Republic of the Philippines

METROPILITAN TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

11th Judicial Region
Branch
Davao City

BEA ALONZO, Civil Case No.

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

JOHN LYOD CRUZ,

Defendant
x------------------------------------------/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel unto this Honorable Court, hereby
respectfully avers:

1. That she is of legal age, Filipino, widow, and a resident of 143 Cabantian
Road, Buhangin, Davao City, Philippines where she may be served with
processes of the court;

2. That Defendant is likewise of legal age, married, and a resident of AJ

Torres Trading, Tagum City, Tagum City, Davao del Norte, Philippines /
Purok 7, Canocotan, Tagum City, Davao del Norte, Philippines where he
may be served with summons and processes of the court;

3. That both parties have the capacity to sue and be sued;

4. That plaintiff was married to the late Romeo Alonzo on October 2, 1984
through a civil rights officiated by Hon. Filomeno J. Apila at Municipal
Trial Courts in Cities, Branch V, Davao City. A copy of their Marriage
Contract is hereto attached as Exhibit A;

5. That Romeo Alonzo died on June 9, 2021. A copy of the Death

Certificate is hereto attached as Exhibit B;

6. That by virtue of the death of Romeo Alonzo, plaintiff and their common
children became the successors of the former pursuant to Art. 777 of the
New Civil Code and became co-owners of the undivided thing owned in
common;

7. That on November 3, 2020, the defendant procured through installment

from Plaintiff’s late husband a unit of Hitachi hydraulic Excavator worth

Page 1 of 7
 one million eight hundred thousand pesos (P1,800,000.00) payable in
eighteen (18) months to start on December 3, 2020 until May 3, 2022 as
evidenced by the Deed of Conditional Sale and the Schedule of Monthly
Payment signed by both parties (ExhibitsC&D, respectively);

8. That Defendant issued eighteen (18) Asia United Bank (AUB) post-dated
checks in favor of Plaintiff on said date to represent the eighteen equal
monthly installments, to wit:

Check Number Date Amount

a. 00002034281 Dec. 3, 2020 Php100,000.00
b. 00002034292 Jan. 3, 2021 Php100,000.00
c. 00002034303 Feb. 3, 2021 Php100,000.00
d. 00002034314 Mar. 3, 2021 Php100,000.00
e. 00002034325 Apr. 3, 2021 Php100,000.00
f. 00002034336 May 3, 2021 Php100,000.00
g. 00002034347 Jun. 3, 2021 Php100,000.00
h. 00002034358 Jul. 3, 2021 Php100,000.00
i. 00002034369 Aug. 3, 2021 Php100,000.00
j. 00002034370 Sep. 3, 2021 Php100,000.00
k. 00002034381 Oct. 3, 2021 Php100,000.00
l. 00002034392 Nov. 3, 2021 Php100,000.00
m. 00002034403 Dec. 3, 2021 Php100,000.00
n. 00002034414 Jan. 3, 2022 Php100,000.00
o. 00002034425 Feb. 3, 2022 Php100,000.00
p. 00002034436 Mar. 3, 2022 Php100,000.00
q. 00002034447 Apr. 3, 2022 Php100,000.00
r. 00002034458 May 3, 2022 Php100,000.00

9. That the check bearing Check Number 0000203428 dated December 3,

2020 representing the first monthly installment went good;

10. That the AUB Check bearing Check No. 0000203429 dated January 3,
2021 bounced twice for being drawn against insufficient funds when
deposited by the plaintiff’s late husband in his RCBC account as
evidenced by two (2) Return Check Advice issued on January 5 and 9,
2021 by RCBC (ExhibitsE&F, respectively);

11. That demands were made but herein Defendant failed to pay his
obligations;

12. That the remaining thirteen (13) of the said post-dated checks are in the
possession of the plaintiff. Copies of which are hereto attached as
(Exhibits G to S);

Page 2 of 7
13. That the unpaid indebtedness of the herein defendant caused so much
stress to the plaintiff’s husband contributing to the latter’s medical
condition and eventual death on June 9, 2021 (Exhibit B, supra);

14. That when herein defendant visited during the wake of plaintiff’s
husband, plaintiff demanded for the payment of his indebtednessbut
defendant merely promised but the same never transpired;

15. That the indebtedness of Defendant has become due and demandable on
May 3, 2022;

16. That a demand letter through the undersigned counsel dated February 1,
2022 (Exhibit T) was sent to the defendanttogether with the proof of its
sending issued by LBC-Buhangin (Exhibit U);

17. That after over a year, despite repeated verbal and written demands for
payment, the herein plaintiff personally confronted the defendant during
the virtual Asia Pacific Conference of the Kiwanis Club on April 2, 2022
at Business Class, Bo. Obrero, Davao City and served the latter the same
demand letter referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph, which
the Defendant personally received and affixed his signature thereon
(Exhibit V);

18. Article 1475, 1191and 1484 of the New Civil Code state:

“Article 1475. The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is

a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract
and upon the price.

