REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
QUEZON CITY

_____________________________
represented by
Complainant,

versus NPS No. _________________

_____________________________,

Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT

I, __________, of legal age, married, Filipino and with business address at

__________, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby
depose and state, that:

1. I am the authorized representative of __________, a single

proprietorship company owned by __________ and with a Special Power
for said purpose of instituting and litigating her claim against
respondents. A copy of the Department of Trade and Industry registration
is attached as Annex “A” and the Special Power of Attorney as Annex
“B” and made as integral parts of this Complaint-Affidavit.

2. While respondents __________ are of legal ages, married to each other,

Filipino and American Citizen, respectively and with forwarding address
at __________ where they can be served with summons and other legal
processes by this Honorable Office.

3. On November, 2018 while scouting for a new location for the company’s
parking location for its service vehicles, the owner of the company
chanced upon the lot in Sta. Ana Manila where respondents represented
themselves as the owners of the lot.

4. While the owner of the company and both respondents were discussing
about the possible lease on the land, the topic of the company’s
 Christmas party was brought up and since the owner of the company was
looking for a venue for her more than 350 employees and the executives
of the company’s client, respondents readily volunteered the said lot.

5. In addition, respondents also represented themselves as events

coordinators who can cater to the Christmas party providing food and
physical arrangements such as tents for the outdoor party, chairs and
tables and all the accompanied accessories, eating utensils, the servers
and all the needed contingencies for a more than 350-person event.

6. The quote for all the said items was Php 1M.

7. The owner of the company agreed to respondents’ offer not only because
of the reasonable quote given but also the possibility of future business
partnership together on the respondents’ lot for the company’s vehicles.

8. On Nov. __________, 2018, the owner of the company issued a check

in the amount of Php 700,000.00 as down payment for the agreed
amount for the Christmas party. A copy of the front and dorsal side of
the check as well as check voucher signed by respondent __________
is hereto attached as Annex “C” and “D” of this Complaint Affidavit.

9. On Dec., 2018 respondent __________ reached out to the company and

asked for additional funds in the amount of Php 500,000.00 which she
said to be the payment for the caterer.

10. Then, the owner of the company was apprehensive in releasing the
additional funds as there are indications which made her suspect that
respondents were being untruthful and the deliverables were
questionable.

11. However, respondent __________ was very confident in making good

of their contract and even gave a guarantee that all details of the
Christmas party will be delivered in good order. Respondent __________
to appease the owner of the company, made a promise to double the
contract amount should there be any remission or absence in any of the
promised deliverables during the Christmas party.
12. The owner of the company issued a check in the amount of Php
500,000.00 and the corresponding check voucher and respondent
signed the same with the annotation in her own handwriting on her
guarantee. A copy of the front and dorsal side of the check is hereto
attached as Annex “E” and the check voucher as Annex “F” of this
Complaint Affidavit.

13. On the day of the Christmas party, upon inspection in the morning
thereof, the representatives of the company determined that there were
no movement or preparations done on the venue.

14. When said representatives tried reaching out to respondents, they

failed as their text messages and calls were left unanswered.

15. As all other details in the party was set such as the invitation to the
client’s executives, the band rental, the sound system and lights,
complainant decided to push through with the party and held it at their
Mandaluyong satellite office.

16. Because of the unlawful and deceitful actions of respondents,

complainant incurred the additional expenses as follows:

a. Food – Instead of the catered dinner which would give a statement of

a successful year for the company and the decent Christmas party for
the employees, the company resorted buying a delivery of packed
food from Kenny Rogers with the total amount of Php 850,750.00. A
copy of the Official Receipt is hereto attached as Annex “G” of this
Complaint Affidavit.

b. Physical arrangement of the venue – the chairs and tables for the
event were sourced from numerous suppliers as it was after all the
Christmas party season and all suppliers were already booked. Thus,
one supplier can only provide 2 sets of chairs and tables, others only
5 sets, etc. Since the Mandaluyong office is not equip for a party,
complainant also had to buy a huge tarpaulin for the event which
costed substantial amount of money. Copies of the Official Receipts
 for the chairs and tables as well as the tarpaulin , decors and other
added expenses are Php 670,904.00 hereto attached as Annex “H”

c. Additional cost for food due to insufficient allocation of food from

Kenny Rogers which we have to request from Jollibee cost Php
70,500.00 . Copies of the official receipts as Annex “I “

17. As a result of respondents’ misrepresentation, the event was a total

flop as the food was not sufficient for the guest, the performance of the
band was cut short because the barangay of the Mandaluyong office did
not allow the band to continue after ten in the evening and some of the
guest did not even have chairs and tables to use.

18. Complainant thereafter conducted an investigation on respondents’

integrity and found that they misrepresented themselves as the owners
of the Sta. Ana property when in fact, they were merely lessees of the
same.

19. The supposed caterer of the event reached out to the company and
said that she was not paid at all by respondents when respondents made
a representation that the second payment was for the down payment of
the catering.

20. The legal counsel of the company then sent a demand letter for the
return of the LBC but said demand was left unheeded as Annex “J” from
different 3 three addresses.

21. All communication from text messages have been attached as Annex
“K”.

22. It is respectfully submitted that this Honorable Office has jurisdiction

over the