REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BATANGAS

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH ____
BATANGAS CITY
KRIS DE LAS ALAS,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO.__________

For Sum of Money

BEA GONZAGA,
Defendant.
x--------------------------------------------x
ANSWER
COMES NOW, the defendant, through the undersigned counsel and unto
this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:
1.

That she ADMITS the contents of paragraph 1;

2.

That she ADMITS the contents of paragraph 2 only in so far as the amount
of EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 800,000.00) is concerned which
defendant agreed to pay within a period of one year in TWELVE (12) equal
monthly installments at the rate of FIVE (5%) percent interest per month, but
DENIES the rest of the allegations therein and adds that the said amount is not in
the nature of a cash loan as plaintiff would want to make it appear but as a
balance for the purchase of three dump trucks and two pay loaders by defendant
from plaintiff as evidenced by the Deeds of Sale of the said trucks and pay
loaders, copies of which are attached herein as Annexes 1-5 and made an
integral part hereof by reference;

3.

That she ADMITS the contents of paragraph 3 only in so far as the

allegation that she has not made any payment as regards the said amount and
maintains that her refusal to not make such payments was due to the fact that
plaintiff denied, and continues to deny the warranty extended to defendant as
regards the said purchases of the equipment mentioned above, and more, the
possession of one of the pay loaders mentioned above was returned to plaintiff
fifteen days after plaintiff refused to acknowledge its obligation to replace or at
least cause the repair of the said pay loader which stopped being operational four
1

days after purchase and which was then operated by one of plaintiffs employees,
Jumel Tagalicud, whom plaintiff provided for the training of defendants heavy
equipment operators, including Noel Jaoud, whose affidavit is herewith attached
as Annex 7 and made an integral part hereof for reference;
4.

That she DENIES the contents of paragraph 4 the truth being that it is the
defendant who owes plaintiff by way of a refund for the excess amount paid by
defendant after she returned to plaintiff the possession of one of the pay loaders
subject of the sale mentioned above for hidden defects, the inclusion of the same
in the sale defendant now believes to be fraudulent due to lack of any attempt on
the part of plaintiff to negotiate about the condition of the said pay loader and set
the amount of excess at FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 400,000.00)
after deducting the amount of the pay loader returned for being defective which is
NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 900,000.00) from the whole amount of
TWO MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P 2,300,000.00) which
defendant paid plaintiff at the time of the signing of the DEEDS OF SALE
mentioned above;

5.

That she ADMITS the contents of paragraph 5;

6.

That she is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the veracity of the averments in paragraph 6 of the complaint;
As and by way of SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant incorporates the foregoing allegations, and avers further:

7.

That plaintiff has no cause of action against defendant and, in fact, it is the
plaintiff who owes defendant the amount of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (P 400,000.00) as overpayment made by defendant for the purchase of
the abovementioned equipment;

8.

That plaintiff acted in bad faith in enforcing the promissory note which
defendant has executed despite being fully aware of her inequities as a seller of
defective equipment and even insults defendant by the filing of the complaint on
baseless and puerile grounds;

9.

That defendant is not permitted to profit from her own inequities after
failing to perform her obligations as seller of a pay loader laden with hidden
defects by refusing to replace or at least cause the repair of the said pay loader.
COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant incorporates by way of reference all the foregoing allegations
and as counterclaim avers:
1.

That based on the unjust refusal of plaintiff to replace or at least cause the

repair of the said pay loader, defendant suffered losses in the form of unrealized
profits amounting to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 200,000.00);
2.

That since the possession of the said defective pay loader was returned

by defendant to plaintiff, the latter owes defendant the amount of FOUR

HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 400,000.00) as overpayment for the
purchase of the equipment;
3.

That, by reason of the baseless and unjust filing of the Complaint at bar,

defendants public reputation and goodwill was greatly impaired for which she
ought to be compensated in the amount of no less than FOUR HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P 400,000.00);
4.

That, in order to defend herself from the baseless and unjust suit of the

plaintiff, defendant was constrained to engage the services of the undersigned

lawyers in the sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P 200,000.00) plus
P 1,000 per appearance in court.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs
against the plaintiff; and on counterclaim, it is similarly prayed that:
1.

Plaintiff be ordered to pay defendant the sum of P200,000, representing

the profits the latter failed to realize on account of plaintiffs refusal to replace or
at least cause the repair of the defective equipment;
2.

Plaintiff be ordered to pay defendant the sum of P400,000 representing

the overpayment made by defendant to plaintiff on account of the sale;

3.

Plaintiff be condemned to pay defendant the sum P400,000 as and by way

of moral damages;
4.

Plaintiff be likewise condemned to pay defendant the sum of P200,000,

plus P1,000 per counsels appearance as attorneys fees;

5.

Plaintiff be ordered to pay the costs.

Defendant further prays for such other relief and remedies as may be

deemed just and equitable under the premises.

City of Batangas, July 17, 2014.
CAMUTAN AND SALAZAR LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Defendant
Suite 258 The Tower
Batangas City
By:
(Sgd.) DARVIN CAMUTAN
Roll No. 65847
IBP No, 12345/1-3-2014/Batangas
PTR No. 34567/1-3-2014/Batangas
Copy furnished:
ATTY. NOLI SANCHEZ
Counsel for Plaintiff
304 MVL Bldg.
P. Burgos St.
Batangas City

EXPLANATION
Copy of the foregoing ANSWER was served to plaintiffs counsel by
registered mail due to time and distance constraints and for lack of the
undersigneds staff who can serve the same in person.
DARVIN CAMUTAN

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
I, BEA GONZAGA, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in accordance with
law, depose and state that:
1. I am the defendant in the above-stated case;
2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing answer;
3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and
correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents
and records in my possession;
4. I 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;
5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is
pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency;
6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or
is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal
or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this
Honorable Court.
WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this 17th day of July, 2014 at
Batangas City.
(SGD) BEA GONZAGA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 17th day of July, 2014 at
Batangas City; affiant having exhibited to me her CTC No. 1434456 issued on 9
February 2014 at Batangas City.
(Sgd.) DARVIN CAMUTAN
Notary Public
Until 31 December 2014
Roll No. 65847
IBP No, 12345/1-3-2014/Batangas
PTR No. 34567/1-3-2014/Batangas
MCLE Compliance No. IV
123456 / 18 June 2014

Doc. No. 3
Page No. 45
Book No. VI
5

Series of 2014