Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 13, MANILA CITY
JOHN

D.
SAN
Plaintiffs.

ANDRES

-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. M-2014-123


For: Sum of money and damages

SETH C. DE MESA
Defendants.
x------------------------------------------------x

C O M PLAI N T
COMES NOW Plaintiff, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
states:

That plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino citizen and residing at No. 658 Carola St.
Sampaloc Manila.

That defendant is Ms. SETH DE MESA, of legal age, Filipino citizen and
residing at 1093 Leyte street Sampaloc, manila, where she may be served with
summons and other Court processes;

That on June 3,2014, defendant obtained a loan from the plaintiff in the sum of
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) Philippine Currency to be
fully paid on its due which is November 10,2014 as evidence by a Three
promissory note Issued on June 3,2014, photocopy of which hereto attached as
Annex A.

That defendant only paid a total of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).

That defendant was unable to pay the remaining balance of One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P 100,000.00) and despite the lapse of period to pay the loan,
defendant failed to pay his remaining obligation thereby entitling the plaintiff to
be paid the total principal obligation and in addition of the 6% monthly interest
agreed upon and 6% interest per month by way of penalty.

That the loan is now overdue and despite demands made orally and in writing by
the plaintiff, defendants refused and failed to pay the amount as evidenced by the
Demand Letter send by my Legal Counsel, dated December 05, 2014, photocopy
of which is hereto attached as Annex B and made an integral part hereof.

P R AYE R
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that after
due hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant in this
manner.
1.

2.

Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of One Hundred


Thousand Pesos (P100,000) Philippine Currency, with interest thereon at
the rate of 6% per month and 6% interest per month by way of penalty,
compounded from June 3,2014, and until the same is fully paid; and
Ordering the defendant to pay the cost of this suit.

Plaintiff likewise prays for such other and further relief or reliefs as this
Honorable Court may deem just and equitable in the premises.
Manila City, Philippines, January 3, 2015.
Atty. WIN PANALO
Counsel for the Plaintiff.
3rd Floor Roxas BLDG
Malate Manila City
IBP No.
PTR No. Attorneys Roll No.
MCLE Compliance No.
MCLE Compliance No.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF


NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, JOHN D. SAN ANDRESS Residence of No. 658 Carola St. Sampaloc,Manila
city, under oath, do hereby depose states that:

I am the complainant in the said case;

I have caused the preparation of the same and I attest to the veracity of all
the allegations stated herein;

I have read and understood all the allegations herein and that I attest to the
authenticity and veracity of all the documents attached herein as based on
existing and authentic records;

I further certify that I have not commenced or filed any claim involving the
same issues herein with any other Court. Tribunal or Quasi-Judicial Agency
or I am not aware of any such other case or claim pending before any other
court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency; and

Should I thereafter learn of the filing or pendency of such similar action or


claim, I will inform this Honorable Court of such fact within five (5) days
from knowledge thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hands this 3rd day of


January, 2015 at MANILA City, Philippines.
JOHN D. SAN ANDRESS
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO before me this 3rd day of January, 2015 at
Manila City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me her CTC #
issued on 3 rd
day of January at Manila City, Philippines.

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. __________
Page No. __________
Book No. __________

Series of

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 13, MANILA CITY

JOHN

D.
SAN
Plaintiffs.

ANDRES

-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO.


For: Sum of money and damages

SETH C. DE MESA
Defendants.
x------------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW the Respondent, SETH DE MESA, through the undersigned counsel,
appearing especially and solely for this purpose, and to this Honorable Court, most
respectfully moves for the dismissal of the Complaint on the following ground that THE
HONORABLE COURT HAS NOT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
OF THE DEFENDING PARTY.
DISCUSSION
A cursory reading of the Summons and Return of Service would readily show that the
copies of the Summons dated 1 February 2015 and the Complaint and its corresponding
annexes were allegedly delivered and tendered upon SETH DE MESA, Through a
certain Maria Clara alleged to be the authorized agent of SETH DE MESA, 1093 Leyte
St. Sampaloc Manila. Copies of the said Summons and Return of Service that form part
of the records on the case are hereto pleaded as integral part of this Motion;

Said service of Summons, however, constitutes an improper service of summons


amounting to lack of jurisdiction over the person of herein SETH DE MESA since the
summons was improperly served upon a person who is not the persons named in Section
6, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure upon whom service of summons shall be
made;
The material provision on the service of summons provided for in Section 6 of Rule 14 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure reads as follows:
"Section 6. Service in person on defendant.- whenever practicable, the summon shall be
served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive
and sign for it, by tendering it to him."
It bears no further emphasis that the service of the summons was done on a person of the
defendant as provided for under the said Section, as service was done only on an alleged
authorized agent of SETH DE MESA.
It must be equally noted that the rules are substantial that service of summon should be
made to the person of the defendant by personal service and not by the person who
authorize to receive it ;

The persons who are authorized to accept summons to the person of the defendant is
provided under Section 6 Rule 114 that it shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the
defendant in person., limited and more clearly specified, departure from which is fatal to
the validity of the service of the summons and resulting in the failure of the court to
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent corporation.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Complaint with respect to SETH DE
MESA be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
_____________, Philippines, __Date__.

ATTY. PANALO N. TALO


Counsel for Defendant
TAFT AVENUE MANILA CITY
Roll No.
IBP No.
dated
MCLE Compliance No.

NOTICE OF HEARING
To: Atty. WIN PANALO
Counsel for the Plaintiff.
3rd Floor Roxas BLDG
Malate Manila City
Greetings:

Please take notice that on Friday, _______________, at 8:00 oclock A.M., or as soon
thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned will ask Branch _____ of the
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT MANILA CITY to approve the foregoing Motion for
Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading.

ATTY. PANALO N. TALO


Counsel for Defendant
TAFT AVENUE MANILA CITY
Roll No.
IBP No.
dated
MCLE Compliance No.

COPY FURNISHED:
To: Atty. WIN PANALO
Counsel for the Plaintiff.
3rd Floor Roxas BLDG
Malate Manila City

EXPLANATION
The foregoing Motion to Dismiss has been served on Plaintiffs counsel by
registered mail due to lack of time and personnel to effect personal delivery.

ATTY. PANALO N. TALO


Counsel for Defendant
TAFT AVENUE MANILA CITY
Roll No.
IBP No.
dated
MCLE Compliance No.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi