Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
Antipolo City, Branch 74

PARKROAD INC., represented by


its President, SUNGJUN PARK,

Plaintiff,

Civil Case No.___________

Action for Damages with


Application for Writ of
-versus-
Preliminary Attachment

PP BUS LINES INC. AND PAQUITO


D. PELIPEL JR.

Defendants.

X------------------------------------------X

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, through counsel, to this Honorable Court, most respectfully

states that:

PA R T I E S

1.1. PLAINTIFF PARKROAD INC., represented by its President Sungjun

Park, is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the

Philippines with business address at Sumulong Highway, Mambugan,

Antipolo City.

1.2. DEFENDANTS are the following:


1.2.1. PP BUS LINES INC. represented by its President and

majority stocks owner therein Paquito D. Pelipel Jr.;

1.2.2. PAQUITO D. PELIPEL, JR., who acted with malice and

in bad faith, is the President and majority owner of all of the

stocks of PP BUS LINES INC.;

Both DEFENDANTS have for their address No 90 20 th Avenue, Barangay

Dioquino, Project 4 Quezon City where they may be served with orders and

processes of this Honorable Court.

II

S TAT E M E N T O F FA C T S

2.1. Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the business of importing,

buying, selling, trading, and marketing of Korean motor vehicles, parts and

accessories. Defendant PP Bus Lines Inc. is a corporation organized to

maintain and operate for hire transportation services by means of buses,

among others in Metro Manila.

2.2. Plaintiffs President, Sungjun Park (Mr. Park), came to know the

representative of PP Bus LInes, Inc. (Defendant Corporation), Paquito D.

Pelipel Jr.(PDP for brevity) through an agent, Mr. Roldan De Leon.

2.2.1. On 11 January 2010, Defendant PDP, along with Mr.

Roldan De Leon,proceeded to meet Mr. Park at the latters office

in Antipolo City. Plaintiffs Secretary, Ms. Baby Jane Venturina and

its General Manager, Mr. Dante Tatacwere present in said

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 2 of 24
meeting with Mr. Park. Defendant PDP proposed to buy from

Plaintiff five (5) units of air con bus, two (2) units of Kia Granbird

and three (3) units of Hyundai Aerospace. Defendant PDP

likewise proposed to buy one (1) unit of 10 TON Hyundai truck.

The proposal was made under the pretext that they have on

hand the amount for the down payment and that they would

obtain for their company a bank financing facility from First

Malayan Leasing & Finance Corporation, since Mr. Roldan de Leon

have had previous successful transactions with the said

corporation. Defendant bragged about Defendant corporations

years in the transportation business and spoke of its relative

success.

2.2.2. Plaintiff was induced to enter into a contract of sale

with Defendant PDP based from such representations. Three

letter-quotations dated 11January 20101, were prepared

consisting of the prices, down payment and the balance of

Defendant Corporation over the five buses and truck, which shall

be paid through the financing facility.The terms and conditions

for the payment of the same are here quoted:

a) For the two units of Kia Granbird:

Terms and Conditions:


1) 600, 000. 00 down payment
Balance
Php 1,900,000 x 12% interest for 18 months
-Monthly payment Php 118, 222.22 covered by 18 PDCs
Starting February 11, 2010

b) For three units of Hyundai Aerospace

Terms and Conditions:

1A photocopy of the three letter quotations dated 11 January 2010 is attached herewith
and made an integral part hereof as ANNEXES __, ___, and ____.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 3 of 24
1) 900, 000. 00 down payment
Balance
Php 2,700,000 x 12% interest for 18 months
-Monthly payment Php 168,000.22 covered by 18 PDCs
Starting February 15, 2010

c) For 10 TON Hyundai Truck

Terms and Conditions:


1) 150,000. 00 down payment
Balance
Php 250,000 x 5% interest for 5 months
-Monthly payment Php 52, 500.00 covered by 5 PDCs
Starting February 28, 2010

These letter-quotations were signed by both parties

through their representatives.

