Republic Of The Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Regional Trial Court
Branch 1111, Muntinlupa City

THRIFT BANK,

Plaintiff,

- versus

CIVIL CASE NO. MC14-7777

SPOUSES JANE and JOHN DOE,

Defendants.
X---------------------------------------------------X

ANSWER
(WITH COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM)
DEFENDANTS, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, through counsel, by
way of Answer to the instant complaint, to this Honorable Court, most
respectfully state:

ADMISSIONS
For the reasons stated in and subject to defendants Affirmative
Allegations and Defenses, Denials and Compulsory Counterclaims hereinafter set
forth, defendants admits the allegations in:

1.1 Paragraph 2, concerning the personal circumstances of defendants;

1.2 Paragraph 4, concerning the particulars of the Promissory Note

executed by the defendants in favor of plaintiff;

1.3 Paragraph 5, concerning the particulars of the Chattel Mortgage

executed by the defendants over the motor vehicle in favor of plaintiff;

1.4 Paragraph 6, concerning the stipulation in the Promissory Note with

Chattel Mortgage;

1.5 Paragraph 9, concerning the stipulation in the Promissory Note with

Chattel Mortgage;

DENIALS

For the reasons stated in and subject to defendants Affirmative

Allegations and Defenses and the Compulsory Counterclaims hereinafter set
forth, defendants specifically deny the allegations in:

2.1

Paragraphs 1 and 3, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient

to form a belief as to the truth thereof;

2.2

Paragraph 7, the truth being that defendants delay in the payment

of the June 1, 2008 installment is attributable to the plaintiff. At the time of

execution of the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage, plaintiff and defendants
entered into an agreement whereby installments only shall be debited by the
plaintiff every 1st day of the month for three years from defendant John Does
Thrift Bank Savings Account No. 135-111-00800-8. On 27 February 2008,
plaintiff without the knowledge and consent of the defendants clandestinely
debited defendant John Does account for the amount of P20,168.78, allegedly as
premium for the car insurance as against the installment payment. The said debit
triggered the irregularity in defendant John Does account;

2.3

Paragraph 8, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form

a belief as to the truth thereof;

AFFIRMATIVE ALLEGATIONS AND DEFENSES

In support of their Admissions, Denials and Compulsory Counterclaims

set forth herein, defendants respectfully states:

3.1

The complaint asserting the claim states no cause of action, as

defendants delay in the payment of the monthly amortizations was due to

plaintiffs own doing. As stated earlier, plaintiff and defendants entered into an
agreement whereby the monthly amortization for the Honda CRV, starting
February 1, 2006, shall be debited every 1st day of the month for three years from
defendant John Does Savings Account No. 135-111-00800-8.

3.2

When defendants were informed by the plaintiff of the expiration of

the comprehensive insurance of the Honda CRV, defendants decided to avail a

policy from another accredited insurance provider, an option which is allowed
under the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage1, to wit:
6.
The MORTGAGOR agrees that he will cause
the mortgaged property/ies to be insured against loss
or damage by accident, theft and fire for a period of
one year from date hereof with an insurance
company/ies acceptable to the MORTGAGEE or its
assigns in an amount not less than the outstanding
balance of the mortgage obligation; xxx
To effect the transfer of the policy to another insurance provider, defendants
asked for a copy of the expired insurance policy to determine its period of
coverage. However, in the manner that they have failed to give defendants a copy
of their insurance policies, plaintiff again failed to act on the said request. Thus,
defendants decided on February 27, 2008 to put in writing their request for a
1

Attached as Annex 1.
3

copy of the policy. Defendants were then notified that a copy will be sent to
defendants chosen Thrift Bank branch. It was in this email that plaintiff
informed the defendants that
Should you wish to avail of our in-house insurance
policy; the premium will be automatically debited
from your Savings Account.
In response thereto, defendants informed the plaintiff that they will not
avail of the in-house policy and informed them not to deduct the premium in his
account. This exchange of electronic mails is evident from the copy attached as
Annex 2.

3.3

Despite defendants demand not to deduct the premium in his

account, plaintiff furtively debited the premium from the account of defendant
John Doe on the same day that they were informed not to debit. Plaintiff
debited the premium without notice and consent of the defendants.
Thus, defendants were of the belief that they have enough funds in the account to
cover their monthly amortization.

3.4

Therefore, it came as a surprise to defendants when they received a

demand letter dated June 10, 2008 from plaintiffs In-House Litigation Counsels
demanding the payment for the amount of P795,174.62 (attached as Annex
3). Plaintiff again in the said letter failed to inform the defendant that
they acquired an insurance policy for the Honda CRV and that the
premium was debited from the account of the defendant.

3.5

Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated the terms and conditions

of the Promissory Note and Chattel Mortgage when defendants allegedly

defaulted in the payment of an installment. Such allegation has no basis, it is
worth noting that the irregularity in the savings account of defendant John Doe
4

was mainly due to plaintiffs unauthorized debiting of the alleged

insurance premium. The insurance policy that defendant John Doe did not
request and expressly asked not to be acquired on his behalf given that he was
already negotiating with another insurance company to provide insurance
coverage2 for his Honda CRV.