From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand

performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form
of contracts.

“Article 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in

reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with
what is incumbent upon him.

The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the
rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either
case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen
fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible.
xxxxxx

Article 1484. In a contract of sale of personal property the price of

which is payable in installments, the vendor may exercise any of the
following remedies:

Page 3 of 7
 (1) Exact fulfillment of the obligation, should the vendee fail
to pay; (emphasis ours)
xxxxxx

19. That the defendant failed to pay his obligations in the amount of One
Million Four Hundred Thousand (1,400,000.00), exclusive of penalties,
without valid grounds, causing damage and prejudice to Plaintiff;

20. Plaintiff could have sold the excavator unit sold to defendant to other
willing buyers and could have rolled the proceeds thereof to other
profitable business undertakings;

21. Thus, for the delay and contravention of the obligations, defendant
should be made to pay damages and lost profits which the herein plaintiff
could have earned;

22. Article 1170 of the New Civil Code provides:

“Art. 1170. Those who, in the performance of their obligation, are

guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner
contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.” (emphasis
ours)

23. That defendant unjustly enriched himself while he wantonly disregarded

his contractual obligations as evidenced by his disregard to the plaintiff’s
demands;

24. Article 2232 of the New Civil Code provides:

Article 2232. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award

exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. (Emphasis ours)

25. Hence, for the wanton disregard of his obligations, Defendant should be
held liable to pay the Plaintiff exemplary damages in the amount of
P100,000.00;

26. That because of the stubborn and malicious refusal of the defendant to
honor his obligation and to protect plaintiff’s interest, the latter was
constrained to engage the undersigned counsel for an agreed attorney’s
fee equivalent to 10% of the total amount due plus appearance fee for
every court hearing, which expenses should be paid by the herein
defendant;

27. In Carandang vs. Heirs of De Guzman (G.R. No. 160347, November 29,
2006), the Supreme Court held:

Page 4 of 7
 In sum, in suits to recover properties, all co-owners are real
parties in interest. However, pursuant to Article 487 of the
Civil Code and relevant jurisprudence, any one of them
may bring an action, any kind of action, for the recovery of
co-owned properties. Therefore, only one of the co-owners,
namely the co-owner who filed the suit for the recovery of
the co-owned property, is an indispensable party thereto.
The other co-owners are not indispensable parties. They are not
even necessary parties, for a complete relief can be accorded in
the suit even without their participation, since the suit is
presumed to have been filed for the benefit of all co-owners.
(Emphasis ours)

28. Under Article 2208 of the New Civil Code, attorney’s fees may be
awarded where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in
refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s valid, just and demandable claim, to wit:

Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and

expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered,
except:

(1) When exemplary damages are awarded;

(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the
plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to
protect his interest;

xxxxx

(5) Where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in
refusing to satisfy the plaintiff's plainly valid, just and
demandable claim;

xxxxx

(11) In any other case where the court deems it just and
equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of litigation should
be recovered.

29. That by reason of defendant’s unjustified acts as well as bad faith and
intentional refusal to pay his overdue obligation resulting to the
plaintiff’s and her late husband’s mental anguish, Plaintiff is entitled to
the award of moral damages in an amount to be determined by the Court.

Page 5 of 7
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed before the

Honorable Court to render decision in favor of the plaintiff and order the defendant
to pay the following:

a. The sum of One Million Four Pesos (Php 1,400,000.00) exclusive of

interest and penalties to be determined by the court;

b. Exemplary damages amounting to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php

100,000.00);

c. Attorney’s fees equivalent to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php

152,000.00) plus 10% of the moral damages and other awards to be
granted by the Honorable Court;

d. Other litigation expenses amounting Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php

20,000.00);

e. Moral damages of a sum at the discretion of the Court.

Other reliefs and remedies that the Court may deem just and equitable under
the foregoing premises are also prayed for.

Davao City, September 30, 2022.

KEANU REEVES
Roll of Attorney’s number 45466
PTR no. 6761261 -05/03/2022
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0011102
IBP Lifetime Member no. 04828 – Davao City Chapter
Notary Public for Davao City until 12-31-24
Notarial Commission # 2022 -100-2023
REEVES & Partners Law Firm, 2nd Floor Reeves Building,
455 Gladiator Street, Km. 6 Buhangin, Davao City.
Tel. no. [082] 221 6041 – email: reeveslawfirm@gmail.com

Page 6 of 7