Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

City of Manila

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

THE UNDERSIGNED COMPLAINANTS-AFFIANTS xxx and xxx,


both of legal age and residing at xxx Subdivision, xxx, xxx, xxx City,
under oath, respectfully state:

1. RESPONDENT. – The Respondent in this criminal complaint is


xxx, of legal age, married, Filipino, and resident of Block xxx, Lot
xxx, xxx St., xxx Homes, xxx, xxx, xxx, where summons/subpoenas may
be served by this Honorable Office for purposes of preliminary

2. CRIME CHARGED. – The herein Complainants hereby charge the


abovenamed Respondent for violation of the TRUTH IN LENDING
ACT, or R.A. No. 3765.

3. ULTIMATE FACTS. – On 14 December 2015, the Respondent


executed a Sworn Statement before Asst. City Pros. xxx of the Office of
the City Prosecutor of xxx City. A copy of the said sworn statement,
together with the related documents thereto (e.g., Police Referral, dated
14 December 2015; Barangay Kasunduan, dated 7 October 2015; Final
Demand Letter, dated 12 November 2015; and Special Power of
Attorney, dated 14 December 2015) are attached hereto as Annex “A”,
with sub-markings. In the said sworn statement, the Respondent charged
the herein Complainant xxx for the alleged crime of Estafa. It was
docketed as xxx, entitled xxx. It is undergoing preliminary investigation
before Asst. City Prosecutor xxx.

3.1. In Question and Answer Nos. 4, 6, and 7 of the said Sworn


Statement of the Respondent, he perjuriously alleged the following under
oath:

“x x x.

O4. T – Bakit mo e-reklamo (sic) yung taong iyong nabanggit? (i.e.,


herein Complainant Xxx).

S - Dahil po sa hindi pag bayad sa akin ng perang hiniram nya


na nagkakahalagang PhP326,000.00.
O5. T - Kailan, saan, at anong oras naganap ang sinasabi mong
pangyayari?

S - Ganito po yun noong petsang nabanggit at nagkasundo


po kami ni XXX XXX na magnenegosyo kung saan magpapahiram po
kami sa kasamahan niyang hapon (sic) at may tubo poi to, kaya sinimulan
po namin ito sa akin po siya kumukuha ng pera at siya ang nagpapalabas,
noong unang buwan at maganda pa ang negosyo namin at bumabalik and
puhunan ngunit dumaan na ang ilang buwan kumukuha siya ng pera sa
akin ngunit hindi na ito bumabalik kasama na ang tubo at umabot na poi
to ng halagang PhP326,000.00 at noong kinausap ko na po siya ay puro
kanalang PANGAKO NG PANGAKO (sic).”

X x x.”

3.2. The aforecited statements of the Respondent XXX under oath


were false and perjurious. The truth of the matter is that the Estafa
complaint filed by the Respondent (as Complainant therein) against the
herein Complainant XXX (as Respondent therein) was a perjurious,
malicious, felonious, baseless, unfounded and unjust FABRICATION
intended by the Respondent XXX: (a) To collect a loan that the herein
Complainants had already paid in full; and (b) To earn unjust, huge and
usuri0us interests and/or penalties/surcharges on the said fully paid loan,
without any legal and contractual basis, for the selfish financial benefit
of the Respondent SAMPAMNG and his anonymous Financier.

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.

3.4. The CHRONOLOGY OF RELEVANT FACTS AND


EVENTS in support of this Complaint for Perjury as discussed
hereinbelow.

3.5. It appears that the Respondent and his anonymous


Financier are regularly engaged in the business of lending money to
individuals/borrowers at usurious and unconscionable interest rates.
There is no showing that their lending business is single proprietorship or
a partnership or a corporation. There is no showing that they are licensed,
registered or authorized to engage in the business of money lending.

3.6. On 20 September 2014 or thereabout, the Complainant XXX


was in need of P15, 000.00 for the tuition fees of his child enrolled at
the xxx. He sought the assistance of the Respondent. The Respondent
said he could lend the herein Complainant XXX the amount that he
needed. It later appeared that the Respondent was acting as an agent
of an anonymous Financier, who provided the Respondent with
regular funds to lend out to his clients/borrowers for a huge and
usurious interest rates.

On 30 September 2014, when the herein Complainant XXX was ready


to pay in full his said P15, 000.00 loan, the Respondent demanded an
additional amount of P6, 000.00 as interest on the P15, 000.00 principal
loan for the period of ten (10) days. The Respondent alleged that the
said amount was being required by his anonymous Financier. The
herein Complainant XXX was surprised by such a statement of the
Respondent because the latter had earlier said that the amount of P15,
000.00 was the Complainant’s own personal savings. The Complainants
started to suspect the honesty of the Complainant.

