Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

City of Iloilo
Branch 05

Kim L. Lopez
Plaintiff,

-Versus- Civil Case No. 12345

For: Collection of Sum
of Money

Mike G. Santos
Respondent

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

POSITION PAPER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE HONORABLE COURT.

COMES NOW the PLAINTIFF, by and through the undersigned

counsel, unto her Honorable Court, in support for the issuance of the
office of a WRIT OF PRE-TRIAL FOR COLLECTION OF SUM OF
MONEY most respectfully avers that:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF FACTS AND NATURE OF THE

CASE

Complainant in the above-mentioned case filed this civil complaint on

May 28, 2021 against the defendant for violating the Batas
Pambansa Blg 22. Complainant claimed that the defendant issued a
post-dated cheque to pay his loan, but the said cheque was not
honored by the bank because the bank certified that the account was
closed. Thus, this civil case was filed.

________________________________
Position Paper of Reynald L. Torres
Civil Case No. 12345
Page 1 of 10 Lopez vs. Santos et,al
 THE PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ADDRESSES

Complainant KIM L. LOPEZ is 30 years old, Male, Filipino citizen,

and a bonafide resident of Barangay Poblacion, Dao, Capiz who lent
his money to the defendant in the amount of Php2,000,000.

Respondent MIKE G. SANTOS is 23 years of age, Male, Filipino

citizen, and residing at Barangay Tabucan, Mandurriao, Iloilo City
where he may be served with summons, orders and other legal
processes of this honorable court.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On November 29, 2019, Mike G. Santos chatted Mr. Lopez via

messenger to borrow an amount of Php2,000,000 for the surgery and
hospital bills of Santos’ mother.They both agreed on a one percent
interest (Php 20,000.00) to be paid at the end of each month over a
period of six months, with the full loan balance of Php2,000,000 to be
paid on the last day of sixth month.

On December 01, 2019 they met at the BPI Branch- Solis

Street, Iloilo City, where Lopez handed over a manager’s cheque in
the name of Mike G. Santos for the amount of Php2,000,000. On the
same day, the respondent encashed the cheque and informed Mr.
Lopez via text message that the transaction was successful.

On January 05, 2020, Lopez tried but failed to contact Santos

to ask him about the first loan interest payment due on December 31,
2019.

In early February 2020, Lopez’s went to Santos’ office, but was

told that respondent was on leave.

On March 05, 2020, having not received interest loan payment

from Santos for three months, Lopez went to Santos’ house in
Barangay Tabucan Mandurriao, Iloilo City to ask about the loan
interest payment, but Santos’ helper told Lopez that the respondent

________________________________
Position Paper of Reynald L. Torres
Civil Case No. 12345
Page 2 of 10 Lopez vs. Santos et,al
was in Guimbal, Iloilo, on his annual vacation and could not be
contacted. Santos remained incommunicado in April and May, and
was not able to pay any interest on the said loan for six months as
well as the principal due on May 31, 2020.

However, on June 05, 2020, Santos issued a post-dated

cheque dated June 15, 2020 in the name of the plaintiff for the
amount of Php2,120,000.00 as payment for six months of interest
and the loan principal.
On June 16, 2020, when Lopez tried to encash the post-dated
cheque issued by Santos at Banco De Oro-SM City Branch in
Mandurriao, Iloilo City, he was told by the bank staff that the checking
account for the said cheque was inactive. On leaving BDO bank
branch cited above, Lopez tried but failed to contact Santos at his
office.

On June 30, 2020, Lopez went to Santos’ residence again, but

the respondent was not there. Lopez left a note with the Santos’
house helper warning Santos that if he could not settle his debt plus
interest by July 15,2020, plaintiff would consult a lawyer about the
issue.

By the end of July 2020, Santos remained unresponsive and

still failed to pay his loan plus interest. As a result, Lopez consulted
the Paro Torres Astrologo law firm regarding the matter.Lopez then
sent a final demand letter thru his counsel on August 15, 2020
requesting the defendant to settle his debt with the amount of
Php2,000,000 plus interest of Php120,000.00 Pesos within fifteen
(15) days.

