WATERCRAFT VENTURE CORPORATION vs.

WOLFE

GR. NO 181721

September 9, 2015

Justice Peralta

Third Division

Facts:

Watercraft Venture Corporation (Watercraft) is engaged in the business of building, repairing,

storing and maintaining yachts, boats and other pleasure crafts at the Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Subic,
Zambales

Watercraft hired Alfred Raymond Wolfe (Wolfe), a British national and resident of Subic Bay
Freeport Zone, Zambales, as its Shipyard Manager.

During his employment, Wolfe stored the sailboat, Knotty Gull, within Watercraft boat’s storage
facilities, but never paid for the storage fees.

Watercraft terminated the employment of Wolfe

Wolfe pulled out his sailboat from Watercraft's storage facilities after signing a Boat Pull-Out
Clearance dated, where he allegedly acknowledged the outstanding obligation of Sixteen Thousand Three
Hundred and Twenty-Four and 82/100 US Dollars (US$16,324.82) representing unpaid boat storage fees.
Despite repeated demands, he failed to pay the said amount

Watercraft filed against Wolfe a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money with Damages with an
Application for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment.

They execute an affidavit of merit where Watercraft points out that for a period of five (5) years, not
once did he pay the cost for the use of the company's boat storage facilities, despite knowledge of obligation
and obvious ability to pay by reason of his position.

Watercraft adds that its affidavit clearly stated that Wolfe, in an attempt to avoid settling of his outstanding
obligations to the company, signed a Boat Pull-Out Clearance where he merely acknowledged but did not pay
representing unpaid boat storage fees. It avers that the execution of such clearance enabled Wolfe to pull out
his boat from the company storage facilities without payment of storage fees Thus, there is fraudulent intent
of Wolf to defraud it.

On the other hand, Wolfe filed a Motion to Discharge the Writ of Attachment, arguing that Watercraft
failed to show the existence of fraud and that the mere failure to pay or perform an obligation does not
amount to fraud.

Issue: whether or not there is compliance of Rule 8 Section 5

Ruling: NO, the Affidavit of merit did not sufficiently averred particularity the circumstances
constituting fraud
 Pursuant to Rule 8 Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that, In all averments of
fraud or mistake the circumstanes constituting a fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity.

The Court also cited Liberty Insurance Corpation v Court of Appeals where it ruled that A debt is
fraudulently contracted if at the time of contracrig it, the debtor has a preconceived plan or intention not
to pay

The Court also define that Fraudulent entity is not physical entity, but a condiditon of the mind
beyond the reach of the senses usually kept secret, very unlikely to be confessed and therefore, can only be
proved by ungued expressions, conduct and circumstances

In the case a bar, Watercraft's Affidavit of merit does not contain specific allegations of other factual
circumstances to show that Wolfe, at the time of contracting the obligation, had a preconceived plan or
intention not to pay. Neither can it be inferred from such affidavit the particulars of why he was guilty of
fraud in the performance of such obligation. To be specific, Watercraft's following allegation is unsupported
by any particular averment of circumstances that will show why or how such inference or conclusion was
arrived at, to wit: "16. For failing to pay for the use [of] facilities and services - in the form of boat storage
facilities - duly enjoyed by him and for failing and refusing to fulfill his promise to pay for the said boat
storage fees, the Defendant is clearly guilty of fraud x x x." 31 It is not an allegation of essential facts
constituting Watercraft's causes of action, but a mere conclusion of law.