REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch ____, Iloilo City

Alexander Sison, Civil Case No. _____

Plaintiff, For: Collection of Sum of Money with Prayer of
writ for the issuance of Preliminary Attachment
-versus-

Juan Jamero,
Defendant.

x------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, through counsel, most respectfully avers:

(1.) That plaintiff, Alexander Sison is a Filipino citizen, of legal age, single and a resident of
111 Libertad St. Sampaloc Manila, whereas, defendant Juan Jamero is likewise a
Filipino, of legal age, single, and residing at 222 Juan Luna St., Tondo Manila, at which
address the party herein may be served with summons and other court processes;

(2.) That on January 3, 2008, defendant borrowed from plaintiff the amount of one million
pesos (Php. 1,000,000.00) , which indebtedness is due and payable on or before
January 3, 2009, with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum within one (1) year, in
accordance with the promissory note executed by the defendant on the said date.
Photostatic copy of said promissory note is attached and marked as Annex “A” and
made as a integral part hereof;

(3.) That the defendant has failed and refused and still fails and refuses to pay the said
indebtedness on due date, with corresponding interest thereon to the herein plaintiff,
despite repeated requests and demands.

(4.) That the plaintiff served several demands to the defendant, attached is the last demand
letter executed on July 01, 2009 by the plaintiff as annex “B” and made as an integral
part hereof;

(5.) That the defendant shall pay for the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation in the
amount of Php. 75,000.00 and a fee of P3,000 for every appearance in court, and to pay
the cost of this suit;

(6.) That the plaintiff is willing to put up a bond for the issuance of a preliminary
attachment in an amount to be fixed by the court, not exceeding the sum of one million
pesos which is the plaintiff’s claim herein;
 Allegations for the Issuance of for Preliminary Attachment

Plaintiff further states and alleges:

(7.) That Plaintiff has a valid and sufficient cause of action against the herein defendant
regarding the collection of sum of money which is already due and demandable;

(8.) Defendant has removed or disposed of or is about to remove or dispose of her property,
with intent to defraud her creditors thereby rendering nugatory and ineffective
whatever money judgment this honorable court may render in the above entitled case;
(9.) That the defendant does not have sufficient security for the claim sought for the
plaintiff against him;

(10.) That the plaintiff is willing to put up a bond for the issuance of a preliminary
attachment in an amount to be fixed by the court, not exceeding the sum of one million
pesos which is the plaintiff’s claim herein;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that pending

hearing of this case a writ of preliminary attachment be issued against the property of
the defendant to serve as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be
recovered herein; and that after due hearing on the principal cause of this action,
judgment be rendered against the defendant for the sum of the following:

(1.) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of one million pesos (Php.
1,000,000.00) plus interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from January 3,
2009, and until the same is fully paid; and

(2.) Ordering defendant to pay the attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation in the amount
of Php. 75,000.00 and a fee of P3,000 for every appearance in court, and to pay the cost
of this suit;
Plaintiff likewise prays for such other and further relief or reliefs as this Honorable
Court may deem just and equitable under the premises.

Manila, Philippines, September 01, 2009.

MARY JOY S. DEJADA

Counsel for the Plaintiff
4321 suite, Makati Manila
 Republic of the Philippines
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch _____
Iloilo City

Ian Alba,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. ______
-versus-
For: Unlawful Detainer
Jun Miranda, with writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - --- - -- x

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Ian Alba, through undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court most
respectfully alleges that:

