Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
City of Manila
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
“x x x.
X x x.”
3.3. The truth of the matter is that: The Complainant XXX does not
owe any amount whatsoever to the Respondent XXX ; and The act of the
Respondent XXX of initiating the aforementioned Estafa case against the
herein Complainant XXX, without any legal and factual basis, has caused
him to suffer mental anguish, extreme anxieties, sleepless nights, and
besmirched reputation on the part of the herein Complainants.
The P6, 000.00 interest on the P15, 000.00 principal loan for a very short
period of ten (10) days was usurious, unacceptable, unconscionable,
iniquitous, and immoral. Nonetheless, to avoid unnecessary
interpersonal problems with the Respondent, the Complainants paid, via
a deposit to the bank account of the Respondent, to the Respondent the
principal loan of P15,000.00 and the interest of P6, 000.00 that the
Respondent and his anonymous Financier were demanding.
Please note, too, that the Respondent did not attach to his Estafa
Complaint any promissory note, contract of loan, voucher, official
receipt, or similar financial or contractual document to prove his
claim against the herein Complainants. What were attached to the
Respondent’s Estafa Complainant were only the following documents:
(a) Barangay “Kasunduan” dated 7 October 2015 between the
Complainant and the Respondent; (b) Final Demand Letter, dated 12
November 2015, which was based solely on the Barangay “Kasunduan”;
and (c) Special Power of Attorney (SPA), dated 14 December 2015,
executed by the Respondent in favor of xxx XXX (his daughter) and xxx
(his sister) on the pretext that he would be going abroad soon.
3.9. Two (2) weeks after 30 September 2014 (the date when the
herein Complainants paid to the Respondent the said amount of
P21,000.00) -- or sometime in the middle of October 2014, -- the
Respondent called up the Respondent alleging: (a) That his anonymous
Financier (whom the Complainant did not identify) had allegedly
rejected the payment of P21, 000.00 earlier made by the Respondent;
and (b) That the unidentified Financier of the Complainant was
allegedly demanding double the said amount of P21, 000.00, that is, a
total of P42, 000.00. The Respondent rejected such an unfair, unjust,
iniquitous, unconscionable, immoral, usurious, and unacceptable demand
for P42, 000.00.
3.10. Please note that the Respondent’s demand for P42, 000.00 as of
15 October 2014 or thereabout, in relation to the original verbal loan of
P15, 000.00 contracted by the herein Complainant XXX on 20
September 2014, would amount to a huge and unjust interest of thirty-
five percent (35%) for very short period of twenty-five (25) days (i.e.,
20 September 2014 to 15 October 2014). This was clearly usurious,
immoral, unacceptable, iniquitous, unconscionable, and unjustified,
considering that no interest was formally agreed upon or stipulated
when the verbal loan for P15, 000.00 was consummated between the
Complainant XXX and the Respondent on 20 September 2014.
The Respondent did not present to the herein Complainants at that time
and up to the present time any credible documentary proof identifying his
anonymous Financier. Neither did the Respondent present to the herein
Complainants at that time and up to the present time any documentary
proof of demand/collection, statement of account, billing, letter, or
any written request or instruction from his anonymous Financier to
prove the allegation of the Respondent that his anonymous Financier was
indeed demanding P42, 000.00 at that time.
3.11. The Complainants at that time demanded that the Respondent the
name, address and contact details of the anonymous Financier so that the
herein Complainants could personally discuss and explain his position to
the Financier. But the Respondent refused and continues to refuse to this
very day to give to the herein Complainants the name, address and
contact details of the anonymous Financier.
3.12. After the said telephone call of the Respondent to the herein
Complainant XXX made on 15 October 2014 or thereabout, the
Respondent kept quiet for two (2) months. Then sometime in December
2014 or thereabout the Respondent again called up the herein
Complainant XXX alleging that the past-due interest of the latter on
the original principal loan of P15,000.00 made on 20 September 2014
had already escalated to P100,000.00 as of the date of his call in
December 2014. The Respondent alleged that he had mortgaged his
house to his anonymous Financier to pay for the said unpaid interest of
the herein Complainant XXX.
3.14. Although the herein Complainant XXX, being a xxx national, has
no perfect mastery of the Tagalog language, he understood the context
of the threatening words of XXX based on his facial expressions and
hand movements and based on the harassing presence of the Respondent.
Despite the fact that there was no pending formal Barangay complaint
against the herein Complainant XXX and despite the fact that there was
no official Barangay summons issued to him at that time, he was forced
by XXX and the Respondent to go with them to the Barangay Hall of
Barangay xxx, xxx City right that very moment.
3.15. At the Barangay Hall, the herein Complainant XXX told the
Barangay officer, by the name of “Deputy R. XXX”, (a) That he had not
received any formal Barangay complaint or formal Barangay summons;
and (b) That the claim of the Respondent for P366, 000.00 was
baseless, unfounded, untrue, false, and fabricated.
