COMPLAINT Plaintiff Revised

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
Branch II
Cebu City
MS. JENNIELOU DODAL,

Plaintiff,
-versus- CIVIL CASE NO.: 21880

For: Collection of Sum of Money
and Damages
MR. LITO ANOBAN,

Defendant.
X ---------------------------------------- X
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel,

and unto this Honorable Court, most respectful avers:
1. That the plaintiff, Jennielou Dodal, is of legal age,

Filipino citizen, single and a resident of 1016
Condominium, Luzon Avenue, Cebu Business Park,
Cebu City, Philippines;
2. That the plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of a jewelry
shop registered in the Philippines under the name of
“Tinag Jewelry Shop” located at Quezon Bldg., Cebu
City, Cebu, Philippines;
3. That the plaintiff, extended a loan amounting to four
hundred and fifty thousand (P 450,000.00) Pesos,
1
evidenced by a promissory note executed by defendant
on March 10, 2020, herein attached as Annex “A”;
4. That the defendant, Lito Anoban, is of legal age, Filipino
citizen, single and a resident of Unit 123, Emerson’s
Building, Brgy. Kamagayan, Cebu City, Philippines;
5. That the said promissory note dated March 10, 2020
(please see Annex “A”) was executed by the defendant
in favor of the plaintiff to secure the credit;
6. That Maria Joy Fabrega, plaintiff’s maternal aunt and
personal secretary, served as witness of the execution
of said promissory note;
7. That the said promissory note, executed on March 10,
2020, stated that the defendant Lito Anoban was
obligated to pay the loan on or before September 10,
2020;
8. That the promissory note be due and demandable six
months from its execution, or on September 10, 2020 in
lump sum, and it will bear an interest of 6% per annum
from every year of delay, reckoned from the date of
receipt of the Notice of Non-payment with demand to
pay, herein attached as Annex “B”;
9. That when the loan fell due and demandable, the
plaintiff sent a Notice of Non-payment with demand to
pay (please see Annex “B”) on September 11, 2020, but
it was unheeded despite defendant’s receipt of said
notice on the same date;
10. That despite Plaintiff’s repeated demands, both verbal
and written, Defendant failed, neglected, and refused,
and continues to fail and refuse to pay and settle the
outstanding balance, without just and valid grounds, to
the continued damage and prejudice of the Plaintiff;
11. That no payment was made by the defendant from the
date of such demand to this date;
2
12. That subsequent demand letters were sent to the
defendant for the payment of the amount of
P450,000.00 plus interest of 6% per annum, the last of
which was received by the defendants on October 01,
2020, is herein attached as Annexes “C-1,” “C-2,” and
“C-3”; and
13. That the plaintiff, with confidence and trust that the
defendant would pay the loan with the interest and
considering the amount involved and the time lapsed
from the date the loan obligation became due and
demandable, suffered sleepless nights and mental
anguish.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed unto this Honorable Court that, after hearing, judgment be
rendered as follows:
1. Ordering the defendant to pay the amount of four hundred

and fifty thousand Pesos (₱450,000.00) as payment of his
loan obligation;
2. Ordering the defendant to pay the 6% per annum interest
of the loan obligation of ₱450,000.00 reckoned from
September 11, 2020 when the Notice of Non-payment
with demand to pay was furnished to the defendant;
3. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of
₱100,000.00 as moral damages for the plaintiff’s
sleepless nights and mental anguish he suffered due to
the amount involved, the time lapsed from the date the
loan obligation became due and demandable confidence
and trust that the defendant would pay the loan with the
interest; ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages for her
wanton disregard in paying the loan obligation despite the
receipt of the Notice of Non-payment with demand to pay
and the several oral demand made by both plaintiff and
his collector; and ₱100,000.00 as attorney’s fees for
3
forcing the plaintiff to seek the help of a lawyer to collect
the loan obligation incurred by defendant;
4. Ordering the defendant to pay the cost of suit.
5. Such other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable

under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Cebu City, October 06, 2020.
By:
PaoloManit
ATTY. PAOLO U. MANIT
Counsel for Plaintiff
CDDGMTZ Law Office
Unit 112, Luzon Avenue, Cebu Business Park,
Cebu City, Cebu;
IBP No. 156155-Lifetime Member;
PTR No. 5323503, Jan. 4, 2020, Cebu City;
Roll of Attorneys No. 69459;
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0006934
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST OF FORUM

