REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

11TH JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 39
POLOMOLOK, SOUTH COTABATO

CANNERY MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, CIVIL CASE NO. ________

- versus - FOR: DAMAGES AND

ATTORNEY’S FEES

SPOUSES RODOLFO R. LEYSON and

MELBA A. LEYSON, EVANGELINE G.
PANES, TWO JOHN DOES, and LAND
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Defendants.

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

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, through counsel and to this Honourable Court,

respectfully alleges the following, to wit:

1. Plaintiff is a duly establish cooperative with Certificate of

Registration No. 9520-12008153 issued by the Cooperative Development
Authority. It is presently engaged in providing manpower services to Dole
Philippines, Inc. It holds office at Purok Sagrado, Cannery Road, Barangay
Poblacion, Polomolok, South Cotabato, where it may be served with court
processes.
2. Defendant spouses Rodolfo and Melba Leyson (herein referred
to as “Rodolfo” and “Melba”) are Filipinos, of legal ages, and residents of
Upper Matin-ao, Barangay Silway 8, Polomolok, South Cotabato, where
they may be served with summons and other court processes.
3. Defendant Evangeline G. Panes (herein referred to as
“Evangeline”) is Filipino, of legal age, married, and resident of Purok
Paraiso, Barangay Cannery, Polomolok, South Cotabato, where she may be
served with summons and other court processes.
4. The two other defendants are referred to as “John Does”
because their identities are not yet known. They are the owners of Account

1
No. 3411-0047-66 and Account No. 3411-0010-07 opened at Land Bank of
the Philipines, Dole Extension, Cannery Site, Polomolok, South Cotabato.
This complaint will be amended accordingly as soon as their names are
ascertained.

5. Defendant Land Bank of the Philippines, Dole Extension (herein

referred to as “LBP”) is a duly established branch of the bank with premises
at Dole Cannery, Barangay Cannery Site, Polomolok, South Cotabato, where
it may be served with summons and other processes. Defendant LBP is
included in the case only as a formal party solely in connection with
plaintiff’s desire to obtain a court order directing it to reveal the names of
the unidentified owners of Account No. 3411-0047-66 and Account No.
3411-0010-07.

THE CASE AGAINST DEFENDANT SPOUSES

RODOLFO AND MELBA LEYSON

6. Defendant Melba entered the service of plaintiff on 30 March

1993 as general utility. She was promoted to the position of cashier on 18
March 2004. Among her tasks as cashier, she prepared the checks covering
the SSS sickness benefits of plaintiff’s workers.
7. Plaintiff is the owner of Checking Account No. 3412-0197-91
opened with defendant LBP. This is the account against which checks were
issued by plaintiff to cover the SSS sickness benefits of its workers.
8. On 22 May 2014 a check intended for a worker by the name of
Jonathan Esmediana covering the amount of P51, 050.00 was presented to
defendant LBP for encashment against Account No. 3412-0197-91.
However, it was refused encashment by the bank because, upon inquiry
from plaintiff, it was discovered that the check was actually for only
P1,050.00. The word “Fifty” was inserted in the check before the word
“One Thousand Fifty Pesos” and the number “5” was inserted between the
letter “P” and the number “1” in “1,050.00” to make it appear that the
check was for P51,050.00 and not for P1,050.00.
9. As an offshoot of said incident, plaintiff dismissed defendant
Melba from the service on ground of fraud and breach of trust. Attached as
Exhibit “A” is the “Findings and Recommendation Concerning Disciplinary
Case of Ms. Melba Leyson” dated 23 June 2014 issued by plaintiff’s lawyer,
Atty. Edwin E. Torres; and as Annex “B” is the “Decision to Dismiss” dated
26 June 2014 issued by plaintiff’s Manager, Ms. Florife A. Abordo. Said
documents contained the finding that while it was some personnel of the
Polomolok Pawnshop who presented the check to the bank for
encashment, it was defendant Rodolfo, defendant Melba’s husband, who
delivered the check to Polomolok Pawnshop.

