Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
QUEZON CITY
BRANCH ____

JAMES JEFFERSON S. TAN,

Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. __________
- versus - For: Specific
Performance and
Damages

L.A. CAR ACCESSORIES AND


WINDOW FILMS CORP.,

Defendant.
x------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, by counsel, to this Honorable Court most


respectfully alleges, That :

I.
PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, JAMES JEFFERSON S. TAN, of legal age,


married, Filipino and with residence at B-1 High Street Grace
Village, Santo Domingo, Quezon City, Metro Manila, where he
may be served with summons and other processes of the
Honorable Court ;

2. Defendant L.A. CAR ACCESSORIES AND WINDOW


FILMS CORP. is a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines,
with office address located atGlory Building, Unit A2, 7427
Yakal St., San Antonio Village, Makati, 1203 Metro Manila,

1
where it may be served with summons and other Orders and
other processes of the Honorable Court.

II.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON
TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

3. That the defendant is a car accessory shop and also


engaged in services of installing said accessories to its
customers ;

4. On 13 October 2017, plaintiff engaged the services


of the defendant to install full tint for car windows of the
former’s vehicle identified as Lexus 350 F-Sports. Thereupon,
plaintiff paid the accessory (tint) and the corresponding service
fee for said services as shown in an Official Receipt, copy
whereon is hereto attached and marked as Annex “A” to form
integral part hereof ;

5. Following the installation service, plaintiff inspected


the work done by defendant’s employee and noticed three (3)
tear or hole marks on a leather cover of the rear left door panel
specifically located near the window switch. The damage was
documented by the plaintiff by way of taking photograph over
the damaged mentioned, which photograph is hereto attached
and marked as Annex “B” to form part hereof ;

5. The damage was brought to the attention of a


certain CELEBEL CARDENAS, defendant’s authorized
representative and Sales Manager and it was found out that
the defendant’s employee, ARCHIE SANDAGON (employee) was
not careful in uninstalling the door panel, in such manner
that the tear marks were left as a result of poor and negligent
workmanship.

A photocopy of the company identification card of


CELEBEL CARDENAS is hereto attached as ANNEX “C” and
made an integral part hereof;

6. The plaintiff was disappointed with the damage and


asked the sales manager as to the actions to be taken to
address the situation. At around 4:08 P.M. that day, an
undertaking was written and signed by the sales manager
promising the plaintiff that the damaged leather cover of the
rear left door panel will be replaced with original parts to be

2
ordered from LEXUS Manila. The said undertaking also
contains a signed statement by the employee admitting to the
act of damaging the leather cover.

A copy of the undertaking with the statement is hereto


attached as ANNEX “D” and made an integral part hereof;

7. Relying on the written promise of the defendant’s


sales manager, the plaintiff called the defendant’s office after a
few days to follow-up on the matter. The plaintiff was informed
then, that the undertaking can not be met by the defendant as
the replacement using original Lexus parts will be too
expensive on their part;

8. Aggrieved by the defendant’s sudden reneging, the


plaintiff was forced to seek out the services of counsel to place
a demand for the enforcement of the written undertaking of
defendant’s sales manager, in her capacity as representative of
the defendant.

A copy of the first demand letter sent to the defendant


dated 18 October 2017 is hereto attached as ANNEX “E” and
made an integral part thereof;

9. The defendant, through the FERNANDO LAGMAN &


AVENIDA LAW OFFICE, replied to the first demand letter,
offering restoration services for the damage caused by the
defendant’s employee on the plaintiff’s vehicle.

A copy of the defendant’s reply letter dated 08 November


2017 is hereto attached as ANNEX “F” and made an integral
part thereof;

10. On 16 November 2017, plaintiff called the


defendant’s office to confirm the offer and was informed by Ms.
Marrose Mamaradlo that the extent of the restoration would be
replacement of the leather cover to be performed by Seatmate
Auto Interiors without using original Lexus parts as against
what was originally promised to the plaintiff;

11. On 21 November 2017, another demand letter was


sent by the plaintiff to the defendant expressing non-
acceptance of the latter’s offer of restoration and repositioned
what was originally promised to him in writing.

3
A copy of the plaintiff’s second demand letter dated 21
November 2017 is hereto attached as ANNEX “G” and made
an integral part thereof;

12. Sometime in the last week of December 2017, the


plaintiff received a call from Mr. Amrit Mirpuri, who
represented himself to be the owner of the defendant
corporation. Mr. Mirpuri assured the plaintiff that he will
personally undertake to import original Lexus parts to effect
the restoration of the damage and make amends with the
plaintiff. Mr. Mirpuri asked the plaintiff to give him until 15
January 2018 to process the order and assured the
subsequent restoration could be done by then. The plaintiff
readily assented to the offer made by Mr. Mirpuri;

13. On 15 January 2018, the plaintiff received another


phone call from Mr. Mirpuri, where the latter finally made
clear he cannot make good on the promise for the second time
for self-serving reasons of difficulty of transacting with Lexus
Manila.

Hence, this complaint.

III.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

14. The allegations in the foregoing paragraphs are


reproduced and repleaded herein by reference.