After fifteen days (15) days, Santos did not make any effort to
settle his debt. As per advice of Lopez’ counsel, plaintiff agreed to
initiate a suit against Santos without passing through the
Katarungang Pambarangay system. In this case, the plaintiff and
defendant did not agree to have the matter settled by a lupon, hence
the plaintiff, who files for a suit for collection of money, need not
secure the Certification to File Action from the Office of the Barangay
Captain of Poblacion, Dao, Capiz, where he is residing.”

________________________________
Position Paper of Reynald L. Torres
Civil Case No. 12345
Page 3 of 10 Lopez vs. Santos et,al
 Regarding the existence of the note received by the
defendant’s house helper, she confirmed that she signed an
acknowledgement receipt. She testified that she handed the white
envelope to the defendant containing the letter from the plaintiff.

Q: What did Mr. Kim Lopez give you before he left the house?
A:He gave me a white envelope containing a letter addressed to Mr.
Mike Santos.

xxxx

Q:Did he ask you to sign to acknowledge receipt of said letter?

A:Yes, Sir.

xxxx

Q:When did you give the letter to Mr. Santos?

A:I gave the letter to Mr. Santos after dinner while he was watching
the TV. He then asked me where the letter came from.

xxxx

Q:What was your answer?

A:I told him, “From Mr. Lopez.”

xxxx

Q:Did you see Mr. Santos reading the letter?

A:Yes, Sir.

xxxx

Q:How sure are you that he had read the letter?

A:He opened the envelope and started reading the letter. After
reading the letter, he gave me the letter and asked me to throw it
away in the garbage.

xxxx

________________________________
Position Paper of Reynald L. Torres
Civil Case No. 12345
Page 4 of 10 Lopez vs. Santos et,al
 Q:Did you throw away the letter?
A:Yes.

ISSUE

The sole issue to be resolved in this case is WHETHER OR NOT,

THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE FOR A VIOLATION OF B.P. Blg.
22.

DISCUSSION

MIKE G. SANTOS VIOLATED THE B.P. Blg. 22cFOR ISSUING A

POST-DATED CHEQUE TO THE PLAINTIFF TO PAY HIS LOAN
WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUND.

The elements of the offense penalized under B.P. Blg. 22 are: (1)
making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply to account or
for value; (2) knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the
time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor of the
check for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. 1 The maker's knowledge is
presumed from the dishonor of the check for insufficiency of
funds.2 Thus, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 expressly provides that: “The
making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is
refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with
such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of
the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such
insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the
holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements for
payment in full by the drawee of such check within five (5) banking
days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the
drawee.”

Moreover, in Nierras v. Judge Dacuycuy, 3 the Court laid down the

fundamental argument of BP 22. It says that, “mere issuance of a
check that is dishonored gives rise to the presumption of knowledge
on the part of the drawer that he issued the same without sufficient

________________________________
Position Paper of Reynald L. Torres
Civil Case No. 12345
Page 5 of 10 Lopez vs. Santos et,al
_______________________________________
1. Navarro v. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 639,
643, 644 (1994).
2.People v. Laggui, 171 SCRA 305, 311 (1989).
funds and hence punishable which is not so under the Penal Code.
Also, a drawer of a dishonored check may be convicted under Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 even if he had issued the same for a pre-
existing obligation. The violation of those Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
are mala prohibita.

Disciplinary Action

B.P. Blg. 22, §1, par. 1 provides a penalty of "imprisonment of not

less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not
less than, but not more than double, the amount of the check which
fine shall in no case exceed two hundred thousand pesos, or both
such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the Court." Petitioners
are first-time offenders. They are Filipino entrepreneurs who
presumably contribute to the national economy. Apparently, they
brought this appeal, believing in all good faith, although mistakenly,
that they had not committed a violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Otherwise,
they could simply have accepted the judgment of the trial court and
applied for probation to evade a prison term. It would best serve the
ends of criminal justice if in fixing the penalty within the range of
discretion allowed by §1, par. 1, the same philosophy underlying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law is observed, namely, that of redeeming
valuable human material and preventing unnecessary deprivation of
personal liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to the
protection of the social order.4 In this case, we believe that a fine in
an amount equal to double the amount of the check involved is an
appropriate penalty to impose on each of the petitioners.

