REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

First Judicial Region
Branch 416B
Baguio City

PROF E. SSOR, Civil Case No. CV-16-2019-416B

Plaintiff, For: Collection of Sum of
Money with Prayer of writ
-versus- for the issuance of
Preliminary Attachment
DO C. TOR,
Defendant.

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

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court

most respectfully submits this Memorandum:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff PROF E. SSOR instituted this case for the collection of the
loan, as well for interests, penalties and damages. He is a Filipino citizen, of legal
age, single and a resident of #01 Unang St., First Village, Baguio City.

2. Defendant, DO C. TOR, is likewise a Filipino, of legal age, single, and

residing at #02 Pangalawang St., Second Village, Baguio City.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASE

3. Sometime on January 2017, defendant asked from plaintiff a loan

to expand its clinic operations.

4. Accordingly, plaintiff agreed to lend Five Million Pesos

(P5,000,000.00) to the Company, provided that the same shall be covered by a
promissory note, which is to be payable on demand and with interests.
 5. On January 1, 2017, plaintiff and defendant, together with two
witnesses executed a written loan agreement (Exhibit “A”) which indebtedness
is due and payable on or before January 1, 2018, with an interest at the rate of
10% per annum and 5% penalty for delay.

6. On January 1, 2018, the doctor issued to him a postdated check

(Exhibit “B”) dated May 30, 2019 in the amount of Five Million Eight Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P5,800,000.00) for the payment of the loaned amount but
when the same was presented when it fell due, the same was dishonored by the
bank for insufficiency of funds.

7. Defendant failed to make good the check thereafter even when the
professor pleaded for the doctor to pay, leaving the professor distraught
because he does not want to file a criminal case against the doctor who is his
good friend.

8. On August 19, 2019, a Barangay Conciliation proceeding took

place. As there was no settlement a Certificate to File Action was duly executed
immediately thereafter in plaintiff’s and defendant’s presence;

9. On August 22, 2019, plaintiff instituted this Complaint. Thereafter,

defendant filed its Answer on August 28, 2019.

10. On September 04, 2015, plaintiff and defendant filed their Pre-Trial
Briefs, respectively. After which, the parties proceeded to court annexed
mediation. As there was no settlement, mediation and pre-trial was thereafter
declared terminated.

ISSUES

I
WHETHER PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE TOTAL UNPAID BALANCE OF
THE LOAN

II
PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE INTERESTS AND PENALTIES STATED
THEREIN

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

 I
PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE UNPAID BALANCE OF THE LOAN

11. The written loan agreement was perfected in good faith between
the Plaintiff and Defendant in this case.
12. A person who receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing
acquires the ownership thereof and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal
amount of the same kind and quality.1

13. The loan was evidenced by a written loan agreement (Exhibit “A”),
signed by the both the plaintiff and the defendant.

14. As per the Rules of Court, when an agreement has been reduced in
writing, there can be no evidence of its terms other than what is contained
therein2.

15. Moreover, a notarized document has in its favor the presumption

of regularity3 and, thus, serves as prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein4.

16. This fact is also bolstered by the affidavit of the principal witness
(Exhibit “E”) to prove that the defendant willfully and voluntary executed the
written loan agreement.

17. A creditor may only file an action for the collection of sum of money
before the court when the debt is already due and demandable and there is
failure of payment on the part of the debtor. But before resorting to filing a case,
a demand letter is important. Demand letters will ensure that the debtor is
reminded of his obligation and that he shall be given the chance to pay his debt
without resorting to a full-blown trial. Demand Letters also serve as compelling
evidence that the creditor formally demanded payment of the debt due.

18. Clearly, the defendant has not fully paid his obligation to the
plaintiff. However, to constitute the right to institute an action against the
debtor, a demand must be made and serve judicially or extrajudicially.

1 Article 1953 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines

2 Rules of Evidence, Rule 130, § 9

3 De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127857, June 20, 2006

4 Rules of Evidence, Rule 132, § 23

 19. Plaintiff made an initial demand the day after the loan obligation is
due i.e. January 02, 2018.

20. The fact that defendant made an effort to perform his duty under
the written loan agreement through the issuance of a post-dated check (Exhibit
“B”) was a clear indication that it acknowledged its obligation to plaintiff.
However, it was dishonored by the bank because of insufficiency of funds.
Thereafter, the defendant made no efforts to satisfy his obligation.

21. As per the Rules of Court, it is presumed that “money paid by one
to another was due to the latter”5; “that private transactions have been fair and
regular”6; “that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns”7; “that the
ordinary course of business has been followed”8; and “that a negotiable
instrument was given or indorsed for a sufficient consideration9.”

22. Accordingly, this prompted the plaintiff to issue the last demand
letter (Exhibit “C”) before the institution of this suit.

23. Delay attaches from the time the creditor judicially or extra
judicially demands from the debtor the fulfillment of their obligation.10

24. The defendant wasn’t able to present any substantial proof to

disprove the evidence presented by plaintiff as well as these presumptions
provided by law. The defendant is, thus, without doubt liable for the amount of
the loans to plaintiff.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered:

1. Ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of FIVE MILLION

PESOS (P5,000,000.00) plus interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum

5 Rules of Evidence, Rule 131, § 3 (f)

6 Id. Rule 131, § 3 (p)

7 Id. Rule 131, § 3 (d)

8 Id. Rule 131, § 3 (q)

9 Id. rule 131, § 3 (s)

10 Article 1169 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines

from January 1, 2017, and a 5% penalty for delay, until the same is fully paid;
and

2. Ordering defendant to pay the attorney’s fees and expenses of

litigation in the amount of P100,000.00 and a fee of P10,000 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.

Respectfully submitted.

Baguio City, Philippines. 21 September, 2019.

 DMO LAW OFFICE
Counsel for Defendant
#1 Upper Session Rd., Baguio City 2600
Tel. No. (074) 420-0000 | e-mail: dmolawoffice@gmail.com

By:

KING ANTHONY M. MONTEREAL

#1 Upper Session Rd., Baguio City
Roll No. 999999
IBP No. 09999999/June 13, 2018
Baguio-Benguet Chapter
PTR No. 8888888/June 06, 2019
MCLE Certificate of Compliance No. 1111111

COPY FURNISHED

ATTY. CAMILA ANGELINE M. TAMULONG

Counsel for Defendant
PPT Law Office
4th floor, CAP bldg.,
Post office loop, Baguio City