LUIZ BOI
Defendant
ANSWER
WITH COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant Luiz Boi through undersigned counsel, respectfully states:
1. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 1 for lack of sufficient
knowledge.
2. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint
3. Defendant admits the allegation in paragraph 3 with regard to his
address indicated as jolly roger industrial enterprises, g/f treasure island
building, crocodile park, pavia, iloilo. where he may be served with summons
and other court processes but denies the plaintiff’s personal circumstances due
to lack of sufficient knowledge.
4. Defendant partly admits the allegations in paragraph 4. Defendant was
aware that the supply and installation of the 50 cubic meters/ day advance
oxidation system was for Oakridge Business Park in Cebu City but does not
know whether or not Plaintiff indeed entered into a contract with Oakridge
Business Park.
5. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 5. Defendant was not a
subcontractor for the said project with Oakridge Business Park. Instead,
Defendant executed a letter- contract with the Plaintiff for the supply and
installation of the water treatment system for a total contract price of Two
Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 2,500,000)1 the terms of which are as
follows
8. Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph 8 of the complaint for the lack
of sufficient knowledge.
11. Defendant denies that allegation in paragraphs 11 and 12. The truth of the
matter is that after Plaintiff made the 50% down payment in the amount of
P1,250,000.00 for the water treatment system, defendant furnished plaintiff
with a memorandum of agreement on October 10, 2013. The memorandum of
agreement contained essentially the same terms and conditions as the contract
executed on October 10,2013 but was drafted following the request from
Defendant Manila supplier for the latter’s own files only if Plaintiff’s
representative was amenable to signing it. However, plaintiff was never
required to sign this memorandum of agreement because the contract dated
October 8, 2013 was already subsisting. In fact, defendant fulfilled his
obligation as mandated in the contract dated October 8,2013 by delivering the
required equipment on January 23, 2013 in Cebu City despite the fact that
plaintiff refused to sign the memorandum of agreement
12. It was only after delivery of the equipment on January 23, 2013 that the
subcontract agreement came into the picture. After delivery of the equipment,
defendant reminded plaintiff that it was now his turn to pay forth 40% of the
contract price, or P 1,000,000 as agreed upon earlier. Plaintiff then told
defendant to proceed to the latter’s office but when defendant got there, the
secretary of Mester Smee , Plaintiff representative, gave Defendant the
subcontract agreement and told Defendant that he would not be paid the
amount of P1,000,000.00 if he did not sign this second agreement. This move
surprised and angered Defendant because this was not among the terms and
conditions agreed upon in connection with the water treatment system
installation. When Defendant received a copy of the sub-contract agreement, he
then told Fin's secretary that he was not signing the said agreement.
Defendant's initial position that he was not signing the said sub-contract
agreement was further reinforced after reviewing its contents which contained
additional provisions completely alien to their earlier terms and conditions and
were crafted to greatly favor Plaintiff at the expense of Defendant.
13. Plaintiff denies the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Complaint. It is clear
that Plaintiff did not even attempt to make another contract which would
incorporate the terms and conditions of Defendant. The supposed contract
which purportedly incorporates Defendant’s terms and conditions is not even
between Plaintiff and Defendant but denominates Plaintiff and a certain SGV
Enterprise as parties. Defendant is not even a party to the said contract.
14. Defendant partly admits the allegation in paragraph 14 as to the delivery of
the equipment needed on January 23, 2013, as well as the fact of demand made
upon Plaintiff by Defendant for 40% of the contract price.
15.Defendant however denies that the equipment he delivered constituted only
"some of the materials which were needed in the project." As a matter of fact,
the equipment delivered to the installation site already Constituted about
ninety percent (90%) of the equipment Comprising the water treatment
system. Defendant did not deliver the remaining equipment because of their
sensitive nature which would be installed only during the completion and
activation stage of the water treatment system’s installation
16. Defendant also denies that the equipment delivered on January 23, 2013
was only worth Three Hundred. Moreover, Defendant agreed to the contract
price which involved purchase of not just the equipment for the water
treatment system but the corresponding technology.
17. Defendant likewise denies that he failed to start the project because the
delivery of the equipment already constituted the initial step in commencing
installation of the water treatment system.
18. Defendant denies Plaintiff's allegation in paragraph 15 that he did not
bother to start the project, especially the layout. Defendant had every intention
to start work on the installation of the water treatment system and, as
previously mentioned, already delivered the needed equipment. Defendant also
already made a drawing of the planned layout which was to be followed in
making the physical layout and submitted the same to Plaintiff. 3' However,
upon inspection of the area where the water treatment system was to be
installed, the site was not yet ready. 4 Coupled with the fact that Defendant also
refused to pay the amount of P1,000,000.00 equivalent to forty percent (40%)
of the contract price, Defendant could not possibly proceed with the installation
of the water treatment system.
19. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraphs 16 and 17.
