Republic of the Philippines

6th Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 24
Iloilo City
-o0o-

CAROLINA B. GARCIA Civil Case No. 28024

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

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

POSITION PAPER
(For the Defendant)

COMES NOW, the Defendant, through counsel, unto this Honorable

Court, respectfully submitted this Position Paper and further aver the
following:

TIMELINESS OF FILING THIS POSITION PAPER

Defendant’s Counsel, Maderaje-Guillano Law Office, received a copy

of the Preliminary Conference Order on June 4, 2021 ordering both parties
to submit position paper and affidavits relative to this case within ten (10)
days. Hence, this paper is filed within the reglementary period;

PARTIES

1. Defendant, Diego M. Santos, of legal age, Filipino and presently

residing at Brgy. Navais, Mandurriao, Iloilo City. He is being
represented by the Maderaje-Guillano Law Office with address at

1
 Quintin Salas, Jaro, Iloilo City, where he may be served with
summons and other processes of the Honorable Court;

2. Plaintiff, Carolina B. Garcia, on the other hand, of legal age, single,

Filipino and presently residing at Brgy. San Rafael, Mandurriao, Iloilo
City. She is represented by Atty. Romnick J. Gallofin of Gallofin Law
Office with address at Brgy. San Rafael, Mandurriao, Iloilo City,
where she may be served with summons and other judicial processes
of the Honorable Court;

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

In order that this honorable court may be enlightened and guided in

the judicious disposition of the above-entitled case, cited hereunder the
material, relevant and pertinent facts of the case, to wit:

1. On 15 March 2020, the defendant borrowed money to the Plaintiff

worth Two Million Pesos (Php 2,000,000.00) with Two per
centum (2%) monthly interest rate;
2. The Plaintiff and defendant signed the Contract of Loan on the
abovementioned date (Annex 1);
3. The defendant agreed that the payment will be due and
demandable on 15 March 2021 as provided in the Contract;
4. That on 7 February 2021, the Plaintiff went to the house of the
defendant, forcibly collected the whole payment with interest;
5. On the abovementioned date, the defendant explained to the
Plaintiff that the date of due and demandable payment has not yet
come;
6. On 14 February 2021, the defendant received a Demand Letter
(Annex 2) from the Plaintiff compelling him to pay the payment,
but he stood on their agreement;

2
 7. On 21 February 2021, the defendant received again a Demand
Letter (Annex 3) from the Plaintiff compelling him to pay the
payment;
8. On 28 February 2021, the defendant received again a Demand
Letter (Annex 4) from the Plaintiff compelling him to pay the
payment;
9. On 5 March 2021, the defendant received again a Demand Letter
(Annex 5) from the Plaintiff compelling him to pay the payment,
but still he stood on their agreement.

ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFF HAS THE RIGHT TO

LEGALLY COLLECT THE MONEY TO THE DEFENDANT
UPON THE ISSUANCE OF DEMAND LETTERS WHEN THE
DUE AND DEMANDABLE DATE HAS NOT COME.

II. WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO

DAMAGES.

III. WHETHER OR NOT DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO

ACTUAL, MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

The plaintiff has the no right to legally

collect the money to the defendant upon
the issuance of demand letters when the
due and demandable date has not come.

“No demand, no delay.”

3
 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 Autocorp Group v. Intra Strata Assurance Corp. 2, the Court held

that:

x x x such a fact does not carry much weight

considering that demand, whether judicial or
extrajudicial, 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 erred when she issued a
Demand Letter on the date when the payment is not already due and
demandable, compelling the defendant 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.

Citing Spouses Edrada v. Spouses Ramos3, the Court held that, to wit:

In order that x x x could have a valid cause of action,

it is essential that there must have been a stipulated
period within which the payment would have
become due and demandable. (Emphasis supplied)
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)
2
G.R. No. 166662, [June 27, 2008], 578 Phil 804-826
3
G.R. No. 154413, [August 31, 2005], 505 Phil 672-681
4
 In this case, the Plaintiff did the cause of action even that the payment
has not become due and demandable. She has no right to collect such
amount of money to the defendant. She must wait that the payment has
become due and demandable.

Plaintiff is not entitled to damages

Considering that the Plaintiff has no right to collect the sum of money
to the defendant on the date that the payment has not become due and
demandable; and that Plaintiff has no cause of action for a case of Collection
for a Sum of Money against the defendant, it follows therefore that Plaintiff
are not entitled to payment of damages.

Defendant is entitled to actual, moral

and
exemplary damages.

In fact, it is the defendant who is entitled to claim damages from the

Plaintiff for constraining them to litigate.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

that this Position Paper and its attached documents be given due
consideration and that upon resolution of this case, a favorable judgment be
rendered in favor of the Defendants, declaring that the Plaintiff has no cause
of action for Collection for a Sum of Money with Damages since the due
and demandable date of payment has not come, thereby dismissing the case
for lack of merit.

5
 Other reliefs that are just and equitable under the premise are likewise
prayed for.

Iloilo City, 31 May 2021.

ZIA LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Defendant
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

VERIFICATION
6
 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. That I am the Defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. That I, through counsel, prepared the foregoing Position Paper on this
Collection for a Sum of Money with Damages;
3. That I have read and understood the same and all the allegations
therein are true, correct and of our own personal knowledge and/or
based on authentic documents.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature 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.