Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

6th Judicial Region
Branch 13
Iloilo City

JESTHER RUTH B. LANTIN, Civil Case No.1234

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

METTY C. DELA CRUS,

Defendant

X-----------------------------------------X

DEFENDANTS’ POSITION PAPER

DEFENDANTS unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submit this

Position Paper, and state:

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On May 17, 2021, plaintiff filed its complaint against the defendant for collection
of money with damages, the same docketed as Civil Case No. 1234.

In its complaint, plaintiff admitted that she is a resident of Brgy. Cadajug, Laua-
an, Antique. On the other hand, plaintiff admitted that the address of the defendants is in
San Agustin St., Cabatuan, Iloilo.

On April 4, 2021, when the note became executory, defendant delivered to

plaintiff the sum of one million pesos (PHP 1,000,000.00) and the accrued interest
amounting to fifty thousand pesos (PHP 50,000.00).

However, plaintiff refused to accept payment. As a consequence thereof, and as

advised by counsel, defendant consigned the aforementioned amounts to Branch __ of
the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, as evidenced by “Annex-1”, “Decision of

1|Page
Consignation.” This inaction of plaintiff is a ground for the Court to dismiss this case for
unreasonable.

It was only on May 17, 2021, that summons was issued; after an answer was
filed, this case was set for the mandatory mediation proceedings before the Philippine
Mediation Center. No settlement was reached by the parties, hence, eventually the
Honorable Court directed the parties to file their respective Pre-Trial Brief three (3) days
before May 31, 2021 scheduled preliminary conference. Defendants filed their own Pre-
Trial Brief on May 31, 2021. On May 31, 2021, plaintiff belatedly filed its Pre-Trial
Brief. On this ground again, the Honorable Court should have dismissed this case for
failure of plaintiff to comply with the directive / order of the Court.

Several settings for Preliminary Conference and Pre-trial on this case were
scheduled but plaintiff failed to appear on many occasions, more particularly on May
12, 2021, May 19, 2021 and May 26, 2021. This is another ground which the
Honorable Court should have dismissed this case.

During the last hearing on May 29, 2021, the Honorable Court directed both
parties to file their respective position paper, hence, their submission of this position
paper.

II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

On September 7, 2020, plaintiff and defendant met in a Tatoy’s Restaurant in

Sta. Barbara, Iloilo for lunch. During their negotiation, plaintiff agreed to let defendant
borrow a sum of one million pesos (PHP 1,000,000.00).

On April 4, 2021, when the note became executory, defendant delivered to

plaintiff the sum of one million pesos (PHP 1,000,000.00) and the accrued interest
amounting to fifty thousand pesos (PHP 50,000.00).

However, plaintiff refused to accept payment. As a consequence thereof, and as

advised by counsel, defendant consigned the aforementioned amounts to Branch __ of
the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, as evidenced by “Annex-1”, “Decision of
Consignation.”

That between March, 2021 up to the present date, defendant repeatedly informed
plaintiff that she had consigned the amount due and its accrued interest to the Regional
Trial Court, Branch __, of Iloilo City. But, for some reason, within the last 2 months,
plaintiff failed to do so.

This complaint filed by plaintiff is malicious and a pure harassment intended

only to put to shame and embarrassment to defendants; and due to the unfounded suit
by plaintiff, defendant Metty C. Dela Cruz suffered great humiliation within her
community because lots of his friends message her on the messenger due to the

2|Page
existence of the present Collection for Sum of Money with Damages case filed by
plaintiff. Because of this incident defendant Metty C. Dela Cruz suffered serious
anxieties, humiliation, wounded feelings, sleepless nights and mental anguish.

By reason of the abuse of right committed by the plaintiff and by reason of the
instant precipitate and unfounded suit, the defendant was constrained to hire the services
of a lawyer to defend her rights and interests for a professional fee of twenty thousand
pesos (₱20,000.00) and three thousand pesos (₱3,000.00) per court appearance;

Defendant Metty C. Dela Crus executed her affidavit attesting the surrounding
circumstances of this case, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “4”.

III. ISSUES

WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT FOR COLLECTION OF SUM OF

MONEY WITH DAMAGES SHOULD STILL BE ISSUED WHEN IN FACT
AND IN LAW TTHE DEFENDANTS HAS TRIED TO PAY AND SETTLE THE
AMOUNT BORROWED AND THE ACCRUED INTEREST

WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON

ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF:

a. IMPROPER VENUE

b. FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO FILE ON TIME ITS PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

c. FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR ON THREE (3) SCHEDULED

PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE / PRE-TRIAL DATES, PARTICULARLY
ON: May 12, 2021, May 19, 2021 and May 26, 2021.

WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF IS LIABLE TO DEFENDANT FOR

DAMAGES

IV. DISCUSSIONS

PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED

TO THE WRIT OF COLLECTION
OF SUM OF MONEY WITH
DAMAGES
--------------------------------------------
CASE WILL NOT PROSPER
BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAS
TRIED TO SETTLE THE AMOUNT

3|Page
BORROWED
--------------------------------------------

The plaintiff is not entitled to the writ of Collection of Sum of Money with
Damages because that the defendant admitted that she borrowed from the
plaintiff a sum of money and deliver to to her office thru her secretary
amounting to One Million Pesos (₱1,000,000.00) and accrued interest but
the plaintiff refuse to accept the said payment.