SHOPPING
4
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
CITY OF CEBU ) S.S.
I, JENNIELOU DODAL, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single,

and resident of 1016 Condominium, Luzon Avenue, Cebu Business
Park, Cebu City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with
law do hereby depose and say:
1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing
Complaint and have read the allegations contained
therein;
3. The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based
on my personal knowledge and based on authentic
documents;
4. The pleading is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary
delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
5. The factual allegations therein have evidentiary support
or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
discovery;
6. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other
action or proceeding involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency;
7. That if I should thereafter learn that a similar action or
proceedings has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency, I hereby undertake to report that fact within five
(5) calendar days therefrom to the court or agency
wherein the original pleading and sworn certification
contemplated herein have been filed;
5
8. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the
truth of the foregoing facts and to comply with the
provisions of Adm. Circular No. 04-94 of the Honorable
Supreme Court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this 6th day of October 2020, in the City of Cebu.
Jennielou Dodal
JENNIELOU DODAL
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, a notary public

in and for Cebu City this 7th day of October 2020. The Affiant
personally came and appeared with Passport No. P6554043A issued
by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) on May 10, 2018 with
validity until May 10, 2028 at Cebu City, bearing his photograph and
signature, known to me as the same person who personally signed
the foregoing instrument before me and avowed under penalty of law
to the whole truth of the contents of said instrument.
AthenaMia Sison
ATTY. ATHENA MIA SISON
Notary Public - Cebu City
Commission Serial No. 12345
Until December 31, 2020
IBP No. 121312-Lifetime Member
Appointment No. M-10-(2019-2020)
PTR No. 123455, January 25 2020, Cebu City
Roll of Attorneys Number 12345
Unit 1 Blue Building, R. Duterte St., Cebu City
Telephone Number: 123-0000 / 0923-000-1231
6
Doc. No. 124;
Page No. 154;
Book No. 01;
Series of 2020.
7
Branch II
Cebu City

Plaintiff,

For: Collection of Sum of Money
and Damages
MR. LITO ANOBAN,

Defendant.
X ---------------------------------------- X
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
PLAINTIFF, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court most
respectfully submits the following Pre-trial Brief:
I
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an action for Collection of Sum of Money and Damages.
Plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of a jewelry shop, under the
name, “Tinag Jewelry Shop”, located at Quezon Bldg., Cebu City,
Cebu, Philippines and resides at 1016 Condominium, Luzon Avenue,
Cebu Business Park, Cebu City, Philippines, while defendant is a
8
resident of Unit 123, Emerson’s Building, Brgy. Maribago, Lapu-Lapu
City, Philippines. Sometime in 10 March 2020, plaintiff granted a loan
to defendant in the amount of four hundred and fifty thousand Pesos
(₱450,000.00), which will become due and demandable in lump sum
after six months from the date the promissory note was executed by
the defendant and will bear an interest of 6% per annum in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the said promissory
note. Of the said obligation, no payment has been made by
defendant to this date despite receipt of the Notice of Non-payment
with demand to pay sent by plaintiff, on 11 September 2020, as well
as after repeated written and oral demands made by the plaintiff, and
other earnest and diligent efforts of plaintiff to collect payment of the
said loan; thus, this action.
II
WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OR
ALTERNATIVE MODES OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Plaintiff is open to amicable settlement or alternative modes of

dispute resolution upon mutually acceptable terms and conditions.
III
SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS
Plaintiff’s admissions are limited to those matters that are

alleged in his complaint.
IV
PROPOSED STIPULATIONS
Plaintiff hereby proposes that Defendant admits:
9
1. That he contracted a cash loan from plaintiff in the
amount of four hundred and fifty thousand Pesos
(₱450,000.00);
2. That he voluntarily executed the promissory note attached
in the complaint in favor of plaintiff by reason of the loan
mentioned above on March 10, 2020;
3. That the said promissory note stated that it will become
due and demandable in lump sum after six months from
the time of its execution or on September 10, 2020;
4. That the said promissory note contained a stipulation that
should he fail to pay on the agreed date, it shall bear an
interest of 6% per annum, in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the said promissory note;
5. That he personally signed and received the Notice of
Non-payment with demand to pay from plaintiff on
September 11, 2020;
6. That he personally signed and received the first Demand
Letter on September 18, 2020;
7. That he personally signed and received the second
Demand Letter on September 24, 2020;
8. That he personally signed and received the third Demand
Letter on October 01, 2020; and
9. That of the said loan, no payment has been made by him
to this date.
V
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
1. Whether or not the defendant voluntarily executed the

promissory note attached in the complaint on account of
defendant’s indebtedness.
10
2. Whether or not the defendant is liable under the terms of
the said promissory note.
3. Whether or not the defendant is also liable for moral
damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees as set
out in plaintiff’s complaint.
VI
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS
1. Promissory note executed by Defendant on 10 March

