Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 96
Quezon City
JABBA D. HUTT,
Plaintiff
- versus -

Civil Case No.16-100

For Collection of Sum of Money

SPOUSES HAN AND LEIA SOLO,

and THE TRADE FEDERATION, INC.
Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
(FOR THE PLAINTIFF)
Plaintiff JABBA D. HUTT, by counsel, and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully states:
I. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE PLAINTIFFS POSITION
1. Plaintiff Jabba D. Hutt files an action for breach of contractual
obligations against defendant Han Solo set forth in the
notarized Contract of Loan amounting to FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 500,000.00) with compensatory
interest at the rate of ten percent (10%).
2. The defendant executed the following as consideration to the
said loan:
a. Promissory note
b. Ten (10) post-dated checks for Five Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos (Php 550,000.00) each
c. Chattel mortgage on a plane called the Millenium
Falcon, notarized in accordance to law.
d. Stipulation that the venue of any complaint arising
from said contract is Quezon City.
3. There was a Board Resolution which defendant Trade
Federation Incorporation authorizes Defendant Solo as
1|Page

Chief Operating Officer, to execute a mortgage on the plane.

Board Resolution 14, Sec. 4(b) states:
The Chief Operating Officer may, upon
his discretion, execute a chattel mortgage in his
name, on any property of the Corporation,
whenever feasible, in furtherance of the
corporations purposes and objectives.
4. On 20 December 2015, plaintiff issued a demand letter
demanding him to pay the outstanding debt but the
defendant failed to do so.
5. On 13 January 2016, plaintiff encashed one issued
check by defendant Solo, however, it was denied and
has bounced due to Closed Account.
6. Since the bank account was closed, the remaining nine
(9) checks are also considered bounced for there is no
sufficient fund to finance the same. Thus, on 15
January 2016, another demand letter was sent to
defendant with a notice that all of his checks bounced
for the reason of Closed Account.
7. Plaintiff stands with conviction that defendant Han
Solo has an outstanding debt to the plaintiff.
8. CONTRACT OF LOAN. Plaintiff strongly holds that the
Contract of Loan entered between him and defendant Han
Solo is valid, notarized and not a product of forgery.
9. BOARD RESOLUTION. Plaintiff partially denies the
allegation of defendant Han Solo that the latter did not
present any Board Resolution to the plaintiff. Defendant
Han Solo has been given the right to act as an agent of the
defendant corporation in executing the said Chattel
Mortgage by virtue of the Board Resolution No. 14.
10. CHATTEL MORTGAGE. The Chattel Mortgage entered
between plaintiff and defendant Han Solo is valid and
binding between the parties and defendant Han Solos
signature is not forged. The plane called the Millenium
Falcon was in actual possession of Solo thus it raises a
disputable presumption of ownership. Hence, the true
owner, defendant TFI, must resort to judicial process for the
recovery of the property.1

1 New Civil Code, Art. 433

2|Page

That the Chattel Mortgage was notarized in accordance to

law, thus entitled to great weight before any proceedings
contesting the same.2 And that it provides as the best
evidence since it is recorded in a public office. In which case,
it is registered at Registry of Deeds. 3
11. VALIDITY OF SECURITIES ISSUED BY THE
DEFENDANT. The averments in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of
the complaint are all reflected in the contract of loan and the
promissory note. To even corroborate these evidence, there
is a chattel mortgage executed, and checks issued. That
there is a presumption that Hutt takes ordinary care of his
concerns, and that ordinary course of business has been
followed 4
12. INVESTMENT. Plaintiff did not invest to the defendant
corporation. The loaned amount referred to in the
Complaint was a loan in itself and not an investment.
13. SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT. The Subscription
Agreement is suspicious, and should not be given probative
value.
14. LOST ENVELOPE WHICH INCLUDES CHECKS;
AND IDENTIFICATION CARDS OF DEFENDANT
HAN SOLO. Defendant Han Solo is maliciously accusing
plaintiff of getting and using the checks and identification
cards of defendant spouses for using it to defraud the latter.
These accusations of defendant spouses hold no water.
15. VENUE. Plaintiff rejects the contention of defendant
spouses thatb there is an improper venue. The law provides
that the rule on venue shall not apply, where the parties
have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action
on the exclusive venue thereof.5
16. MOTION TO DISMISS. The defendant spouses are
estopped to move for the dismissal of the case. Not only did
they answer to the complaint, but they are actually seeking
for a relief before the Court. By filing their ANSWER WITH
COUNTERCLAIM, they are in effect, validly waiving to
attack the matter on venue. This is considered an act of
surrendering themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court.
Defendants, however, contends the following:
2 De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127857, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 325, 334
3 Rules of Court, Rule 130 Sec. 3 (d)
4 Rules of Court, Rule. 131 Sec. 3 (d); (q)
5 Rules of Court, Sec. 4
3|Page

