Dear PAO,

I have been cheated by a dealer because I was able to buy a vehicle which he represents to have a
certificate of public convenience. I later found out that the franchise does not exist. I was advised to file a
case for estafa but I do not want to be involved in such a lengthy proceeding. I just want my money back.
What may be the best solution to my problem?
Pablo

Dear Pablo,
Estafa is a crime which may be committed by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts. One of the
false pretenses or fraudulent acts constituting estafa is the use of fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or
by means of other similar deceits. There may be sufficient ground to hold the seller of the vehicle for
estafa because he has fraudulently declared that the vehicle he was selling has a certificate of public
convenience knowing that such is not existing and that you were induced to buy the said vehicle because
of the declaration causing damage on your part (Article 315 par. [2][3], Revised Penal Code). The penalty
for estafa depends upon the amount defrauded upon the victim, but the same shall not exceed
imprisonment of twenty (20) years, which shall be imposed only upon his conviction in court.

Considering that you do not wish to pursue a criminal case for estafa against the seller of the vehicle, you
may just send a demand letter to him for the refund of the price paid. You may also be assisted by the
Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) in a conference/mediation which may be conducted between you and the
seller in the PAO District Office of the place where you are residing. Upon request for conference, the
assisting Public Attorney, after determination of your qualification as client, shall send an invitation to the
seller for such a conference to discuss your problem and possibly settle your dispute amicably (Section 4,
Rule X, Public Attorney’s Office Operations Manual). You may also claim your refund through the filing of
small claim case under A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases) if it does not
exceed P100,000. The proceeding under this rule is expedient because the court shall immediately set
the hearing. A postponement of the hearing therein may be granted only upon proof of the physical
inability of the party to appear before the court on the scheduled date and time, but said party may avail of
only one (1) postponement. Moreover, you will not need the assistance of a lawyer since the same is
prohibited by the Rules and the Petition/Pleadings are readily available at the Office of the Clerk of Court.
After the hearing, the court shall render its decision on the same day, based on the facts established by
the evidence and such decision shall immediately be final and unappealable (Sections 17, 19, and 23,
A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC).

source:  Manila Times' Column by Atty. Persida Acosta