2.2.3. Defendant on the same date, through defendant PDP

instantaneously issued the check for the down payment of the

buses and the truck. However, the amounts payable and the

manner of payment under the three letter quotations were not

strictly followed as agreed upon. Defendant Corporation, through

Defendant PDP instead, issued a Banco de Oro check 2 in the

amount of Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 650,000.00)

applied in this manner as stated in cash/check voucher no. 1165 3

of Plaintiff :

- Initial Down payment of Php 500,000.00 for the five units of bus at

Php 100,000.00 each

- Initial Down payment for the TON truck at Php 100,000.00.

Four other UCPB postdated checks4 were issued by

Defendant in addition to the Php 650,000.00 down payment for

2A photocopy of the Banco de Oro check with no. 0604551 dated 11 January 2010
is attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX _.

3A photocopy of the cash/check voucher with no. 1165 dated 11 January 2010is
attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX _.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 4 of 24
the five units of bus, in the total amount of One (1) Million pesos

(Php 1,000,000.00) at Php 250,000.00 each:

Check No. Payee Due Date Amount


0466009 Parkroad, Inc. or 15 March 2010 250, 000.00
cash
0466010 Parkroad, Inc. or 15 April 2010 250, 000.00
cash
0466011 Parkroad, Inc. or 15 May 2010 250, 000.00
cash
046012 Parkroad, Inc. or 15 June 2010 250, 000.00
cash
Total: 1,000,000.00

2.2.4. Upon issuance of the checks, the five (5) buses and

TON truck were taken by Defendant at onceand brought to

Defendants office at Quezon City.

2.3. On 12 January 2010, Defendant Corporation offered to buy another

unit of air con bus from Plaintiff at the formers Office at Antipolo. Defendant

represented that it needed additional number of units of bus that would

respond to the growing demands of its business.

2.3.1. Defendant Corporation conveyed its interest to buy

another unit of Hyundai Aerospace, through Defendant PDP. A

discussion as to the terms and conditions regarding the sale of

the bus was presented through a letter quotation 5 dated 12

January 2010 amounting to a total amount of Php 1,200,000.00.

4A photocopy of the four post dated checks dated 15 March 2010, 15 April 2010, 15 May
and 15 June 2010 are attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEXES
__, ___, ___, and ____ respectively.

5A photocopy of the letter quotations dated 12 January 2010 is attached herewith


and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX __.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 5 of 24
2.3.2.Right then and there, Defendant paid the amount of

Php 480,000.00 for the said Hyundai bus by issuing a BDO check 6

payable to cash in the amount of Php 200,000.00 and four (4)

UCPB checks7 in the amount of Php 70,000.00 each:

Check No. Payee Due Date Amount


0604552 Cash 12 January 2010 200,000.00
Total: 200,000.00

Check No. Payee Due Date Amount


0466013 Parkroad, Inc. 28 February 2010 70,000.00
0466014 Parkroad 31 March 2010 70,000.00
0466015 Parkroad 30 April 2010 70,000.00
0466016 Parkroad 30 May 2010 70,000.00
Total: 280,000.00

2.3.3. As Defendant Corporation appeared to be all set on

that day in paying its obligation for the one unit of bus, in a

manner very similar to the first transaction that Defendant is in

good financial position and would certainly pay its obligation as it

is supported by a pending application for bank financing- Plaintiff

gave Defendant immediate possession of the bus and the same

was brought to their Office at Quezon City.

2.4. On 29 January 2010, Defendant once again, through Defendant

PDP under the same representation, offered to buy four (4) more units of

bus: one (1) unit of Hyundai Aerospace and three (3) units of Kia Granbird.

Plaintiff agreed to the offer since Defendant constantly assured Plaintiff of

the awaiting approval of the bank financing. Moreover, Defendant, as usual,

6A photocopy of the Banco De Oro check with no. 0604552 dated 12 January
2010is attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX __.

7A photocopy of the four UCPB checks: with no. 0466013 dated 28 February 2010; check no.
0466014 dated 31 March 2010; check no. 0466015 dated 30 April 2010; and check no.
0466016 dated 30 May 2010, are attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as
ANNEXES __, __ ,___ and ____ respectively..

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 6 of 24
with words and ways indicative of professionalism in dealing with business,

readily issued the checks for the payment of the additional buses.

