Reyzen Paul Unite Mendiola 2011030966

Legal Counselling and Social Responsibility – CLEP 4E

TASK 1
First Scenario
Mark Reyes was the President of BTS Construction, a company engaged in
building and developing residential houses and commercial buildings based in Quezon
City. They regularly source their cement directly from the supplier Falcon Cement Corp.
BTS bagged a project to construct a 20-storey commercial building and so placed an order
for cement worth PHP 2,000,000.00 and paid using a check issued by the company from
ABC Bank which was delivered to Falcon’s office at Marikina City.
When Falcon Cement Corp deposited the check in their account with XYZ Bank in
Marikina, the deposit was refused and the check dishonored by reason of lack of funds.
Falcon Cement now consults with you on the best course of action concerning the
check that bounced.

1. As the lawyer, what questions would you ask of Falcon Cement during your
initial consultation?

As Falcon Cement’s counsel, I would first and foremost ask who the opponent is
in the action it is planning to commence. This is to pre-empt any conflict of interest should
the person it seeks to file a case against is or was my client. Nowhere in the facts did it
state that BTS Construction is my client nor did it ever avail of my services, hence I can
take Falcon Cement as my client.
Next, I would ask Falcon Cement to tell me more about its issue with BTS
Construction, or what the events that transpired are and when the events took place for
it to file a case. It is important to have an understanding of what the issue is. As such, I’d
ask it to walk me through its case.
After, I would ask Falcon Cement what worries it the most about this matter. This
is to gauge the cost of the suit and its chances of winning.
Then, I’ll ask it if has worked with a lawyer before. This is to gauge the company’s
experience with legal processes. If it answers in the negative, I’ll review it of the specifics
how the case usually goes, how long will the case take, and what is expected of Falcon. If
it answers in the affirmative, I’ll ask it what it disliked about working with its former
lawyer and what we can do to avoid that.
 Finally, I would ask of it the pertinent documents relating to the case and what
Falcon Cement’s goal is for the case.

As such, my initial questions would be:

a. Who would you be filing a case against with?
b. What happened in this matter?
i. Is there an existing contract between Falcon Cement and BTS
Construction?
ii. Were the bags of cement successfully delivered before payment?
iii. What kind of check was used for payment?
c. When was the check issued?
d. When did you attempt to deposit the check in your account?
e. Did you notify BTS Construction with regards to the dishonored check?
i. If so, when did you send the notification?
1. Did they ever reply to the notification?
ii. (If not, I would advise Falcon Cement to notify them first.)
f. Have you worked with a particular lawyer with regards to this matter
before?
i. If so, what did and did you not like when you worked with him/her?
ii. (If not, I would discuss with Falcon Cement how long this case may
take and how much this would cost.)
g. Do you have with you the pertinent documents, such as the contract
between it and BTA Construction, an invoice for the delivered bags of
cement, the dishonored check, etc. relating to this case?
h. What is your goal in this case?

2. What are the applicable laws?

The applicable laws in this case are Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and Revised Penal
Code, particularly Article 315 (2) (d). Moreover, since this is a criminal case, the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure would likewise apply.
Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, what is penalized is the act of making or drawing
any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment of such check in full
upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had
not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.

Simply put, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes a person who issues a worthless
check: a check which is dishonored by the issuing bank for insufficiency of funds at the
time it is encashed for payment.
 Under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code, estafa is committed by post-
dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender therein
were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check.

Prosecution under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is not a bar for prosecution for estafa,
and the issuer of the check may be held liable for one or both crimes, singly or
simultaneously when the complaints are filed in separate courts.

3. What is the proper remedy?

The proper remedy would depend on whether a demand letter was already sent to BTS
Construction or not.
a. If not, I would advise Falcon Cement to send a demand letter to BTS
Construction, stating therein when the check was dishonored and when its
demands should be met.
b. If so, I would advise Falcon Cement to proceed with the filing of a criminal
case against BTS Construction for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, a
violation of Article 315 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, or both.