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.

3.7. As earlier stated, the Complainants paid the Respondent on 30


September 2014 the total amount of P21, 000.00, broken down as
follows: (a) P15, 000.00 as principal loan; and (b) P6, 000.00 as
interest. Please note that the said P6, 000.00 interest amounted to an
incredible, usurious, iniquitous, unconscionable and immoral forty
percent (40%) interest rate for the very short period of ten (10) days
(i.e., 20 September 2014 to 30 September 2014).

3.8. The abovementioned verbal loan transaction involving a


principal amount of P15, 000.00 that took place on 20 September 2014
was not evidenced by any promissory note, contract of loan, voucher,
official receipt, or similar financial or contractual document. It was a
verbal loan transaction. There was no oral or written stipulation
whatsoever as to the interest, penalties, or surcharges of the said
verbal loan.

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.

The herein Complainants, doubting the sincerity and truthfulness of the


allegation of the Respondent, demanded the name, address and contact
details of the Financier so that the herein Complainants could forthwith
talk and discuss the issue with the said Financier. They also demanded
copies of any documentary proof justifying the claim of P100, 000.00
interest as of that time (December 2014). But the Respondent failed
and refused and continues to fail and refuse to this very day to provide the
herein Complainants such information and documentary proof/s.

3.13. On 7 October 2015 or thereabout the Respondent again called up


the herein Complainant XXX, saying that the former was at that time
waiting inside Xxx Subdivision near the home of the herein
Complainants, inside his van, and that the Respondent to talk with the
herein Complainant XXX for a while about his loan. The herein
Complainant XXX agreed to meet with the Respondent outside his home.
When they met, the Respondent asked the herein Complainant XXX to go
inside his van for a more private discussion. When the herein
Complainant XXX the van of the Respondent, he was surprised to see a
man who identified himself as XXX XXX, who showed the Respondent a
government ID. XXX threatened the Respondent with the following
words:
“HOY, IKAW, LOKO KA HA! MAY UTANG KA PALA NANG
GANITO KALAKI KAY ANNIVER. HINDI MO BA AKO KILALA?
VICE PRESIDENT AKO NG ASSOCIATION NG XXX. SUMAMA
KA SA AKIN SA BARANGAY. PAG HINDI KA SUMAMA,
PAPALABASIN KO KAYO SA XXX AT HINDI NA KAYO PWEDE
TUMIRA DITO.”

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.

3.16. The herein Complainant XXX, without the aid of an interpreter,


was forced by Barangay Deputy XXX, XXX, and the Respondent to sign
a page of the Barangay logbook, which turned out later to be a
“KASUNDUAN”.

3.17. The herein Complainant XXX was misled by Barangay Deputy


XXX, XXX, and the Respondent that the document was only a harmless
record or minutes of the Barangay meeting. The contents and the legal
effects of the said document were not explained and interpreted to the
herein Complainant XXX by Barangay Deputy XXX or any Barangay
Kagawad or by the Barangay Secretary or by any Lupon Officer or
Member.

3.18. The herein Complainant XXX signed the Kasunduan UNDER


DURESS. He was MISLED by Barangay Deputy XXX to sign it. He was
threatened/intimidated by XXX and the Respondent to sign it. He did not
understand its contents, consequences, and legal effects because, as a
Japanese national, he has no mastery of English and Tagalog, although he
could understand and speak some simple English and Tagalog words and
phrases. He was not assisted by an Interpreter or by a lawyer of his
choice. All he knew was that the said document was a harmless minutes
of meeting, as represented to him by Barangay Deputy XXX, XXX and
the Respondent.

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.

3.22. Sometime in the latter part of October 2015 or thereabout the


Respondent visited the home of the herein Complainants, accompanied
by an unidentified man whose appearance appeared to be suspicious. The
Respondent repeated his demand to be paid, this time, in the total amount
of P366, 000.00. The herein Complainants insisted that they had already
settled in full his original verbal loan of P15, 000.00 with P6, 000.00
interest. They demanded that the Respondent show proofs of the alleged
liability of the herein Complainant XXX and the computations of the
alleged past-due interests, either in the form of a voucher or an official
receipt or a statement of account or a billing or a promissory note or
a contract of loan or any other credible document. Ignoring the
foregoing demand of the herein Complainants, the Respondent insisted
that the herein Complainants pay the total amount he was claiming and
that the same be paid by them at the home of XXX. The Complainants
were thus constrained to tell the Respondent that it would be better for
him to file a court case to prove his claim so that the truth would come
out.

