You are on page 1of 7

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


Sixth Judicial Region
Branch 26
Iloilo City

Andrew Epal,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE No. 16-74487
- versus SUMS OF
MONEY AND DAMAGES

For: COLLECTION OF

Gloc Nine,
Defendant.
X--------------X

MEMORANDUM
COMES NOW, Defendant, through the undersigned counsel
and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully states:

1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.1

On January 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed before this Honorable Court a


complaint for collection for sums of money, premised on the
ground that the defendant failed to pay his obligations when it
became due and demandable based on the contract of loan
dated September 19, 2011;

1.2

That the Defendant received a copy of the complaint on January


8, 2012;

1.3

That the defendant filed his answer on January 18, 2012, ten
days (10) after he received the said complaint and that his
answer is timely filed within this honorable court and within the
fifteen (15) day period required by the law;

2
1.3

The complaint raised this issue:

Whether or not the

defendant is liable for the obligation amounting to Five Hundred


thousand Pesos(Php500,000.00), plus interest, damages and
attorneys fees.

2. THE PARTIES
2.1

DEFENDANT Gloc Nine is a gun shop owner and a resident of

2.2

Brgy San Agustin Iloilo City.


PLAINTIFF Andrew Epal , is a retired Seaman and a professor
at

JBLFMU

duly

licensed

by

the

Professional

Regulation

Commission .
2.3

3.STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASE


3.1

That the collection subject of the complaint is that of plaintiff and


respondent which was entered into by herein parties on March 16

3.2

, 2003 per Contract of Loan;


That the collection subject of the complaint is that of plaintiff and
defendant which was entered into by herein parties on March 16,

3.3

2003 as evidenced by the promissory note.


The Contract to Loan dated March 16 ,2003 in the amount of
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php 500,000.00) was entered
under the Notarial Register of Atty. Diok No , Doc. No. 5350, Page
No. 74, Book No. VIII, Series of 2004;

3.4

On September 30, 2011, Andrew Epal issued Gloc Nine a


written demand letter however the defendant was unable to pay
due to unavailability of

funds because of a failed contract of

3
sale of his real property which he anticipated was to be the
3.5

source of the payment for his obligation with the plaintiff.


Thereafter, Gloc Nine was able to sell guns to the Armed Force of
the Philippines and as a result he was able his obligations to
Andrew Epal in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php
500,000.00) as evidenced by the receipt.

4. DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES


4.1

In Monfort v. Aguinaldo,the Supreme Court held thatthe


receipts of payment, although not exclusive, were deemed to be
the best evidence. Thus:
That the best evidence for proving payment is
by the evidence of receipts showing the same
is also admitted. What respondents claim is
that there is no rule which provides that
payment can only be proved by receipts.
While receipts are deemed to be the best
evidence, they are not exclusive. Other
evidence may be presented in lieu thereof if
they are not available, as in case of loss,
destruction or disappearance. The fact of
payment may be established not only by
documentary evidence, but also by parol
evidence (48 C.J. 727; Greenleaf, Law of
Evidence, Vol. II, p. 486; Jones on Evidence
[1913] Vol. II, p. 193), specially in civil cases
where preponderance of evidence is the rule.
Here respondents presented documentary as
well as oral evidence which the Court of
Appeals found to be sufficient, and this finding
is final.

4.2

In PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. COURT OF APPEALS


and CARMELO H. FLORES, [G.R. No. 116181. April 17,
1996] the Supreme Court held that:
A receipt is defined as: A written and signed
acknowledgment that money has been paid or
goods have been delivered. A receipt is merely
presumptive evidence and is not conclusive. A
written acknowledgment that money or a thing
of value has been received. Since a receipt is a
mere acknowledgement of payment, it may be
subject to explanation or contradiction. A
receipt may be used as evidence against one
just as any other declaration or admission. A
simple receipt not under seal is presumptive
evidence only and may be rebutted or
explained by other evidence of mistake in

4
giving it, or of non-payment or of
circumstances under which it was given.