4. Draft the demand letter and complaint affidavit to be filed in the prosecutor’s
office.
 MENDIOLA LAW OFFICES
151 Pitong Gatang Street
Tondo, Manila City
(02) 8669-4201
themendiolalaw@gmail.com

28 February 2023

MARK REYES
President
BTS Construction
669 Ulilang Kawayan Street, Barangay Inarawan
Paco, Manila City

Dear Mr. Reyes,

I am writing in behalf of my client, Falcon Cement Corporation, the matter of your

non-payment of your obligation.

Records disclose that you have an outstanding obligation with my client in the
amount of PHP 2,000,000.00 inclusive of interest and surcharges. While you may have
issued a check in consideration therewith, I regret to inform you that that check, bearing
the check number 000075395128, dated September 1, 2022, for the sum of PHP
2,000,000.00 has been dishonored by ABC Bank for the reason that it was drawn against
insufficiency of funds.

Pursuant to the provision of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 in conjunction with Republic

Act No. 4885, I would ask you to make the necessary arrangement for the payment in full
by ABC Bank of your check within seven (7) banking days after receipt of this notice.
Needless to state, in this connection, your failure to do so is a prima facie evidence of
deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act punishable under the law, and my
client would come at you with the full extent of the law.

Please be guided accordingly.

Very truly yours,

ATTY. REYZEN PAUL UNITE MENDIOLA

Counsel for Falcon Cement Corporation
IBP No. 115700
PTR No. 11570-09-23-2023
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0017242
Roll No. 11570
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
MANILA CITY

FALCON CEMENT CORPORATION,

as represented by its President, DENNIS CONCEPCION,
Complainant,

I.S. No. 115700

- versus -
For: Violation of
B.P. Blg. 22
BTS CONSTRUCTION,
as represented by its President, MARK REYES,
Respondent.

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT

THE UNDERSIGNED COMPLAINANT respectfully alleges:

I, DENNIS CONCEPCION, President of Falcon Cement Corporation,

of legal age, Filipino, married, and with postal address at 668 Ulilang
Kawayan Street, Barangay Inarawan, Paco, Manila City, after having been
duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby accuses:

MR. MARK REYES, President of BTS Corporation, with postal

address at 669 Ulilang Kawayan Street, Barangay Inarawan, Paco, Manila
City where summons and notices may be served for Estafa and for violation
of B.P. Blg. 22 committed as follows:
1.0. That, on August 30, 2022, Mr. Reyes went to Falcon Cement’s Paco
Branch to PHP 2,000,000.00 worth of bags of cement a 20-storey
commercial building it was constructing;
2.0. That, the bags of cement were delivered to him at the place where the
building is being constructed, Paco, Manila, the following day,
September 1, 2022. On that same day, Mr. Reyes issued in my favor an
ABC Bank Check No. 000075395128 in the amount of PHP 2,000,000.00
as supposed payment for the bags of cement which I have delivered to
him;
3.0. That at the time Mr. Reyes issued the said check to me, he made the
assurance and representation that the said check is a good check and
would be covered by sufficient funds when presented for payment;
4.0. However, when the above mentioned check was deposited, the same
was dishonored and returned by the bank on the ground that the same
was drawn against an “ACCOUNT WITH INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.”
A true and faithful machine reproduction of the said check is hereto
attached as Annex “A”;
5.0. As such, I immediately notified Mr. Reyes of the dishonor and return
of the said check and demanded from him that he make good the said
check within seven (7) days from receipt thereof. A true and faithful
machine reproduction of my demand letter to him is hereto attached
as Annex “B”;
6.0. When Mr. Reyes failed to heed my demands, I endorsed the said check
to my legal counsel who immediately sent a formal demand letter
through registered mail with return card on 151 Pitong Gatang Street,
Tondo, Manila City, which was received by Mr. Reyes on September
15, 2022. As of February 28, 2023, however, Mr. Reyes has unjustifiably
ignored all these demands to pay the said amount and to redeem the
said returned check. A true and faithful machine reproduction of my
demand letter to him is hereto attached as Annex “B”;
7.0. I am therefore executing this Complaint Affidavit in support of the
charges for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, in conjunction with
Republic Act No. 4885 against Mr. Reyes, who may be served with
subpoena and other processes of this Honorable Office at his principal
place of business 669 Ulilang Kawayan Street, Brgy. Inarawan, Paco,
Manila City, Philippines.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this March 1,
2023, at 151 Pitong Gatang Street, Tondo, Manila City, Philippines.

