Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
Polomolok, South Cotabato

JENELYN E. TAYONE CIVIL CASE NO. 10-714

Plaintiffs,

- versus - - f o r –

NIDA CABELLO ENFORCEMENT OF AMICABLE

Defendant, SETTLEMENT FROM BARANGAY
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

ANSWER

COMES now, Defendant NIDA CABELLO, by herself, to this Honorable Court

respectfully alleges THAT:

1. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 1 and 2 of the complaint;

2. Defendant specifically denies under oath the existence of the amicable

settlement mentioned in paragraph 3 and its contents stated in
paragraph 4 of the complainant as the same being made under duress,
hence false;

3. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint is denied for lack of knowledge sufficient

to form a belief;

4. The allegations of paragraph 6 of the complaint are hereby denied,

despite the fact that the amount contained in the agreement was made
under protest, Defendant tried to settle it with the Plaintiff by explaining
to her of the crisis Defendant’s experience and partially paying it;

5. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Complaint are mere conclusions of the

Plaintiff from their self-serving facts denied, hence being denied for lack
of basis sufficient to form a belief;

1
 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

6. Defendant repleads and incorporate all the admissions, denials and

allegations in the preceding paragraphs and hastens to add;

7. Plaintiff’s Action for the Enforcement of the Barangay Settlement

against the Defendant should be denied for the following reasons:

a) The agreement was made under duress, hence null and void.
Defendant was only compelled to sign the said agreement without
having fully understood its contents. It was done involuntarily and
was against the will of the Defendant. Plaintiff harassed her not
only in the said barangay but also in and out of her house.

b) Plaintiff was barking at a wrong tree when she demanded

payment from Defendant. Before she joined, Plaintiff was made
to understand that, being a member of the “KAPUNUNGAN”,
her share money would be loaned by her co-members and in
truth, the same was loaned by them but not by Defendant,
being only the head to collect the amount borrowed. Defendant
has only the obligation to return back the said share money
to Plaintiff.

c) Granting Defendant has obligations, the computation made by

the Plaintiff could not be understood why the said loan money
blown up to TWENTY ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED
(P21,300.00) PESOS while, in deed, she had already paid the
full amount. To the understanding of the Defendant, said
amount, being stipulated in the agreement, was computed with
unconscionable interest;

d) The Supreme Court once said in the G.R. No. 168782 dated
October 10, 2008, SPOUSES JOVENAL TORING and CECILIA
ESCALONA-TORING vs. SPOUSES ROSALIE GANZON-OLAN
and GILBERT OLAN, and ROWENA OLAN,

2
 “While the parties are free to stipulate on the interest to be
imposed on monetary obligations, the Court will temper interest
rates if they are unconscionable. Even if the Usury Law has been
suspended by Central Bank Circular No. 905-82, and parties to a
loan agreement have been given wide latitude to agree on any
interest rate, we have held that stipulated interest rates are illegal
if they are unconscionable. Consequently, in our view, the Court
of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court's decision upholding
the stipulated interest of 3% and 3.81%. Thus, we are unanimous
now in our ruling to reduce the above stipulated interest rates to
1% per month, in conformity with our ruling in Ruiz v. Court of
Appeals.”

8. The prayer for attorney’s fees, moral and exemplary damages and
other costs in the instant case should not be given weight as this
case is purely for the enforcement of settlement.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, upon all the foregoing considerations, it is respectfully prayed of

the Honorable Court that:

1. the instant case be DISMISSED for lack of cause of action

2. proper accounting and application of payments be made
3. the said agreement be declared void.

Such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Polomolok, South Cotabato, Philippines, January 26, 2010.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

NIDA CABELLO
VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION

3
 I, NIDA CABELLO, of legal age, Filipino and with residence and postal address
at Fernandez subdivision, Cannery, Polomolok, South Cotabato, Philippines, after having
duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

1. I am the DEFENDANT in the instant case;

2. I cause the preparation and filing of the aforesaid ANSWER before this
Honorable Court;

3. I have read all the allegations therein and the same are true and correct of
my own knowledge on the basis of the records at hand and that the
annexes to the answer are true an correct copies of the original thereof;

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same
issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions
thereof, inferior courts or any other tribunal or agency and that to the best
of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, inferior courts or any
other tribunal or agency;

5. If there is such action or proceeding, I undertake to state the status of the

same and if I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been file or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
different divisions thereof, inferior courts or any other tribunal or agency, I
undertake to promptly inform this Honorable Court, the Court of Appeals or
different divisions thereof, inferior courts thereof within five (5) days therefrom.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this January 26, 2010
at Polomolok, South Cotabato, Philippines.

NIDA CABELLO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO before me this __________________ at

Polomolok, South Cotabato.

4
COPY FURNISHED:

ATTY. LEO J. CORDOVA RECEIVED BY:_____________________

Cordova Law Office DATE:______________
POL., SOUTH COTABATO TIME:______________