2
 10. After the above-related incident, plaintiff’s manager, Ms.
Abordo, directed its external auditor to audit defendant Melba’s
transactions as cashier. However, after months of waiting, plaintiff was
informed by its auditor that there were no irregularities found in defendant
Melba’s transactions.

11. However, in 2015, plaintiff’s bank-recon-in-charge noticed

some irregularities on the face of some checks previously prepared by
defendant Melba. So a more thorough examination of plaintiff’s records of
defendant’s transactions as cashier was conducted. The examination
revealed that, by a very elaborate scheme, defendant Melba embezzled
money from the coffers of plaintiff in the total amount of P8,400,000.00 at
least during the period from year 2012 to May 2014.
12. The embezzlement committed by defendant spouses was
through the following modus operandi:
A. Plaintiff Melba would prepared checks intended to cover
the SSS sickness benefits of plaintiff’s workers;
B. Then she would procured the signatures of plaintiff’s
authorized signatories on the checks;
C. When the checks are returned to her for release to the
payees, she would then pay some workers in cash - as in
the case of Jonathan Esmediana - and retain the latter’s
checks in her possession;
D. Then she would alter the amounts of the checks in her
possession by simply inserting additional numbers to the
left of the amounts in numerals and words at the left side
of the numbers in words. Attached as Exhibits “C” to “C-
475” are the scanned copies which were provided by
defendant LBP of the questioned checks. Their back
portions are marked with the additional letter “-a” added
to the markings of their front portions. Hence, the back
portion of Exhibit “C” is “C-a” and the back portion of
Exhibit “C-475” is “C-475-a.” Now, as an example of
alteration made by defendant Melba, Check No. 372090
marked as Exhibit “C,” which was only for P2,310.00, was
altered with her insertion of the number “1” and the
word “Twelve” to make it appear that the check was for
P12,310.00, not for P2,310.00.
E. Then defendant Melba would again procure the
signatures of plaintiff’s authorized signatories to show
that the alterations were authorized;
F. When the checks are returned to her for release to the
intended payees, defendant Melba would then alter the
names of the payees by inserting some letters at the end

3
 of the names so that the true payees would not be
recognized. In the example of Check No. 372090 marked
as Exhibit “C,” she inserted some letters which changed
the payee’s true name “Gumban, Elvie” to the
unrecognized person having the name “Gumbanar,
Elvielyn.”
G. Defendant Melba and her husband, defendant Rodulfo,
would then forge, or cause the forging of, the signatures
of the payees at the back of the checks to indicate the
payees’ endorsements thereof.
H. Then defendants Melba and Rodolfo would deliver the
checks to owners of existing accounts with LBP for
deposit in said accounts as in the case of Jonathan
Esmediana’s check which was delivered by defendant
Rodolfo to Polomoloc Pawnshop. This was to avoid the
need to present the checks to defendant LBP for
encashment that would have necessitated scrutiny by the
bank of the identity of the payees.
I. To hide the embezzlement of plaintiff’s funds, defendant
Melba would take possession of the Bank Statements
issued by defendant LBP detailing the running
transactions of plaintiff’s Checking Account No. 3412-
0197-91. She would then erase the numbers in said Bank
Statements that corresponds to her unauthorized
insertions on the questioned checks. Attached as Exhibits
“D” to “D-321” are copies of the original Bank Statements
showing the running balances of the amounts pertaining
to particular daily transactions under Checking Account
No. 3412-0197-91, with rows of the questionable checks
being highlighted. An example of the effort to hide the
embezzlement committed by the defendant spouses is
shown by the Bank Statement marked as Exhibit “D” with
Check No. 372090 intended for Elvie Gumban being
highlighted. Because the inserted number “1” was
erased by defendant Melba, the Bank Statement
indicated that said check covered only the amount
“P2,310.00” and not the amount of “P12,310.00” which is
shown by the scanned copy of the check marked as
Exhibit “C.”
13. The above detailed scheme insured the non-discovery of the
embezzlement because plaintiff’s finance personnel are expected to only
compare – as they did only compare - the amounts of the questioned
checks indicated in the Bank Statements to their disbursement vouchers.
Still, a closer examination of the running balances in the Bank Statements
would show subtraction discrepancies which could not be defendant LBP’s
4
computational errors considering that the running balances are computer-
generated. In the example of the Bank Statement attached as Exhibit “D,”
the pertinent running balances are as follows:
DATE CHECK NO. AMOUNT BALANCE DISCREPANCY

