Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 113, Pasay City

Sarah Oh and Gerald Oh,

Sarah Oh and Gerald Oh
Plaintiff, Civil Case No.19-12345-CC
For: Breach of Obligation of
      -versus- Contract with Damages

Metropolitan Bank and Trust

Co.,
RCBC,Defendant.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

(FOR THE DEFENDANT)

Defendant, through counsel, and unto this Honorable Court

most respectfully submits this Pre-Trial Brief, to wit:

I. POSSIBILITY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

The Defendant manifest that is willing to explore possibilities

for an amicable settlement that is fair and reasonable under the
circumstances.

II. SUMMARY OF ADMITTED AND PROPOSED

STIPULATION OF FACTS

A. SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS

1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint are admitted;

 2. Paragraph 3 and 4 are denied for lack of information or
knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable belief thereof. The
said paragraphs are denied insofar as they allege that the
Plaintiffs have opened a joint account amounting to
P2,515,693.52, in the year 2002, and another account was
opened in 2003, but the Plaintiffs did not state the Bank
Account Numbers nor are the Annexes in the Complaint
specify such Bank Account Numbers for the Defendant to use
as bases for its defense.

3. Paragraph 5 is admitted, however, a detailed explanation shall

be discussed in the immediately succeeding paragraph;

4. Paragraph 6 is denied for lack of information or knowledge

sufficient to form a reasonable belief thereof. The said
paragraph is denied insofar as it alleges that the Plaintiffs were
not given any explanation as why their withdrawals were
denied. There is no proof that the Plaintiffs inquired for an
explanation why their attempt to withdraw was denied.

The Hold-out order stemmed from an Order of Garnishment

coming from this same Honorable Court as a consequence of
an estafa case filed by a certain Liu Tiu Fang. The Plaintiffs
cannot thus feign ignorance of their Bank Accounts with the
Defendant being held-out.

5. Paragraph 7 is denied. The Defendant did not deny the

Plaintiffs right to withdraw their deposit as it is just complying
with a judicial order to hold such deposits as mentioned in the
preceding paragraph.

B. PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

1. The Hold-out order was issued in 2003 and thus it has been
fifteen (15) years since the since the Defendant issued such
 order. Article 1144 and Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines is clear that the Plaintiffs action have already
prescribed.

2. The Defendant would like to repose to the Plaintiffs the burden

of proving lack of knowledge on the matter of Garnishment
when the former is in an ongoing case where the order of
Garnishment was derived;

3. Plaintiffs account was, however, put on hold because of the

Court’s Order of Garnishment, which is to date has not yet been
lifted. Attached is the Order of the Court for Garnishment
marked as “Exhibit I”;

4. Defendant’s tellers and the Branch Manager informed the

Plaintiffs of the Order of Garnishment as the reason of the hold
out of the Plaintiffs existing accounts;

5. The Branch Manager also sent a letter to the Plaintiffs that their
account is ordered on hold, as a formality in informing the
Plaintiffs of the hold-out, as discussed personally with them by
the said Branch Manager;

III. EVIDENCE FOR MARKING

 EXHIBIT I – Order of Garnishment

o The Purpose is to prove that the Defendant have legal basis
in ordering a Hold-Out order with regards to the accounts of
the Plaintiffs.

IV. PROPOSED WITNESSES

 Rodolfo Tamayo – Branch Manager.

 Glaiza De Castriona Grey – Teller
 Both witnesses can be informed with the same address of the
Defendant.

V. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

 Whether or not the Plaintiffs has cause of action against the

Defendant.

 Whether or not the Defendant has authority or legal ground

to order the Plaintiffs account on hold.

VI. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

 The defendant’s grounds its claim on the provision of the

New Civil Code and 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure

VII. AVAILMENT OF THE MODES OF DISCOVERY

 Defendant reserves the right to avail of the modes of

discovery in addition to the aforementioned request for
stipulation.

VIII. RESERVATION

 Defendant respectfully reserve the right to present additional

oral and documentary evidence as may become necessary in
the course of the trial.

IX. SPECIFIC TRIAL DATES

 It is respectfully requested that the trial dates be set during

the pre-trial conference to dates most convenient to this
Honorable Court and to all parties.
Respectfully submitted.

November 18, 2019, City of Manila

GAGED LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Defendant

Suite 258 The Tower

Malate, 1004 Manila

Email add: gagedlaw@gmail.com

Tel No. (02) 7576-4567

By:

Dexter D. Del Rosario

IBP No. 1060289 Jan 9,

2020/Manila

PTR No. MCF-2426612 Jan. 9,

2020/Manila

Roll No. 29722

MCLE Compliance No. V-0007333

Issued on Dec 01, 2018

-and-

Emmanuel Dumayas

IBP No. 1052347 May 26,

2019/Manila

PTR No. MCF-2426612 May 26,

2019/Manila
Roll No. 68281

MCLE Compliance No. V-0007879

Issued on October 23, 2019

-and-

Gee A. Pastor

IBP No. 017174 April 17,

2019/Manila

PTR No. MCF-2626777 June 22,

2019

Roll No. 67882

MCLE Compliance No. V-0008008

Issued on Jan 26, 2020

-and-

Gigi J. Morales

IBP No. 1037238 Dec. 15,

2018/Manila

PTR No. MCF-2388746 Jan 4,

2019/Manila

Roll No. 41775

MCLE Compliance No. V-0007230

Issued on Nov 17, 2019

-and-
 Aaron Cananua

IBP No. 10372928Dec. 15,

2019/Manila

PTR No. MCF-2388321 Jan 4,

2020/Manila

Roll No. 41797

MCLE Compliance No. V-0007256

Issued on Nov 17, 2019

Copy Furnished:

BRANCH OF CLERK
RTC BRANCH 113,
Pasay City

BMCM LAW OFFICES

Counsel for Plaintiff
Tel. No. 123456789
Email: dodoin.mo@gmail.com
1234 Menlo St., Pasay City,
Metro Manila, Philippines.

By: Atty. JM MANEZ

Roll No. 123456
MCLE No. 123456/2020
PTR No. 1234567

EXPLANATION

Copies of the foregoing Brief were served to plaintiff’s

counsel through registered special mail considering the distance
between the address of the plaintiff’s counsel and the
undersigned counsel. Moreover, the office of the undersigned
has no personnel to effect personal service to the plaintiff.

Emmanuel C. Dumayas