DENNIS CONCEPCION
In representation of FALCON CEMENT CORPORATION
COMPLAINANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5th of March 2023 in

Manila City, the affiant exhibiting to me his National ID, card no. 001157.

MARIA CLARA MAKILING

CITY PROSECUTOR

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and am

satisfied that he voluntarily executed and understood his complaint-
affidavit.

MARIA CLARA MAKILING

CITY PROSECUTOR
Second Scenario

Edward Santos and Richard Cruz were good friends from college who wanted to
start a business. They decided to put up a bar/restaurant near UST, their alma mater. To
do this, they borrowed PHP 2,000,000 from their friend Henry Delos Reyes, secured by a
promissory note. The loan was to be paid in 2 years with legal interest.
2 years passed and unfortunately, Edward and Richard were unable to pay Henry.
He demanded payment but was refused. Now he consults with you regarding the best
course of action to take.

1. As the lawyer, what questions would you ask of Henry during your initial
consultation?

As Henry Delos Reyes’ counsel, I would first and foremost ask who the opponent
is in the action it is planning to commence. This is to pre-empt any conflict of interest
should the person it seeks to file a case against is or was my client. Nowhere in the facts
did it state that Edward Santos nor Richard Cruz are my client nor did they ever avail of
my services, hence I can take Henry Delos Reyes as my client.
Next, I would ask Henry Delos Reyes to tell me more about his issue with Edward
Santos and Richard Cruz, or what the events that transpired are and when the events
took place for him to file a case. It is important to have an understanding of what the
issue is. As such, I’d ask him to walk me through the case.
After, I would ask Henry Delos Reyes what worries him the most about this
matter. This is to gauge the cost of the suit and his chances of winning.
Then, I’ll ask him if he has worked with a lawyer before. This is to gauge his
experience with legal processes. If he answers in the negative, I’ll review him of the
specifics how the case usually goes, how long will the case take, and what is expected of
him. If he answers in the affirmative, I’ll ask him what he disliked about working with
his former lawyer and what we can do to avoid that.
Finally, I would ask of him the pertinent documents relating to the case and what
Henry’s goal is for the case.

As such, my initial questions would be:

a. Who would you be filing a case against with?
b. What happened in this matter?
i. Is there an existing contract among Edward Santos, Richard Cruz,
and you?
ii. Do you still have the copy of the promissory note given to you by
the duo?
 c. When was the promissory note issued?
d. When did they agree to have the 2-year commencement period start?
e. Did you notify Edward and Richard with regards to their promise to pay
you back?
i. If so, when did you send the notification?
1. Did they ever reply to the notification?
ii. (If not, I would advise Henry to notify them first.)
f. Have you worked with a particular lawyer with regards to this matter
before?
i. If so, what did and did you not like when you worked with him/her?
ii. (If not, I would discuss with Henry how long this case may take and
how much this would cost him.)
g. Do you have with you the pertinent documents, such as the promissory
note given by Edward and Richard, any proof that he gave PHP
2,000,000.00 such as a check or a bank receipt documenting such, etc.
relating to this case?
h. What is your goal in this case?

2. What are the applicable laws?

The applicable laws in this case is the Civil Code of the Philippines, particularly
Article 1933 with regards to contracts of loan, which provides that “by the contract of
loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either something not consumable so that the
latter may use the same for a certain time and return it or money or other consumable
thing, upon the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be
paid.

