Legal Forms Rule 65 Annexes

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Branch 15, Cebu City
STEPHEN CURRY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No: 12345
-versus- For: Collection of Sum of Money
LEBRON JAMES,
Defendant.
X-------------------/
DECISION
This deals with the complaint for collection of sum of money filed by
Plaintiff Stephen Curry on January 23, 2019 against defendant Lebron
James. Briefly, in the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on January 13, 2018,
Plaintiff Stephen Curry and Lebron James entered into a contract of loan for
a lump sum payment of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 2,
500, 000.00) with a non-compounding interest rate of 5% per annum
payable on January 12, 2019 evidenced by a Promissory note allegedly
signed by both contracting parties.
Despite oral and written demands sent by letter on January 16, 2019
and January 20, 2019, defendant Lebron James failed to pay the note
payable with its corresponding accumulated interest. Such failure to pay
compelled herein plaintiff to initiate this present action to collect the sum
owing to him.
On February 2, 2019, summons was served in the residence of herein

Defendant Lebron James. However, no Answer was filed by the defendant
within the period required by these Rules. Section 1, Rule 11 of the Rules of
Court provides that:
Section 1. Answer to the complaint. — The defendant shall file his

answer to the complaint within fifteen (15) days after service of
summons, unless a different period is fixed by the court. (la)
Moreover, Section 3, Rule 9 of the same Rules of Court provides that:
Section 3. Default; declaration of. — If the defending party fails to

answer within the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion
of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of
1
such failure, declare the defending party in default. Thereupon, the
court shall proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such
relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion
requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of evidence
may be delegated to the clerk of court. (1a, R18)
Hence, for the failure of the defendant Lebron James to file an

Answer within the period required by the aforementioned Rules, plaintiff
Stephen Curry was duly allowed to present evidence of such indebtedness.
WHEREFORE, defendant LeBron James is hereby ordered to pay

plaintiff Stephen Curry the amount of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P 2, 500, 000.00) with its corresponding interests.
Notify the parties through their counsels of this order.
SO ORDERED.
Cebu City, Philippines. March 28, 2019.
DEMAR F. DEROZAN
Presiding Judge
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
7TH JUDICIAL
STEPHEN CURRY,
Plaintiff,
LEBRON JAMES,
Defendant.
ORDER
This resolves the Motion to Declare Defendant in Default filed by

Plaintiff Stephen Curry on February 10, 2019.
Plaintiff claims that defendant failed to file his Answer within the 15-
day reglementary period set forth under Section 1 Rule 11 of the Rules of
Court. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant was served a copy of the
summons and of the Complaint, together with the annexes thereto on
January 23, 2019. However, defendant failed to file an Answer within the
period required.
Under Section 1 Rule 11 of the Rules of Court, the defendant is

required to file his Answer to the Complaint within fifteen (15) days after
the service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the court. If
defendant fails to comply with the aforesaid requirement of filing the
Answer within the said period, Section 3 Rule 9 of the Rules of Court allows
the court to declare the defendant in default, to wit:
Sec. 3. Default; declaration of. – If the defending party fails to

answer within the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon
motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending
party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in
default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render
judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may
warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the
claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of evidence may
be delegated to the clerk of court. xxx
In the case at bar, Plaintiff Stephen Curry served to defendant Lebron

James a copy of the summons and of the Complaint, together with the
annexes on January 23, 2019. However, Defendant did not file an Answer
within the fifteen (15) day reglementary period set forth under Section 1
1
Rule 11 of the Rules of Court. As such, this court may declare defendant in
default pursuant to Section 3 Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the Motion to Declare defendant Lebron James in

default is hereby GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Cebu City, Philippines, February 13, 2019

Seveth Judicial Region
STEPHEN CURRY,
Plaintiff,
- versus - Civil Case No. 234162
For: Sum of Money
LEBRON JAMES,
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x
ORDER
This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration filed by defendant

