Republic of the Philippines

Municipal Trial Court in Cities

Branch 2
Dumaguete City

GARCES LENDING SHOP INC. CIVIL CASE No. 123

CORPORATION represented by FOR: Collection of Sum of Money
Melanie Miraflores, Manager with Damages
Plaintiff,
-versus-

Mrs. Roselyn Villanueva promissor,

Defendants.
x------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
For the Plaintiff

COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully submits and presents this Memorandum in the above-titled case and
avers that:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. That plaintiff Garces Lending Shop Inc., Corporation is a finance and lending corporation
duly organized and existing under the Laws of the Philippines, having its principal office
at Garces Bldg.,Ariosa St., Pagadian City represented by its Dumaguete City Branch
Manager Melanie Miraflores;

2. That Melanie Villaflores, is of legal age, married, Filipino citizen, and a resident of
Bantayan, Dumaguete City, Philippines;

3. That Melanie Villaflores, through Board Resolution No.4, series of 2010, is hereby
authorized to execute, sign and deliver, file papers, documents and affidavits in behalf
of the Garces Lending Shop, Inc.;

4. That the defendant, Roselyn Villanueva, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, married and a
resident of Mangnao, Dumaguete City, Philippines;

5. That on May 28, 2013, the defendant obtained a loan of Php13,000.00 from the plaintiff
payable for 5 months from the date of release at 1.5% per month;

6. That on July 10, 2013, the defendant acquired another loan account amounting to
Php74,000.00 from the plaintiff payable for 32 months from the date of release with an
interest of 1.5% per month;

7. That the firs loan which is past due, is evidenced by a promissory note signed by the
defendant;

8. That the second loan which lapsed and past due is evidenced by a promissory note
signed by the defendant;

Prepared by NORLITA B. NEMENZO for LEGAL WRITING 1

 9. That the demand letter asked Roselyn Villanueva for possible settlement otherwise, she
will be demanded to pay the entire outstanding balance in accordance with the terms of
the promissory notes executed;

10. That despite repeated demands, in written and oral forms, the defendant has failed and
refused to settle her past due accounts;

11. That the defendant insisted in her belief that she owed Php105,000.00 only according to
her calculations;

12. That lately, the defendant offered installment payments, contrary to the terms
stipulated to pay the entire outstanding balance in accordance to her promissory notes
executed;

13. That due to the failure of the defendant to comply with her obligations which is
unlawful despite consistent diplomatic reminders, the plaintiff was forced to institute
this action using the services of counsel in the amount of Php15,000.00.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

Whether or not the plaintiff has the cause of action to compel the defendant to
settle all her obligations in her loan accounts with interests, damages and litigation
expenses.
ARGUMENT

The plaintiff has the cause of action to compel the defendant to fully pay the
sum of money with interests and damages and litigation expenses.

DISCUSSION

Firstly, the plaintiff operates in accordance with the laws of the land provided for
lending institutions. Republic Act 9474 otherwise known as the Lending Company
Regulation of 2007, in Section 7 provides that, “A lending company may grant loans in
such amounts and reasonable interest rates and charges as may be agreed upon
between the lending company and the debtor provided that the agreement shall be in
compliance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 3765, otherwise known as the “Truth
in Lending Act” and Republic Act 7394, otherwise known as the “Consumer Act of the
Philippines”. In connection with the loan policies and guidelines of the plaintiff, the
latter sets loan charges and interests in accordance with the provisions of the above
mentioned laws.

Secondly, the plaintiff, in accordance with the Republic Act 3765, Section 4,
furnish to the defendant to whom credits were extended, prior to consummation of the
transaction, a clear statement of 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 acquired; 2) charges to be paid; 3) the total amount to be
financed; and 4) the percentage of that finance bears to the total amount to be financed
expressed as simple annual rate on the outstanding unpaid balance of the obligation.
Thirdly, the defendant has the obligation to pay her debt as provided in the New
Civil Code of the Philippines which states that “A person who receives a loan of money is
bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality (Article
1953). Her obligation as a borrower shall be governed by the provisions of Article 1249

Prepared by NORLITA B. NEMENZO for LEGAL WRITING 2

 and 1250 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Art. 1955). Article 1249 provides that
“Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 2212, interest due and unpaid shall not
earn interest. However, the contracting parties may by stipulation capitalize the interest
due and unpaid, which, as added principal, shall earn new interest. Article 2212 provides
that interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded,
although the obligation may be silent upon this point. In this connection, the personal
calculation of outstanding balance by the defendant not in accordance with the above
mentioned provisions is unlawful.

Lastly, Article 1956 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines provides that “No
interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing. In this case, the
interest has been expressly stipulated in writing as provided for in the promissory note
executed by the defendant. The computation of the interest of the outstanding balance
of the defendant was in accordance with Article 1958 of the New Civil Code which
provides that’ “In the determination of the interest, if it is payable in kind, its value shall
be appraised at the current price of the products or goods at the time and place of
payment. Article 1249 provides that, “The payment of debts in money shall be made in
the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the
currency which is legal tender in the Philippines. In relation to the distribution of
payments, Article 1253 provides that, “If the debt produces interest, payment of the
principal shall not be deemed to have been made until the interests have been covered.

The plaintiff recognizes that this is a civil case as in the case Of Gabiosa and Tan
versus Court of Appeals, Nolasco and Roxas, G.R. No. 161057, September 12, 2008. This
is a civil case that deserves utmost compliance by the defendant.

CONCLUSION

With the laws and jurisprudence presented, the plaintiff, through her legal
counsel believes that judgment be rendered against the defendant who has entered
into a valid contract through the two (2) existing loans and are now enforceable in the
eyes of the law.
PRAYER

WHREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered against the

defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of Php100.254 plus interest of 7% from the date
of the instrument until full amount is paid and attorney’s fee in the amount of
Php15,000.00 and costs of the suit.

Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for. Dumaguete City, Philippines,
August 13, 2019.

NORLITA B. NEMENZO
Counsel of the Plaintiff
PTR No. 1112345, Dumaguete City, January 2, 2019
IBP OR No. 222233, Dumaguete City, January 2, 2019
Copy Furnished:

MARIA CLARA TRINIDAD

Counsel of the Defendant
12 Rochelle Bldg., Colonnade St.,
Dumaguete City

Prepared by NORLITA B. NEMENZO for LEGAL WRITING 3