outright, hook
line and sinker, the said claim of the Respondent without first giving the herein
Complainants an opportunity to be heard; That the act of XXX of coercively bringing the
herein Complainant XXX to the Barangay Hall on 7 October 2015, without the
assistance of the herein Complainant XXX and based solely on the personal request of
the Respondent -- and without the prior filing a formal Barangay complaint and without
the prior issuance of a formal Barangay summons to the herein Complainant XXX -was an unjust, unfair, improper, irregular, anomalous and illegal act of harassment,
intimidation, and unjust vexation.
3.25. To put an end to abusive and pestering collection behavior of the Respondent -- and
solely to buy peace, without admitting any liability on the part of the herein
Complainants and without admitting the validity of the claim of the Respondent in the
amount of P366, 000.00 -- the herein Complainants paid the Respondent
an additional amount of P47, 000.00 on October 15, 2015, via a deposit to the bank
account of the Respondent, hoping that such an amount would finally end the baseless
claim and collection pestering/harassment of the Respondent. But it was not so. The
Respondent continues to insist on his claim of P366, 000.00 by filing a harassment case
for Estafa.
3.26. The Respondent is using the Criminal Justice System as his own coercive
COLLECTION AGENCY. It is the hope and prayer of the herein Complainants that this
Honorable Office would resist the malicious move of the Complainant touse, mislead,
and exploit it as his pro bono personal COLLECTION AGENCY.

3.27. On 26 November 2015, the herein Complainant XXX filed a complaint with Barangay
xxx against the Complainant and XXX. During the Barangay conciliation
XXX apologized to her for his behavior. The herein affiant accepted his apology, with
the hope that XXX would be more discerning as a community leader in the future.
3.28. On January 18, 2016 at 7:00 PM, the Subpoena of this Honorable Office in re: the
Estafa case filed by the Respondent was delivered by the process server of this
Honorable Office at the new home address of the Respondent at Xxx Subdivision. (It
was originally addressed to the oldhome address of the herein Complainants in the
same subdivision).
The herein Complainants were constrained to retain the legal services of the LASERNA
CUEVA-MERCADER LAW OFFICES, Xxx City, to defend their legal and constitutional
rights in the litigation of the instant case, in the interest of truth and justice; to disprove
the false, fabricated, baseless, unfounded, and malicious claim of the Complainant; and
to file the necessary criminal and/or civil counter-charges against the Respondent.
4.

CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE DOCUMENTS OF THE

RESPONDENT. - Please note the internal contradictions and inadequacies among
the documents submitted by the Respondent in the Estafa case.
AS TO THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLEGED CLAIM:

(a)

In his Sworn Statement, dated 14 December 2015, given before the Xxx City
Police Station, the Respondent claims P326,000.00;

(b)

In the Barangay Kasunduan, 7 October 2015, he claims P366,000.00;

(c)

In the Final Demand Letter, dated 12 November 2015, he claims P326,000.00;

(d)

In the Special Power of Attorney (SPA), dated 14 December 2015, he

claims P326,000.00;

(e)

Please note that in all of the foregoing allegations no VOUCHERS, OFFICIAL

RECEIPTS, STATEMENTS OF ACCOUINTS, BILLS, PROMISSORY NOTES,
CONTRACTS OF LOAN, and/or DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS were presented by the
Respondent to prove his claim.
AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ALLEGED LOAN OF THE HEREIN COMPLAINANT
XXX.

(a)

In his Sworn Statement, dated 14 December 2015, given before the Xxx Xxx City
Police Station, the Respondent alleged that he and the Complainant XXXhad agreed to
go into the business of money lending. (Q and A No. 6).

(b)

In his Special Power of Attorney (SPA), dated 14 December 2015, he alleged that
his claim was based on alleged Ticket Purchase. (Par. 1, SPA).

(c)

Please note that the Respondent has not presented any proof of his
alleged partnership agreement or business agreement with the herein Complainant
XXX to establish a money lending business referred to in Q and A No. 6 of his Sworn
Statement, dated 14 December 2015, e.g., AGREEMENT/CONTRACT,
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, ARTICLES OF PARTNERSHIP, AFFIDAVIT,
UNDERTAKING, DEED, LETTERS AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS, and the like.

(d)

Please note, too, that the Respondent has not presented any proof of the
alleged Ticket Purchase of the herein Complainant XXX, referred to in Par. 1 of his
SPA, dated 14 December 2015, e.g.,VOUCHERS, PLANE TICKETS, BILLS,
STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT, UNDERTAKINGS, DEEDS, LETTERS AND OTHER
COMMUNICATIONS , and the like.
5.

The herein Complainants hereby submit to this Honorable Office the following
documents to support their instant complaint for Perjury:

(a)

Annex B - XXX Cash Deposit Slip #xxx, dated 30 September 2014, in the
amount of P21, 000.00 paid to the bank account of the Respondent - to prove the full
payment by the Complainant of the oral loan dated 20 September 2014, broken down
as follows: The agreed principal loan of P15, 000.00; and The unstipulated interest
of P6, 000.oo demanded by the Respondent.