3.19. Later, in his criminal complaint for Estafa against the herein
Complainant XXX, the Respondent would capitalize on the said
KASUNDUAN as the sole basis of his FINAL DEMAND LETTER to
prove the alleged financial liability of the Respondent. The Kasunduan
was an entrapment document used by the Respondent to document a
verbal loan agreement and to evade the degree of evidence required by
the Statutes of Frauds of the Civil Code.
3.20. Aside from the suspicious Kasunduan, the Respondent has not
presented any credible document, such as, but not necessarily limited to,
a CONTRACT OF LOAN, a PROMISSORY NOTE, a VOUCHER,
a STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, or a BILL executed or signed by the
Lender and the Borrower: To prove the financial claim of the Respondent
and his anonymous Financier; To prove the veracity of the computation/s
of the usurious past-due interests of the herein Complainant XXX;
and To prove compliance by the Respondent and his anonymous
Financier with the mandatory provisions of the TRUTH IN LENDING
ACT in re: the formal issuance by the Lender to the Borrower of a
FULL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, containing the amount of the
principal loan, the stipulated interest rate, the stimulated penalties
and surcharges, if any and other covenants related to the agreed
loan.
3.21. After a few days from 7 October 2015, the Respondent made a
series of calls to the herein Complainant XXX, pestering the latter to pay
his alleged obligation. The Respondent alleged and stated: That the
payment should be made by the herein Complainant AXXX at the home
of XXX, xxx of the homeowners association of Xxx Subdivision (who
was not a party to the oral loan transaction); That the Respondent
would soon leave for abroad; That his wife would soon return from
abroad; and That it would be a great problem on his part if his wife would
discover that he had allegedly mortgaged his house (and, this time,
allegedly including his van) to his anonymous Financier to secure the
alleged obligation of the herein Complainant XXX.
3.28. On January 18, 2016 at 7:00 PM, the Subpoena of this Honorable
Office in re: the Estafa case filed by the Respondent was delivered by the
process server of this Honorable Office at the new home address of the
Respondent at Xxx Subdivision. (It was originally addressed to the old
home address of the herein Complainants in the same subdivision).
(c) Please note that the Respondent has not presented any proof of
his alleged partnership agreement or business agreement with the
herein Complainant XXX to establish a money lending business referred
to in Q and A No. 6 of his Sworn Statement, dated 14 December 2015,
e.g., AGREEMENT/CONTRACT, MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING, ARTICLES OF PARTNERSHIP,
AFFIDAVIT, UNDERTAKING, DEED, LETTERS AND OTHER
COMMUNICATIONS, and the like.
(d) Please note, too, that the Respondent has not presented any
proof of the alleged “Ticket Purchase” of the herein Complainant XXX,
referred to in Par. 1 of his SPA, dated 14 December 2015, e.g.,
VOUCHERS, PLANE TICKETS, BILLS, STATEMENTS OF
ACCOUNT, UNDERTAKINGS, DEEDS, LETTERS AND OTHER
COMMUNICATIONS, and the like.
Note:
At any rate, please note that the Complaint admits in Q and A No. 7 of
his Sworn Statement, dated 14 December 2015, that he indeed
RECEIVED from the Respondent the said amount of P47,000.00.
Under the said Act, "Credit" means “any loan, mortgage, deed of trust,
advance, or discount; any conditional sales contract; any contract to sell,
or sale or contract of sale of property or services, either for present or
future delivery, under which part or all of the price is payable subsequent
to the making of such sale or contract; any rental-purchase contract; any
contract or arrangement for the hire, bailment, or leasing of property; any
option, demand, lien, pledge, or other claim against, or for the delivery of,
property or money; any purchase, or other acquisition of, or any credit
upon the security of, any obligation
of claim arising out of any of the foregoing; and any transaction or series
of transactions having a similar purpose or effect.” (Sec. 3, Id.).
It defines "Finance charge" as “interest, fees, service charges, discounts,
and such other charges incident to the extension of credit as the Board
may be regulation prescribe.” (Id.).
Section 4 of the said Act provides that “any creditor shall furnish to each
person to whom credit is extended, prior to the consummation of the
transaction, a clear statement in writing setting forth, to the extent
applicable and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the
Board, the following information:
(1) the cash price or delivered price of the property or service to be
acquired;
(2) the amounts, if any, to be credited as down payment and/or trade-in;
(3) the difference between the amounts set forth under clauses (1) and (2);
(4) the charges, individually itemized, which are paid or to be paid by
such person in connection with the transaction but which are not incident
to the extension of credit;
(5) the total amount to be financed;
(6) the finance charge expressed in terms of pesos and centavos; and
(7) the percentage that the finance bears to the total amount to be
financed expressed as a simple annual rate on the outstanding unpaid
balance of the obligation.”
XXX XXX
Complainant
xxx St.
Xxx Homes , xxx
Xxx, Xxx City
XXX XXX
Complainant
No. xxx St.
Xxx Homes , xxx
xxx, Xxx City