0103 370900 5,036.90 3,596,981.04

0103 372090 2,310.00 3,584,671.04 10,000.00
0103 372070 226,712.77 3,357,958.27
0103 374450 315.50 3,357,642.76
If the running balance before deducting the amount of P2,310.00 is
P3,584,671.04, then the deduction of the former amount will result to a
new running balance of only P3,594,671.04 and not the amount of
P3,584,671.04 indicated in the Bank Statement. There is then an
unaccounted difference of P10,000.00 which could only have been due to
the erasure of the number “1” that made it appear that the deductible
amount is only P2,310.00, not the amount of P12,310.00 actually deducted
from plaintiff’s Checking Account No. 3412-0197-91 on the basis of the
altered check marked as Exhibit “C.”
14. A summary of the checks irregularly issued by defendant
Melba is attached as Exhibits ‘E” to “E-15.” As indicated in Exhibit “E-15,”
the discrepancies that resulted from the irregular issuance of the checks
reached the total amount of P8,400,000.00. Defendant spouses then
defrauded plaintiff of this amount covering the period from 2012 to May
2014.

THE CASE AGAINST DEFENDANT EVANGELINE G. PANES

15. The foregoing allegations of facts are repleaded in the case of

defendant Evangeline:
16. Defendant Evangeline was employed by plaintiff since June
1993. She occupied the position of general services-in-charge before she
was dismissed in connection with the incidents in this case.
17. Defendant Melba issued 68 checks either in the name of payee
“Panes, Evangeline” or a number of payees with “Panes, Evangeline” as
alternative payee covering the period from 2012 to May 2014. Attached
hereto as Exhibits “F” to “F-3” is the summary of the checks issued by
defendant Melba directly in favor of defendant Evangeline in the total
amount of P870,000.00. The checks in said summary are some of the
checks also in the summary of the checks illegally issued by defendant
Melba covered by Exhibits “E” to “E-15.”
18. The above-mentioned checks were irregularly issued to
defendant Evangeline because (a) the amounts reflected in the checks do

5
not correspond to the Disbursement Vouchers covering the same, (b) and
plaintiff never issued any check to two persons in the alternative.
19. The back portions of the above-mentioned checks show the
signatures of defendant Evangeline that evidenced her encashment and
receipt of the amounts covered by the same from defendant LBP. Hence,
she embezzled money from the plaintiff in the total amount of P870,000.00
in conspiracy with defendant Melba.

THE CASE AGAINST THE TWO DEFENDANT “JOHN DOES”

20. The allegations of facts above set forth are repleaded in the
case of the two defendant “John Does.”
21. Except the checks issued to defendants Evangelin and the
checks deposited to outside accounts which passed through clearing house,
the irregularly issued checks covered by Exhibits “E” to “E-15” were
deposited either to Account No. 3411-0047-66 or to Account No, 3411-
0010-07 with defendant LBP as shown in the back portions thereof.
Attached hereto as Exhibit “G” to “G-9” is the summary of the checks
deposited to Account No.3411-0047-66 and Exhibit “H” is the summary of
the checks deposited to Account No. 3411-0010-07.
22. As indicated in the above-mentioned summaries, the total
amount deposit to Account No. 3411-0047-66 covering the period from
2012 to May 2014 is P5,760,000.00; and the total amount deposit to
Account No. 3411-0010-07 covering the same period is P 450,000.00.
23. All the checks deposited in the two accounts were deposited
by persons other than the payees of the checks. This is because the
signatures at the back portions of the checks which should have indicated
the signatures of the true payees were forged signatures. An example is
Check No. 372090 which is mark as Exhibit “C” and where the payee is
“Gumbanar, Elvielyn.” As already explained, the payee is actually
“Gumban, Elvie.” Attached hereto as Exhibit “I” is a photocopy of his
“Member’s Data Form” with plaintiff. His signature is found in the right
lower portion of the said document. Said signature is clearly not the same
as, or similar to, the signature at the back portion of the check that is
marked as Exhibit “C-a,” thus clearly showing that the signature on said
back portion was forged.
24. Noticeable from the back portions of the questioned checks is
the utter lack of information such as the printed names, addresses, and ID
numbers, that should aid in the identification of the signatories.
25. Given that the signatures on the back portions of the checks
deposited by these two defendants – i.e., the owners of Account No. 3412-
0047-66 and Account No. 3411-0010-07 – were forged signatures and given