3.6

Also, defendants have observed that prior to the insurance incident,

plaintiff had consistently notified them in case the amount in the savings account
is not sufficient to cover the monthly amortization thus giving them the chance to
deposit the necessary amount. However, in the months when defendants
allegedly failed to pay their monthly amortizations, plaintiff did not even notify
the defendants that the funds in the savings account were insufficient.

3.7

Further, the Other Terms and Conditions of the Promissory Note

with Chattel Mortgage may be classified as a contract of adhesion. A contract of

adhesion is one in which one of the contracting parties imposes a ready-made
form of contract which the other party may accept or reject, but cannot modify.
One party prepares the stipulation in the contract, while the other party merely
affixes his signature or his adhesion thereto, giving no room for negotiation and
depriving the latter of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing 3.

3.8

As a contract containing standard stipulations imposed upon those

who seek to avail of plaintiffs loan services, there is no way a prospective debtor,
as in the case of defendants, can object to any onerous provision as it is offered on
a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Thus, any ambiguity in its provisions must be
construed against plaintiff.

2
3

Insurance Co., Inc. Attached as Annex 4.

Phil. Commercial International Bank v. CA 255 SCRA 299 [1996]
5

3.9

Plaintiff based their claim on Clause 12 of the Promissory Note with

Chattel Mortgage Other Terms and Conditions which states

In case the MORTGAGOR fails to pay any of the
installment, or the interest that may be due as
provided in the face of this promissory note with
chattel mortgage, the whole amount remaining
unpaid therein shall immediately become due and
payable and the mortgage on the property/ies
hereinabove described may be foreclosed by the
MORTGAGEE or its assigns may take any other legal
action to enforce collection of the obligation hereby
secured, and in either case the MORTGAGOR further
agrees to pay the MORTGAGEE or its assigns an
additional sum of 25% of the principal due and
unpaid, as attorneys fees and 20% as liquidated
damages, which sum shall become part hereof,
The aforesaid clause merely provides that failure to pay any installment
shall cause the remaining unpaid amount to become immediately due and
payable, there is no qualification as to whether such failure was due to the fault of
the mortgagor or the mortgagee.

3.10

Further, Article 1377 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides Art. 1377. The interpretation of obscure words or
stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who
caused the obscurity.

Consequently, given that it was the plaintiff who caused the ambiguity,
Clause 12 of the Promissory Note with Chattel Mortgage Other Terms and
Conditions should be construed in favor of the defendants for they should not be
rebuked for plaintiffs slip-up.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
4.1

Defendants replead herein by reference all of the foregoing

allegations.

4.2

Plaintiff filed the complaint with bad faith. Plaintiff knew that they

have no right against defendants. Plaintiff is well aware that when this case was
filed, they have no cause of action against the defendants for the proximate cause
of the delay in the payment of defendants installment is attributable to the
plaintiff. Nonetheless, plaintiff still insisted that they have a cause of action
against the defendants.

4.3

Defendants by reason of pliantiffs unjustified claim suffered

sleepless nights, serious anxiety, mental anguish, wounded feelings, and moral
shock, hence, defendants seek moral damages in the amount of at least
P1,000,000.00.

4.4

Plaintiff undoubtedly acted maliciously, oppressively, recklessly

and wantonly when they filed and prosecuted this clearly unfounded and baseless
suit against defendants for which, by way of example or correction for the public
good, plaintiff must be made to pay defendants exemplary damages in the
amount of at least P1,000,000.00.

4.5

Due to plaintiff's malicious act as aforesaid, and worse, the filing of

this clearly baseless and unfounded suit, defendants, to vindicate their rights and
to protect their interests, were constrained to engage the services of counsel for a
fee of at least P150,000; P3,500.00 for every court appearance; and incur
litigation expenses, for all of which must be reimbursed by plaintiff.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, defendants respectfully pray that, after hearing,
judgment be rendered DISMISSING the instant complaint for failure to state a
cause of action and on the counterclaim, ordering plaintiff to pay defendants the

following: at least P1,000,000.00, as and by way of moral damages; at least

P1,000,000.00, as and by way of exemplary damages; at least P150, 000 plus
appearance fee of P3,500.00 per hearing as attorneys fees.

Defendants also pray for other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable
in the premises.

Mandaluyong City, for Muntinlupa City, 01 September 2014.

ATTY. MACHO MAKISIG

Sitio Maligalig, Brgy. Tahimik,
Mandaluyong City
Tel. No. 777-7777
Roll No.
IBP No.
PTR No.
MCLE No.
Copy furnished:
ATTY. BRUHA BRATINELA
Counsel for the Plaintiffs
666 Kalye Liko-liko
Makati City

EXPLANATION
(re: service by registered mail)
In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, counsel respectfully manifests that service of the foregoing was done
by registered mail for lack of manpower.

ATTY. MACHO MAKISIG