2020;
2. Notice of Non-payment with a demand to pay dated 11
September 2020, which Defendant received on the same
date;
3. Demand Letter executed by the Plaintiff through her
counsel dated September 18, 2020, which Defendant
received on the same date;
counsel dated September 24, 2020, which Defendant
counsel dated October 01, 2020, which Defendant
6. Respective Judicial Affidavits of witnesses.
VII
DISCOVERY PROCEDURES
Plaintiff is willing to avail of discovery procedures necessary for

the expedient resolution of the issues involved.
11
VIII
NAMES OF WITNESSES
AND THE SUBSTANCE OF THEIR TESTIMONIES
1. Plaintiff who shall testify on the material allegations of his

complaint; and
2. Ms. Maria Joy Fabrega, who shall testify as to the details
of the promissory note executed on 10 March 2020 as the
witness in the execution thereof, such as but not limited to
the amount thereof, the amount of cash actually received
by defendant, the date of execution of the promissory
note, the date when such loan obligation will become due
and demandable in lump sum, and the stipulation of 6%
interest per annum stipulated therein.
IX
APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE
Statutory Law
1. Article 1159 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines
Article 1159. Obligations arising from contracts have the

force of law between the contracting parties and should be
complied with in good faith. (1091a)
Article 1169. Those obliged to deliver or to do something

incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or
extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their
obligation.
However, the demand by the creditor shall not be necessary in

order that delay may exist:
(1) When the obligation or the law expressly so declare; or
12
(2) When from the nature and the circumstances of the
obligation it appears that the designation of the time when the
thing is to be delivered or the service is to be rendered was a
controlling motive for the establishment of the contract; or
(3) When demand would be useless, as when the obligor has
rendered it beyond his power to perform.
In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the
other does not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper
manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment
one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other
begins.
Article 1170. Those who in the performance of their

obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those
who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for
damages. (1101)
Article 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a

sum of money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for
damages, there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the
payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of
stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum.
Article 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court,

be allowed upon damages awarded for breach of contract.
Case Law
1. Adriano v. Lasala, G.R. No. 197842, October 09, 2013
13
To recover moral damages in an action for breach of
contract, the breach must be palpably wanton, reckless and
malicious, in bad faith, oppressive, or abusive. Hence, the
person claiming bad faith must prove its existence by clear and
convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith.
Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose or some moral
obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known
duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partake of
the nature of fraud. It is, therefore, a question of intention, which
can be inferred from one’s conduct and/or contemporaneous
statements.
2. Lara's Gifts & Decors, Inc. v. Midtown Industrial Sales,

Inc., G.R. No. 225433, August 28, 2019
In Lara's Gifts & Decors, Inc. v. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc.,
the Court laid down the guidelines regarding the manner of
computing legal interest, to wit:
1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the
payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance
of money, goods, credits or judgments, the interest due
shall be that which is stipulated by the parties in
writing, provided it is not excessive and
unconscionable, which, in the absence of a stipulated
reckoning date, shall be computed from default, i.e.,
from extrajudicial or judicial demand in accordance
with Article 1169 of the Civil Code, UNTIL FULL
PAYMENT, without compounding any interest unless
compounded interest is expressly stipulated by the
parties, by law or regulation. Interest due on the
principal amount accruing as of judicial demand shall
SEPARATELY earn legal interest at the prevailing rate
prescribed by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, from the
time of judicial demand UNTIL FULL PAYMENT.
14
2. In the absence of stipulated interest, in a loan or
forbearance of money, goods, credits or judgments,
the rate of interest on the principal amount shall be the
prevailing legal interest prescribed by the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas, which shall be computed from
default, i.e., from extrajudicial or judicial demand in
accordance with Article 1169 of the Civil Code, UNTIL
FULL PAYMENT, without compounding any interest
unless compounded interest is expressly stipulated by
law or regulation. Interest due on the principal amount
accruing as of judicial demand shall SEPARATELY
earn legal interest at the prevailing rate prescribed by
the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, from the time of
judicial demand UNTIL FULL PAYMENT.
3. When the obligation, not constituting a loan or

forbearance of money, goods, credits or judgments, is
breached, an interest on the amount of damages
awarded may be imposed in the discretion of the court
at the prevailing legal interest prescribed by the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, pursuant to Articles 2210
and 2011 of the Civil Code. No interest, however, shall
be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages until
the demand can be established with reasonable
certainty. Accordingly, where the amount of the claim
or damages is established with reasonable certainty,
the prevailing legal interest shall begin to run from the
time the claim is made extrajudicially or judicially (Art.
1169, Civil Code) UNTIL FULL PAYMENT, but when
such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at
the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin
to run only from the date of the judgment of the trial
court (at which time the quantification of damages may
be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained)
UNTIL FULL PAYMENT. The actual base for the
computation of the interest shall, in any case, be on
the principal amount finally adjudged, without
15
compounding any interest unless compounded interest
is expressly stipulated by law or regulation.
3. Tankeh v. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al., G.R.