the

Although a receipt is not conclusive evidence,


in the case at bench, an exhaustive review of
the records fails to disclose any other evidence
sufficient and strong enough to overturn the
acknowledgment embodied in petitioners own
receipt (as to the amount of money it actually
received). Petitioner contends that it offered in
court evidence of the particulars or the actual
denominations of the money it received from
Flores in exchange for its managerial checks.
However,
aside
from
the
self-serving
testimonies of petitioners witnesses, we fail to
discover any such evidence in the records. In
the words of the trial court: After having
thoroughly evaluated the evidences (sic) on
record, the Court finds and so believes that
plaintiff indeed paid defendant the amount of P
1,000,040.00 when he purchased the two (2)
managers checks worth (sic) P 1,000,000.00.
This is clearly manifested from the receipt
issued by the defendant wherein it explicitly
admits that the amount stated therein is what
plaintiff actually paid. While the defendant
does not dispute the receipt it issued to the
plaintiff, it endeavored to prove that the actual
amount involved in the entire transaction is
only
P900,000.00
that
is
P450,000.00
managers check and P450,000.00 cash by
submitting in evidence, the application forms
filled up by the plaintiff, Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and
4. As may be readily seen these application
forms relied upon by the defendant have no
probative value for they do not yield any direct
proof of payment. Besides defendant even
failed to adduce concrete evidence showing
that these forms which were crumpled and
retrieved from the waste basket were made the
basis of the approval of the purchased (sic)
made. At any rate, the Court finds such pieces
of evidence not only unconvincing but also selfdefeating in the light of the receipt, the
accuracy, correctness and due execution of
which was indubitably established. It is a
cardinal rule in the law on evidence that the
best proof of payment is the receipt.
4.3

In the instant case, the plaintiffs contention that he was not paid
by herein defendantis of no moment considering the fact that it
was based solely on the testimony of the said plaintiff and not on
any other independent evidence. Hence, having failed to adduce
sufficient rebuttal evidence, plaintiff is bound by the contents of
the receipt it issued to herein defendant Gloc Nine . The subject

5
receipt remains to be the primary or best evidence or that
which affords the greatest certainty of the fact in question.

5. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed for this Honorable Court to render judgment in favor of the
Defendant and against the Plaintiff;
That the Plaintiff be ordered to pay the damages plus attorneys
fees and costs of litigation;
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

Iloilo City, Philippines, December 9, 2014.


FORTUN AND NARVASA AND ASSOCIATES
3rd Floor, The Esplanade Tower
Metro Manila, 2000 Philippines
By:
Jethro Villaruel
IBP No. 19185/Sep. 7, 2014/ Quezon City
PTR No. 23632/ March. 2, 2014/Quezon City
Attorneys Roll No. 767463
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. IV-176565/03/20/2011

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)


CITY
OF
ILOILO) Sc.
X---------------------x

VERIFICATION
I, Gloc Ninel, Filipino, of legal age, a gun shop owner and a
resident of Brgy. San Agustin Iloilo City.
1. That I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;
2. That I caused the preparation of this Memorandum;

6
3.

I have read and understood the contents thereof and the


allegations stated therein are true and correct to the best of my
personal knowledge and based on authentic records.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 9 th day
of December 2014 at Iloilo City, Philippines.

Gloc Nine
Defendant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 9 of December 9,
2014 at Iloilo City with affiant exhibiting to me her Community Tax
Certificate No. 12345678 issued on December 1, 2014 at Iloilo City.
Doc. No. 12;
Page No. 3;
Book No. XII;
Series of 2014.
Copy furnished:
ATTY. Jose Vencer
ANGARA and ASSOCIATES
The Hotel Grande
Manila 2000 Philippines
Received by: __________________
Date: __________________________
Registry Receipt No. ____________
Date: __________________________

EXPLANATION
Due to the distance, copy of this Memorandum is served upon
the Office of the Solicitor General though registered mail under the
Registry Receipt hereto attached.

(SGD)
Jethro Villaruel