Moreover, since this is a collection of a sum of money, its value being within the
jurisdiction of first level courts, another applicable law is the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure and Small Claims.

3. What is the proper remedy?

The proper remedy, under Article 1169 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, is for
Henry to send a demand letter to Edward and Richard for the fulfillment of their
obligation. This was already done by Henry, as stated in the facts.

As such, Henry may file a case for collection of sum of money before a first level
court.

4. Draft the complaint to be filed together with the judicial affidavit.

 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 96
MANILA CITY

HENRY DELOS REYES,

Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 115700
- versus -
For: COLLECTION FOR A
SUM OF MONEY
WITH DAMAGES
EDWARD SANTOS and RICHARD CRUZ,
Defendants.

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel unto this Honorable Court,

hereby respectfully avers:

1. The plaintiff, Henry Delos Reyes, is of legal age, Filipino, married, and
a resident of Lacson Avenue, Sampaloc, Manila City, while the
defendants, Edward Santos and Richard Cruz, are also of legal ages,
single, and residents of Dapitan Street, Sampaloc, Manila city,
Philippines where summons and court processes may be served;
2. That on February 1, 2021, the defendants borrowed from the plaintiff
a sum of money amounting to Two Million Pesos (PHP 2,000,000.00)
with an interest of six percent (6%) per month as evidenced by a
promissory note herein attached as Annex “A” and form an integral
part of this complaint;
 3. That as shown in the attached promissory note, the indebtedness of the
defendants has become due and demandable on February 1, 2023;
4. That despite plaintiff’s demand, both written and verbal, defendants
failed, neglected, and refused to fulfill their obligation without just and
valid grounds to the continued damage and prejudice of plaintiff, as
evidenced by Annex “B” – Demand Letter;
5. That the plaintiff in order to enforce his rights and interests, has
sought the services of a legal counsel with attorney’s fees amounting
to One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pesos (PHP 150,000.00) and an
appearance fee of Three Thousand Pesos (PHP 3,000.00) per hearing as
evidenced by Annex “C” – Contract for Legal Services;
6. That the plaintiff has paid for litigation expenses amounting to Twenty
Five Thousand Pesos (PHP 25,000.00) as evidenced by Annex “D” –
Official Receipt;
7. That the plaintiff has suffered moral damages at the sum discretion of
the Honorable Court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby respectfully prayed

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

a. The sum of Two Million Pesos (PHP 2,000,000.00) plus interest at the
rate of six percent (6%) per month as stipulated in the promissory note;
b. Moral damages, exemplary damages at the sum discretion of the court;
c. Attorney’s fees amounting to One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pesos
(PHP 150,000.00) and an appearance fee of Three Thousand Pesos
(PHP 3,000.00) per hearing;
d. Litigation expenses amounting to Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (PHP
25,000.00).

Other reliefs and remedies deemed just and equitable under the
foregoing premises are likewise prayed for.

Manila City, 5 March 2023

 Atty. Reyzen Paul Unite Mendiola
IBP No. 115700
PTR No. 11570-09-23-2023
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0017242
Roll No. 11570

Doc. No. ;
Page No. ;
Book No. ;
Series of 20
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES…………)
MANILA CITY………………………………..) S.S.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, HENRY DELOS REYES, of legal age, married, and a resident of

Lacson Avenue, Sampaloc, Manila City after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law hereby depose and say:
1. That I am the complainant in the above-entitled civil case, and I have
caused the preparation of the foregoing formal charge and affidavit;
2. That I have read and understood its content and the same are true and
correct of my own personal knowledge and based on authentic
records;
3. That I have not commenced any other action or proceedings involving
the same issues before this office, in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, particularly before the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Manila city; that to the best of my knowledge,
no such action or proceeding is pending in the supreme court, the
Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, and that, if I should
learn thereafter that s similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before these courts or tribunal or agency, I undertake to report
that fact to the Court within five (5) days therefrom.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 5th day of
March 2023.

