Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
_____ Division
Cebu City, Philippines

CAROLINA B. GARCIA
Plaintiff-Appellee,

CA-G.R. No. ____________

-versus- For: COLLECTION FOR
A SUM OF MONEY
WITH DAMAGES

DIEGO M. SANTOS
Defendant-Appellant.
x-----------------------------------------x

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

The appellant, DIEGO M. SANTOS, through the undersigned

counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully files his brief, in
support of his appeal from the Decision dated 25 June 2021 and the Order
dated 27 August 2021 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 24,
in Civil Case No. 28024, and state:

THE PARTIES

Plaintiff-Appellee CAROLINA B. GARCIA, of legal age, single,

Filipino and presently residing at Brgy. San Rafael, Mandurriao, Iloilo City.

Defendant-Appellant DIEGO M. SANTOS, of legal age, Filipino and

presently residing at Brgy. Navais, Mandurriao, Iloilo City.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

1
 1. Order dated 25 June 2021 by the lower court favored the Plaintiff-
Appellee to collect the sum of money with damages from the
Defendant-Appellant;
2. On 09 July 2021, Defendant-Appellant filed a Motion for
Reconsideration that was denied in the court a quo’s dated 27 August
2021.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the 2019 Amendment to

the Rules of Civil Procedure filed by herein Defendant-Appellant (brevity)
Diego M. Santos against Plaintiff-Appellee (brevity) Carolina B. Garcia
seeking to SET ASIDE and REVERSE the Decision dated 25 June 2021 and
the Order dated 27 August 2021 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City
Branch 24, in the case entitled, “Carolina B. Garcia vs. Diego M. Santos”,
docketed as Civil Case No. 28024.

In the appealed Decision dated 25 June 2021, the court a quo rendered
judgment in favor of the Plaintiff-Appellee as follows:

“WHEREFORE, it appearing that the material

allegations of the complaint had been established by
clear and convincing and comment evidence, judgment
is hereby rendered in favor of the Plaintiff-Appellee and
against the Defendant-Appellant, ordering the latter to
pay the former within a period of thirty (30) days from
the entry of judgment, the following:

1) The principal amount of Two Million Pesos

(Php2,000,000.00) plus two per centum (2%) interest
per month computed from 15 March 2020 until 15
March 2021;

2
 2) The amount equivalent to ten per centum (10%) of
the total amount due as attorney’s fees; and

3) Cost of suit.

If Defendant-Appellant fails to pay the

aforementioned amount within the period afore-stated,
the monthly interest will increase to six per centum
(6%), the amount equivalent to ten per centum (10%) of
the total amount due as attorney’s fees will increase to
12 per centum (12%), and the cost of suit will increase
to 12% per centum (12%) per annum.

SO ORDERED.”

A Complaint for Collection for a Sum of Money filed by Plaintiff-

Appellee against herein Defendant-Appellant, where it prayed for judgment
in its favor, asking the Court to order the Defendant-Appellant to pay
Plaintiff-Appellee the amount of TWO MILLION PESOS
(Php2,000,000.00) with two per centum (2%) interest monthly, ONE
HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php125,000.00) as
attorney’s fee and an appearance fee of TWO THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED PESOS (Php2,500.00) per hearing, and the costs of suits.

Defendant-Appellant sought the dismissal of the Complaint and by

way of compulsory counterclaims, sought payment by Plaintiff-Appellee of
the following amount: TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(Php200,000.00) as and by way of moral damages; FIFTY THOUSAND
PESOS (Php 50,000.00) as attorney’s fee and THREE THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 3,000.00) per court appearance.

3
 Pre-trial and trial of the case ensued, with the parties presenting their
respective testimonial and documentary evidence. Carolina B. Garcia
presented herself as witness for the Plaintiff-Appellee, while Diego M.
Santos testified for the Defendant-Appellant. The parties were also ordered
to file their respective Formal Offer of Exhibits as well as the
Comments/Objections thereto, and the court accordingly ruled upon the
same in its Order dated 25 June 2021.

Defendant-Appellant sought a reconsideration of the assailed Decision

by filing a Motion for Reconsideration dated 09 July 2021 where they
averred, among others that: (a) the evidence presented by Plaintiff-Appellee
is insufficient to justify the decision; (b) the monetary award was excessive;
and (c) they should be granted damages and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff-Appellee filed its Comment/Opposition dated 10 August

2021 to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Defendant-Appellant.

On 27 August 2021, the Court rendered the Assailed Order denying

Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Defendant-Appellant.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On 15 March 2020, the Defendant-Appellant obtained a loan from the

Plaintiff-Appellee in the amount of Two Million Pesos (Php2,000,000.00)
with an agreed interest of two percent (2%) per month as evidence in a
Contract of Loan (EXHIBIT 1), and the indebtedness of the Defendant-
Appellant has become due and demandable on 15 March 2021.

On 07 February 2021, the angered Plaintiff-Appellee went to the

house of the Defendant-Appellant, forcing him to pay his debt in the amount
of Two Million Pesos (Php 2,000,000.00) with two per centum (2%) interest

4
per month, but the latter insisted that under their contract, the payment has
not become due and demandable.

Pursuant to the Contract of Loan, the payment becomes due and

demandable on 15 March 2021.

On February 14 (EXHIBIT 2), 21 (EXHIBIT 3), 28 (EXHIBIT 4), and

March 5, 2021 (EXHIBIT 5), the Defendant-Appellant received a Demand
Letter from the Plaintiff-Appellee to pay his debt, however, the Defendant-
Appellant stands on their agreement.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

A. THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE

ERROR IN GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE’S PRAYER
TO COLLECT THE SUM OF MONEY DESPITE THE
COLLECTION IF PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN DUE AND
DEMANDABLE.

B. THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE’S PRAYER TO COLLECT THE
DAMAGES DESPITE THAT THE PREJUDICE MADE BY THE
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

A. The Honorable Trial Court

committed reversible error in
granting the Plaintiff-Appellee’s
prayer to collect the sum of
money despite the collection if
payment has not been due and
demandable.

5
 Article 1169 of the Civil Code ruled that where those obliged to
deliver or to do something incur a delay from the time the obligee judicially
or extrajudicially demands fulfillment of the obligation.1

In a case of AUTOCORP GROUP VS. INTRA STRATA

ASSURANCE CORP, G.R. No. 166662, June 27, 2008, the Court held
that:

x x x such a fact does not carry much weight

considering that demand x x x is not required before
an obligation becomes due and demandable. A
demand is only necessary in order to put an obligor
in a due and demandable obligation in delay, which
in turn is for the purpose of making the obligor liable
for interests or damages for the period of delay.
(Emphasis supplied)

Applying in the case at bar, the Plaintiff-Appellee erred when she

issued a Demand Letter on the date when the payment is not already due and
demandable, compelling the Defendant-Appellant to pay the whole debt
with interest. It is quite clear in their contract that the payment will be come
due and demandable on 15 March 2021, not on the other dates.

B. The Honorable Trial Court

erred in granting the Plaintiff-
Appellee’s prayer to collect the
damages despite that the
prejudice made by the Plaintiff-
Appellee.

1
No demand, no pay, Available at
https://www.pwc.com/ph/en/taxwise-or-otherwise/2018/no-demand-no-pay.html#:~:text=
%E2%80%9CNo%20demand%2C%20no%20delay.,demands%20fulfillment%20of
%20the%20obligation. (Last visited May 31, 2021)
6
 Considering that the Plaintiff-Appellee has no right to collect the sum
of money to the Defendant-Appellant on the date that the payment has not
become due and demandable; and that Plaintiff-Appellee has no cause of
action for a case of Collection for a Sum of Money against the Defendant-
Appellant, it follows therefore that Plaintiff-Appellee are not entitled to
payment of damages. The Plaintiff-Appellee is liable further of moral
damages due to forcing the Defendant-Appellant to pay the payment which
has not become due and demandable.

In cases such as this, Article 2219 of the Code provides that moral
damages may be recovered in acts referred to in its Article 21:

Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the

following and analogous cases:

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the forgoing premises, Defendant-

Appellant Diego M. Santos respectfully prays for the Honorable Court that
the Decision dated 25 June 2021 and Order dated 27 August 2021 of the
7
Honorable Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 24 appealed from be
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and lieu thereof, judgment be rendered and a
new one be issued dismissing the Complaint for lack of merit.

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Iloilo City for Cebu City, 07 September 2021.

ZIA LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
San Rafael, Mandurriao, Iloilo City
Telephone Number: 314-0092
E-mail Address: abzia_lawoffice@gmail.com

By:

ATTY. AXIE B. ZIA

Roll of Attorney No. 54321
IBP No. 9870; 01-07-2020; Iloilo City
PTR No. 0223; 02-03-2020; Iloilo City
MCLE Compliance No. 827191 2/12/21

COPY FURNISHED:

Atty. Ar Jay N. Lukas

8
Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellee
Gallofin Law Office
Poblacion, Molo, Iloilo City

THE PRESIDING JUDGE

Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City
Branch 24

EXPLANATION AS TO MODE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, Defendant-
Appellant, through undersigned counsel, manifests that copies of this
pleading was made through registered mail on account of time and distance
constraints.

AXIE B. ZIA

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF ILOILO ) S.S.
x-------------------------------------------x

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM

SHOPPING

I, DIEGO M. SANTOS, Filipino, of legal age, and residing at Brgy.

Navais, Mandurriao, Iloilo City, after having been sworn to in accordance
with law, deposes and says that:

1. I am the Appellant in the above-stated case;

2. I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing petition

and have read the allegations therein, and that they are true and
correct of my personal knowledge and belief and based on
authentic documents;

9
 3. I have not commenced any action or proceeding involving the
same issues before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any
other tribunal or agency and, to the best of my knowledge no such
other action or proceeding pending before any tribunal;

4. If I should learn that the same or similar action or proceeding has

been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report the
fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this

______ day of _________________ 2021, in Iloilo City.

DIEGO M. SANTOS
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______ day of

____________ 2021 in Iloilo City, affiant exhibiting to me his Voter’s ID
No. 2901-0011C-L71022DMS10000 issued by the Commission on Election
on August 2, 2018 as competent proof of his identity.

Doc. No.: ______;

Page No.: ______;
Book No.: ______;
Series of 2021.

10