Lebron James on February 25, 2019. Defendant-Movant assails the order
dated on February 13, 2019 granting plaintiff’s motion to declare defendant
in default thereby declaring defendant in default for failure to file an
answer within the reglementary period as provided by the rules.
James claims that he was denied due process and that it was
improper for this court to declare him in default. Rule 9(3) of the Rules of
Court allows the Court to declare a party in default for failure to answer
within the time allowed therefore upon motion of the claiming party with
notice of the defending party.
In the case at bar and as reflected in the records, defendant upon

receiving summons on February 2, 2019 is obliged by the rules to file his
answer within 15 days from such date or until February 17, 2019. However,
this defendant failed to do so. As such, it is within the Jurisdiction of this
Court to declare defendant Lebron James in default.
All considered, defendant failed to present any newly discovered

evidence or established grave errors of facts or laws or serious irregularities
in the Decision that would justify a reversal or modification of the same.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of Defendant Lebron

James is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Cebu City, Philippines, February 28, 2019
1
Seventh Judicial Region
STEPHEN CURRY,
Plaintiff,
- versus - Civil Case No. 234162
For: Sum of Money
LEBRON JAMES,
Defendant.
x--------------------------------x
SHERIFF’S RETURN OF SUMMONS
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on February 2, 2019, the undersigned caused

the service of summons together with a copy of the complaint with its
annexes to defendant Lebron James at his given address House 5, St.
Patrick Street, Silver Hills Subdivision, Nasipit Road, Talamban, Cebu City,
Cebu, as stated in the Complaint. Unfortunately, only his houseboy, a young
man named Cardo Dalisay was present. He told me that Mr. James was on a
vacation in Palawan. On the same date, I explained to Dalisay the
contents of the summons I brought with me and he readily signed the
acknowledgment receipt and received the summons together with the copy
of the complaint and its annexes.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, herein undersigned

effected the Substitute Service of the summons to the defendant’s
houseboy named Dalisay.
Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines, February 3, 2019.
BRIAN SCALABRINE
Sheriff
7TH JUDICIAL
STEPHEN CURRY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No:12345
LEBRON JAMES,
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------------------/
MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT
Plaintiff, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully

avers that:
1. The records of the Honorable Court show that Defendant was served
a copy of the summons and of the complaint, together with the
annexes thereto on February 2, 2019;
2. Upon verification however, the records show that Defendant Lebron
James has failed to file his answer within the 15-dayreglementary
period specified of by the Rules of Court despite service of summon
and complaint;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Defendant Lebron James
be declared in default pursuant to the Rules of Court and that the
Honorable Court proceed to render judgment as the complaint may
warrant.
Given this 10th day of February 2019 at Cebu City, Philippines.
ACE NORMAN P. ALVERO

Counsel for Plaintiff
Roll of Attorneys No. 321693
PTR No. 926154, January 7, 2019, Cebu City
IBP No. 101611, January 5, 2019, Cebu City
MCLE Compliance No. V-56231, October 3, 2018
Room 214, 7th flr. Big Bldg., Queen’s Rd., Cebu City
Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax no. 325-1372
alveroandassociates@gmail.com
1
NOTICE OF HEARING
HON. CLERK OF COURT
Regional Trial Court
Greetings!
Kindly bring the foregoing motion to the attention of the Honorable Court
immediately upon receipt thereof and set the same for hearing on 15th day
of February 2019, Friday, at 8:30 A.M.

Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax no. 325-1372
Please be notified that the foregoing motion will be set for hearing this 15th
day of February 2019, Friday, at 8:30 A.M.
COPY FURNISHED:
RECEIVED BY:
CHILL H. JOKENO
Counsel for the Respondent
Cebu City, Philippines
7TH JUDICIAL
STEPHEN CURRY,
Plaintiff,
LEBRON JAMES,
Defendant.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Defendant by counsel respectfully state:
1. The subject matter of this motion for reconsideration is the decision

of the honorable court February 14, 2019 which declared defendant
in default for failure to file an answer within the allowed period
under the rules;
MATERIAL DATES
2. The undersigned counsel for the defendants personally received a

copy of the said Decision on February 14, 2019. His 15th day to file
this motion expires on March 1, 2019.
BASIS OF COURT IN DECLARING DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT
3. On February 13, 2019, the honorable court declared defendant in

default and the order was based on the following grounds:
a. There was proper service of summons;
b. Defendant failed to file his answer within the period allowed
by law.
ISSUES
4. The main issue defendant wants to raise in this motion for

reconsideration pertains to the manner in which the service of
summons was done. It will be recalled that the service of summons
was done through substituted service at the residence of defendant
but to a houseboy therein who was then only 13 years old.
1
ARGUEMENTS
This motion for reconsideration respectfully submits that the

honorable court erred in its order declaring defendant in default for
reasons stated below:
I. THE INSTANT CASE IS AN ACTION IN PERSONAM
5. In ascertaining the proper mode of service of summons in an action,

there has to be a determination as to kind of action that is involved
whether the action is in personam or is in rem or quasi in rem;
6. In the case of Paderanga v. Buissan, G.R. No. L-49475, September 28,

1993 the court had the occasion to define an action in personam and
an action in rem or quasi in rem. The court said that, [a]n action in
personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal
liability, while an action in rem is an action against the thing itself,
instead of against the person.
7. The instant is classified as an action in personam as it seeks a claim

based not against a specific thing, but rather against the person of
defendant on the basis of personal liability;
II. THERE WAS NO PROPER SERVICE OF SUMMONS
8. The case of Biaco v. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, G.R. No.

161417, February 8, 2007, the court differentiated an action in
personam from an action in rem or quasi in rem in terms of
acquisition of jurisdiction ruling that, [i]n an action in
personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary
for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding in
rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that
the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is
acquired either (1) by the seizure of the property under legal process,
whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (2) as a result
of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the
court is recognized and made effective;
9. Jurisdiction in personam—the power of the court to subject the

parties in a particular action to its judgment and other rulings—is an
element of due process. In Prudential Bank v. Magdamit Jr.., G.R. No.
183795, 12 November 2014 the court said that Fundamental is the
rule that jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either
through service of summons or through voluntary appearance in
court and submission to its authority. In the absence or when the
service of summons upon the person of the defendant is defective,
the court acquires no jurisdiction over his person, and a judgment
rendered against him is null and void. Hence, the import of this
pronouncement is that jurisdiction over the defendant in actions in
personam can only be acquired either through a valid service of
summons or voluntary appearance;
10. Insofar as valid service of summons is concerned, the case of Carson

Realty and Management Corporation v. Red Rubin Security Agency ,
G.R. No. 225035, 8 February 2017 ruled that in actions in
personam, [such as the present case], the court acquires jurisdiction
over the person of the defendant through personal or substituted
service of summons. Hence, only two modes of summons are
allowed for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant in an action in personam which are, personal service and
substituted service of summons;
11. Carson Realty and Management Corporation v. Red Rubin Security

Agency, G.R. No. 225035, 8 February 2017 that parties do not have
unbridled right to resort to substituted service of summons. Further,
the same case ruled that substituted service is in derogation of the
usual method of service and personal service of summons is
preferred over substituted service;
12.There was no personal service of summons in this case. According to

the Proof of Service, the copy of the summons was not given to
Petitioner personally;
13. Hence, the only other mode of service is through substituted service
of summons which was also not done within the contemplation of
the law;
14. In Administrative Circular No. 59, issued on 19 November 1989, the

