REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
PASIG CITY, BRANCH ___

PETER PALL
Plaintiff
CIVIL CASE NO.
-versus- FOR: COLLECTION OF
SUM OF MONEY

POBRE M. DELA TORRE

Defendant
x----------------------------------------------x

ANSWER
DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully states that:
1. She admits the allegation set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint,
that she borrowed P500,000.00 from plaintiff which was to be paid on
October 12, 2016 with interest at the rate of 1% per month starting
from November 2015 until the note is fully paid, and the genuineness
and due execution of the promissory note evidencing the indebtedness
attached to the complaint.
2. While defendant admits the genuineness and due execution of the said
promissory note, she specifically denies liability for the plaintiff’s
claim.
By way of affirmative defense, defendant alleges that the terms
of payment of the promissory note have been modified by a
subsequent verbal agreement between plaintiff and defendant.
As early as August 29, 2016, defendant made known to plaintiff
that she will not be able to pay her indebtedness come October 12,
2016, so, on that same day (August 29), plaintiff verbally agreed to
modify the terms of payment by acceding to defendant’s proposed
arrangement, under which plaintiff is to receive 25% of defendant’s
monthly net profits from her fish-vending business until her debt,
covering P500,000.00 plus interest, is fully paid. Attached hereto as
Annexes A and B are acknowledgment receipts signed by the plaintiff
representing defendant’s payment to her for the months of September
and October 2016, pursuant to their new arrangement.
3. She admits the allegation in Paragraph 5 of the complaint insofar as
she received two demand letters from plaintiff—one on October 22,
2016 and the other on November 7, 2016—but maintains that they are
devoid of any legal significance in view of their agreement to modify
the terms of payment.
 4. She specifically denies the allegation in Paragraph 6 of the complaint
as defendant’s refusal to pay the plaintiff’s demand is clearly justified
in light of the modification made to the terms of payment of the
original promissory note.
5. Assuming arguendo that defendant is liable for the whole amount of
P500,000.00, she specifically denies liability for the plaintiff’s prayer
for the imposition of a monthly interest rate of 1% counted from
November 2015 until full payment for having no legal basis. Although
the promissory note states that plaintiff was to pay the interest from
November 2015 until the note is fully paid, it does not reflect the true
intent of the parties. Since full payment is to be made on October 12,
2016—exactly one year after the loan—the defendant agreed to the
1% monthly interest upon the belief and the assurance of plaintiff that
it would run only until October 12, 2016. Thus, defendant’s liability,
assuming that she is liable for the whole amount as claimed by
plaintiff, for any interest after October 12, 2016 should be based on
the prevailing legal interest.
COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant incorporates by way of reference all the foregoing
allegations and as counterclaim avers that:
1. Due to plaintiff’s refusal to honor her verbal commitment to defendant
to modify the terms of payment of their original contract and
unjustified bringing of this suit, defendant was compelled to engage
the services of a counsel to defend her interest, the reasonable value of
which would not be less than P80,000.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this this Honorable Court
dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with costs against the plaintiff and render
judgment as prayed for in defendant’s counterclaim.
Other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under
the premises are likewise prayed for.
Pasig City, November 17, 2016.

ATTY. DYAN MARIE A. LUCERO

Counsel for Defendant
16th Floor, ABC Building, España
Ave., Sampaloc, Manila
IBP Lifetime No. 12345; 5/10/2018
PTR No. 12345; 1/10/2020
Roll of Attorney No. 2005-001023
MCLE Compliance No. III – 00088
Copy furnished:
ATTY. RALPH AROMIN
Counsel for Plaintiff
Unit 925, iTower Building, 939 P. Noval St., Sampaloc, Manila
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
PASIG CITY, BRANCH ___

FRA ANGELICA S. ALEJANDRO,

Plaintiff
CIVIL CASE NO.
-versus- FOR: COLLECTION OF
SUM OF MONEY

JASMIN MICAH JABAL,

Defendant
x----------------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF OF THE DEFENDANT

DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully submits her Pre-Trial Brief,
as follows:
I. WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN AMICABLE SETTLMENT
1. Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable, defendant is
open to the possibility of amicably settling this dispute.
2. Defendant respectfully submits that the desired terms of any amicable
settlement would involve, first, a clarification of the actual extent of
any obligation due and owing to plaintiff and, second, a schedule of
payments.
II. BRIEF STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
1. Plaintiff seeks principally to recover P500,000.00 with interest at 1%
per month from November 2015 until whole obligation is paid arising
from a promissory note allegedly executed by defendant on October
12, 2015.
2. Defendant resists plaintiff’s claim on the basis of a subsequent verbal
agreement made between the parties on August 29, 2016 whereby
plaintiff acceded to defendant’s proposed arrangement, under which
plaintiff is to receive 25% of defendant’s monthly net profits from her
fish-vending business until her debt, covering P500,000.00 plus
interest, is fully paid.
3. Defendant also interposed a compulsory counterclaim for P80,000 as
attorney’s fees.
III. FACTS AND OTHER MATTERS ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES
1. Defendant admits the genuineness and due execution of the
promissory note attached to plaintiff’s complaint but maintains that
she is not liable for the plaintiff’s claim of P500,000.00 plus interest,
 precisely because the parties agreed to an arrangement modifying the
terms by which payment is to be made.
IV. PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS
Defendant proposes the following stipulation of facts:
1. That plaintiff and defendant are childhood friends;
2. That defendant approached plaintiff on October 12, 2015 to borrow
P500,000 to be used as capital for her planned fish-vending business;
3. That defendant’s business venture did not earn well and suffered
losses in the months following the loan, rendering her unable to pay
plaintiff on due date (October 12, 2016);
4. That on August 29, 2016, defendant told plaintiff of her plight as well
as her inability to pay on due date and proposed instead to pay
plaintiff every month, 25% of defendant’s monthly net profits from
her business until her debt is fully paid. Plaintiff verbally agreed to
defendant’s proposed arrangement. Since plaintiff was a good friend
to defendant, the latter relied on the former’s verbal commitment and
deemed it unnecessary to put their subsequent agreement in writing;
and
5. That plaintiff received payment for the months of September and
October 2016, pursuant to their new arrangement, evidenced by two
acknowledgment receipts signed by the plaintiff.
V. ISSUES TO BE TRIED
Defendant submits that the following issues are subject to proof:
1. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to his claim.
2. Whether or not defendant’s refusal to pay plaintiff’s claim is
justified.
3. Whether or not plaintiff was justified in filing this suit, thereby
compelling defendant to litigate.
VI. EVIDENCE
Defendant intends to present the following witness:
1. Defendant herself, who will testify on the true circumstances
leading to the filing of this suit against her.
Defendant intends to present the following documentary evidence:
2. Two acknowledgment receipts dated September 30, 2016 and
October 31, 2016 representing defendant’s payment to plaintiff
for the months of September and October, pursuant to their new
arrangement, to serve as corroborative evidence to the existence
 of the verbal agreement between the parties on August 29,
2016.
VII. RESORT TO DISCOVERY
Defendant intends to avail of a Request for Admission for the plaintiff
to admit the existence of the August 29, 2016 verbal agreement between her
and defendant modifying the terms by which defendant was to pay off her
loan as well as the genuineness and due execution of the two
acknowledgment receipts dated September 30, 2016 and October 31, 2016
representing defendant’s payment to plaintiff pursuant to their new
arrangement.
Respectfully Submitted.
Pasig City, November 17, 2016.

ATTY. DYAN MARIE A. LUCERO

Counsel for Defendant
16th Floor, ABC Building, España
Ave., Sampaloc, Manila
IBP Lifetime No. 12345; 5/10/2018
PTR No. 12345; 1/10/2020
Roll of Attorney No. 2005-001023
MCLE Compliance No. III – 00088

Copy furnished:
ATTY. RALPH AROMIN
Counsel for Plaintiff
Unit 925, iTower Building, 939 P. Noval St., Sampaloc, Manila