REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

City of Manila
Branch 1

ABC Bank,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE No. 24680
-versus- FOR: CLAIM FOR SUM
OF MONEY

Porcopio Juan, Ricardo Juan,
Alan Tobias, Kevin Cardinal,
Defendant.

x-----------------------------------x


A N S W E R


DEFENDANTS, through counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully moves submits their ANSWER to the above captioned complaint, to wit;

1. Allegation No. 1 is denied for the reason that defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment made in the
complaint.

2. Regarding Allegation No. 2, the fact that Procopio is of legal age is admitted, but
Ricardo is merely a minor. The residence of Procopio is at 123 Philam Townhomes,
EDSA, Quezon City, while the condominium unit is currently being leased to a student
of DLSU.

With respect to the allegation as to the guarantors Alan Tobias and Kevin Cardinal, the
defendant Procopio is without any knowledge as to who they are or where they live, In
fact, defendant has no relationship whatsoever with the alleged guarantors.

3. Allegation No. 3 is admitted only in so far as to the allegation that he was granted the
application for credit card of Procorpio Juan on 17 July 2010 which allowed him a credit
limit of P150,000.00 pesos, but it is to be noted that it was not the Taft Avenue branch
which issued the credit card. It was in fact the SM North EDSA branch of ABC bank who
issued the said credit card.

4. Allegation No. 4 is partially admitted. The defendant Procopio admits that his son is a
holder of a supplementary card. However, it was only issued on January 20, 2013.

5. Allegation No. 5 is specifically denied. Ricardo never bought a car from Toyota
Motors on December 15, 2013. In fact, the credit card of Ricardo was stolen on
December 5, 2013 when he went out with his friends to play arcade games at Timezone
in Shangri-La Mall. Attached is the copy of the Affidavit of Loss dated December 6,
2013.

Furthermore, the bank was well aware that the supplementary card was lost since
December 6, 2013. The defendants Procopio personally went to the ABC Bank, SM
North EDSA branch to report the loss and at the same time, a request that a new
supplementary card will be issued to Ricardo.

The fact that Ricardo will pay the remaining balance with checks is beyond belief and
highly improbable. Ricardo is only a minor, with his birth certificate attached with this
Answer. In addition, Ricardo does not even have his own bank account. This only
proves that it would be impossible for him to have a checking account and issue checks.

6. Allegation No. 6 is also denied because the defendant Procopio does not even know
Alan Tobias and Kevin Cardinal.

7. Allegation No. 7 is also denied. Neither Ricardo nor Procopio purchased a car from
Toyota Motors. Therefore, they should not be made liable for such purchase.

The complaint also alleged that defendants failed to pay the installments starting on the
4th month. This is highly improbable because if the car was allegedly purchased on
December 15, 2013, then the first billing would be on the month of January 2014.

This complaint was only instituted on February 3, 2014. How is it then possible that
there were defaulted payments for 4 months when at the most, only the first installment
would have been due?

This vital flaw only shows that the complaint was haphazardly done and for whatever
motive they may have, only a device by the ABC Bank to harass the family of Procopio
Juan.

8. Allegation No. 8 is also denied. There is no 4th monthly installment to speak of. The
alleged car bought on December 15, 2013 is only 1 month and 19 days old. No person
in his right mind would pay up to the 3rd monthly installment if the second monthly
installment was not yet due.

Furthermore, the only letter received by Procopio was a letter from the SM North EDSA
branch manager, apologizing for the misunderstanding with regard to the January 4,
2014 credit card billing containing the alleged purchase of a Toyota car. Said letter is
also attached in the Answer.

9. As to Allegation No. 9, no demand letter was received by the defendants. The only
letter received by the defendants is the letter of the SM North EDSA branch manager
promising to fix the January 4, 2014 credit card statement.

In fact, when Procopio spoke with the manager on January 6, 2014 regarding the
erroneous bill that reflected the Toyota car purchased, the manager of ABC Bank SM
North EDSA branch assured Procopio that he would fix everything.

The Bank manager of ABC Bank SM North EDSA branch, acting in behalf of the ABC
Bank, gave the defendants a false sense of peace that everything was already settled.
The letter also stated that the bank acknowledged the fact that the credit card used to
make the purchase of the car was the stolen/missing card of Ricardo.

10. Allegation No. 9 is denied because Procopio and Ricardo did not owe the bank
anything, if it was indeed the stolen credit card that was used. The fact that the
acceptance of Toyota Motors of the card without verifying the identity of the cardholder
is no longer imputable to Ricardo, especially when the bank was informed beforehand,
December 6, 2013 to be exact, regarding the loss of the credit card. Therefore, the
purchase made on December 15 or 9 days after the stolen card was reported should
not be imputed to the cardholder.

11. Allegation No. 10 is also denied. To reiterate, defendants Procopio and Ricardo
never met and had no dealings with Alan Tobias and Kevin Cardinal.

