REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT FIRST JUDICIAL
REGION BRANCH ____ BAGUIO CITY Y
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. _____ -versus- For: Collection of Sum of Money, Attorneys Fees and Other Reliefs X Defendant. x------------------------------x COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF, by and through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully state that: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff is a Filipino, of legal age, single and a residing at #07 Bakakeng Norte, Baguio City. He may be served with notices, orders and processes of this Honorable Court though undersigned counsel; 2. Defendant is Filipino, of legal age, single and residing at #38 Bakakeng Norte, Baguio City, where he may be served with summons and other court processes; FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 3. On June 30, 2014, for value received, the defendant executed and delivered to plaintiff a promissory note in the amount of EIGHTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php80, 000.00) to be fully paid on or before August 8, 2014. A copy of the promissory note is hereto attached as Annex A; 4. That despite the lapse of the period, the defendant failed to pay the amount subject of the promissory note nor any part thereof; SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 5. On July 15, 2014, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a loan agreement whereby the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff the sum of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php300, 000.00) which became due on September 15, 2014. A copy of the notarized acknowledgement of debt by the defendant is hereto attached as Annex B; 6. That the defendant has not paid the amount subject of the contract of loan or any part thereof on the date it became due; 7.
The plaintiff sent separate demand letters to the defendant on October
30, 2015 and December 1, 2015 for the fulfillment of the obligations subject of the promissory and loan contract. However, these demands were unheeded. A copy of said demand letters are hereto attached as Annex C and Annex C -1 ; 8. That the continued refusal of the defendant to settle his account prompted the plaintiff to lodge a complaint with the barangay officials of Barangay Bakakeng Norte, Baguio City. A Certificate to File Action, copy of which is hereto attached as Annex D , was issued on January 5, 2015 for failure of the parties to come to an amicable settlement; 9. On February 5, 2015, defendant left the Philippines for the United States of America; 10. Defendant owns the following properties in the Philippines: a) Mercedes Benz car, 2010 model; and b) A parcel of land located in Baguio City having an assessed value of Php200,000.00; 11. That by virtue of the d efendants unwarranted and malicious acts, the plaintiff has been compelled to litigate and to engage the services of a counsel. PRAYER WHEREFORE , it is most respectfully prayed that after due hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in this manner: 1) That the amount of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND (Php380, 000.00) be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant representing
the total amount of the promissory note and the loan contract, with interest thereon at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the time of the filing of the complaint and until the same is fully paid; 2)
That a writ of preliminary attachment be issued to place in custodia
legis and attach as security for the satisfaction of any judgment the properties of the Defendant above-mentioned; 3) Attorneys fees equivalent to the 10% of the principal amount; 4) Php10,000.00 as litigation expenses; and 5) Other reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem appropriate and equitable are likewise prayed for. Baguio City, Philippines, September 10, 2015. _____________________________ JOSIE P. RIZAL Attorney for Plaintiff No. 311 Vath Building, Baguio City Roll No.: 508128 PTR No.: 1112345 01-18-2015 Baguio City IBP No.: 176184 0118-2015 Baguio City MCLE Compliance No.: 455813 08-05-2015 Copy furnished: (by registered mail due to distance)
Affirmation in Support of Motion Averring Lack of standing of the Federal Southern District NY Court to render any order or judgment that are a priore moot due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction of the Court