20. Defendant partly admits the allegations in paragraph 18 as to receipt of
Plaintiff's letter dated March 4, 2014. Defendant, however, denies that the
ninety (90) day period given to him to finish the obligation had already lapsed
and that he failed to design, layout and install the water treatment system for
the reason that Plaintiff failed to discharge its obligation of paying the amount
39. Plaintiff, through its representative Mester Smee further showed its
underhandness when it threatened defendant with a complained lodged before
the National Bureau of Investigation which turned out to be an outright lie
when defendant verified with the Bureau as to its veracity.
40. Thus, on February 27, 2014 Defendant wrote Plaintiff a letter to formally
demand for the amount of P1,000,000.00 corresponding to 40$ of the contract
price. Defendant also reiterated his previous statement that he could not sign
the sub contract agreement and that this should not be a pre-condition for the
payment of the amount of P1,000,000.00. Defendant, however clearly
manifested that he was still willing to push through with the installation of the
water treatment if the amount of 1,000,000. is paid.
41. It is apparent that Plaintiff was in no position to demand for the delivery of
all the equipment. In the first place, the remaining equipment were supposed
to be delivered only when the system was ready for activation. Second,
Defendant was willing to make the delivery but the site itself was not yet ready
for such sensitive equipment. Third, Defendant was also ready to deliver the
remaining items if Plaintiff would assume the risks which came with the
sensitive equipment but Plaintiff did not signify such willingness.
42. On the other hand, Plaintiff was obligated to pay the amount of
P1,000,000.00 as previously agreed upon between Plaintiff and Defendant
upon delivery of the equipment. Plaintiff, however, refused to do so. Thus,
Plaintiff had no right to demand that Defendant continue with the installation
of the water treatment system when it had yet to fulfill its end of the bargain.
43. Defendant cannot also be said to be in delay then the water treatment
system remained uninstalled and became inactive after the lapse of 90 days.
Defendant can only have deemed to be in delay if plaintiff fulfilled.its required
prestation of paying the amount of P1,000,000.00 upon delivery of the
equipment which Plaintiff utterly refused to do without just cause.
44. Thus, plaintiff had absolutely no valid ground to terminate the agreement
unilaterally and correspondingly ask for a return of the 50% down payment
and payment of damages.
BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIM
: STATES, THAT:
45. Defendant has delivered on site the major equipment which entitles him to
payment equivalent to 40% of the contract price. Because of Plaintiff's unjust
refusal to pay the amount of P1,000,000.00 and subsequent termination of the
contract sans a valid around, Defendant has incurred injury.
46.Defendant has always been ready, willing and able to fulfill its obligation to
Plaintiff. In fact, he has repeatedly shown his willingness to compromise with
Plaintiff's unreasonable demands but Plaintiff has remained obstinate and
irrational.
47.Thus, Plaintiff should be directed to pay Defendant the amount of
P1,000,000.00 in accordance with the parties' agreement and to let Defendant
fulfill his obligation of installing and eventually activating the water treatment
system.
48.If Plaintiff has indeed commissioned another group to work on the water
treatment system and has rendered it impossible for Defendant to finish the
system, Plaintiff should return the delivered equipment in good and working
condition and pay damages in the amount of at least Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P500,000.00).
BY WAY OF DAMAGES,
STATES, THAT:
49. Defendant suffered sleepless nights and wounded feelings when Plaintiff
filed this unfounded suit against him. Moreover, plaintiff continued to rain
threats and harassment on defendant, causing him serious mental anxiety and
fear for his family. Furthermore, his reputation in the business world, which he
has painstakingly built through the years, has been severely besmirched by
plaintiff's groundless suit. Plaintiff, thus, should be made liable for moral
damages in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00)
50. Plaintiff has likewise resorted to underhand techniques in a bid to skirt its
obligation of paying P1,000,000.00 to defendant. In order to defer others from
following Plaintiff's reckless in filing baseless and unfounded suits, plaintiff
should be assessed a sum of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) as
exemplary damages.
51. Because of the baseless suit instituted by plaintiff, defendant was forced to
defend himself in the present case and secure the services of counsel for a fee
of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and One One thousand Five Hundred
Pesos (1,500.00) oer hearing whuch should be assessed against Plaintiff as
attorney's fees.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that
judgment be rendered as follows:
1. Dismissing the instant complaint for utter lack of Merit.
2. Granting defendant’s counterclaim by ordering plaintiff to:
a. Pay the amount of One Million Pesos ( P1,000,000.00) as agreed upon
between plaintiff and defendant corresponding to forty percent (40%) of the
contract price;
b. Allow defendant to install and activate the water treatment system and pay
the remaining contractual price upon completion; or
C. In the alternative, to return to defenatn the equipment delivered and pay the
amount of at least Five Hundred Thousang pesos (P500,000.00) as damages in
the event that defendant can no longer install the water treatment system due
to Plaintiff's fault.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
VERIFICATION/ CERTIFICATION
I, Luiz Boi, of Legal age, married, Filipino, and a resident of Barangay Aganan,
Pavia, Iloilo, after having been sworn depose and say that: I am the defendant
in the above entitled case:
I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer with Counterclaim, that
I have read the contents thereof and the allegations therein, are true and
correct to the best of my personal knowledge as well as from available,
authentic and existing records;
In Witness whereof, I have signed this presents this 27th day of June 2014 in
the City of Iloilo City, Philippines
Luiz Boi
Competent Evidence of Identity:
Driver's License No. F03-93-076217
Affiant whose name and personal circumstances are stated above, appered in
persons before me this ____________________________in the City and Province of
Iloilo,
presented a document, signed the name in my presence and affirmed of swore
under oath to the truth and correctness of the contents of allegations of the
same.