1. Plaintiff, Ian Alba, is of legal age, Filipino, single and a resident of 9 South Aguila, Green Cross
Subdivision, Quezon City, where the plaintiff may be serve with court processes;
2. The defendant, Jun Miranda, is of legal age, Filipino, single and a resident of 9 West Aguila, Green
Cross Subdivision, Quezon City, where he may be served with summons and other court processes;
3. Herein Plaintiff is the true, lawful, absolute owner and lessor of the house and lot located in of 9
West Aguila, Green Cross Subdivision, Quezon City;
4. That on May 01, 2006, plaintiff entered into a written contract with defendant whereby the former
leased to the latter the above-described property for the period of two (2) years, starting on May 1,
2006, for the monthly rental of fifty thousand pesos (Php 50,000.00), copy of which contract of
lease is attached hereto as Annex “A”, made as an integral part hereof;
5. That by virtue of the said contract, Annex “A”, defendant took possession of the property in
question on May 1,2006, and he is still in possession of the same up to the present time;
6. That the defendant failed to pay his monthly rentals from the months of January 01, 2007 up to the
present which amounts to five hundred thousand (Php 500, 000.00) plus interest , and still
continue to maintain his occupation and use of the facilities despite demand of payment and/or
leave the premise upon payment and still refuses to vacate the property, in spite of repeated
demands and a written notice in advance thereof; a copy of Demand Letters both the initial and
final demand is hereby attached as Annex “B-1” and “B-2” of the complaint;
7. Plaintiff is constrained to bring this action against defendant and to retain the services of a counsel
to protect his rights therefore and incurred a considerable sum of money for attorney’s fee and
other litigation expenses as may be proved in the course of the proceedings of this case;
8. Likewise, the continuance of the possession by the defendant against plaintiff’s property would
work grave injustice to the plaintiff and that great irreparable damage and injury would result to
him before the matter can be heard unless a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is issued;
 9. Plaintiff is ready and willing to post a bond executed to defendant in the amount to be fixed by this
Honorable Court to answer for whatever damages defendant may incur as a result of injunction.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction be immediately

issued by this Honorable Court for the performance of the defendant of a particular act, that is to vacate
the premises while pending litigation,

And after due hearing, judgment be rendered in favour of the plaintiff to wit:

a. Granting the Writ of preliminary mandatory Injunction permanent;

b. Ordering defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of five hundred thousand (Php 500, 000.00)
plus interest at the courts determination;
c. Ordering defendant to pay actual and compensatory damages to the plaintiff in the amount to be
presented during the trial;
d. To pay attorney’s fee and the cost of this suit in the amount to be presented in the course of the
trial; and
e. To pay moral damages and exemplary damages to deter others from committing the same in the
amount to be presented during the trial.

Plaintiff further prays for such other relief the Honorable Court may deem just and equitable in the
premises.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Iloilo City, Philippines, October 01, 2007,

DEJADA AND ASSOCIATES

Lawyers and Notary Public
1234 suite
Makati, Manila
BY:
Mary Joy S. Dejada
ATTY. MARY JOY S. DEJADA
Counsel for the Plaintiff
IBP No. 879870 * Iloilo City * 26 December 05
PTR No. 8978970 * Iloilo City * 29 December 05
Roll of Attorneys No. 08667 * Page 525 * Book XXIV
MCLE Compliance No1- 0000066
 Republic of the Philippines
Municipal Trial Court
Branch II
Davao City

BEN QUE
COMPLAINANT,

Criminal Case No. 11100

- versus- FOR: VIOLATION OF BP. 22

HENRY CHAO
ACCUSED

x --------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
For the Accused

COMES NOW THE ACCUSED, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court
most respectfully submits and presents this Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Mr. Henry Chao is charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Manila With Five (5) counts
of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

That on June 01, 2011, the accused who is the manager of atlas parts borrowed money from the
amount of P50, 000.00 with 5% monthly interest, payable in five equal monthly instalments of P12,
500.00, the money will be used to pay for their stocks, evidenced by a five (5) checks issued by the
accused for that effect.

That the said checks by which it represents instalments of payments of the accused obligations was
deposited in BOD Manila City hall branch but said check was dishonored by the drawee, Alloy Bank for
the reason of account closed.
That the complainant alleged that he sent a demand letter thru registered mail to the accused on January
2, 2012 in his office at Malugay Street, Malabon City.

The complainant alleged that the accused received it because the registered letters was not return to the
complainant.

On the other hand, the accused averred that the instruments are Now slips that is a negotiable order of
withdrawal slips and are not considered bills of exchange within the meaning of the negotiable
instruments law and therefore cannot be considered as checks.