Plaintiff cannot even claim the non-payment of the defendant based merely on
its allegation that defendants have unpaid obligation. This is not true anymore because
defendant consigned the aforementioned amounts to Branch __ of the Regional Trial
Court of Iloilo City, as evidenced by “Annex-1”, “Decision of Consignation.” This
“Decision of Consignation” belies the allegation of plaintiff that the defendant
neglected and refused to fulfill obligations without just and valid grounds to the
continued damage and prejudice of plaintiff.

In the case of Parañaque King Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 6, this Court

stated thus:

A cause of action exists if the following elements are present: (1) a right in favor
of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an
obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
(3) an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff
or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter
may maintain an action for recovery of damages.

In determining whether allegations of a complaint are sufficient to support a

cause of action, it must be borne in mind that the complaint does not have to establish or
allege facts proving the existence of a cause of action at the outset; this will have to be
done at the trial on the merits of the case. To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of
cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist, rather
than that a claim has been defectively stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain. 

Under the Rules of Court a Collection of Sum of Money will prosper if the
plaintiff has shown that the defendant has neglected and refused to fulfill obligations.
Unfortunately, these basic elements are lacking in this particular case. The pieces of
evidence of defendants destroy any claim of right by the plaintiff .

As stated earlier, defendants thru her secretary delivered to plaintiff the sum of
one million pesos (PHP 1,000,000.00) and the accrued interest amounting to fifty
thousand pesos (PHP 50,000.00). However, plaintiff refused to accept payment. As a
consequence thereof, and as advised by counsel, defendant consigned the
aforementioned amounts to Branch __ of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, as
evidenced by “Annex-1”, “Decision of Consignation.”

4|Page
 In case of PNB v. Lilibeth Chan (G.R. No. 206037, March 13, 2017) penned
by Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, who clearly discussed about what
constitutes consignation and its requisites, viz.:

““Consignation is the act of depositing the thing due with the court or judicial
authorities whenever the creditor cannot accept or refuses to accept payment. It
generally requires a prior tender of payment.”

Under Article 1256 of the Civil Code, consignation alone is sufficient even
without a prior tender of payment a) when the creditor is absent or unknown or does
not appear at the place of payment; b) when he is incapacitated to receive the
payment at the time it is due; c) when, without just cause, he refuses to give a receipt;
d) when two or more persons claim the same right to collect; and e) when the title of
the obligation has been lost.

For consignation to be valid, the debtor must comply with the following
requirements under the law:

1) there was a debt due;

2) valid prior tender of payment, unless the consignation was made because of some
legal cause provided in Article 1256;

3) previous notice of the consignation has been given to the persons interested in the
performance of the obligation;

4) the amount or thing due was placed at the disposal of the court; and,

5) After the consignation had been made, the persons interested were notified
thereof.

Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as annulment, rescission,

fulfillment of a resolutory condition, and prescription, are governed elsewhere in this
Code.”

Moreover, plaintiff cannot also claim that defendants neglected and refused
to fulfill obligations since the plaintiff refused to accept payment. As a
consequence thereof, and as advised by counsel, defendant consigned the
aforementioned amounts to Branch __ of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo
City, as evidenced by “Annex-1”, “Decision of Consignation.” Thus, plaintiff
is in estoppel. Article 1256 of the New Civil Code states:

5|Page
 "Article 1256. If the creditor to whom tender of payment has been made
refuses without just cause to accept it, the debtor shall be released from responsibility
by the consignation of the thing or sum due."

The fact is, defendants’ obligation is not only deemed fully complied with,
instead defendantsliterally FULLY PAID and SETTLED her loan obligation; and for
such reason it is an injustice to allow plaintiff file a suit against her, by way of Collection
of Sum of Money with Damages,

Other grounds for the

dismissal of the complaint
----------------------------------

Moreover, the present case is also dismissible based on the following grounds:

a) improper venue

b) failure of plaintiff to file on time its pre-trial brief

c) failure of plaintiff to appear during preliminary conference / pre-trial

A. ON IMPROPER VENUE

It is admitted by plaintiff is a resident of Brgy. Cadajug, Laua-an,

Antique, while the defendant is a resident of San Agustin St., Cabatuan,
Iloilo. Thus, following the rule on venue, this case should have been filed either in the
proper court of Lauan, Antique or Cabatuan, Iloilo, but not in the Iloilo City.

“All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of
the principal plaintiff resides or where the defendant or any of the principal
defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defenant where he may be
found.” (Section 2, Rule 4, 1997 Civil Procedure).

Plaintiff may perhaps argue that the loan and mortgage document authorizes
plaintiff to file this case in the court of Iloilo City. The said argument however is not
controlling because such agreement on venue is not exclusive. The rules allow only a
different venue if the agreement of another venue shall be exclusive, thus, the alleged
agreement is not valid, hence the filing of this case in Iloilo City is dismissible on ground
of improper venue.