Supreme Court stressed that substituted service is a method
extraordinary in character. It can only be resorted to after earnest
efforts to effect prompt, personal service have failed;
15. In the case of Hamilton v. Levy, G.R. No. 39283, 15 November 2000,
the Supreme Court held that the impossibility of personal service
within a reasonable time should be clearly shown in the Proof of
Service. Otherwise, any substituted service cannot be upheld;
1
16. In the instant case, the proof of service contained no facts and
circumstances indicative of such impossibility of personal service;
17. Assuming arguendo that the sheriff could have validly resorted to
substituted service of summons, the law requires that a copy of the
summons must be left with a person of sufficient age and discretion
then residing therein;
18. In the case of Macasaet v. Co., G.R. No. 156759, 5 June 2013, the
court said that, If, for justifiable reasons, the defendant cannot be
served in person within a reasonable time, the service of the
summons may then be effected either (a) by leaving a copy of the
summons at his residence with some person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copy at his
office or regular place of business with some competent person in
charge thereof. Hence, if the summons were to be served at the
residence of defendant, the summons must be given to a person of
suitable age and discretion and if such summons were to be served at
the office or principal place of business of defendant, the summons
must be given to a competent person in charge. This case falls under
the first instance.
19. In the case of Prudential Bank v. Magdamit Jr.., G.R. No. 183795, 12
November 2014, the court said that a person of suitable age and
discretion is one who has attained the age of full legal capacity (18
years old) and is considered to have enough discernment to
understand the importance of a summons. "Discretion" is defined as
"the ability to make decisions which represent a responsible choice
and for which an understanding of what is lawful, right or wise may
be presupposed". Thus, to be of sufficient discretion, such person
must know how to read and understand English to comprehend the
import of the summons, and fully realize the need to deliver the
summons and complaint to the defendant at the earliest possible
time for the person to take appropriate action. The houseboy
certainly does not qualify as a person of suitable age as shown by his
certificate of Live birth where is below 18 years of age. He is also not
a person of discretion. But even if he is a person of discretion, the
requirement is still not met as the law uses the conjunction “and”
which means that both the requirement of suitable age and
discretion must be possessed by such person. Hence, the substituted
service is still patently defective.
WHEREFORE, premises considered it is respectfully prayed that the

order February 14, 2019 be reconsidered:
a. By setting aside such order declaring defendant in default;
b. Allowing defendant to file his answer after a proper service of
summons is done.
Cebu City, February 25, 2019

Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax no. 325-1372
1
NOTICE OF HEARING
HON. CLERK OF COURT
Regional Trial Court
Greetings!
Kindly bring the foregoing motion to the attention of the Honorable Court
immediately upon receipt thereof and set the same for hearing on February
26, 2019.

Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax no. 325-1372
Please be notified that the foregoing motion will be set for hearing this
DATE.
COPY FURNISHED:
RECEIVED BY:
CHILL H. JOKENO
Counsel for the Respondent
Cebu City, Philippines
Seveth Judicial Region
STEPHEN CURRY,
Plaintiff.
Civil Case No. 234162
For: Sum of Money
- versus -
LEBRON JAMES,
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, plaintiff, together with the undersigned counsel, to this most
honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT:
1. Plaintiff is a Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident of House

20, Happiness Street, Maria Luisa Subdivision, Banilad, Cebu City.;
Defendant is also a Filipino, of legal age, single, and currently residing
at House 5, St. Patrick Street, Silver Hills Subdivision, Nasipit Road,
Talamban, Cebu City, Cebu, where he may be served with summons
and other court processes.
2. On January 1, 2018, Defendant borrowed from Plaintiff a sum of

money amounting to Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P2,500,000.00), where both agreed that it be payable within one (1)
year on January 12, 2019 with five per centum (5%) interest. The loan
was evidenced by a promissory note dated January 13, 2018,
attached herewith as “Annexed A” and made an integral part of this
complaint.
3. Plaintiff presented the note to Defendant on January 14, 2019 and

made a demand, but NO payment was made.
4. A demand letter was sent to Defendant on January 16, 2019 for

the payment of the loan, but no reply nor payment was received by
the Plaintiff. This demand letter is attached herewith as “Annex B”
and made an integral part of this complaint.
1
5. Another demand letter was sent to Defendant on January 20, 2019
for the payment of the loan, but still neither reply nor payment was
received by the Plaintiff. This demand letter is attached herewith as
“Annex C” and made an integral part of this complaint.
6. Despite repeated demands, both oral and written, Defendant

failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse to pay the loan to
Plaintiff.
7. Resort to the Barangay Conciliation process proved futile as