2.4.1. The total amount for the same is Php 560,000.00 to be

paid in the following manner as stated in a letter quotation 8 dated 29

January 2010:

Terms and Conditions:

- PHp 1,080,000.00 Total Downpayment


Balance
Php4,220,000 x 12% for 12 months
- Monthly payment PHp 393, 866.67 covered by 12 PDCs
Starting February 29, 2010 upon releasing of CP & transmittal

2.4.2. An amount of Php 300,000.00 cash was handed over

by Defendant PDP as initial payment pursuant to the letter

quotation and issued a postdated PNB check 9on 30 March 2010

amounting to one (1) million eighty thousand pesos

(Php1,080,000.00).

2.4.3. Meanwhile, Plaintiff, through its President Mr. Park,

endorsed the check issued by Defendant to its customs broker,

MB Cargo Ventures, through its licensed broker Ms. Mylene Co

Talens. Mr. Mariano Lu, the financier of the licensed broker, in

turn, rediscounted said check.

2.5. Soon after closing the deal, Defendant raised the matter of bank

financing. Defendant PDP disclosed that he made an inquiry as to the real

status of the application, and although it is already under process as


8A photocopy of the letter quotation dated 29 January 2010is attached herewith
and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX __.

9A photocopy of the post dated PNB check dated 30 March 2010 is attached
herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX __.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 7 of 24
reported, it has not been wholly considered because subject buses are still

registered in the name of Plaintiff. Defendant PDP proposed a scheme which

he believed as the best way to facilitate the proceedings. Defendant

proposed that deeds of sale over the buses must be executed and

transferred in Defendants name. Defendant assured Plaintiff that whatever

deeds of sale that will be executed shall be temporary in nature, until full

payment is given to Plaintiff. Defendant professed that the remedy, shall

definitely expedite the payment of the balance of Defendant to Plaintiff.Also,

Defendant ensured that the credit advice shall be immediately forwarded to

Plaintiff for its own assessment and consideration. In addition to this scheme,

Defendant further proposed that the registration papers of the buses must

likewise be transferred under its name as necessary and indispensable

requirement for the complete approval of the application.

2.5.1 Based on this pretext, Plaintiff agreed verbally to the

proposed scheme of executing the said Deeds of sale to promptly

secure the payment of the entire balance from Defendants.

2.5.2 On 16 March 2010, the Deeds of sale 10 over the five units

of bus were executed in favor of Defendant. Two other Deeds of

sale11 covering the two other units of bus were executed on 17

March 2010. The corresponding Official Registration Receipts

and Certificate of Registration (OR/CSR)12 of the buses made in

the name of Plaintiff were likewise delivered to Defendant on 23

10A photocopy of the executed Deed of Absolute Sale dated 16 March 2010 are
attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEXES ___, ____, ____,
______ and ____.

11A photocopy of the executed Deed of Absolute Sale dated 17 March 2010 are
attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEXES ___, and ___.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 8 of 24
March 2010, as part of the proposed scheme. Immediately

thereafter, new OR/CRS13 were issued under Defendants name.

2.5.3. An Acknowledgement Receipt 14 was sent to

Defendant PDP dated 29 March 2010 relative to the seven (7)

Deeds of Sale and registration receipts (OR/CSR), unequivocally

stating that said Deeds of sale and receipts were delivered to

Defendant, only to secure approval of bank financing and from

the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory

Board(LTFRB). Further it was stated in such receipt that the

OR/CSR must be immediately returned upon securing approval

from LTFRB and that the Final Deeds of Absolute Sale in favor of

Defendant shall be executed only upon full payment.

2.6. To obtain Plaintiffs full confidence,that the same is still dealing

fairly with Defendant, Defendant issued eighteen (18) post dated

checks (PDCs)15 for the seven units of bus payable in the total amount

12Photocopies of the Official receipt and corresponding Certificate of Registration


over the buses in the name of Plaintiff Parkroad Inc. dated 16 March 2010 are
attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEXES ___,___, ____,
_____ and ___.