Likewise, plaintiff may again argue that this objection on improper venue was
belatedly raised in this position paper. We respectfully disagree because the office of a

6|Page
position paper is precisely the full repository of all the grounds, defenses and arguments
of the defendants. Thus, defendants defense of improper venue is still valid.

B. ON LATE FILING OF PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

The Order of the Honorable Court directed the parties to file their respective Pre-
Trial Brief three (3) days before May 31, 2021 scheduled preliminary conference.
Defendants filed their own Pre-Trial Brief on May 31, 2021. On May 31, 2021, plaintiff
belatedly filed its Pre-Trial Brief. On this ground again, the Honorable Court should
have dismissed this case for failure of plaintiff to comply with the directive / order of the
Court. No pre-trial brief was filed by plaintiff 3 days before the said hearing. It was
instead filed on a later date. On this ground, this case must have been dismissed by
virtue of the provisions of Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, and Section 6, Rule
18 of the same Rules of Court in relation to Section 7 of the Rule on Summary
Procedure.

Perhaps plaintiff may argue that defendants did not move for this case dismissal
based on this ground, this reasoning is irrelevant because this case can be dismissed on
this ground upon own motion of the Court.

V. FAILURE TO APPEAR AT PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE / PRE-TRIAL

The records of this case will bear out that plaintiff failed to appear on at least
three (3) accessions for the scheduled preliminary conference / pre-trial hearing of this
case. These were on:

May 12, 2021,

May 19, 2021
May 26, 2021.

Again, by the very provisions of Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, and
Section 6, Rule 18 of the same Rules of Court in relation to Section 7 of the Rule on
Summary Procedure, the Court can moto propio dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

FINALLY, assuming for the sake of argument without however admitting that
the three (3) grounds cited above for the dismissal of this case are just plain technical,
this case still should be dismissed for lack of merit. The evidence submitted by herein
defendant clearly showed she settle her loan in the power of “Decision of
Consignation” issued by Court.

PLAINTIFF IS LIABLE TO
DEFENDANTS FOR DAMAGES
-------------------------------------------

This complaint filed by plaintiff is malicious and a pure harassment intended

only to put to shame and embarrassment to defendant Metty C. Dela Crus. With this

7|Page
unfounded suit by plaintiff, defendant Mettyl C. Dela Crus suffered great humiliation
within his community because some of her friends and relatives message her in the
messenger. Because of this incident defendant Metty C. Dela Crus suffered serious
anxieties, humiliation, wounded feelings, sleepless nights and mental anguish. Plaintiff
should therefore be ordered to pay damages in the amount within the discretion of this
Honorable Court.

The abuse of right committed by the plaintiff and by reason of the instant
precipitate and unfounded suit, the defendant was constrained to hire the services of a
lawyer to defend her rights and interests for a professional fee of twenty thousand pesos
(₱20,000.00) and three thousand pesos (₱3,000.00) per court appearance. Hence,
plaintiff should likewise be ordered to pay defendants attorney’s fees.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully moved that this case

be dismissed and to render judgment in favor of the defendants directing plaintiff to pay
defendants for damages as sought for in their counterclaim.

Cabatuan, Iloilo, Philippines , May 28, 2021.

JUNELYN R. CALERO-ANDRADA
Counsel for the Defendant
NOTARY PUBLIC for Province of Iloilo
Andrada Law Office
Commission Serial No. 2436
Until December 31, 2022
Roll of Attorney 1319; 04/08/2022
IBP OR No: 6928764; 01/04/2022
PTR No. 99909;01/04/2022;

8|Page
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
PROVINCE OF ILOILO ) SS.
x--------------------------------------------x

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, METTY C. DELA CRUS, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, depose and state that:

1) I am the petitioner in the above-stated case;

2) I caused the preparation of the foregoing petition;

3) I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct
to my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of documents and records in my
possession;

4) I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same
issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;

5) To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is

pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
and

6) If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or
is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable
Court.

AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

In witness whereof, I hereunto affix my signature this May 28, 2021.

____________________
METTY C. DELA CRUS
Affiant

9|Page
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
PROVINCE OF ILOILO )SS.
x------------------------------------------------x
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this May 28, 2021; affaint
exhibiting to me his Employee ID No. 2140202 issued on January 8, 2020 at
Cabatuan, Iloilo.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this May 28, 2021.

ATTY. REYNALD L. TORRES

Notary Public
Commission Serial No. 123456789
Notary Public for Iloilo Province
Until December 31, 2021
Office: Torres Law Office, Iloilo City, Philippines
Roll No. 24689
IBP Lifetime Roll No. 020204
PTR No. 13579
MCLE Compliance Cert. No. 26810
DOC. NO._______
PAGE NO._______
BOOK NO._______
SERIES OF 2021.

Copy furnished by registered mail

Registry Receipt No.__________
Cabatuan, Iloilo Post Office
Date: May 28, 2021

ATTY. JESSE ANGELA C. SAMILLANO

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Lopez Jaena St., Jaro, Iloilo City

10 | P a g e