Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
COMPLAINANT CELIA E. LEUTERIO, by and through the undersigned Law
PARTIES
1. Complainant Celia E. Leuterio is of legal age, Filipino and resides at No. 1289
Pablo Ocampo Sr. corner Lemery Streets, Manila. She may be served with summons, orders and
other legal processes of this Honorable Board at the address of the undersigned Law Offices
indicated herein-below.
2. Respondent AIC Management & Marketing Corporation is a private domestic corporation duly
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines and it may be served with
summons, orders and other legal processes of this Honorable Board at its principal office address located at AIC
Realty Corporation Building, Garnet Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Metro Manila.
1
FACTUAL BACKDROP
office condominium unit and two (2) parking slots in one of respondent’s condominium project
erected at ADB Avenue corner Sapphire and Garnet Streets, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Metro
Manila.
complainant and respondent’s Vice-President for Finance, Val John E. Perez, wherein the
forty-two (42) months and the remaining amount of PhP2,684,908.60 shall be paid upon turnover
of the condominium unit. A copy of the said Reservation Agreement is attached hereto as Annex
5. Around the same time, complainant purchased two (2) other units from AIC
Realty Corporation, also on a pre-selling basis, to wit: Unit 611 at AIC Gold Tower located at
Garnet Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, for turnover in 1998, and one (1) unit at Waldorf
Towers supposed to have been built along Roxas Boulevard near the U.S. Embassy and for
turnover in 1998.
6. AIC Gold Tower suffered delays but was finally turned-over in May 1999. AIC
Waldorf Tower did not get off the ground inspite of the fact that complainant had already paid
PhP4,111,946.00.
2
7. Sometime in 1995 or 1996, complainant received unofficial information that
construction works on AIC Waldorf Tower had been stopped indefinitely which respondent
8. At around this time, the AIC Empire Tower project had also slowed down and no
firm commitment on the turnover date of the condominium unit was ever given to complainant.
Waldorf. Respondent, on its part, suggested that these payments be applied in full to the
scheduled amortization on the condominium project at AIC Empire Tower and the final balance
on AIC Gold Tower. Respondent further reassured complainant that work on AIC Empire Tower
10. On 28 April 1999, complainant therefore agreed that the payments she already
made for the condominium unit she had purchased at AIC Waldorf Towers in the amount of
PhP4,111,946.00 be apportioned and applied as payment for the other condominium units she
purchased, to wit: (a) PhP433,963.25 as first payment for Unit 611 of AIC Gold Tower
Condominium; (b) PhP1,362,072.64 for the condominium unit to update its monthly
same be refunded to her. A copy of the letter dated 28 April 1999 containing the aforesaid request
11. Respondent, on its part, proposed that all payments made for the condominium
unit at AIC Waldorf Towers would be apportioned and applied to all unpaid amortization for the
12. Thereafter, series of negotiations were held between complainant and respondent
as to how the payments made for the condominium unit at AIC Waldorf Towers would be applied
3
to the aforementioned condominium units.
13. Finally, complainant agreed to the proposal of respondent that all payments be
applied to the outstanding account of the former in the condominium unit as stated in the latter’s
letter dated 16 August 2000 to complainant. A copy of the said letter is attached hereto as Annex
14. For more than eight (8) agonizing years, complainant waited for respondent to
deliver the condominium unit to her. In fact, complainant made several requests for an update of
the status of the condominium project because she noticed that no major development had been
introduced therein since she signed the Reservation Agreement. Copies of complainant’s letters
to respondent dated 27 February 2002 and 30 May 2002 are attached hereto as Annexes “D”
15. Respondent, on the other hand, gave the complainant the same response that
construction works in the condominium project is on-going but it cannot give a specific date as
16. On 23 May 2002, respondent issued a Certification stating therein that since 30
August 2000, complainant had already paid, in full, the purchase price of the condominium unit.
A copy of the said Certification is attached hereto as Annex “F” to form an integral part hereof.
17. Fed up with the lame excuses of respondent, complainant finally decided to
demand the return of all the payments she had made, including interest.
18. This constrained complainant to refer the matter to the undersigned Law Offices
and a letter dated 16 June 2003 was sent to the respondent, personally and via registered mail,
demanding for the return of all payments made by the former in the aggregate amount of
4
PESOS: NINE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY-FOUR THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED THIRTY-TWO & 66/100 (PhP9,574,132.66) within ten (10) calendar days from
receipt of the said letter. Copies of the registry receipt and aforesaid letter are attached hereto as
counsel and assured the latter that he would send a written proposal for the settlement of the
claims of complainant.
20. Several weeks later, the undersigned Law Offices received a letter dated 10 July
2003 from Mr. Untalan stating therein respondent’s proposal. A copy of the said letter is
21. After conducting an ocular inspection of the condominium units that are being
offered by respondent as settlement for her demands and deliberating on the latter’s proposal,
complainant decided to reject the same and demanded for the complete refund of all payments
22. On 15 August 2003, a letter dated 08 August 2003 was sent by the undersigned
Law Offices to respondent, via DHL courier, stating therein complainant’s decision and gave the
former five (5) calendar from receipt of the said letter to refund all payments made by
complainant. Copies of the said letter and receipt issued by DHL courier are appended herewith
23. The grace period stated in the aforesaid letter had lapsed but respondent failed to abide with the
5
CLAIMS
24. In view of the failure on the part of the respondent to comply with its obligation,
coupled with its adamant refusal to return back all payments made by the complainant, the latter
suffered actual damages in the aggregate amount of PESOS: NINE MILLION FIVE
(PhP9,574,132.66).
to the complainant subjected the latter to unnecessary apprehensions and anxieties. The
complainant parted away with over nine (9) million pesos in favor of the respondent without
knowing that the latter had no intention, whatsoever, in fulfilling its undertaking. Therefore, it is
only but just and proper that complainant be vindicated and correspondingly compensated by
ordering respondent to pay her moral damages in the amount of PESOS: TWO HUNDRED
26. To serve as an example for public good and to deter corporations similarly
inclined as respondent from employing deceits to entice individuals like complainant into
purchasing a condominium unit in a "pre-selling" scheme, the latter prays that the former be
27. In order to vindicate and protects her rights, complainant was forced to engage the
services of the undersigned Law Offices by paying an acceptance fee of PESOS: FIFTY
THOUSAND AND 0/100 (PhP50,000.00) plus PESOS: THREE THOUSAND AND 0/100
28. In addition to the foregoing, the complainant will continue to incur litigation
6
expenses, the total amount of which will be made known later to this Honorable Board.
PR AY E R
Honorable Board that a Decision be handed down ORDERING the respondent to PAY the
complainant:
incurred; and
OTHER RELIEFS, just and equitable under the foregoing premises, are likewise most
7
ALEXIS M. ESCOBEDO
Roll of Attorney No. 46807
PTR No.: 40718643: 30.01.03: Q.C.
IBP No.: 576148: 01.16.03: Sorsogon