CONCLUSION

In summary, considering the above arguments, the defendant is

liable for a violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The complainant has shown
substantial evidence that there was a violation on the part of the
respondents for issuing a cheque with insufficient capital.

PRAYER

________________________________
Position Paper of Reynald L. Torres
Civil Case No. 12345
Page 6 of 10 Lopez vs. Santos et,al
 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after the filing of
this case and upon posting of the bond to be fixed by this Honorable
Court, the defendant will be found guilty of violating the B.P. Blg. 22
after the presentation of substantial evidence. Moreover, it is prayed
that this Honorable Court will penalize the defendant based on the
provisions of the B.P. Blg. 22 and grant the plaintiff the following:

1. Ordering Defendant to pay Plaintiff the amount of

__________________________________________
Php200,000.000 as actual damage plus Php120,000.00 in total
4. See People v. Ducosin, 59 Phil. 109, 117 (1933).
interest and five percent penalty on the total amount from the
time the first demand to pay was made until respondent has
settled the amount in full;

2. Ordering Defendant to pay Plaintiff the amount of

Php50,000.00 as moral damages;

3. Ordering Defendant to pay Plaintiff the amount of

Php40,000.00 as exemplary damages;

4. Ordering Defendant to pay Plaintiff the amount of

Php30,000.00 by way of attorney's fees and for the litigation
expenses of not less than Php30,000.00;

5. Ordering the Defendant to pay the cost of the suit.

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30 th of May, 2021 in Iloilo City,

Philippines.

ATTY. REYNALD L. TORRES

Counsel for Plaintiff
Paro Torres Astrologo Law Firm
Iznart Street, Iloilo City
5000
Telephone No. 123-4567
Roll No. 123456
IBP No. 12345, 05/15/21, Iloilo
City

________________________________
Position Paper of Reynald L. Torres
Civil Case No. 12345
Page 7 of 10 Lopez vs. Santos et,al
 PTR No. 1234567, 05/15/21
Iloilo City
MCLE Compliance No. V1234567
05/15/21, Iloilo City

Republic of the Philippines

The Clerk of Court
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
City of Iloilo
Branch 05

Greetings!

Please submit the above-mentioned Position Paper for the

consideration of this Honorable Court immediately upon receipt
thereof.

Copy furnished by registered mail:

Carmelle Herrera et, al.

Iloilo City

ATTY. REYNALD L. TORRES

EXPLANATION

A copy of this pleading has been furnished to the defendant by way of

registered mail instead of personal service due to limited manpower
and this pandemic.

________________________________
Position Paper of Reynald L. Torres
Civil Case No. 12345
Page 8 of 10 Lopez vs. Santos et,al
 ATTY. REYNALD L. TORRES

VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION

That I, KIM L. LOPEZ, after having duly sworn to in accordance with

law, do hereby depose and say:

That I am the plaintiff in the above entitled case.

KIM L. LOPEZ
Plaintiff

SUBSCRIBE and SWORN to before me this 30 th day of May at Iloilo

City, Philippines. Exhibiting to me his Professional Identification Card
with Registration Number, 1234567 issued in Iloilo City on 2 nd of
August 2020.

ATTY. REX L. MISTRIAL

Notary Public for Iloilo City
Until December 31, 2021
Office: Jalandoni, Street ,
Iloilo City
Roll No. 123456
IBP Roll No. 123456 5/22/21
PTR No. 1234567 5/22/21
MCLE Compliance Cert. No. V1234567
Doc. No.132
Page No. 45
Book No. 3
Series of 2021

________________________________
Position Paper of Reynald L. Torres
Civil Case No. 12345
Page 9 of 10 Lopez vs. Santos et,al
 ________________________________
Position Paper of Reynald L. Torres
Civil Case No. 12345
Page 10 of 10 Lopez vs. Santos
et,al