COMPLAINT – AFFIDAVIT

Complainants, DENNIS L. MIGUEL and ABIGAIL ROMA-MIGUEL, spouses

both Overseas Filipino Workers(OFW), in Ho Chi Minh (Saigon) City, Vietnam, being
represented in this case by their father STEPHEN A. MIGUEL y AGUILAR, with
residence and postal address at No. 65 Boston St. Brgy. Immaculate Conception, Cubao,
Quezon City, M.M., after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby
depose and state that:

We are complaining against the respondent CHARLES KL CHAN GO, likewise of

legal age, Filipino, with postal and residential address at No. 109 Calypso St. Acropolis
Subdivision., Brgy. Bagumbayan, Quezon City, M.M., before this Honorable Trial Court
of Quezon City for the Case of Collection of Money and Deceit.

The authority of STEPHEN A. MIGUEL y AGUILAR as duly authorized

representative of the complainants Dennis L. Miguel and Abigail Roma-Miguel to file
and prosecute the instant case against respondent Charles KL Chan Go is by virtue of
the executed Special Power of Attorney(SPA), subscribed and sworn by them on
September 18, 1917 before Notary Public Atty. Azanez, Jr., copy of which is hereto
attached as Exhibit “A”.

The factual circumstance of the case is as follows:

On August 31, 1917, respondent Charles KL Chan Go(Chan Go for brevity) and the
complainants Spouses Dennis and Abigail Miguel(spouses Miguel for brevity) have
verbally agreed over the lease of a residential house located at No. 5 Ipil St., Valle Verde
III Subdv., Pasig City, M.M., for a monthly rental of Php 110,000.00. The following day,
September 1, 1917, respondent Chan Go demanded from the complainants spouses
Miguel advance payment or security deposit in order for the respondent not to offer the
lease of said property to another person anymore, in the amount of Php 220,000.00.
Attached herewith as Exhibit “B” is a copy of handwritten Acknowledgement Receipt
issued and signed by respondent Chan Go for the said amount on September 1, 2017.
The respondent Chan Go represented, promised and assured that he(Chan Go) will
rectify and fix or caused to be rectified or fixed all defects in the residential house or
building before the commencement of their contract and turn-over of the property on
September 15, 2017.

However, when complainants spouses Miguel arrived on September 16, 2017 from
Vietnam, they inspected and made ocular inspection on the property. They were
expecting the full and faithful compliance by respondent Chan Go with his
understanding and previous representations. The complainants were then ready to
move in but they were frustrated when they found out that the building and property
itself was not yet ready for them to move in and occupy. It was discovered that the
contrary to the representations of respondent Chan Go, the property was not tenantable
and ready for occupancy. The complainant could not sacrifice the safety and health of
their children and their household with the condition of the subject property. Attached
Exhibit “C” and series, are the photos taken on September 16, 2017, showing their
dissatisfaction of the property. Thus they(spouses Miguel) decided not to pursue
anymore with the lease.

It should be stressed that respondent Chan Go did not fulfill his promises and
representations to the complainants spouses Miguel. From the time he received the
security deposit of Php 220,000.00 from the complainants spouses Miguel on
September 1, 2017, respondent Chan Go did not show up and/or appeared with the
Spouses Miguel. On September 16, 2017, which is supposed to be the signing and
commence of the written lease contract and formal turnover of the property, respondent
Chan Go only sent his caretaker who handed to the complainants spouses Miguel a
blank Contract of Lease and tried to induce complainant Dennis L. Miguel to sign the
document but of the latter realizing the legal effects of the respondent’s fraudulent
transactions, he did not affixed his signature on the copy of the lease contract. A copy of
the blank Contract of Lease with the alleged signature of respondent Chan Go is hereby
attached as Exhibit “D”.

Thereafter, the complainants, spouses Miguel demanded from the respondent Chan Go
to just return the security deposit of Php 220,000.00 since the lease contract never
materialized. Deeply dismayed and aggrieved by respondent Chan Go’s deceitful acts
and misrepresentations, they made repeated demands to pay but to no avail. On
October 10, 2017, complainant Abigail Roma-Miguel sent a written demand letter,
through registered mail, upon respondent Chan Go to return the Php 220,000.00 but
this was continuously ignored by the respondent. Copy of the said Demand Letter dated
October 10, 2017 is hereunto attached Exhibit “E”.

A proper complaint was also instituted by complainants’ representative STEPHEN A.

MIGUEL against respondent Chan Go with the Office of Brgy. Bagumbayan, Quezon
City, M.M., wherein respondent is residing in order for the latter to have opportunity to
amicably settle with the complainants and/or their representative. However, the said
effort proved futile as the respondent failed to appear and attend the scheduled hearings
at the Barangay. A copy of the Certificate to File Action(CFA) is hereto attached as
Exhibit “F”.

Clearly respondent is therefore misrepresented and enticed the complainants Spouses

Miguel only to extract and/or to part with complainants’ money because the respondent
did not make good and fulfill his representations to successfully lease the subject
property. He misrepresented to have the capacity to lease the subject property on time
and upon their agreed terms and conditions but in fact, he did not have the capacity
from the beginning. In fact, after getting the money as security deposit the respondent
never appeared and showed up to the complainants.

Respondent Chan Go was successful in obtaining from the complainants the amount of
Php220,000.00 as security deposit. In fact, he(Chan Go) still fail to return the same
amount despite the repeated demand letter dated October 11, 2018, through registered
mail, a copy is hereto attached Exhibit “G” and despite the agreed nature of the same
security deposit that is refundable. Notwithstanding payment made by and received by
respondent Chan Go from complainants spouses Miguel, Chan Go never delivered on
time the complete and habitable leased property. Respondent pretended to have the
capacity to fulfill his undertakings and representations with complainants by employing
malicious tactics to convince and entice complainants into parting with their money
amounting to Php220,000.00 to their damage and prejudice. Respondent falsely
pretended to have the capacity qualifications, agency, and business or by means of other
similar deceits to deliver the required lease contract to complainants but in fact had no
such capacity and had damaged the complainants of the aforesaid payment.

By reason, the unlawful act of the respondent C. Agustin, should not be allowed to flow
through the veins of the body politics, and if only to serve an example to those similarly
situated, with the help of the Court.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is mostly prayed unto the Honorable Court that
immediately upon filing of this Complaint-Affidavit to desist and stop unlawful act,
dishonesty, mislead and bear bad faith perpetrated by respondent must be
reprimanded, rectified and punished under the rules of law.

AND WE PRAY, and seek the intervention of the Honorable Court to assist the
recovery of the money collected by CHARLES LK CHAN GO in bad faith and not to
deprive the legal ownership of the amount of TWO HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND
PESOS(Php220,000.00) of Spouses DENNIS L. MIGUEL and ABIGAIL ROMA-
MIGUEL.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We, through our Attorney-in Fact, STEPHEN A. MIGUEL,

have hereunto set our signatures this _______day of ___________ 2018 at Quezon
City at Quezon City, Philippines.

DENNIS L. MIGUEL and ABIGAIL ROMA-MIGUEL

Private Complainants

Represented by:

STEPHEN A. MIGUEL y AGUILAR

Attorney In-fact

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ______ day of October 2018 at

Quezon City, M.M. , Philippines.

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that I have examined this affiant and that l am satisfied that he
understood the contents of his Complaint-Affidavit.