No. 171428, November 11, 2013
To justify an award for exemplary damages, the wrongful
act must be accompanied by bad faith, and an award of
damages would be allowed only if the guilty party acted in a
wanton, fraudulent, reckless or malevolent manner.
4. Arco Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. and Santos v. Lim, G.R. No.
206806, June 25, 2014
Also known as ‘punitive’ or ‘vindictive’ damages,
exemplary or corrective damages are intended to serve as a
deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of
undue sufferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an injured
or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.
5. Francisco v. Pamaong, G.R. No. 142029, February 28, 2001

The requirements for an award of exemplary damages
are: (1) they may be imposed by way of example in addition to
compensatory damages, and only after the claimant's right to
them has been established; (2) that they cannot be recovered
as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the
amount of compensatory damages that may be awarded to the
claimant; (3) the act must be accompanied by bad faith or done
in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive or malevolent manner.
6. Adriano v. Lasala, G.R. No. 197842, October 09, 2013

As to attorney's fees, suffice it to say that because
respondents were constrained to litigate to protect their
interests, the award was proper.
16
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Cebu City, October 07, 2020.
PaoloManit
Counsel for Plaintiff
CDDGMTZ Law Office
Unit 112, Luzon Avenue, Cebu Business Park,
Cebu City, Cebu;
IBP No. 156155-Lifetime Member;
PTR No. 5323503, Jan. 4, 2020, Cebu City;
Roll of Attorneys No. 69459;
Copy Furnished:
By Personal Service
Atty. Jan Gazo

_________ Law Offices
(Office Address)
17
ANNEX A
PROMISSORY NOTE
₱450,000.00
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I, LITO ANOBAN promise to pay, in lump
sum, JENNIELOU DODAL, the sum of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand
Philippine Currency (₱450,000.00) on or before September 10, 2020.
It is agreed and understood that failure on my part to pay the amount of
(450,000.00) Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos in lump sum on or before
September 10, 2020. I agree to pay the sum equivalent to SIX PERCENT
(6%) interest per annum from the date of default until the entire
obligation is fully paid for.
Any action which may arise in connection with this note shall be brought in
the proper Court of the City of Cebu.
Cebu City, March 10, 2020.
Lito Anoban
LITO ANOBAN
18
ANNEX B
NOTICE OF NON-PAYMENT WITH DEMAND TO PAY
September 11, 2020 Received by:

Lito Anoban
LITO ANOBAN Lito Anoban
Unit 123, Emerson’s Building Date: September 11, 2020
Brgy. Maribago, Lapu-Lapu City
Sir:
Greetings!
We write for and on behalf of our client, Ms. JENNIELOU DODAL

who is the holder of a certain Promissory Note made by you dated March
10, 2020, in the original principal amount of FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY
THOUSAND (₱450,000.00) PESOS.
You are hereby notified that you have defaulted under said promissory
note because you have failed to pay the principal amount due on September
10, 2020.
Therefore, demand is hereby made upon you for full payment of the
entire balance due on said note.
If the entire amount due is not received on or before September 17,

2020, appropriate legal action shall be commenced.
Your prompt attention to the foregoing is anticipated.
Very truly yours,

PaoloManit
Atty. Paolo U. Manit
ANNEX C-1
19
FIRST DEMAND LETTER
September 18, 2020
LITO ANOBAN Received by:

Lito Anoban
Unit 123, Emerson’s Building Lito Anoban
Date: September 18, 2020
Sir:
Greetings!
We write for and on behalf of our client, Ms. JENNIELOU DODAL,
the matter of your non-payment of your loan obligation.
Records disclose that you have an outstanding obligation with our
client in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
(₱450,000.00) PESOS exclusive of 6% interest per annum. Please take
note that your loan obligation has already been outstanding and is now past
due.
In view of the foregoing, therefore, DEMAND is hereby made for you
to pay the total sum of FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
(₱450,000.00) PESOS exclusive of 6% interest per annum within FIVE (5)
days from the date of this letter.
Should you fail to comply with the period given, we shall then be
constrained to proceed to the enforcement of our client’s rights before the
appropriate judicial tribunal.
We trust that you will give this matter your preferential attention.
Very truly yours,

PaoloManit
ANNEX C-2
20
SECOND DEMAND LETTER
September 24, 2020

Received by:
LITO ANOBAN Lito Anoban
Unit 123, Emerson’s Building Lito Anoban
Date: September 24, 2020
Sir:
Greetings!


