Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Memorandum For The Plaintiff: Lethban
Memorandum For The Plaintiff: Lethban
Memorandum For The Plaintiff: Lethban
Memorandum
* for Search ' Read free for 30 days +
the Plaintiff )
Uploaded by LethBan
" ! # $ % &
Save 0% 0% Embed Share Print
CORPORATION represented
Melanie Miraflores , Managerby FOR: with
Collection of Sum of Money
Damages
Plaintiff,
-versus-
MEMORANDUM
For the Plaintiff
COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully submits and presents this Memorandum in the above-titled case and
avers that:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
# Not titles
Related useful (0%)
Facebook Bantayan, Dumaguete
Twitter
-
2. That Melanie Villaflores, is of legal age, married, Filipino citizen, and a resident of
City, Philippines;
LinkedIn
3. That Melanie Villaflores, through Board Resolution No.4, series of 2010, is hereby
. /
authorized to execute, sign and deliver, file papers, documents and affidavits in behalf
of the Garces Lending Shop, Inc.;
Copy Link Email
4. That the defendant, Roselyn Villanueva, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, married and a
resident of Mangnao, Dumaguete City, Philippines;
5. That on May 28, 2013, the defendant obtained a loan of Php13,000.00 from the plaintiff
Trial description:
payable for 5 tags:
months description: tags:
from the date description:
of release at 1.5%tags: Jackson's $70-Mil
per month; Crismina
Memorandum f… 0304CODVol4Sec3DLLegacyLayoutv1pt0sd
0304CODVol4Sec3DLLegacyLayoutv1pt0sd
doc2139… Loan...Trustee… Garments Inc. v.…
Plaintiff 6. That on July 10, 2013, the defendant acquired another loan account amounting to Court of Appeals
bodyo"ext Malnik, BofA Note
Php74,000.00 from the plaintiff payable for 32 months from the date of release with an
interest of 1.5% per month;
7. That the firs loan which is past due, is evidenced by a promissory note signed by the
defendant;
8. That the second loan which lapsed and past due is evidenced by a promissory note
signed by the defendant;
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!
9. That the demand letter asked Roselyn Villanueva for possible settlement otherwise, she
will be demanded to pay the entire outstanding balance in accordance with the terms of
the promissory notes executed;
10. That despite repeated demands, in written and oral forms, the defendant has failed and
refused to settle her past due accounts;
11. That the defendant insisted in her belief that she owed Php105,000.00 only according to
her calculations;
12. That lately, the defendant offered installment payments, contrary to the terms
stipulated to pay the entire outstanding balance in accordance to her promissory notes
executed;
13. That due to the failure of the defendant to comply with her obligations which is
unlawful despite consistent diplomatic reminders, the plaintiff was forced to institute
this action using the services of counsel in the amount of Php15,000.00.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Whether or not the plaintiff has the cause of action to compel the defendant to
settle all her obligations in her loan accounts with interests, damages and litigation
expenses.
ARGUMENT
The plaintiff has the cause of action to compel the defendant to fully pay the
sum of money with interests and damages and litigation expenses.
DISCUSSION
Firstly, the plaintiff operates in accordance with the laws of the land provided for
lending institutions. Republic Act 9474 otherwise known as the Lending Company
Regulation of 2007, in Section 7 provides that, “A lending company may grant loans in
such amounts and reasonable interest rates and charges as may be agreed upon
between the lending company and the debtor provided that the agreement shall be in
compliance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 3765, otherwise known as the “Truth
in Lending Act” and Republic Act 7394, otherwise known as the “Consumer Act of the
Philippines”. In connection with the loan policies and guidelines of the plaintiff, the
latter sets loan charges and interests in accordance with the provisions of the above
mentioned laws.
and 1250 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Art. 1955). Article 1249 provides that
“Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 2212, interest due and unpaid shall not
earn interest. However, the contracting parties may by stipulation capitalize the interest
due and unpaid, which, as added principal, shall earn new interest. Article 2212 provides
that interest due shall earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded,
although the obligation may be silent upon this point. In this connection, the personal
calculation of outstanding balance by the defendant not in accordance with the above
mentioned provisions is unlawful.
Lastly, Article 1956 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines provides that “No
interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing. In this case, the
interest has been expressly stipulated in writing as provided for in the promissory note
executed by the defendant. The computation of the interest of the outstanding balance
of the defendant was in accordance with Article 1958 of the New Civil Code which
provides that’ “In the determination of the interest, if it is payable in kind, its value shall
be appraised at the current price of the products or goods at the time and place of
payment. Article 1249 provides that, “The payment of debts in money shall be made in
be appraised at the current price of the products or goods at the time and place of
payment. Article 1249 provides that, “The payment of debts in money shall be made in
the currency stipulated, and if it is not possible to deliver such currency, then in the
currency which is legal tender in the Philippines. In relation to the distribution of
payments, Article 1253 provides that, “If the debt produces interest, payment of the
principal shall not be deemed to have been made until the interests have been covered.
The plaintiff recognizes that this is a civil case as in the case Of Gabiosa and Tan
versus Court of Appeals, Nolasco and Roxas, G.R. No. 161057, September 12, 2008. This
is a civil case that deserves utmost compliance by the defendant.
CONCLUSION
With the laws and jurisprudence presented, the plaintiff, through her legal
counsel believes that judgment be rendered against the defendant who has entered
into a valid contract through the two (2) existing loans and are now enforceable in the
eyes of the law.
PRAYER
Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for. Dumaguete City, Philippines,
August 13, 2019.
NORLITA B. NEMENZO
Counsel of the Plaintiff
PTR No. 1112345, Dumaguete City, January 2, 2019
IBP OR No. 222233, Dumaguete City, January 2, 2019
Copy Furnished:
Related Interests
Popular in Lawsuit
)
1.Dizon v. CA 302 Upload Sample Quest Nettech v. Don 164 - Terelay v. Yulo
SCRA 288 (1999) Jagoda Associates
UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY UPLOADED BY
Back-up storage… Alexagreek Patent Litigation alexis_bea
Trending
Tangled On th
Emma Chase Laura
Bossman I'll Be
Vi Keeland Miche
Contact us Publishers
Invite friends
Gi"s
Language: English 3