13Photocopies of the Official receipt and corresponding Certificate of Registration


over the buses in the name of Defendant Paquito D. Pelipel Jr. dated 23 March
2010 are attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEXES
___,___, ____, _____ and ___.

14A photocopy of the Acknowledgment receipt dated 29 March 2010 is attached


herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX ___.

15A photocopy of the 18 PDCs dated 31 May, 6 June, 31 July, 31 August, 30


September, 31 October, 30 November, 31 December all in the year 2010, 31
January, 28 February, 31 March 30 April, 5 May, 30 June, 31 July 31 August, 30
September, 31 October all in the year 2011, are attached herewith and made an
integral part hereof as ANNEXES ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___,
___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, and ___ respectively.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 9 of 24
of Seven Million Four Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand Six Hundred

Sixteen Pesos (Php7,457,616. 00) at Php 414, 312.00 pesos each.

Defendant likewise informed Plaintiff that the bank financing would be

released favorably in no time. Moreover, to underpin this

representation, Defendant suggested that a Memorandum of

Agreement be executed and signed by both parties.

2.7. However, on 30 March 2010, the check covering the amount

of Php 1,080,000.00 issued as down payment for the last four units of

bus entered into on 29 January 2010 was dishonored due to a Stop

Payment Order (SPO). The said check 16 was stamped Payment

Stopped. Defendant PDP was advised immediately by Plaintiff as to

the fact of dishonor. Defendant failed to give any reason for the stop

payment order. Plaintiff repeatedly demanded the urgent replacement

of the check.

2.7.1. Only after several demands made by Plaintiff that

Defendantcoordinated with Mr. Lu, and offered to make good said

amount of check by initially offering the amount of Php

54,000.00, on a monthly basis, until the full amount of Php

1,080,000 is fully satisfied. Defendant PDP replaced the amount

of the check that bounced, with four (4) checks 17 at Php

250,000.00 payable to the order of Mr. Lu:

Check No. Payee Due Date Amount


--------- Mariano Lu ------ ----------
16A photocopy of the checkstamped Payment Stopped is attached herewith and
made an integral part hereof as ANNEX ___.

17A photocopy of the four checks: with no. ______ dated ___ 2010; check no.
0707035 dated 18 September 2010; check no. 0707036 dated 18 October 2010 and
check no. 0707037 dated 18 November 2010, respectively, are attached herewith
and made an integral part hereof as ANNEXES __,___, ___, and ____.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 10 of 24
0707035 Mariano Lu 18 September 2010 Php 250,000
0707036 Mariano Lu 18 October 2010 Php 250,000
0707037 Mariano Lu 18 November 2010 Php 250,000
Total:

2.7.2. While the first of the four (4) checks was successfully

encashed upon presentment, the three (3) other checks 18 were

dishonored and stamped DAIF (Drawn Against Insufficient

Funds) upon their presentment on respective dates. Plaintiff at

once, through Mr. Park, paid the amounts involved in the

bounced checks previously issued by Defendant, to clear

itsbrokers credit line, otherwise, its business name will be

prejudiced. The amounts were paid by Plaintiff through one (1)

Banco de Oro check19, processed on line and two (2) Metrobank

checks20 in the total amount of Php 750,000.00 as shown in

check vouchers21 and cash deposit slip prepared by Plaintiff.

Defendant refused to give any explanation as to the fact of

dishonor of the checks.

2.8. Meanwhile, Defendant Corporation,with intent to do wrong, in the

performance of their legitimate obligation, usedthe ten buses obtained from

18

19A photocopy of the BDO cash deposit slip with no. 690024940 dated 24
September 2010 is attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX
_ .

20A photocopy of the two Metrobank checks: with no. 1471117757 dated 18
October 2010 and check no. 1471117756 dated 18 November 2010 are attached
herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEXES ___ and ____.

21A photocopy of the two cash vouchers dated 24 September 2010 are attached herewith
and made an integral part hereof as ANNEXES ___ and ____.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 11 of 24
Plaintiff under the new registration receiptswithout having paid the balance

under the contract. Defendant likewise refused to return the original OR/CSRs

to Plaintiff after it was able to successfully secure transfer of registration

papers under its name, contrary to what was agreed upon with Plaintiff.

2.9. On 18 May 2010, a demand letter 22 with registry return receipt23

was sent to Defendants at their official business address demanding

compliance with their outstanding obligation, specifically with respect to the

credit advice, which form part of Defendants earlier commitment to the

contract. The demand was unheeded.

2.10. For a long while, Defendant ignored Plaintiffs repeated demands,

until Defendant once again requested that its past due obligation be

negotiated. Defendant falsely disclosed a seeming problem that has been

causing the delay in the approval of the application. Defendant gave an

account that was hardly understandable, that in due course, Defendant

sought for the execution of the three (3) other deeds of sale over the 3 units

of bus.

2.11.Plaintiff,decided to first put into writing the agreement it had with

Defendant for the three transactions. Plaintiff and Defendant Corporation,

through their representatives, Mr. Park and Defendant PDP, executed the

contemplated Memorandum of Agreement (herein referred to as MOA)24

22 A photocopy of the demand letter dated 18 May 2010 is attached herewith and
made an integral part hereof as ANNEX ___.

23A photocopy of the registry Return Receipt dated June 2010 is attached herewith
and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX ___.

24 A photocopy of the Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA) dated 20 May 2010 is


attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX ___.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 12 of 24
dated 20 May2010 to embody all verbal agreements. The MOA made as its

subject all the ten(10) buses which Defendant Corporation obtained from

Plaintiff since 11 January 2010. The said MOA also embodied the stipulation

between the parties to execute temporary deeds of absolute sale for the

sole purpose of securing approval from Bank Financing to cover the

paymentof the total consideration of the buses Defendant Corporation owed

to Plaintiff. Further it stated that the Final Deed of sale shall only be issued

upon full payment of the contract price. The pertinent portions of the MOA

state:

3. That for the purpose of securing approval from Bank


Financing, the First Party executed a Deed of Absolute Sale for the
aforementioned Hyundai Aerospace and Kia Grasnbird Air Con Bus in
favor of the Second Party;

4. That the said Deed of Sale was executed just and for
securing approval from Bank Financing;

5. That upon full payment of the total contract price for


the aforementioned Air Con Buses,, the First Party shall
execute the Final DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE in favor of the
SECOND PARTY.

2.12. To reclaim the business confidence that was purportedly lost

brought about by the bouncing of several checks as above-cited, Plaintiff

suggested that a final accounting of its remaining obligation be prepared. Mr.

Park and Defendant PDP, as representatives of Plaintiff and Defendant,

executed another Memorandum of Agreement (herein referred to as

2ndMOA)25 dated 10 June 2010 to embody the stipulations of the earlier MOA

executed, now including the accounting suggested by Defendant: the total

amount of the obligation which Plaintiff owed Defendant in the amount of

25A photocopy of the Memorandum Of Agreement ( 2 nd MOA) dated 10 June 2010 is


attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX ___.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 13 of 24
Php 12,900,000.00 pesos; the total down payment for the same

amounted to Php 4,602,936.00 pesos in cash; and the balance amounted

to Php 8,297,064.00 pesos payable in a schedule of payment, each

amounting to Php 691,422.00 pesos. Further, it included in the said 2 nd MOA

the remedy of forfeiture of payments made by Defendant in case the

agreement will not materialize through its fault. The obligation to submit the

credit advice from the bank was likewise incorporated in said 2nd MOA.

2.12.1. Defendant PDP, as agreed upon in the MOA that

Defendant Corporation, through Defendant PDP, would pay the

amount of Php 8,297,064.00 pesos payable in a schedule of

payment each amounting to Php 691,422.00 pesos to cover the

remaining balance issued straight away, thirteen (13) UCPB

checks26 corresponding to the said amounts with due dates,

except for the August check which was issued in the amount of

Php521,422.00 :