(₱450,000.00) PESOS exclusive of 6% interest per annum. Please take
note that your loan obligation has already been long outstanding and is now
seriously past due.
In view of the foregoing, therefore, DEMAND is hereby made for you

to pay the total sum of FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
(₱450,000.00) PESOS exclusive of 6% interest per annum within FIVE (5)
days from the date of this letter.
Should you fail to comply with the period given, we shall then be
constrained to proceed to the enforcement of our client’s rights before the
appropriate judicial tribunal.
We trust that you will give this matter your preferential attention.
Very truly yours,

PaoloManit
21
ANNEX C-3
THIRD DEMAND LETTER
October 1, 2020
Received by:
Lito Anoban
LITO ANOBAN
Lito Anoban
Unit 123, Emerson’s Building
Brgy. Maribago, Lapu-Lapu City Date: October 01, 2020
Sir:
Greetings!


(₱450,000.00) PESOS exclusive of 6% interest per annum. Despite
repeated demands, you failed and continuously fail to pay the aforesaid
amount.
Accordingly, FINAL DEMAND is hereby made upon you to settle

the amount of FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND (₱450,000.00)
PESOS exclusive of 6% interest per annum within FIVE (5) days from
receipt of this letter. Failure on your part to make any settlement will leave
us with no other recourse but to lodge the necessary civil or criminal
complaint.
Thank you and hoping for your immediate response regarding this
matter.
Very truly yours,
PaoloManit
22
Branch II
Cebu City

Plaintiff,

For: Collection of Sum of
Money and Damages
MR. LITO ANOBAN,

Defendant.
X ------------------------------------------------- X
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
I, JENNIELOU DODAL, of legal age, married, Filipino, and a

resident of 1016 Condominium, Luzon Avenue, Cebu Business Park,
Cebu City, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance
with law, hereby depose and state:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
That in accordance with A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, which prescribes

the use of judicial affidavits to serve as the direct examination
testimony of the witness, on the basis of which the adverse party may
conduct their cross-examination on such a witness, I hereby execute
this judicial affidavit in a question and answer format;
That conformably with Section 3(b) of the said A.M. No. 12-8-8-
SC, I also state that it was Atty. Paolo U. Manit, from CDDGMTZ Law
Office, as one of the affiant's counsels, who conducted the
23
examination of the undersigned affiant, with address at Unit 112,
Luzon Avenue, Cebu Business Park, Cebu City, 6000, Cebu. The
examination is being held at the same address;
That my Judicial Affidavit is being taken at the abovementioned

place;
That the questions are asked in English which I speak and fully
understand and that conformably also with Section 3(b) thereof, I
hereby state under the pain of perjury, that in answering the
questions asked of me, as appearing herein below, I am fully
conscious that I did so under oath, and that I may face criminal
liabilities for false testimony or perjury for false statements made or
given by me.
OFFER OF TESTIMONY
The testimony of the witness, JENNIELOU DODAL, is being

offered to prove the following:
a) That the Defendant Lito Anoban had executed a promissory

note evidencing a loan of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand
Pesos (₱450,000.00) on March 10, 2020 in favor of herein
Plaintiff Jennielou Anoban; and
b) That the defendant failed to pay the loaned amount plus

interest even after a demand has been made; and
c) Other matters in relation thereto.
AND UNDER OATH, AVERS THE FOLLOWING:
DIRECT EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
1. Q: Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
A: Yes, I do.
24
2. Q: Are you aware that you may face criminal liability for false
testimony of perjury if you will not tell the truth?
A: Yes, I am aware of the consequence.
3. Q: Ms. Witness, will you please state your name, age, and
other personal circumstances for the record?
A: I am Jennielou Dodal, of legal age, the owner and

proprietor of Tinag Jewelry Shop, and a resident of Unit 123,
Emerson’s Building, Brgy. Kamagayan, Cebu City, Cebu,
Philippines.
4. Q: Why are you present here today?
A: I am here today to execute my Judicial Affidavit in relation

to the Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money plus
Damages.
5. Q: Do you know the Defendant Lito Anoban in the above-

cited complaint?
A: Yes, I know the defendant.
6. Q: How did you come to know Mr. Anoban?
A: He was my classmate in elementary and high school.
7. Q: How did Mr. Anoban end up borrowing money from you?
A: Mr. Anoban went to my jewelry shop in the afternoon of

March 10, 2020 asking if he can borrow four hundred
thousand (P450,000) pesos from me.
8. Q: Do you know the purpose of the defendant from borrowing

money from you?
A: Yes, I do.
9. Q: What was the purpose of defendant for borrowing the

money?
25
A: Mr. Anoban said he was going to invest it in Organico
Agribusiness Ventures.
10. Q: What did you tell the defendant after he told you of his
investment plan?
A: I told him I could lend him the money that he needed for
his investment provided he can execute in my favor a
promissory note as proof of his indebtedness.
11. Q: I am showing you this document, herein referred to as

Annex “A”. Do you know this document?
A: Yes, Sir.
13. Q: What is this document?
A: It is a Promissory Note, Sir.
14. Q: Who executed this Promissory Note?
A: Mr. Lito Anoban executed that Promissory Note, Sir.
15. Q: When was this Promissory Note executed by Mr.

