REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7th JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 58, CEBU CITY

FIRST STANDARD FINANCE CORP.

Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. R-CEB-18-07196-CV

-versus- For: Sum of Money, Damages &
Attorney’s Fees

SPS. ELVIS G. LIMANA &

MARIA A. LIMANA,
Defendants.
x---------------------------------------------/

ANSWER

DEFENDANTS, Spouses ELVIS G. LIMANA & MARIA A. LIMANA,

before this Honorable Court, most respectfully state that:

1. Paragraph 1 of the complaint is denied in so far as the plaintiff’s

personal circumstances because defendants have no present
knowledge thereof, but admits the contents in so far as the defendants’
personal circumstances and the parties’ capacity to sue and be sued;

2. Paragraph 2.1 is vehemently denied, the truth being that defendants

applied a loan not in Escario St., Cebu City, but in Mandaue City.
Defendants denied under oath, the genuineness, due execution,
legality and validity of the alleged promissory note. The penalty interest
of 5%, other charges, and attorney’s fees, etc. are denied, the truth
being that what is stated hereunder in the Special and Affirmative
Defenses herein set forth;

3. Paragraphs 2.3, 2.5, 2.6 are denied for lack of knowledge as to the
truth and falsity thereof. The truth of the matter is hereunder pleaded
in the Special and Affirmative Defenses herein set forth;

4. Defendants’ admit the averment in paragraph 2.6 in so far as the

receipt of the demand letter is concerned, but not the contents thereof;
 5. Defendants’ have no knowledge and information to form a belief as to
the truth of the averment in paragraph 2.7, 2.8 and 3.2 of the complaint,
which demand strict proof thereof;

6. Defendants’ have no knowledge or information to form a belief as to

the truth of the averment in paragraph 3.1, 4.1 and 4.2 of the complaint.
The genuineness, due execution, legality and validity of the alleged
promissory note is hereby denied under oath, and the truth of the
matter is hereunder pleaded in the Special and Affirmative Defenses
herein set forth;

7. Any allegation not expressly and specifically admitted herein shall be

generally denied.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendants’ repleads by incorporation all the foregoing allegations and

further state that:

8. Defendants’ admit that they borrow money from the plaintiff and the
latter just let them signed many papers without explanation as to the
same, except for the three percent (3%) interest per month.

9. Defendants’ were hesitant to signed the documents because of the

three percent (3%) interest per month, having contemplated that it
would mean a thirty-six percent (36%) interest per year, which is too
high and unconscionable, but because of their need, they nevertheless
signed the same.

10. Defendants’ admit to be indebted to the plaintiff in the total

amount of One Million Eighteen Thousand Pesos Only
(Php1,295,000.00), Philippine currency.

11. Defendants’ are in good faith. In fact, defendants have paid the
amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) as
installment payment. Copy of the receipt of payment are hereby
attached as Annex “1”;

12. It is true that contracts duly executed between the parties are
binding among them, however, “where a mistake or imperfection of the
writing, or its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the
parties, or the validity of the agreement is put in issue by the
pleadings”, parol evidence may be admitted to challenge the contents
of such agreement.

13. There being no unjustified failure to perform and comply

defendants’ obligation, because in good faith, defendants have paid
 installments to the plaintiff, there is no basis for the plaintiff to claim for
attorney’s fees. Moreover, the due execution, legality, validity and
genuineness of the alleged promissory note is hereby denied under
oath by the defendants.

14. Article 2208 of the Civil Code provides that in the absence of
stipulation, as in this case, there being no agreement between the
parties, attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial
costs, cannot be recovered, subject only to the enumerated exceptions
therein.

15. As a rule, attorney’s fees cannot be recovered as part of

damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed
on the right to litigate. They are not to be awarded every time a party
wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorney’s fees under
Article 2208 demands factual, legal and equitable justification. Even
when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to
incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney’s fees may not
be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be
reflected in a party’s persistence in a case other than an erroneous
conviction of the righteousness of his cause.