(b)

Annex C and C-1 Barangay Blotter, dated 26 November 2015, re: the
Barangay complaint of the herein Complainant XXX against the unjust and coercive
acts of harassment of the Respondent and XXX XXX.
Note:
Due to lack of material time, the herein Complainants cannot submit as an annex of this
pleading at this time a copy of theXXX Cash Deposit Slip, dated 15 October 2015, in
the amount of P47, 000.00 to prove that the herein Complainants had deposited the
said amount to the bank account of the Respondent to buy peace, without admitting
any liability on the part of the herein Complainant XXX and without admitting the
validity of the claim of the Respondent. The herein Complainants will attempt this
week to secure from the Bank a formal Certification of its Branch Manager to
corroborate the foregoing fact. The herein Complainants reserve the right to present the
said bank certification as an annex to their future Reply-Affidavit. The said Cash
Deposit Slip was misplaced or
thrown away by the housemaid of the herein Complainants, together with other
personal papers, when their family recently moved to their new home address in the

same subdivision. The housemaid mistakenly thought that those papers were trash
and unnecessary.
At any rate, please note that the Complaint admits in Q and A No. 7 of his Sworn
Statement, dated 14 December 2015, that he indeed RECEIVED from the
Respondent the said amount of P47,000.00.
6.

The herein Complainant XXX has REVOKED the dubious, unfair, invalid, and
misleading BARANGAY KASUNDUAN, dated 7 October 2015 (written in Tagalog, which
is not the mother language of the Complainant xxx), the reason being that he was
forced to sign the same UNDER DURESS, UNDER THE MISLEADING AND FALSE
REPRESENTATION of Barangay Deputy Xxx, in cahoots with XXX and the
Respondent, that the document was merely a harmless record/minutes of the their
Barangay meeting, and WITHOUT A FULL, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY
KNOWLEDGE, CONSENT AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL EFFECTS AND
CONSEQUENCES THEREOF on his part.

7.

It will be noted that REPUBLIC ACT No. 3765, AN ACT TO REQUIRE THE
DISCLOSURE OF FINANCE CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH EXTENSIONS OF
CREDIT and otherwise known as the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT, declares it to be
the policy of the State to protect its citizens from a lack of awareness of the true cost
of credit to the user by assuring a full disclosure of such cost with a view of preventing
the uninformed use of credit to the detriment of the national economy. (Sec. 2, RA
3765).
Under the said Act, "Credit" means any loan, mortgage, deed of trust, advance, or
discount; any conditional sales contract; any contract to sell, or sale or contract of sale
of property or services, either for present or future delivery, under which part or all of the
price is payable subsequent to the making of such sale or contract; any rental-purchase
contract; any contract or arrangement for the hire, bailment, or leasing of property; any
option, demand, lien, pledge, or other claim against, or for the delivery of, property or
money; any purchase, or other acquisition of, or any credit upon the security of, any
obligation
of claim arising out of any of the foregoing; and any transaction or series of transactions
having a similar purpose or effect. (Sec. 3, Id.).
It defines "Finance charge" as interest, fees, service charges, discounts, and such
other charges incident to the extension of credit as the Board may be regulation
prescribe. (Id.).
It defines "Creditor" as any person engaged in the business of extending
credit (including any person who as a regular business practice make loans or sells or
rents property or services on a time, credit, or installment basis, either as principal or as
agent) who requires as an incident to the extension of credit, the payment of a finance
charge. (Id.).

Section 4 of the said Act provides that any creditor shall furnish to each person to
whom credit is extended, prior to the consummation of the transaction, a clear
statement in writing setting forth, to the extent applicable and in accordance with rules
and regulations prescribed by the Board, the following information:
(1) the cash price or delivered price of the property or service to be acquired;
(2) the amounts, if any, to be credited as down payment and/or trade-in;
(3) the difference between the amounts set forth under clauses (1) and (2);
(4) the charges, individually itemized, which are paid or to be paid by such person in
connection with the transaction but which are not incident to the extension of credit;
(5) the total amount to be financed;
(6) the finance charge expressed in terms of pesos and centavos; and
(7) the percentage that the finance bears to the total amount to be financed expressed
as a simple annual rate on the outstanding unpaid balance of the obligation.
The said clear statement in writing is commonly called the FULL DISCLOSURE
STATEMENT.
Section 6 of the said Act provides any person who willfully violates any provision of this
Act or any regulation issued thereunder shall be fined by not less than P1,00 or more
than P5,000 or imprisonment for not less than 6 months, nor more than one year
or both. The same section also provides that a final judgment hereafter rendered in
any criminal proceeding under this Act to the effect that a defendant has willfully violated
this Act shall be prima facie evidence against such defendant in an action or proceeding
brought by any other party against such defendant under this Act as to all matters
respecting which said judgment would be an estoppel as between the parties thereto.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Respondent be indicted for violation
of the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT (R.A. 3765).
FURTHER, the herein Complainants pray for such and other reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable in the premises.
Xxx Xxx City, 27 January 2016.

XXX XXX
Complainant
xxx St.
Xxx Homes , xxx
Xxx, Xxx City
XXX XXX
Complainant
No. xxx St.
Xxx Homes , xxx

xxx, Xxx City

SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me in Xxx Xxx City on ___ January 2016.
Administering Assistant City Prosecutor