Defendant consistently refused to settle. Thus, a Certification to File
Action has been issued by the Barangay Junquera through its
Barangay Chairman, a copy of which is attached herewith as “Annex
D” and made an integral part of this complaint.
8. Defendant’s obligation is due and demandable and Plaintiff is

entitled to the payment of the entire amount of Two Million Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) plus five per centum (5%)
interest as agreed upon.
9. By reason of Defendant’s unreasonable failure and refusal to pay

his due and demandable obligation, Plaintiff was constrained to
engage the services of counsel to vindicate his rights thereby
committing himself to pay legal expenses amounting to Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment in his favor through a

Decision ordering Defendant to pay him Two Million Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) plus five per centum (5%) interest and
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) as Attorney’s Fees.
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
Cebu City, Cebu, 23 January 2019.

Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax no. 325-1372
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF
NON-FORUM SHOPPING
Republic of the Philippines)
City of Cebu . . . . . . . . . . . .)S.S.
I, STEPHEN CURRY, Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident of Blk. 4, Lot
B., Pelaez, Cebu City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with
law, do hereby depose and state that:
1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled case;
2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint and have

read the allegations contained therein;
3. The allegations in the said complain are true and correct of my own
knowledge and belief, and based on authentic records;
4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action or

proceeding involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-
judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such other
action or claim is pending therein;
5. If I should learn thereafter that a similar action or proceeding has

been filed or is pending, I hereby undertake to report that fact within
five (5) days therefrom to the court or agency where the original
pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have been
filed; and
6. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the truth of the

foregoing facts and to comply with the provisions of Admin. Circular
No. 04-94 of the Honorable Supreme Court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 23rd day

of January 2019, in the City of Cebu, Philippines.
STEPHEN CURRY
Affiant
1
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of January 2019 in the
City of Cebu, affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License with numbers
ZX5627165 issued at Cebu City on January 5, 2019 valid until January 4,
2024, as his competent evidence of identity, and I have personally
examined herein affiant, and I am convinced that he is the same person
who executed this affidavit, and that I am satisfied that he have fully read
and understand the contents herein.
ARNOLD ARAN T. ABRIL

Notary Public for Cebu City
Notarial Commission No. 42679, until December 2020
Roll of Attorneys no. 710890
MCLE Compliance No. V-81657, June 6, 2018
7th Flr., Ebloc 2 Bldg., IT Park, Cebu City
Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax No. 325-7266
abrilandassociates@gmail.com
Doc. No: 03;

Page No: 04;
Book No: 21;
Series of 2019.
Copy furnished through personal service:
Counsel for Defendant

5th flr., Madrigal Business Tower,
Cebu City
Proof of Service
I, Kobe Saya, messenger for Ace Norman P. Alvero, herein counsel for
Plaintiff Stephen Curry, hereby certify that I personally delivered Plaintiffs
Complaint dated January 23, 2019 House 5, St. Patrick Street, Silver Hills
Subdivision, Nasipit Road, Talamban, Cebu City, Cebu. The complaint was
received by a certain Cardo Dalisay, Mr. James’ houseboy, since the latter
was not present thereat.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 23rd day

of January 2019, in the City of Cebu, Philippines.
KOBE SAYA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of January 2019 in the
City of Cebu, affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License with numbers
QX6637164 issued at Cebu City on January 10, 2019 valid until January 9,
2024, as his competent evidence of identity, and I have personally
examined herein affiant, and I am convinced that he is the same person
who executed this affidavit, and that I am satisfied that he have fully read
and understand the contents herein.
ARNOLD ARAN T. ABRIL