Anoban?
A: On March 10, 2020, Sir.
16. Q: When does this Promissory Note become due and

demandable?
A: On September 10, 2020, Sir.
17. Q: I have here a Notice of non-payment with a demand to

pay, herein referred to as Annex “B”, what can you say about
this document?
A: I sent that document to Mr. Lito Anoban after the

promissory note became due and demandable, specifically on
September 11, 2020.
26
18. Q: I am presenting to you this document herein referred to
as “Annex C-1”. Do you know this document?
A: Yes, Sir. That is the first demand letter which was duly
received by Mr. Lito Anoban on that same day I sent it to him.
19. Q: Was there any payment made by Mr. Anoban in

response to the demand?
A: No, Sir. Mr. Anoban did not pay the loan.
20. Q: I’m showing you this document herein referred to as

Annex “C-2”. Do you know about this document?
A: Yes, Sir. That document is the second demand letter duly

received by Mr. Lito Anoban, which he received on that same
day when I sent it to him.
21. Q: Was there any payment made?
A: No, Sir.
22. Q: I’m showing you this document herein referred to as

Annex “C-3”. Do you know about this document?
A: Yes, Sir. That document is the third and final demand

letter sent to and duly received by Mr. Lito Anoban, which I sent
to him.
23. Q: Was there any payment made?
A: No, Sir.
24. Q: How did you know all of these documents?
A: I was the one who caused the issuance of the same

through my lawyer.
25. Q: Did Mr. Anoban make any attempts to communicate to

you regarding the said loan?
A: No, Sir.
27
26. Q: For what purpose are you executing this Judicial
Affidavit?
A: I am executing this Judicial Affidavit as part of my

testimony in the above-entitled complaint.
27. Q: Ms. Witness, is there anything else you wish to add?
A: Nothing more, Sir.
-------END OF STATEMENT---------
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 7th

day of October 2020 at Unit 112, Luzon Avenue, Cebu Business
Park, Cebu City, 6000, Philippines.
Jennielou Dodal
JENNIELOU DODAL
Affiant

in and for Cebu City this 7th day of October 2020. Affiant personally
came and appeared with Passport No. P6554043A issued by the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) on May 10, 2018 with validity
until May 10, 2028 at Cebu City, bearing her photograph and
EthanDelaCruz
ATTY. ETHAN DELA CRUZ
28
Doc. No. 24;

Page No. 30;
Book No. 01;
Series of 2020.
ATTESTATION OF THE LAWYER
I, Atty. Paolo U. Manit, of legal age and with an office address

at Room 401 Piso Bldg. Cebu City, 6000, Cebu, after having been
sworn to in accordance with law, hereby attest that:
1. I have personally conducted the foregoing examination

of affiant, Jennielou Dodal, at the CDDGMTZ Law
Office at Unit 112, Luzon Avenue, Cebu Business
Park, Cebu City, 6000, Cebu;
2. I have faithfully recorded and translated into English

language the questions asked of her and the
corresponding answers that she gave in response to
the questions asked;
3. Neither I nor any other person/s coached her regarding

the answers given by her.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand below this

7th day of October 2020 at Unit 112, Luzon Avenue, Cebu Business
Park, Cebu City, 6000, Cebu, Philippines.
29
PaoloManit
Legal Counsel

EthanDelaCruz
Doc. No. 25;

Page No. 38;
Book No. 01;
Series of 2020.
30
Branch II
Cebu City

Plaintiff,

For: Collection Sum of Money and
Damages
MR. LITO ANOBAN,

Defendant.
X ------------------------------------------------- X
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
I, MARIA JOY FABREGA, of legal age, married, Filipino, and a

resident of Room 110, G7 Residence Hall, Junquera St., Brgy.
Kamagayan, Cebu City, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to
in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
That in accordance with A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, which prescribes