Affiant who is personally known to me presented his __________________________
with photo and proof of his identity.
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, MADE NAD ENTERED INTO THIS 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER
2013, ILOILO CITY, BY AND BETWEEN,
and
Jolly Roger Industrial Enterprises, a company duly organized and existing
under the laws of the Philippines, with office address at G/F Treasure Island
Building, Crocodile Park, Pavia, Iloilo., represented by Luiz Boi, hereinafter
referred to as the "CONTRACTOR"
WITNESSETH That
Annex 1
1.b. Supply and installation of a 50 cubic meter per day total capacity
disinfection and filtration equipment setup with the following specifications;
Two (2) units of 1/2 HP submersible pumps
One (1) lot schedule 40 pipes & fittings
Two (2) units coarse filter
Two (2) units fine filters
Four (4) units aeration equipement
Four (4) units ozone generator
One (1) lot waste water module
One (1) unit multi-media filter with back washable head
One (1) unit 1 hp booster pump
One (1) lot automated operation logic with dedicated electrical control
panel
One (1) month placement of operator for daily STP operations and
training.
One (1) year warranty on parts and service.
One (1) unit Multimedia Filtration in 24 x72 FRP with Automatic Digital
Head
One (1) united Activated Carbon Filtration in 24x 72 FRP with
Automatic Digital Head
One (1) unit Chlorine Feed Pump
Annex 1
Appeared in person before me tis ___ day of _____ 2014 in the City of
Iloilo and presented to me an integrally complete instrument, exhibited to me
their Community Tax Certificates and presented to me that the signatures
thereon were voluntarily affixed by them for the purpose stated therein and
they declared that they executed the same as their free and voluntary act and
deed. If acting in a particular capacity, that they have the authority to sign in
that capacity.
Annex 1
Mester Smee
Proprietor
Thinker Bale Incorporation
Please be informed that the three (3) day period has already lapsed and you
still have not fulfilled any of the obligations stated in the said letter. We,
therefor regret to inform you that we are terminating our agreement effective
immediately, With this termination, we demand that you return the One Million
Two Hundred Fifty Thousand PHP downpayment which you receieved on
October 8, 2013, plus estimated damages for unfulfilled obligations of
P300,000.00 within five (5) days for receipt of this letter, Otherwise, we will file
the appropriate legal action in court to protect our interest.
Respectfully Yours
Mester Smee
CEO,President
Annex 4
Mr Mester Smee
Thinker Bale Incorporation
Treewood Tower, 7th floor,
Neverland St, Iloilo city.
Greetings:
In your letter dated March 11,2014, you informed that effective immediately,
you areterminating the contract which you earlier executed with the former
with regard to the Oakridge (Rustans) Project in Cebu City
Annex 4
Anent your demand for the delivery of the equipment listed in your letter
dated March 4,2014, my client has been informing you that due to their
sensitive nature
these Equipment could not be delivered and installed on the completion
phase of the project. They cannot be installed at the moment because it is very
likely that they would be damaged. It was already explained to you that since
the Oakridge building is still under construction, delivering the said
equipment to the site would expose them to vibration, dust, other particles
and unnecessary hazards. Nonetheless, when you insisted their delivery, my
client acceded to this demand provided that you would sign a waiver and
assume the risk of their being damaged. However, you would not agree on this
condition
As to whether there was already a delivery of equipment, an ocular inspection
of the site of the project would readily show that all the equipment needed to
be delivered at this stage are already stored at the client's warehouse.
In view of the foregoing, my client accepts your declaration of termination of
the contract. The said agreement is now therefore cancelled and terminated
With respect to the return of the down payment, my client is willing to give
back the same provided that you, handover to it new equipment of the same
kind and quality as those already delivered to Oakridge, and pay the total
amount of damages it has incurred due to your breach of contract. My client
has already spend so much for the purchase, delivery , storage, etc of all the
equipment needed for the project. It cannot be overemphasized that the down
payment is even insufficient to cover all the expenses incurred by and caused
to my client.
Note that should my client later on determine that your down payment is less
than the amount of damages it has suffered for the cancellation of this project
due to your breach of contract, we shall be constrained to file the proper legal
actions in court to protect its interest
Annex 4
Please be guided accordingly,
Thank you.
Respectfully yours,