The accused also denies the allegation of the complainant stating among others that he did not received
the demand letter sent by the complainant after the dishonor.

That at the time when the slips was become due and demandable, the accused no longer the manager of
the atlas parts and was not aware of the notice of dishonor.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether or not the accused did actually notify that the slips presented was dishonored.
2. Whether or not the presentation of complainants’ registry receipt and the return card allegedly
sent to accused is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.

ARGUMENTS
1. The accused did not actually notify of the notice of dishonored
2. The presentation of registry receipt and the return card allegedly sent to accused is not
sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused

DISCUSSION

1. Under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused issued a check that
was subsequently dishonored. It must also establish that the accused was actually notified that
the check was dishonored:
 In the case of Ambito vs. People, G.R 127327, Febraury 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 69, the court Held
that:

Under B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused issued a check that was
subsequently dishonored. It must also establish that the accused was actually notified that the check was
dishonored, and that he or she failed, within five (5) banking days from receipt of the notice, to pay the
holder of the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment. Absent proof that
the accused received such notice, a prosecution for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law cannot prosper.
The absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal
prosecution. Accordingly, procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of dishonor be actually sent
to and received by the accused. The accused has a right to demand – and the basic postulates of fairness
require – that the notice of dishonor be actually sent to and received by the same to afford him/her the
opportunity to avert prosecution under B.P. Blg. 22.

In the Given Case, since the accused resigned as a manager of atlas parts in the middle of June 2011,
before the Now slips was dishonored, the accused did not actually received the notice of dishonor, hence,
absent proof that the accused received such notice, a prosecution for violation of the Bouncing Checks
Law cannot prosper. Absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an opportunity to
preclude a criminal prosecution.

2. The presentation of registry receipt and the return card allegedly sent to accused is not
sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused:

In the case of Alferez vs. People G.R 182301, January 31, 2011, 641SCRA116 the Court Held that:

In this case, the prosecution merely presented a copy of the demand letter, together with the registry
receipt and the return card, allegedly sent to petitioner. However, there was no attempt to authenticate or
identify the signature on the registry return card. Receipts for registered letters and return receipts do
not by themselves prove receipt; they must be properly authenticated to serve as proof of receipt of the
letter, claimed to be a notice of dishonor. To be sure, the presentation of the registry card with an
unauthenticated signature, does not meet the required proof beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner
received such notice. It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that a notice of dishonor was sent to
the drawee of the check. The prosecution must also prove actual receipt of said notice, because the fact of
service provided for in the law is reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the drawee of the
check. The burden of proving notice rests upon the party asserting its existence. Ordinarily,
preponderance of evidence is sufficient to prove notice. In criminal cases, however, the quantum of proof
required is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for B.P. Blg. 22 cases, there should be clear proof of
notice. Moreover, for notice by mail, it must appear that the same was served on the addressee or a duly
authorized agent of the addressee. From the registry receipt alone, it is possible that petitioner or his
authorized agent did receive the demand letter. Possibilities, however, cannot replace proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The consistent rule is that penal statutes have to be construed strictly against the State
and liberally in favor of the accused. The absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives the
accused an opportunity to preclude a criminal prosecution. As there is insufficient proof that petitioner
received the notice of dishonor, the presumption that he had knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot
arise.

In the given case, the prosecution only presented a registry receipt and presumed that it was received by
the accused on the ground that the registered letter was not returned to the complainant. The
prosecution must also prove actual receipt of said notice, because the fact of service provided for in the
law is reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the drawee of the check, hence it fails to prove
that the accused actually received the demand letter and that no criminal liability attached.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused respectfully prays to the honorable court that
judgment of ACQUITTAL be rendered in his favor.

Davao City, 18st day of October, 2014.

GESTOPA LAW OFFICE

Counsel of the Defendant
Dumanlas,Buhangin,Davao City

By:

Gestopa, Michael B.
Notary Public
Roll No. 153645
IBP No. 4747658
PTR No. 645454