the use of judicial affidavits to serve as the direct examination
testimony of the witness, on the basis of which the adverse party may
conduct their cross-examination on such a witness, I hereby execute
this judicial affidavit in a question and answer format;
31
That conformably with Section 3(b) of the said A.M. No. 12-8-8-
SC, I also state that it was Atty. Paolo U. Manit, from CDDGMTZ Law
Office, as one of the affiant's counsels, who conducted the
examination of the undersigned affiant, with address at Unit 112,
Luzon Avenue, Cebu Business Park, Cebu City. The examination is
being held at the same address;
That my Judicial Affidavit is being taken at the abov- mentioned

place;
That the questions are asked in English which I speak and fully
understand and that conformably also with Section 3(b) thereof, I
hereby state under the pain of perjury, that in answering the
questions asked of me, as appearing herein below, I am fully
conscious that I did so under oath, and that I may face criminal
liabilities for false testimony or perjury for false statements made or
given by me.
OFFER OF TESTIMONY
The testimony of the witness, MARIA JOY FABREGA, is being

offered to prove the following:
a) That Defendant Lito Anoban had executed a promissory note

in favor of Plaintiff Jennielou Dodal on March 10, 2020 for an
amount of Four hundred and fifty thousand Pesos (P
450,000.00);
b) That Maria Joy Fabrega witnessed such execution of the

said promissory note on March 10, 2020; and
c) Other matters in relation thereto.
AND UNDER OATH, AVERS THE FOLLOWING:
DIRECT EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
1. Q: Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
32
A: Yes, I do.
2. Q: Are you aware that you may face criminal liability for false
testimony of perjury if you will not tell the truth?
A: Yes, I am aware of the consequence.
3. Q: Ms. Witness, will you please state your name, age, and
other personal circumstances for the record?
A: I am Maria Joy Fabrega, of legal age, the personal

secretary and maternal aunt of herein petitioner, Ms.
Jennielou Dodal, and a resident of Room 110, G7
Residence Hall, Junquera St., Brgy. Kamagayan, Cebu City,
Cebu, Philippines.
4. Q: Why are you present here today?
A: I am here today to execute my Judicial Affidavit in relation

to the Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money plus
Damages.
5. Q: Do you know the Plaintiff Jennielou Dodal in the above-

cited complaint?
A: Yes, I know the plaintiff.
6. Q: What is your relationship with the Plaintiff?
A: I am the personal secretary and the aunt of the Plaintiff,

Jennielou Dodal.
7. Q: You said that you are her secretary?
A: Yes, Sir.
8. Q: For how long have you been working as her secretary?
A: For 5 years now, Sir.
9. Q: Do you know the Defendant Lito Anoban in the above-

cited case?
33
A: Yes, Sir.
10. Q: How did you know Mr. Lito Anoban?
A: He was a classmate in elementary and high school of

Jennielou Dodal, Sir. They were also good friends before.
11. Q: Do you live with Ms. Jennielou Dodal?
A: No, Sir, but I often go to her house during special

occasions or when my assistance is needed, Sir.
12. Q: Where were you on the afternoon of March 10, 2020?
A: I was with Jennielou Dodal in her office at her jewelry

shop, Sir.
13. Q: Did you happen to see Mr. Lito Anoban on that same
day and time?
A: Yes, Sir.
14. Q: Where were you when you saw him?
A: I was still with Jennielou Dodal when Mr. Lito Anoban

went into her office at around 2:00 PM of May 10, 2020, Sir.
15. Q: Did you happen to know the reason why Mr. Lito
Anoban went there that afternoon?
A: Yes, Sir. He approached Jennielou Dodal and asked her

whether he could borrow some money, Sir.
16. Q: How much was he trying to borrow from Ms. Jennielou

Dodal?
A: Four hundred and fifty thousand Pesos, Sir.
17. Q: Did he say his reason for borrowing such an amount?
A: Yes, Sir. He said that he was going to invest it in

Organico Agribusiness Ventures.
34
18. Q: What did Mr. Lito Anoban do next, if any?
A: Ms. Jennielou Dodal told him that she could lend him the
money that he needed for his investment provided he could in
her favor a promissory note as proof of his indebtedness.
19. Q: What did Mr. Lito Anoban do next, if any?
A: He then executed a promissory note before us, Sir.
20. Q: I am showing you this document, herein referred to as

Annex “A”. Do you know this document?
A: Yes, Sir.
21. Q: What is this document?
A: That is a Promissory Note, Sir.
22. Q: Who executed this Promissory Note?
A: Mr. Lito Anoban executed that Promissory Note, Sir.
23. Q: When was this Promissory Note executed by Mr.