3.23. Please note that in the Barangay KASUNDUAN, dated 7


October 2015, the alleged financial obligation of the herein Complainant
XXX, according to the Respondent, was P366, 000.00. It contradicts the
Final Demand Letter, dated 12 November 2015, of the Respondent,
which claimed the total amount of P326, 000.00 - or a huge and
unexplained difference of P40, 000.00.

3.24. On 26 November 2015 the herein Complainant XXX confronted


XXX at his home in Xxx Subdivision. She brought along with her, as her
mediators/witnesses, the Spouses XXX. Alex Xxx was a past president of
the homeowners association of the subdivision. During the said
confrontation, the Respondent was mysteriously present inside the home
of XXX. In that confrontation, herein Complainant XXX told XXX: That
the herein Complainants have been residents/tenants of the subdivision
for seven (7) years; That as the vice president of the homeowners
association with the legal duty to serve the common good of the
homeowners/tenants of the subdivision, XXX should have taken steps to
protect the herein Complainants as residents/tenants of the subdivision
(i.e., as his constituents in the subdivision) against the baseless and
unfounded claim of the Respondent; That at the very least XXX should
have first consulted and heard the side of the herein Complainants when
the Respondent first sought his assistance to collect from the herein
Complainant XXX; and that he should not have believed outright, hook
line and sinker, the said claim of the Respondent without first giving
the herein Complainants an opportunity to be heard; That the act of
XXX of coercively bringing the herein Complainant XXX to the
Barangay Hall on 7 October 2015, without the assistance of the herein
Complainant XXX and based solely on the personal request of the
Respondent -- and without the prior filing a formal Barangay complaint
and without the prior issuance of a formal Barangay summons to the
herein Complainant XXX -- was an unjust, unfair, improper, irregular,
anomalous and illegal act of harassment, intimidation, and unjust
vexation.

3.25. To put an end to abusive and pestering collection behavior of the


Respondent -- and solely to buy peace, without admitting any liability on
the part of the herein Complainants and without admitting the validity of
the claim of the Respondent in the amount of P366, 000.00 -- the herein
Complainants paid the Respondent an additional amount of P47,
000.00 on October 15, 2015, via a deposit to the bank account of the
Respondent, hoping that such an amount would finally end the baseless
claim and collection pestering/harassment of the Respondent. But it was
not so. The Respondent continues to insist on his claim of P366, 000.00
by filing a harassment case for Estafa.

3.26. The Respondent is using the Criminal Justice System as his


own coercive COLLECTION AGENCY. It is the hope and prayer of
the herein Complainants that this Honorable Office would resist the
malicious move of the Complainant to use, mislead, and exploit it as
his pro bono personal COLLECTION AGENCY.

3.27. On 26 November 2015, the herein Complainant XXX filed a


complaint with Barangay xxx against the Complainant and XXX. During
the Barangay conciliation XXX apologized to her for his behavior. The
herein affiant accepted his apology, with the hope that XXX would be
more discerning as a community leader in the future.

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).

The herein Complainants were constrained to retain the legal services of


the LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER LAW OFFICES, Xxx City, to
defend their legal and constitutional rights in the litigation of the instant
case, in the interest of truth and justice; to disprove the false, fabricated,
baseless, unfounded, and malicious claim of the Complainant; and to file
the necessary criminal and/or civil counter-charges against the
Respondent.
4. CONTRADICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE
DOCUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT. - Please note the internal
contradictions and inadequacies among the documents submitted by
the Respondent in the Estafa case.

AS TO THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLEGED CLAIM:

(a) In his Sworn Statement, dated 14 December 2015, given


before the Xxx City Police Station, the Respondent claims P326,000.00;

(b) In the Barangay Kasunduan, 7 October 2015, he claims


P366,000.00;

(c) In the Final Demand Letter, dated 12 November 2015, he


claims P326,000.00;

(d) In the Special Power of Attorney (SPA), dated 14 December


2015, he claims P326,000.00;

(e) Please note that in all of the foregoing allegations no


VOUCHERS, OFFICIAL RECEIPTS, STATEMENTS OF
ACCOUINTS, BILLS, PROMISSORY NOTES, CONTRACTS OF
LOAN, and/or DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS were presented by the
Respondent to prove his claim.

AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ALLEGED LOAN OF THE


HEREIN COMPLAINANT XXX.

(a) In his Sworn Statement, dated 14 December 2015, given


before the Xxx Xxx City Police Station, the Respondent alleged that he
and the Complainant XXX had agreed to go into the business of money
lending. (Q and A No. 6).

(b) In his Special Power of Attorney (SPA), dated 14 December


2015, he alleged that his claim was based on alleged “Ticket Purchase”.
(Par. 1, SPA).

(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.

5. The herein Complainants hereby submit to this Honorable Office the


following documents to support their instant complaint for Perjury:

(a) Annex “B” - XXX Cash Deposit Slip #xxx, dated 30


September 2014, in the amount of P21, 000.00 paid to the bank account
of the Respondent - to prove the full payment by the Complainant of the
oral loan dated 20 September 2014, broken down as follows: The agreed
principal loan of P15, 000.00; and The unstipulated interest of P6,
000.oo demanded by the Respondent.

(b) Annex “C” and “C-1” – Barangay Blotter, dated 26


November 2015, re: the Barangay complaint of the herein Complainant
XXX against the unjust and coercive acts of harassment of the
Respondent and XXX XXX.

Note:

Due to lack of material time, the herein Complainants cannot submit as


an annex of this pleading at this time a copy of the XXX Cash Deposit
Slip, dated 15 October 2015, in the amount of P47, 000.00 to prove that
the herein Complainants had deposited the said amount to the bank
account of the Respondent to buy peace, without admitting any
liability on the part of the herein Complainant XXX and without
admitting the validity of the claim of the Respondent. The herein
Complainants will attempt this
week to secure from the Bank a formal Certification of its Branch
Manager to corroborate the foregoing fact. The herein Complainants
reserve the right to present the said bank certification as an annex to
their future Reply-Affidavit. The said Cash Deposit Slip was misplaced
or
thrown away by the housemaid of the herein Complainants, together
with other personal papers, when their family recently moved to their
new home address in the same subdivision. The housemaid mistakenly
thought that those papers were trash and unnecessary.

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.

6. The herein Complainant XXX has REVOKED the dubious, unfair,


invalid, and misleading BARANGAY KASUNDUAN, dated 7 October
2015 (written in Tagalog, which is not the mother language of the
Complainant xxx), the reason being that he was forced to sign the same
UNDER DURESS, UNDER THE MISLEADING AND FALSE
REPRESENTATION of Barangay Deputy Xxx, in cahoots with XXX
and the Respondent, that the document was merely a harmless
record/minutes of the their Barangay meeting, and WITHOUT A FULL,
INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY KNOWLEDGE, CONSENT
AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL EFFECTS AND
CONSEQUENCES THEREOF on his part.

7. It will be noted that REPUBLIC ACT No. 3765, AN ACT TO


REQUIRE THE DISCLOSURE OF FINANCE CHARGES IN
CONNECTION WITH EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT and otherwise
known as the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT, “declares it to be the policy
of the State to protect its citizens from a lack of awareness of the true
cost of credit to the user by assuring a full disclosure of such cost with a
view of preventing the uninformed use of credit to the detriment of the
national economy”. (Sec. 2, RA 3765).

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.).

It defines "Creditor" as “any person engaged in the business of


extending credit (including any person who as a regular business
practice make loans or sells or rents property or services on a time, credit,
or installment basis, either as principal or as agent) who requires as an
incident to the extension of credit, the payment of a finance charge.” (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.”

The said clear statement in writing is commonly called the FULL


DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.
Section 6 of the said Act provides “any person who willfully violates any
provision of this Act or any regulation issued thereunder shall be fined
by not less than P1,00 or more than P5,000 or imprisonment for not
less than 6 months, nor more than one year or both”. The same
section also provides that “a final judgment hereafter rendered in any
criminal proceeding under this Act to the effect that a defendant has
willfully violated this Act shall be prima facie evidence against such
defendant in an action or proceeding brought by any other party against
such defendant under this Act as to all matters respecting which said
judgment would be an estoppel as between the parties thereto”.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Respondent be indicted


for violation of the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT (R.A. 3765).
FURTHER, the herein Complainants pray for such and other reliefs as
may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

Xxx Xxx City, 27 January 2016.

XXX XXX
Complainant
xxx St.
Xxx Homes , xxx
Xxx, Xxx City

XXX XXX
Complainant
No. xxx St.
Xxx Homes , xxx
xxx, Xxx City

SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me in Xxx Xxx City on ___ January


2016.