HENRY DELOS REYES

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5th day of March 2023.
 MARIA CLARA MAKILING
Notary Public
Dapitan Street,
Sampaloc, Manila
Commission Serial No. 34623
IBP No. 751100
PTR No. 46486; 02-02-22
Roll No. 21435

Doc. No. ;
Page No. ;
Book No. ;
Series of 20
 JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 96
MANILA CITY

HENRY DELOS REYES,

Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 115700
- versus -
For: COLLECTION FOR A
SUM OF MONEY
WITH DAMAGES
EDWARD SANTOS and RICHARD CRUZ,
Defendants.

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF HENRY DELOS REYES

This Judicial Affidavit of HENRY DELOS REYES, the Plaintiff, is

executed to serve as his direct testimony in the instant case.

This Judicial Affidavit is being offered to prove:

A. All the allegations in the proceeding, including all annexes appended

thereto and which were already marked as exhibits during the Pre-
Trial of this case;
B. All other related matters, facts, and circumstances relevant and
material to this case.
 This Judicial Affidavit was taken at the office of Atty. REYZEN PAUL
UNITE MENDIOLA at 151 Pitong Gatang Street, Tondo, Manila City.

Questions were propounded by Atty. REYZEN PAUL UNITE

MENDIOLA and these questions are numbered consecutively and each
question is followed by the answer of the witness.

1. Q: Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
A: I do.

2. Q: Are you aware that you may face criminal liability for false
testimony or perjury if you will not tell the truth?
A: I do.

3. Q: Please state your name, age, address, and occupation.

A: I am HENRY DELOS REYES, 34 years old, married, and residing at
Lacson Avenue, Sampaloc, Manila City.

4. Q: Are you the same HENRY DELOS REYES, THE Petitioner, in this
case?
A: Yes.

5. Q: Do you know the respondents, EDWARD SANTOS and RICHARD

CRUZ in this case?
A: Yes, they were my friends.

6. Q: What happened in this matter?

A: They borrowed Two Million Pesos (PHP 2,000,000.00) from me last
February 1, 2021.

7. Q: Was it secured by any promissory note?

A: Yes.

8. Q: Do you still have this promissory note?

A: Yes.

9. Q: When did Edward and Richard issue the promissory note?

 A: On the same day they borrowed the money.

10.Q: Did the promissory note contain any agreement aside from their
obligation to pay you back?
A: Yes, that it shall be paid in two years.

11.Q: When does this two year period start?

A: From the day they borrowed the money.

12.Q: After the lapse of two years, did you notify Edward and Richard of
their obligation to pay you back?
A: Yes.

13.Q: Through what means?

A: Written and verbal.

14.Q: When did you demand?

A: On February 14, 2023.

15.Q: Have you worked with a particular lawyer with regards to this
matter before?
A: No.

16.Q: What is your goal to this case?

A: To get my money back.

Affiant further sayeth naught.

HENRY DELOS REYES

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5th day of March 2023

at 151 Pitong Gatang Street, Tondo, Manila City, Affiant exhibiting to me his
National ID, no. 5651385 issued on December 1, 2022.
Doc. No. ;
Page No. ;
Book No. ;
Series of 20
 ATTESTATION

I hereby state, under oath, that I faithfully recorded the questions

I asked and the corresponding answers that the witness gave and that
neither I nor any other person present or assisting me has coached the
witness regarding the latter’s statement.

Atty. Reyzen Paul Unite Mendiola

IBP No. 115700
PTR No. 11570-09-23-2023
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0017242
Roll No. 11570

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5th day of March 2023

at 151 Pitong Gatang Street, Tondo, Manila City, Affiant exhibiting to me his
National ID, no. 5651385 issued on December 1, 2022.

Doc. No. ;
Page No. ;
Book No. ;
Series of 20