Anoban?
A: On March 10, 2020, Sir.
24. Q: When does this Promissory Note become due and

demandable?
A: On September 10, 2020, Sir.
25. Q: Where were you when Mr. Lito Anoban executed this
Promissory Note on March 10, 2020?
A: I was just beside Ms. Jennielou Dodal when Mr. Lito

Anoban executed that Promissory Note before us, Sir.
26. Q: What happened next, if any?
A: Mr. Lito Anoban signed the promissory note in our

presence, Sir and she handed it to Ms. Jennielou Dodal.
35
27. Q: What did Ms. Jennielou Dodal do thereafter, if any?
A: Jennielou Dodal then handed him the money in cash, Sir.
28. Q: What happened next, if any?
A: Mr. Lito Anoban thanked Jennielou Dodal and then he left

her office, Sir.
29. Q: For what purpose are you executing this Judicial

Affidavit?
A: I am executing this Judicial Affidavit as part of my

testimony in the above-entitled complaint.
30. Q: Ms. Witness, is there anything else you wish to add?
A: Nothing more, Sir.
-------END OF STATEMENT---------
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 7th

day of October 2020 at Unit 112, Luzon Avenue, Cebu Business
Park, Cebu City, 6000, Cebu, Philippines
Maria Joy Fabrega

MARIA JOY FABREGA
Affiant

Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) on April 11, 2018 with validity
until April 11, 2028 at Cebu City, bearing her photograph and
36
EthanDelaCruz
Doc. No. 26;

Page No. 40;
Book No. 01;
Series of 2020.
ATTESTATION OF THE LAWYER
I, Atty. Paolo U. Manit, of legal age and with an office address

at Unit 112, Luzon Avenue, Cebu Business Park, Cebu City, 6000,
Cebu, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby
attest that:
1. I have personally conducted the foregoing examination

of affiant, Maria Joy Fabrega, at the CDDGMTZ Law
Office at Unit 112, Luzon Avenue, Cebu Business
Park, Cebu City;
37
2. I have faithfully recorded and translated into English
language the questions asked of her and the
corresponding answers that she gave in response to
the questions asked;
3. Neither I nor any other person/s coached her regarding

the answers given by her.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand below this

7th day of October 2020 at Cebu City, 6000, Cebu, Philippines.
PaoloManit
Legal Counsel

EthanDelaCruz
38
Doc. No. 27;

Page No. 48;
Book No. 01;
Series of 2020.
39

COMPLAINT Plaintiff Revised

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMPLAINT Plaintiff Revised

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION

MS. JENNIELOU DODAL,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO.: 21880

MR. LITO ANOBAN,

COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel,

1. That the plaintiff, Jennielou Dodal, is of legal age,

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

1. Ordering the defendant to pay the amount of four hundred

4. Ordering the defendant to pay the cost of suit.

5. Such other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable

Cebu City, October 06, 2020.

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST OF FORUM

I, JENNIELOU DODAL, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single,

1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, a notary public

MS. JENNIELOU DODAL,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO.: 21880

MR. LITO ANOBAN,

Plaintiff is open to amicable settlement or alternative modes of

Plaintiff’s admissions are limited to those matters that are

Plaintiff hereby proposes that Defendant admits:

1. Whether or not the defendant voluntarily executed the

1. Promissory note executed by Defendant on 10 March

Plaintiff is willing to avail of discovery procedures necessary for

1. Plaintiff who shall testify on the material allegations of his

1. Article 1159 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines

Article 1159. Obligations arising from contracts have the

2. Article 1169 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines

Article 1169. Those obliged to deliver or to do something

However, the demand by the creditor shall not be necessary in

3. Article 1170 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines

Article 1170. Those who in the performance of their

4. Article 2209 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines

Article 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a

5. Article 2210 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines

Article 2210. Interest may, in the discretion of the court,

1. Adriano v. Lasala, G.R. No. 197842, October 09, 2013

2. Lara's Gifts & Decors, Inc. v. Midtown Industrial Sales,

3. When the obligation, not constituting a loan or

3. Tankeh v. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al., G.R.

5. Francisco v. Pamaong, G.R. No. 142029, February 28, 2001

6. Adriano v. Lasala, G.R. No. 197842, October 09, 2013

Atty. Jan Gazo

NOTICE OF NON-PAYMENT WITH DEMAND TO PAY

September 11, 2020 Received by:

We write for and on behalf of our client, Ms. JENNIELOU DODAL

If the entire amount due is not received on or before September 17,

Your prompt attention to the foregoing is anticipated.

Very truly yours,

September 18, 2020

LITO ANOBAN Received by:

Very truly yours,

September 24, 2020

We write for and on behalf of our client, Ms. JENNIELOU DODAL,

Records disclose that you have an outstanding obligation with our

In view of the foregoing, therefore, DEMAND is hereby made for you

Very truly yours,

THIRD DEMAND LETTER

We write for and on behalf of our client, Ms. JENNIELOU DODAL,

Records disclose that you have an outstanding obligation with our