16. It is settled that an award for attorney’s fees is the exception

rather than the general rule. Attorney’s fees, as part of damages, are
not necessarily equated to the amount paid by a litigant to a lawyer. In
ordinary sense, attorney’s fees represent the reasonable
compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he
has rendered to the latter; while in extraordinary concept, they may be
awarded by the court as indemnity for damages to be paid by the losing
party to the prevailing party. Attorney’s fees as part of damages are
awarded only in the instances specified in Article 2208 od the Civil
Code. As such, it is necessary for the court to make findings of fact and
law that would bring the case within the ambit of these enumerated
instances to justify the grant of such award, and in all cases, it must be
reasonable.

17. In the case of Philippine National Construction Corp. vs. APAC

Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 190957, the Supreme Court ruled that “the
only discernable reason proffered by the trial court in granting the
award for attorney’s fees and appearance fees, was that complainant
was forced to litigate to protect the latter’s interest. Thus, the High
Court finds that there is an obvious lack of compelling legal reason to
consider the present case as one that falls within the exception
provided under Article 2208 of the Civil Code. Absent such finding, we
hold that the award of attorney’s fees by the court a quo, was improper
and must be deleted.
 18. The obligation of defendants was only with respect to the balance
of the principal obligation that had not been fully paid.

COUNTERCLAIM

Answering defendants, repleads all the foregoing allegations and by

way of counterclaim, further states THAT:

19. The very act of the plaintiff in filing the complaint causes violation
of the defendants’ rights. They suffered serious anxiety, mental
anguish, fright, sleepless nights, wounded feelings and the like, for
which plaintiff should be made to pay Fifty Thousand Pesos
(Php50,000.00) as moral damages.

20. Likewise, plaintiff’s ruse and evident bad faith in compelling

defendants to litigate and as corrective measure, so as to dissuade
those who may emulate plaintiff’s fraudulent, oppressive, reckless
manners, defendants prays for exemplary damages in the same
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00).

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

a decision be issued dismissing the complaint, and a proper accounting and
computation be given to the defendants, containing that which reflects the
just and legal interest of the money loaned, and on the counterclaim, plaintiff
be ordered to pay defendants damages in the total amount of One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00)

Other reliefs and remedies are all prayed for in the premises.

Cebu City, Philippines. December 3, 2018.

ELVIS LIMANA MARIA LIMANA

Defendant Defendant

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

WE, Spouses Elvis Limana and Maria Limana, under oath depose and
state that:
1. We are the defendants in this case;
 2. We have caused the preparation of this answer;
3. The contents stated therein, are true and correct of our own personal
knowledge;
4. We do hereby certify that we have not commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; that to the best of our
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency; that if we
should thereafter learn that a similar action has been filed or pending
before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal
or agency, we undertake to report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the Court or agency wherein the original pleading and
sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signature this 3rd

day of December 2018, at Cebu City, Philippines.

ELVIS LIMANA MARIA LIMANA

Defendant Defendant
I.D. No. I.D. No.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 3rd day of December

2018, in Cebu City, Philippines.

Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2018.

Copy furnished to:

ATTY. RENATO P. MAAMO

Rm. 408, Oftana Bldg.,
Jasmin St., Capitol Site,
Cebu City
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
7th JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 58, CEBU CITY

FIRST STANDARD FINANCE CORP.

Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. R-CEB-18-07196-CV

-versus- For: Sum of Money, Damages &
Attorney’s Fees

SPS. ELVIS G. LIMANA &

MARIA A. LIMANA,
Defendants.
x---------------------------------------------/

FORMAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

Please enter appearance of the undersigned as counsel for the

defendants, SPOUSES ELVIS G. LIMANA & MARIA A. LIMANA, with their
express conformity as indicated below, in this case. Henceforth, kindly
address all pertinent notices to the undersigned at the address given below.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Cebu City, Philippines. December 3, 2018.

MALILONG LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Defendants
nd
2 Floor, Baseline Residences
Juana Osmena Street, Cebu City

BY: CONCEPCION T. CEJANO

Roll No. 70455
IBP No. 042984, 05/28/18
PTR No. 18890290, 06/18/18, Consolacion, Cebu
Admitted to the Bar June 4, 2018
Conforme:
Mr. Elvis G. Limana