Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 96
Quezon City

JABBA D. HUTT,
Plaintiff

- versus - Civil Case No.16-100

For Collection of Sum of Money

SPOUSES HAN AND LEIA SOLO,

and THE TRADE FEDERATION, INC.
Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
(FOR THE PLAINTIFF)

Plaintiff JABBA D. HUTT, by counsel, and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully states:

I. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE PLAINTIFFS POSITION

1. Plaintiff Jabba D. Hutt files an action for breach of contractual
obligations against defendant Han Solo set forth in the
notarized Contract of Loan amounting to FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 500,000.00) with compensatory
interest at the rate of ten percent (10%).

2. The defendant executed the following as consideration to the

said loan:

a. Promissory note

b. Ten (10) post-dated checks for Five Hundred Fifty

Thousand Pesos (Php 550,000.00) each

c. Chattel mortgage on a plane called the Millenium

Falcon, notarized in accordance to law.

d. Stipulation that the venue of any complaint arising

from said contract is Quezon City.

3. There was a Board Resolution which defendant Trade

Federation Incorporation authorizes Defendant Solo as

1|Page
 Chief Operating Officer, to execute a mortgage on the plane.
Board Resolution 14, Sec. 4(b) states:

The Chief Operating Officer may, upon

his discretion, execute a chattel mortgage in his
name, on any property of the Corporation,
whenever feasible, in furtherance of the
corporations purposes and objectives.

4. On 20 December 2015, plaintiff issued a demand letter

demanding him to pay the outstanding debt but the
defendant failed to do so.

5. On 13 January 2016, plaintiff encashed one issued

check by defendant Solo, however, it was denied and
has bounced due to Closed Account.

6. Since the bank account was closed, the remaining nine

(9) checks are also considered bounced for there is no
sufficient fund to finance the same. Thus, on 15
January 2016, another demand letter was sent to
defendant with a notice that all of his checks bounced
for the reason of Closed Account.

7. Plaintiff stands with conviction that defendant Han

Solo has an outstanding debt to the plaintiff.

8. CONTRACT OF LOAN. Plaintiff strongly holds that the

Contract of Loan entered between him and defendant Han
Solo is valid, notarized and not a product of forgery.

9. BOARD RESOLUTION. Plaintiff partially denies the

allegation of defendant Han Solo that the latter did not
present any Board Resolution to the plaintiff. Defendant
Han Solo has been given the right to act as an agent of the
defendant corporation in executing the said Chattel
Mortgage by virtue of the Board Resolution No. 14.

10. CHATTEL MORTGAGE. The Chattel Mortgage entered

between plaintiff and defendant Han Solo is valid and
binding between the parties and defendant Han Solos
signature is not forged. The plane called the Millenium
Falcon was in actual possession of Solo thus it raises a
disputable presumption of ownership. Hence, the true
owner, defendant TFI, must resort to judicial process for the
recovery of the property.1

1
New Civil Code, Art. 433

2|Page
 That the Chattel Mortgage was notarized in accordance to
law, thus entitled to great weight before any proceedings
contesting the same.2 And that it provides as the best
evidence since it is recorded in a public office. In which case,
it is registered at Registry of Deeds. 3

11. VALIDITY OF SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE

DEFENDANT. The averments in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of
the complaint are all reflected in the contract of loan and the
promissory note. To even corroborate these evidence, there
is a chattel mortgage executed, and checks issued. That
there is a presumption that Hutt takes ordinary care of his
concerns, and that ordinary course of business has been
followed 4

12. INVESTMENT. Plaintiff did not invest to the defendant

corporation. The loaned amount referred to in the
Complaint was a loan in itself and not an investment.

13. SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT. The Subscription

Agreement is suspicious, and should not be given probative
value.

14. LOST ENVELOPE WHICH INCLUDES CHECKS;

AND IDENTIFICATION CARDS OF DEFENDANT
HAN SOLO. Defendant Han Solo is maliciously accusing
plaintiff of getting and using the checks and identification
cards of defendant spouses for using it to defraud the latter.
These accusations of defendant spouses hold no water.

15. VENUE. Plaintiff rejects the contention of defendant

spouses thatb there is an improper venue. The law provides
that the rule on venue shall not apply, where the parties
have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action
on the exclusive venue thereof.5

16. MOTION TO DISMISS. The defendant spouses are

estopped to move for the dismissal of the case. Not only did
they answer to the complaint, but they are actually seeking
for a relief before the Court. By filing their ANSWER WITH
COUNTERCLAIM, they are in effect, validly waiving to
attack the matter on venue. This is considered an act of
surrendering themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court.

Defendants, however, contends the following:

2
De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127857, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 325, 334
3
Rules of Court, Rule 130 Sec. 3 (d)
4
Rules of Court, Rule. 131 Sec. 3 (d); (q)
5
Rules of Court, Sec. 4

3|Page
 1. That the contract is an investment of the plaintiff to the
Trade Federation Inc.

2. That the signature of defendant Han Solos in the promissory

note, Contract of Loan and Chattel Mortgage was forged.

3. There is improper venue as defendant Han Solo is a resident

of Makati City while the plaintiff is a resident of New York,
U.S.A.

4. Defendant Leia Skywalker-Solo contends that she lacks

personal knowledge of the transaction wherein the checks
executed under her personal account were blank checks
which were all lost. And such checks are issued for the
payment of the spouses house.