Further, Procopio never received a demand letter from ABC Bank regarding the failure
to pay the monthly installments.

12. Allegation No. 11 is denied for lack of sufficient knowledge.

13. Allegation No. 12 is also denied. The complaint is dubious, improbable, devoid of
any sense and makes a mockery of the judicial process.

Allegation No. 12 of the complaint states that on January 31, 2013, the defendants
failed to heed the demands of ABC Bank for the payment of the due instalments when
in fact, the alleged purchase was made on December 15, 2013. How is this possible?


Affirmative Defenses

14. Defendants, by way of affirmative defense, move for the dismissal of the complaint
on the following grounds:

14. 1. That the claim or demand of the plaintiff has already
been waived or abandoned, or otherwise extinguished.

14.2. To support this contention, a perusal of the letter sent
by ABC Bank to the defendants states that the erroneous
billing statement will be fixed and that all is fixed already.

It would be unfair now for the Bank to file a case against the
defendants to file claims which have already been settled.

14.3. Thus, the complaint should be dismissed on the
ground that the claim has already been waived or
abandoned or otherwise extinguished.


COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

15. Defendants Procopio and Ricardo are persons of good reputation in their
community. Procopio is a vice president for operations of San Miguel Corporation, while
Ricardo is currently class president of his section in La Salle Green Hills. Due to the
deliberate, wanton, and malicious filing by the plaintiff, Procopio suffered besmirched
reputation, suffered wounded feelings, anxiety and sleepless nights, thinking and
enduring the social embarrassment brought about by this case. On the other hand,
Ricardo found it hard to focus on his studies, worried as to how they would come up
with the amount erroneously and maliciously being claimed by ABC Bank.

Plaintiff should be condemned to compensate both defendants in the amount of
150,000 pesos for damages they have caused.

Defendants was constrained to secure the services of a legal counsel to protect
themselves from this proceedings for which he incurred expenses in the amount of
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100, 000) as Acceptance Fee and will incur
additional expense of Five Thousand pesos (P5, 000) per court appearance. Plaintiff
therefore should be condemned to pay the said expenses for unduly vexing his peace
and compelling them to defend their good name in court.


PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Office that:
1. The above-captioned COMPLAINT be DISMISSED . That
the claim or demand of the plaintiff has already been
waived or abandoned, or otherwise extinguished.

2. That the plaintiff should be condemned to pay both defendants the
amount of One Hundred fifity Thousand pesos (P150, 000) for as
Moral damages.

3. That the plaintiff be condemned to pay both defendants the amount of
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100, 000) as Acceptance Fee Five
Thousand pesos (P5, 000) per court appearance as Attorneys Fees.

4. The plaintiff be ordered to pay the cost of suit.

Such other measures of relief just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.



The Law Firm
Of
ANSAMA, DELA CRUZ, MARTINEZ, SUAREZ and ASSOCIATES
Unit P1 Standford Condominium
1870 M.H. Del Pilar Street, Malate, Manila

By:


ATTY. JONATHAN DELA CRUZ
IBP No. 729882; 12-27-07; PPLM
PTR No. 6282357; 1-10-08; Manila
Roll No. 51241
MCLE II Compliance No. 0004239






Copy furnished:
GARCIA-NERI AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Plaintiff
148 Taft Ave.
Vito Cruz, Manila
By:
ATTY. Chedelle Sarah Garcia-Neri
Roll of Attorney No. 98765
IBP No. 12345/2-5-13/Manila
PTR No. 87654/12-22-13/Manila



Registry Receipt No._________
Date:_________________





E X P L A N A T I O N

Due to the distance between the undersigned counsel and the office of the
concerned parties personal service of this Answer is impracticable, hence, service is
hereby made thru registered mail.



ATTY. JONATHAN DELA CRUZ




SWORN AFFIDAVIT

Republic of the Philippines)
City of Manila ) S.S.

I, Procopio Juan, of legal age, Filipino, married to Narcisa Juan, with residence at
123 Philam Townhomes, EDSA, Quezon City, Philippines, after having been duly sworn
to in accordance with law do hereby depose and say:
1. That I am the defendant in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer and have read the
allegations contained therein;
3. The denials and allegations in the said answer are true and correct of my own
knowledge and authentic records.
4. I executed this sworn statement to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and
ensure the authenticity of the attached documents.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 10th of
February 2014, in the City of Manila.


SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 10th day of February
2014, in the City of Manila, affiant exhibiting to me his Drivers License No. 696969123
issued by the Land Transportation Office on 29 October 2013 at the City of Manila.



ATTY. Wency Ko Neho
Notary Public
My Commission Expires Dec. 31, 2014
Roll of Attorney No. 12899
IBP No. 12367/5-5-67/Manila
PTR No. 876234/10-22-13/Manila


Doc. No.________
Page No._______
Book No._______
Series of 2014.