Check No. Payee Due Date Amount


0465921 Parkroad Inc. 6 August 2010 (Php 521,422.00)
0465922 Parkroad Inc. 6 September 2010 Php 691,422.00
0465923 Parkroad Inc. 6 October 2010 Php 691,422.00
0465924 Parkroad Inc. 6 November 2010 Php 691,422.00
0465925 Parkroad Inc. 6 December 2010 Php 691,422.00
0465926 Parkroad Inc. 6 January 2011 Php 691,422.00
0465927 Parkroad Inc. 6 February 2011 Php 691,422.00
0465928 Parkroad Inc. 6 March 2011 Php 691,422.00
0465929 Parkroad Inc. 6 April 2011 Php 691,422.00
0465930 Parkroad Inc. 6 May 2011 Php 691,422.00
0465931 Parkroad Inc. 6 June 2011 Php 691,422.00
0465932 Parkroad Inc. 6 July 2011 Php 691,422.00

2.13. Because of the superficial efforts shown by Defendant,

through Defendant PDP in trying to finally settle its obligation with

26A photocopy of the thirteen (13) PDCs with corresponding check nos. And due
dates are attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEXES ___,
___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, ___, and ___.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 14 of 24
Plaintiff, such as in issuing the purported checks immediately after the

execution of the 2nd MOA, Plaintiff was enticed and finally persuaded to

execute and issue the much requested Deeds of Absolute Sale 27on 17

July 2010 covering the three buses under the third sale transaction

entered into on 29 January 2010. The issuance of the aforementioned

Deeds of sale was likewise conditioned upon the undertaking expressly

provided for in the MOA.

2.13.1. The corresponding OR/CSR of the three units of bus

were delivered to Defendant who, without delay, had them

transferred under its name28 on 6 August 2010.

2.14. Defendant, contrary to the anticipated result of the most

recent negotiation with Plaintiff, never funded the checks issued as

payment of the balance for all the buses they obtained. The fraudulent

intention and wanton attitude to evade payment and to fully honor

their commitment as written in the MOA became more apparent and

real.

2.14.1. The 6 August and 6 September 2010 checks 29 were

dishonored upon presentment for being drawn against

insufficient funds. A demand letter 30 dated 15 September 2010

was sent to Defendants relative to the fact of dishonor of the two


27Photocopies of the Deed Absolute Sale dated 16 July 2010 relative to the 3 units
of bus are attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEXES ___,
___, and ___.

28Photocopies of the official receipts and Certificate of Registration(OR/CSR) over


the 3 units of bus dated 6 August 2010 are attached herewith and made an
integral part hereof as ANNEXES ___, ___, and ___.

29Photocopies of the checks dated 6 August and 6 September 2010 stamped DAIF
are attached herewith and made integral parts hereof as ANNEXES __, __, and
__, respectively.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 15 of 24
checks and demanding the submission of the credit advice that

has become long overdue.

2.15. Clearly, defendant Corporation had no intention to settle

and pay their contractual liabilities. They repeatedly failed to pay their

obligation on maturity dates. The following checks31 bounced as they

became due for being drawn against insufficient funds(DAIF) as

stamped therein:

CHECK NO. AMOUNT DUE DATE


0465921 Php 521,422.00 6 August 2010
0465922 Php 691,422.00 6 September 2010
0465923 Php 691,422.00 6 October 2010
0465924 Php 691,422.00 6 November 2010

2.15.1. Further, Defendants never complied and have no

intention at all to comply with the pertinent provision stated in

the 2ndMOA:

4. Both parties agreed that the SECOND PARTY will


submit Credit Advice from Bank within August 2010.

2.16. Several verbal demands were made to Defendants for payment.

Nonetheless, there was no compliance on the part of Defendants to settle

their liabilitiesand have brazenly ignored and resisted lawful demands. The

ten (10) buses are no longer to be found and could no longer be recovered.

30A photocopy of the demand letter dated 15 September 2010 is attached herewith
and made integral parts hereof as ANNEX __.