15. Defendant is obligated by law to perform the


services it offers to its clientele to be rendered in a diligent
manner, which is normally expected in a service business and
any resulting damage due to negligence of the defendant
through its authorized employee is compensable ;

16. The damage caused by defendant’s employee upon


the subject of the contract of service to which an undertaking
made thereafter by the culpable party to assume responsibility
of replacement, any violation thereof is actionable ;

17. The subsequent refusal by the defendant as obliging


party in the above given allegations compels plaintiff to bring
this action for specific performance of the promise to replace
the damaged object of the contract of service ;

4
18. The written undertaking executed on 13 October
2017 signed by CELEBEL CARDENAS, Sales Manager and
acting on behalf of the defendant corporation, constitutes a
valid contract between plaintiff and defendant, the latter being
obligated to perform an act of replacing the damaged object
(window leather cover panel). With the continued refusal of the
defendant to abide to what was promised to the plaintiff
necessitates the fair intervention of the Court given the above
circumstance ;

17. Plaintiff, in good faith, relied in the representations


of Ms. Cardenas as sales manager of the defendant.
Originating from the initial breach through the negligence of
another employee of the defendant, Archie Sandagon, the
undertaking was arrived upon for redress of the damage
caused by the regrettable, but completely preventable events;

18. Therefore, as a matter of law and equity, plaintiff


has the right to compel defendant to fulfil its obligations in the
written undertaking by replacing the damaged leather cover of
the left rear door panel with original Lexus parts. Otherwise,
plaintiff’s property rights will remain slighted, despite his full
payment for a service that resulted to damage brought about
by the defendant’s negligence.

V
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
DAMAGES

19. By negligence committed by employees of the


defendant in the performance of an obligation of service,
specifically, by damaging the leather cover of the rear left door
panel, the plaintiff is entitled to actual damages in the
alternative once the defendant refuses to perform the
replacement of the damaged material using original Lexus
parts. This claim of actual damages is based on the actual
value of the whole leather cover of the door panel sidings
where the damage is located and the necessary installation
expenses, of which service can only be performed by Lexus
Manila and will be undertaken personally by the plaintiff at
this expense of the defendant;

20. Plaintiff is entitled to a claim for moral and


exemplary damages as the defendant has breached its
obligations in bad faith, for leading the plaintiff into believing

5
twice that replacement with original Lexus parts will be made
and reneging twice thereafter, thus a wanton, mala fide, and
malicious representation;

21. Plaintiff is entitled to the enforcement of such


voluntary contract, wilfully and validly entered into by its
legitimate representatives as the result also of negligent acts of
its own employee.

22. Being guilty of a breach of their contract, defendant


is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff in accordance
with Articles 1170 and 2201 of the Civil Code, which state:

Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their


obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay
and those who in any manner contravene the tenor
thereof are liable for damages

Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the


damages for which the obligor who acted in good
faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and
probable consequences of the breach of the
obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or
could have reasonably foreseen at the time the
obligation was constituted.

In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton


attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for all
damages which may be reasonably attributed to the
non-performance of the obligation.

V.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
ATTORNEY’S FEES

23. The allegations in the foregoing paragraphs are


reproduced and repleaded herein by reference.

24. Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees under Article


2208 of the Civil Code, as follows:

6
“Article 2208. In the absence of stipulation,
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation, other than
judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:

xxx xxxxxx

(2) When the defendant’s act or omission has


compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons
or to incur expenses to protect his interest;

xxx xxxxxx

(11) In any other case where the court deems it


just and equitable that attorney’s fees an expenses
should be recovered.
xxx xxxxxx ”

25. In view of defendant’s obstinate refusal to make


good on its promise based on a valid contract, plaintiff was
compelled to litigate to enforce, vindicate and protect his right
and to engage the service of counsel, for which the defendants
should pay attorney’s fees in the amount of in the amount of
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00).

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable


Court, judgment be rendered ordering the defendant as
follows:

1. To replace the damaged leather cover of the rear left


door panel of the plaintiff’s vehicle;

2. To award the claim of One Hundred Fifty Thousand


Pesos (Php 150,000.00) for actual damages in the
alternative, if the defendant still refuses to comply
once the Honorable Court orders specific
performance;

3. To pay moral and exemplary damages in the


amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos each
(Php 150,000.00) as to sufficiently and effectively
deter similar breaches of contract in bad faith

7
4. To pay Attorney’s fees in the amount of One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00); and

5. To pay the cost of suit.

Other reliefs, just and equitable in the premises, are


likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted for Quezon City, 19 January


2018.

ATTY. AVELINO C. BADILLO, JR. IV


Counsel for the Plaintiff
1 MORQUECILLO STREET
SAN FRANCISCO DEL MONTE, QUEZON CITY
ROLL NO. 66648
PTR NO. 4026009; 01/24/2017; Quezon City
IBP NO. 1081071; 02/21/2017; Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0004453
Contact No. 09053190547
Email address: avelbadillo@gmail.com

8
Republic of the Philippines )
Quezon City ) S.S.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION


OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, JAMES JEFFERSON S. TAN, of legal age, married,


Filipino and with residence at B-1 High Street Grace Village,
Santo Domingo, Quezon City, Metro Manila after having been
duly sworn in accordance to law, depose and state :

1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case ; I


have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint ; I have
read and understood all the allegations stated therein and all
such averments are true and correct to the best of my own
personal knowledge and based on authentic records ;

2. That plaintiff have not commenced any other action or


proceedings involving the same matter and issue and, to the
best of my knowledge, no such action or proceedings has
been filed or pending before the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, or any tribunal or agency of the government ;

3. That should petitioner learn that a similar action has


been filed or pending before the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals or any tribunal or agency, I hereby undertake to
report that fact to this Honorable Court within five (5) days
upon knowledge thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my signature


on this ___ day of January 2018, in Quezon City, Metro
Manila.

_____________________________
JAMES JEFFERSON S. TAN
(AFFIANT-PLAINTIFF)

9
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this ____ day of
January 2018, in Quezon City, Metro Manila, affiant exhibited to
me his ____________________ bearing the number as
__________________ issued at ______________ on
_________________.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. _____ ;


Page No. _____ ;
Book No. _____ ;
Series of 2017.

10