Notary Public for Cebu City
Notarial Commission No. 42679, until December 2020
Roll of Attorneys no. 710890
MCLE Compliance No. V-81657, June 6, 2018
7th Flr., Ebloc 2 Bldg., IT Park, Cebu City
Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax No. 325-7266
abrilandassociates@gmail.com
Doc. No: 04;

Page No: 04;
Book No: 21;
Series of 2019.
1
PROMISSORY NOTE
Amount: P2,500,000.00 Date: January 13, 2018
Place: Cebu City Due Date: January 12, 2019
I, LEBRON JAMES, make a commitment and promise to pay to

STEPHEN CURRY, the sum of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P2,500,000.00). Repayment is to be made on or before January 12, 2019 at
the interest rate of 5% per annum.
Lebron James
Stephen Curry
DEMAND LETTER
January 16, 2019
Dear LEBRON JAMES:
Good day! This letter shall serve as a formal written demand for
immediate payment in full of the principal amount of indebtedness of Two
Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) with an interest rate
of 5% per annum as agreed upon in the promissory note executed by you in
favor of STEPHEN CURRY on January 13, 2018, which has been due since
January 12, 2019.
Although we wish to resolve this matter amicably, we are prepared

to take legal action in the event that it shall be necessary. If you have
already sent in your payment, please disregard this demand letter.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Yours Truly,
Stephen Curry

Counsel for Stephen Curry
Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax no. 325-1372
1
FINAL DEMAND LETTER
January 20, 2019
Dear LEBRON JAMES:
Good day. This letter shall serve as the last and final written demand
for immediate payment in full of the principal amount of indebtedness of
Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) with an interest
of 5% per annum as agreed upon in the promissory note executed by you in
favor of STEPHEN CURRY on January 13, 2018, which has been due since
January 12, 2019.
Despite the demand letter sent on January 16, 2019, there has been
no payment received. We shall give you a period of three (3) days to satisfy
your outstanding debt. Failure to heed such demand within the period
given will result to our relentless legal action against you for payment of
your total indebtedness including the stipulated interest.
We wish for your immediate and full compliance.
Yours Truly,
Stephen Curry

Counsel for Stephen Curry
Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax no. 325-1372

Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax no. 325-1372
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, KARL MALONE, messenger for Atty. Chill Jokeno, herein counsel
for Defendant Lebron James, hereby certify that I personally delivered
Defendant’s Petition for Certiorari dated March 27, 2019 to Plaintiff’s
counsel Atty Ace Norman Alvero with address at Room 214, 7th flr. Big
Bldg., Queen’s Rd., Cebu City. Counsel himself received the petition.
KARL MALONE
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 27th day of March in

Cebu City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his competent evidence of
identity SSS ID no. 166773 issued at on May 26, 2018 at Cebu City and I
have personally examined herein affiant and I am convinced that he is
the same person who executed this Affidavit of Service and that I am
satisfied that he have fully read and understood the contents hereof.
Witness my hand and seal.
Doc. No. ____; ATTY JOHN STOCKTON

Page No. ____; NOTARY PUBLIC, CEBU CITY
NOTARIAL COMMISSION 281176
Book No.____; Until Dec 31, 2019
Series of 2019. Unit 3b, 2nd floor of ABC Building
F. Ramos St., Cebu City
Roll of Attorneys No 12234
PTR No. 112444
IBP LRN 117366
MCLE Compliance V-2344: Aug 2018 Cebu City
1
STEPHEN CURRY
Plaintiff
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, KARL MALONE, messenger for Atty. Chill Jokeno, herein counsel
for Defendant Lebron James, hereby certify that I personally delivered
Defendant’s Petition for Certiorari dated March 27, 2019 to Plaintiff
Stephen Curry himself with address at Blk. 4, Lot B., Pelaez, Cebu City.
Plaintiff himself received the petition.
KARL MALONE
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 27th day of March in

Cebu City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his competent evidence of
identity SSS ID no. 166773 issued at on May 26, 2018 at Cebu City and I
have personally examined herein affiant and I am convinced that he is
the same person who executed this Affidavit of Service and that I am
satisfied that he have fully read and understood the contents hereof.
Witness my hand and seal.
Doc. No. ____; ATTY. JOHN STOCKTON

Page No. ____; NOTARY PUBLIC, CEBU CITY
NOTARIAL COMMISSION 281176
Book No.____; Until Dec 31, 2019
Series of 2019. Unit 3b, 2nd floor of ABC Building
F. Ramos St., Cebu City
Roll of Attorneys No 12234
PTR No. 112444
IBP LRN 117366
MCLE Compliance V-2344: Aug 2018 Cebu City

Legal Forms Rule 65 Annexes

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Legal Forms Rule 65 Annexes

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

On February 2, 2019, summons was served in the residence of herein

Section 1. Answer to the complaint. — The defendant shall file his

Moreover, Section 3, Rule 9 of the same Rules of Court provides that:

Section 3. Default; declaration of. — If the defending party fails to

Hence, for the failure of the defendant Lebron James to file an

WHEREFORE, defendant LeBron James is hereby ordered to pay

Notify the parties through their counsels of this order.

Cebu City, Philippines. March 28, 2019.

This resolves the Motion to Declare Defendant in Default filed by

Under Section 1 Rule 11 of the Rules of Court, the defendant is

Sec. 3. Default; declaration of. – If the defending party fails to

In the case at bar, Plaintiff Stephen Curry served to defendant Lebron

WHEREFORE, the Motion to Declare defendant Lebron James in

Cebu City, Philippines, February 13, 2019

This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration filed by defendant

In the case at bar and as reflected in the records, defendant upon

All considered, defendant failed to present any newly discovered

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of Defendant Lebron

Cebu City, Philippines, February 28, 2019

SHERIFF’S RETURN OF SUMMONS

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on February 2, 2019, the undersigned caused

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, herein undersigned

Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines, February 3, 2019.

MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT

Plaintiff, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully

Given this 10th day of February 2019 at Cebu City, Philippines.

ACE NORMAN P. ALVERO

ACE NORMAN P. ALVERO

Defendant by counsel respectfully state:

1. The subject matter of this motion for reconsideration is the decision

2. The undersigned counsel for the defendants personally received a

BASIS OF COURT IN DECLARING DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT

3. On February 13, 2019, the honorable court declared defendant in

4. The main issue defendant wants to raise in this motion for

This motion for reconsideration respectfully submits that the

I. THE INSTANT CASE IS AN ACTION IN PERSONAM

5. In ascertaining the proper mode of service of summons in an action,

6. In the case of Paderanga v. Buissan, G.R. No. L-49475, September 28,

7. The instant is classified as an action in personam as it seeks a claim

II. THERE WAS NO PROPER SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8. The case of Biaco v. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, G.R. No.

9. Jurisdiction in personam—the power of the court to subject the

10. Insofar as valid service of summons is concerned, the case of Carson

11. Carson Realty and Management Corporation v. Red Rubin Security

12.There was no personal service of summons in this case. According to

14. In Administrative Circular No. 59, issued on 19 November 1989, the

WHEREFORE, premises considered it is respectfully prayed that the

Cebu City, February 25, 2019

ACE NORMAN P. ALVERO

ACE NORMAN P. ALVERO

1. Plaintiff is a Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident of House

2. On January 1, 2018, Defendant borrowed from Plaintiff a sum of

3. Plaintiff presented the note to Defendant on January 14, 2019 and

4. A demand letter was sent to Defendant on January 16, 2019 for

6. Despite repeated demands, both oral and written, Defendant

7. Resort to the Barangay Conciliation process proved futile as

8. Defendant’s obligation is due and demandable and Plaintiff is

9. By reason of Defendant’s unreasonable failure and refusal to pay

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment in his favor through a

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Cebu City, Cebu, 23 January 2019.

ACE NORMAN P. ALVERO