31Photocopies of the bounced Checks dated 6 August, 6 September, 6 October and 6


November 2010 are attached herewith and made integral parts hereof as ANNEXES __,
__, and __, respectively.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 16 of 24
III

CAUSES OF ACTION

III.I

A CTUA L D A MAG ES

3.1. Plaintiff repleads by reference all of the foregoing allegations in so

far as they are pertinent, and further avers that:

3.1.1. As a result of fraud, bad faith, malice and wanton

disregard by Defendant Corporation of its duty and obligation,

and through its President Paquito D. Pelipel, Jr. in inducing and

persuading Plaintiff, through its President Mr. Park,to part with a

total of ten (10) units of bus without any intention to pay the

total consideration and with malice to evade the legitimate

performance of their obligations, Plaintiff suffered actual

damages in the amount Php 9,759,688.00 plus legal interest.

3.1.2. For which reason, Defendant Corporation and

Defendant Paquito D. Pelipel Jr. should be made jointly and

severally liable to Plaintiff in the form of actual damages in the

amount of Php 9,759,688.00 plus legal interest, with

reservation that the amount of Php 521,422.00 covered by the

first check that bounced shall be recovered in a Criminal

Complaint which Plaintiff shall file against herein Defendants for

violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 otherwise known as The

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 17 of 24
Bouncing Checks Law.32Thus, Defendant Corporation and

Defendant Paquito D. Pelipel should be made jointly and

severally liable to Plaintiff in the amount of Php 9,238,266.00

as actual damages plus legal interest, in this civil action.

III.II

NOMINAL DAMAGES

3.2. Plaintiff repleads by reference all of the foregoing allegations in so

far as they are pertinent, and further avers that:

3.2.1. As a result of fraud, bad faith, malice and wanton

attitude by Defendant Corporation, through its President Paquito

D. Pelipel Jr. in inducing and persuading Plaintiff, through Mr.

Park, to part with a total of ten (10) units of bus without any

intention to pay the total consideration and with malice to evade

the legitimate performance of their obligations, Plaintiffs rights

over the subject buses had been violated, thus, the

aforementioned Defendants should be made jointly and severally

liable to Plaintiff in the form of nominal damages in the amount

of Php 500,000.00.

III.III

E X E M P L A RY D A M A G E S

3.3. Plaintiff repleads by reference all of the foregoing allegations in so

far as they are pertinent, and further avers that:

32 Rule 111(b) of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states that: (b) The criminal
action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding
civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 18 of 24
3.3.1. In order to serve as an example for the public good

so that fraud, bad faith, malice and wanton attitude shall be

avoided in entering into a contract and as a safeguard in the

performance of due obligations, Defendant Corporation and

Defendant Paquito D. Pelipel should be made jointly and

severally liable to Plaintiff, in the form of exemplary damages in

the amount of Php 500,000.00.

III.IV

AT T O R N E Y S F E E S & L E G A L E X P E N S E S

3.4. Plaintiff repleads by reference all of the foregoing allegations in so

far as they are pertinent, and further avers that:

3.4.1. As a result of fraud, bad faith, malice and wanton

attitude by Defendant Corporation, through its President

Defendant Paquito D. Pelipel in inducing and persuading Plaintiff,

through Mr. Park,to part with a total of ten (10) units of bus

without any intention to pay the total consideration and with

malice to evade the legitimate performance of their obligations,

Plaintiff was constrained to institute the foregoing Action.

3.4.2. Thus, Defendant Corporation and Defendant Paquito

D. Pelipel should be made jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff

in the form of attorneys fees and litigation expenses in the initial

amount of Php 500,000.00 and the amount which, in the

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 19 of 24
process, Plaintiff will incur as expenses and costs of litigation in

relation to this case.

I V.

A L L E G AT I O N S I N S U P P O R T O F T H E A P P L I C AT I O N F O R

W R I T O F P R E L I M I N A RY AT TA C H M E N T

5.1. The foregoing allegations are hereby repleaded and made integral parts

hereof.

5.2. Plaintiffs claims subject of this Complaint are genuine and based

on documents so that sufficient causes of action exist.

5.3. This Action is one of those enumerated in Section 1, Rule 57 of the

Revised Rules of Court, to wit:

xxx xxx xxx


(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a
fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon
which the action is brought or in the performance thereof.
xxx xxx xxx

5.4. Defendant Corporation, through its President Paquito D. Pelipel, Jr.

in bad faith, employed fraud in inducing and persuading Plaintiff, through Mr.