1. That the contract is an investment of the plaintiff to the

Trade Federation Inc.
2. That the signature of defendant Han Solos in the promissory
note, Contract of Loan and Chattel Mortgage was forged.
3. There is improper venue as defendant Han Solo is a resident
of Makati City while the plaintiff is a resident of New York,
U.S.A.
4. Defendant Leia Skywalker-Solo contends that she lacks
personal knowledge of the transaction wherein the checks
executed under her personal account were blank checks
which were all lost. And such checks are issued for the
payment of the spouses house.
5. Defendant Trade Federation, Inc. contends that the acts of
defendant Solo in executing a chattel mortgage under the
plane called Millenium Falcon owned by the defendant
Corporation is an ultra vires act for the reason that they have
no knowledge on the said execution of the said mortgage by
defendant Han Solo.
II. WITNESSES
The Plaintiff will be presenting the following witnesses to prove
the material allegations in the Complaint with Prayer for Preliminary
Attachment, the documents and evidence as stated in the Contract of
Loan and Chattel Mortgage as alleged in the Complaint.
1. Master Oogway and Master Shifu to substantiate the
existence and authenticity of the Contract of Loan
executed by Jabba Hutt and Han Solo as well as all the
evidence attached thereof;
2. Atty. Margery Carreon to prove that she has notarized
a Contract of Loan on 30 September 2014 between Jabba
Hutt and Han Solo.
3. Simon Loloko and Maria Niloko to substantiate the
existence and authenticity of the Chattel Mortgage
executed by Jabba Hutt and Han Solo including all the
evidence attached thereof.
4. Ms. How Tobeyou, manager of the Brothers Bank, to
testify that Jabba Hutt went to their branch to encash the
check issued by Han Solo and the same had bounced due
to Closed Account.

4|Page

Plaintiff reserves the right to present such other witnesses as

the need may arise in this case.
III. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRESENTED
Exhibits/Documents
Annex A: Contract of Loan

Purpose
This contract shows the terms of
the loan obtained by the defendant.
It also shows the securities
executed by the defendant. It
proves the existence of stipulation
as to venue of civil cases.

Annex
B:
Promissory
NoteThis proves the existence of debt.
executed by Han Solo in favor of
Jabba Hutt
Annex C: Post Dated Checks

These prove that checks were

issued.

Annex D: Chattel Mortgage onThis proves the chattel mortgage

Millennium Falcon
on Millenium Falcon as security to
the debt.
Annex E: Copy of the BoardThis proves that the act of Hans
Resolution No. 14
Solo is not Ultra Vires as it was
authorized by a Board Resolution.
Annex F: Copy of
Demand Letter Sent

the

FirstThis proves that demand to pay

Solos debt was made but to no
avail.

Annex G: Proof of Receipt ofThis proves that the demand to pay

Demand Letter
was actually received by defendant
Solo. Thus, it serves as a notice on
the part of defendant Solo that he
has an outstanding debt.

5|Page

Annex H: Copy of the SecondThis proves the second demand to

Demand Letter Sent
pay defendant Solos debt. This
also notified defendant Solo that
the checks bounced due to Closed
Account. This contains the proof
that Solo received this letter but
still, to no avail.

Herein plaintiff reserves the right to present additional

documentary evidence in the course of the trial if warranted.

IV. ADMISSIONS
Aside from what were already admitted by the parties in their
pleadings, plaintiff is willing to enter into other stipulation of facts
with the defendants during the pre-trial conference.

V. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

The applicable laws and jurisprudence in this case are the
provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines and the Rules of Court
including related Supreme Court decisions on the matter.

VI. ISSUES
1. Whether the instant case for collection of sum of money
should be dismissed for improper venue.
2. Whether defendants signature in Contract of Loan,
Promissory Note, Chattel Mortgage are all forged.
3. Whether there exists a Contract of Loan between the plaintiff
Hutt and defendant Han Solo.
4. Whether or not defendant Han Solos act of mortgaging the
plane Millenium Falcon owned by the defendant Trade
Federation, Inc. is an ultra vires act.

VII. PROPOSAL FOR AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff is open to settling this dispute amicably, subject to a
concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable and a reciprocal
manifestation of openness from defendant.
6|Page

Plaintiff respectfully submits that the desired terms of any

amicable settlement would involve, first, an admission of amount due
and owing to plaintiff and, second, a schedule of payments.
VIII. AVAILABLE TRIAL DATES
The undersigned counsel is ready to fix hearing dates with the
counsel for the plaintiff in open court or before the staff of this
Honorable Court in-charge of the courts calendar.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Quezon City. 29 February 2016
CONCEPCION AND PARTNERS
Counsel for the Plaintiff
109 Shining Star Bldg. Nagniningning Condominiums,
Central Avenue, 1107 Quezon City, Philippines
E-mail Address: relc12345@yahoo.com.ph
Cellphone Number: 09055073129

By:
Rey Edward L. Concepcion
ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 37123
IBP LIFETIME MEMBER NO. 1238-RSM
PTR NO. 2184563-05 January 2016-QC
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0009929-04/10/15

Kevin Harris Co
ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 32173
IBP LIFETIME MEMBER NO. 1239-RSM
PTR NO. 2184563-06 January 2016-QC
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0009928-04/10/15

Jesse Mae N. Oliva

ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 37124
IBP LIFETIME MEMBER NO. 1232-RSM
PTR NO. 2184565-05 January 2016-QC
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0009979-04/10/15

Genie C. Morales

ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 37125

IBP LIFETIME MEMBER NO. 1248-RSM
PTR NO. 2184543-05 January 2016-QC
MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. V-0007929-04/10/15

7|Page

COPY FURNISHED:
HON. CLERK OF COURT
Branch 69, Regional Trial Court
Quezon City

SPOUSES HAN AND LEILA SOLO

No. 111 Magallanes Village,
1232 Makati City

THE TRADE FEDERATION, INC.

#75 Commonwealth Avenue,
1121 Quezon City

EXPLANATION
A copy of this Pre-Trial Brief was served via registered mail
and/or private courier due to time constraints and lack of messenger
to effect personal service.

Edward L. Concepcion
8|Page

9|Page