5. Defendant Trade Federation, Inc. contends that the acts of

defendant Solo in executing a chattel mortgage under the
plane called Millenium Falcon owned by the defendant
Corporation is an ultra vires act for the reason that they have
no knowledge on the said execution of the said mortgage by
defendant Han Solo.

II. WITNESSES

The Plaintiff will be presenting the following witnesses to prove

the material allegations in the Complaint with Prayer for Preliminary
Attachment, the documents and evidence as stated in the Contract of
Loan and Chattel Mortgage as alleged in the Complaint.
1. Master Oogway and Master Shifu to substantiate the
existence and authenticity of the Contract of Loan
executed by Jabba Hutt and Han Solo as well as all the
evidence attached thereof;
2. Atty. Catherine Sayson to prove that she has notarized
a Contract of Loan on 30 September 2014 between Jabba
Hutt and Han Solo.
3. Simon Loloko and Mario Niloko to substantiate the
existence and authenticity of the Chattel Mortgage
executed by Jabba Hutt and Han Solo including all the
evidence attached thereof.
4. Ms. How To B. you, manager of the Bank of Brothers,
to testify that Jabba Hutt went to their branch to encash
the check issued by Han Solo and the same had bounced
due to Closed Account.

4|Page
 Plaintiff reserves the right to present such other witnesses as
the need may arise in this case.

III. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRESENTED

Exhibits/Documents Purpose

Annex A: Contract of Loan This contract shows the terms of

the loan obtained by the
defendant. It also shows the
securities executed by the
defendant. It proves the existence
of stipulation as to venue of civil
cases.

Annex B: Promissory Note This proves the existence of debt.

executed by Han Solo in favor of
Jabba Hutt

Annex C: Post Dated Checks These prove that checks were

issued.

Annex D: Chattel Mortgage on This proves the chattel mortgage

Millennium Falcon on Millenium Falcon as security
to the debt.

Annex E: Copy of the Board This proves that the act of Hans
Resolution No. 14 Solo is not Ultra Vires as it was
authorized by a Board
Resolution.

Annex F: Copy of the First This proves that demand to pay

Demand Letter Sent Solos debt was made but to no
avail.

Annex G: Proof of Receipt of This proves that the demand to

Demand Letter pay was actually received by
defendant Solo. Thus, it serves as
a notice on the part of defendant
Solo that he has an outstanding

5|Page
 debt.

Annex H: Copy of the Second This proves the second demand

Demand Letter Sent
to pay defendant Solos debt. This
also notified defendant Solo that
the checks bounced due to
Closed Account. This contains
the proof that Solo received this
letter but still, to no avail.

Herein plaintiff reserves the right to present additional

documentary evidence in the course of the trial if warranted.

IV. ADMISSIONS

Aside from what were already admitted by the parties in their

pleadings, plaintiff is willing to enter into other stipulation of facts
with the defendants during the pre-trial conference.

V. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

The applicable laws and jurisprudence in this case are the

provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines and the Rules of Court
including related Supreme Court decisions on the matter.

VI. ISSUES

1. Whether the instant case for collection of sum of money

should be dismissed for improper venue.
2. Whether defendants signature in Contract of Loan,
Promissory Note, Chattel Mortgage are all forged.
3. Whether there exists a Contract of Loan between the plaintiff
Hutt and defendant Han Solo.
4. Whether or not defendant Han Solos act of mortgaging the
plane Millenium Falcon owned by the defendant Trade
Federation, Inc. is an ultra vires act.

VII. PROPOSAL FOR AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

6|Page
 Plaintiff is open to settling this dispute amicably, subject to a
concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable and a reciprocal
manifestation of openness from defendant.

Plaintiff respectfully submits that the desired terms of any

amicable settlement would involve, first, an admission of amount due
and owing to plaintiff and, second, a schedule of payments.

VIII. AVAILABLE TRIAL DATES

The undersigned counsel is ready to fix hearing dates with the

counsel for the plaintiff in open court or before the staff of this
Honorable Court in-charge of the courts calendar.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Quezon City. 29 February 2016

CONCEPCION AND PARTNERS

Counsel for the Plaintiff
109 Shining Star Bldg. Nagniningning Condominiums,
Central Avenue, 1107 Quezon City, Philippines
E-mail Address: relc12345@yahoo.com.ph
Cellphone Number: 09055073129
By:

Rey Edward L. Concepcion

ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 37123
IBP LIFETIME MEMBER NO. 1238-RSM
PTR NO. 2184563-05 January 2016-QC
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0009929-04/10/15

Kevin Harris Co
ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 32173
IBP LIFETIME MEMBER NO. 1239-RSM
PTR NO. 2184563-06 January 2016-QC
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0009928-04/10/15

Jesse Mae N. Oliva

ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 37124
IBP LIFETIME MEMBER NO. 1232-RSM
PTR NO. 2184565-05 January 2016-QC
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0009979-04/10/15

Genie C. Morales
ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 37125
IBP LIFETIME MEMBER NO. 1248-RSM
PTR NO. 2184543-05 January 2016-QC

7|Page
 MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0007929-04/10/15

COPY FURNISHED:

HON. CLERK OF COURT

Branch 69, Regional Trial Court
Quezon City

SPOUSES HAN AND LEILA SOLO

No. 111 Magallanes Village,
1232 Makati City

THE TRADE FEDERATION, INC.

#75 Commonwealth Avenue,
1121 Quezon City

EXPLANATION

A copy of this Pre-Trial Brief was served via registered mail

and/or private courier due to time constraints and lack of messenger
to effect personal service.

Edward L. Concepcion

8|Page