Park,to part with a total of ten units (10) of bus without any intention to pay

the total consideration and with malice to evade the legitimate performance

of their obligations. Affidavits in support of the application for the issuance of

the Writ of Preliminary Attachment against Defendants properties were

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 20 of 24
respectively executed by Mr. Park33, his secretary Ms. Venturina34, and

Plaintiffs General Manager Mr. Dante Tatac 35, attesting to their personal

knowledge of the facts relative to the fraud, malice and bad faith employed

by Defendants to herein Plaintiff.

5.5. As a result of fraud, bad faith, malice and wanton attitude by

Defendant Corporation, through its President Defendant Paquito D. Pelipel, Jr.

in inducing and persuading Plaintiff, through Mr. Park, to part with a total of

ten units (10) of bus without any intention to pay the total consideration and

with malice to evade the legitimate performance of their obligations, Plaintiff

suffered actual damages in the amount of Php 9,238,266.00 plus legal

interest.

5.6. Defendants are now nowhere to be found to settle their due and

legitimate liabilities to Plaintiff, so that as to date, Plaintiff continues to suffer

damages.

5.7. Plaintiffs claims sought to be enforced by this Action are not

covered by any sufficient security.

5.8. The amount due the Plaintiff is as much as the sum for which the

order is granted above all legal counterclaims.

33 A photocopy of the Affidavit consisting of five (5) pages executed by Mr. Sungjun
Park is attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX __.

34A photocopy of the Affidavit consisting of five (5) pages executed by Ms. Baby
Jane Venturina is attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX
__.

35 A photocopy of the Affidavit consisting of five (5) pages executed by Mr. Dante
Tatac is attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX __.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 21 of 24
5.9. Plaintiff is willing to post a bond conditioned upon payment of

costs which may be adjudged the Defendants and damages which they may

sustain by reason of the attachment should the Honorable Court finally

adjudge that Plaintiff was not entitled thereto.

V.

P R AY E R

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that:

1. After ex-parte summary hearing, an Order be issued immediately

granting the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment; and,

2. After due notice and hearing, a Decision be issued declaring:

2.1. Defendant PP BUS LINES, Inc., and Defendant Paquito D.

Pelipel Jr. to be jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff

Parkroad Inc., in the form of:

2.1.1. Actual Damages in the amount of Php 9,238,266.00

plus legal interest commencing from date of demand

until the case is finally decided and settled;

2.1.2. Nominal Damages in the amount of Php 500,000.00;

2.1.3. Exemplary Damages in the amount of Php

500,000.00; and,

2.1.4. Attorneys Fees and Litigation Expenses in the initial

amount of Php 500,000.00. In the event that costs of

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 22 of 24
litigation shall exceed that which is prayed for hereof,

that the same be awarded and form a lien in the

judgment.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for.

Quezon City for Antipolo City, ___ January 2011.

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, SUNGJUN PARK, of legal age and with office address atSumulong


Highway, Mambugan, Antipolo City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance
with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the President and duly authorized representative of Plaintiff


ParkroadInc. who had caused the preparation of the foregoing Complaint,
as evidenced by the Secretarys Certificate 36 herein attached.

2. I have read and understood the Complaint and the allegations and
contents therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge and based
on authentic records.

3. I hereby attest and certify that Plaintiff Parkroad, Inc. has not commenced
any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no
such other action or claim is pending therein.

4. If I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has
been filed or is pending before any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial
agency, I shall report that fact within five (5) days to this Honorable Court.

36 A photocopy of the Secretarys Certificate issued by the Corporate Secretary of


Parkroad Inc. is attached herewith and made an integral part hereof as ANNEX
__.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 23 of 24
Antipolo City, ___ January 2011.

Sungjun Park
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ day of January 2011 in


_____________________________, Philippines, affiant exhibited to me his
________________________________ issued on ____________________ at
____________________.

Doc. No. ______


Page No. ______
Book No. ______
Series of 2010.

Complaint: Parkroad Inc. v. PP Bus Line Inc. and Paquito D. Pelipel


Page 24 of 24