6
further that said forged signatures were not accompanied by any data that
may lead to the identification of these signatories, defendants “John Does”
were clearly negligent in ascertaining their identities before accepting the
checks for deposit.
26. Given the many and successive instances of the acceptance of
the questioned checks by defendants “John Does,” their actuations goes
beyond negligence and actually indicates their bad faith, deceit, and
conspiracy with the spouses Rodolfo and Melba in defrauding plaintiff. The
first defendant “John Doe,” who is the owner of Account No. 3411-0047-66,
is in complicity to the extent of P5,760,000.00 with defendants Melba and
Rodolfo in their embezzlement of plaintiff’s funds. The second defendant
“John Doe,” who is the owner of Account No. 3411-0010-07, is also in
complicity to the extent of P450,000.00 with defendants Melba and
Rodolfo in their embezzlement of plaintiff’s funds.

THE CASE AGAINST DEFENDANT LBP

27. The foregoing allegations of facts are repleaded for the

purpose of this prayer.
28. The plaintiff cannot obtain information about the ownership of
Account NoS. 3411-0047-66 and 3411-0010-07 without violating RA 1405,
which is the law on secrecy of deposits.

29. Under said law, information on a bank deposit may be inquired

into if the deposit “is the subject matter of litigation.” As already explained,
defendant spouses Rodolfo and Melba surreptitiously took the total
amount of P5,760,000.00 to the prejudice of plaintiff and had said amount
deposited in Account No. 3411-0047-66. Likewise, defendant spouses
surreptitiously took the total amount of P450,000.00 and had said amount
deposited in Account No. 3411-0010-07. Hence, said deposits are clearly
the proper subject matters of this litigation.
30. Furthermore, all the deposits made to Account No. 3411-0047-
66 and Account No. 3411-0010-07 were on the basis of forged signatures of
the supposed payees. There were also no data indicated in the back
portions of the checks to ascertain the identity of the signatories, thus
indicating that the transactions between defendant spouses Rodolfo and
Melba and the owners of these accounts are not arms-length or business-
like transactions. They were in conspiracy with each other in their unlawful
intentions to defraud plaintiff of its funds. This makes the deposits to the
account of these owners all the more the subject matters of this litigation.
31. Hence, an order by this Honourable Court directing defendant
LBP to reveal the identities of the owners of Account Nos. 3411-0047-66
and 3411-0010-07 is proper and consistent with RA 1405.

7
 PRAYER FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT

32. The foregoing allegations of facts are repleaded for the

purpose of plaintiff’s prayer for preliminary attachment.
31. This case is one where the cause of action arises out of delict –
i.e., embezzlement or theft – perpetuated by defendant spouses Rodolfo
and Melba, and defendant Evangeline, to the great prejudice of plaintiff.
Said defendants are reportedly about to leave the Philippines with intent to
defraud the plaintiff. Said circumstance is then a ground for preliminary
attachment under Section 1(a) of Rule 56 of the Rules of Court.
32. This case is also an action for money embezzled by defendant
Melba, who, as cashier, had the trust and confidence of the plaintiff and
where the other defendants - her husband Rodolfo, Evangeline, and the
two defendant “John Does” - were in conspiracy with them. This
circumstance is a ground for preliminary attachment under Section 1(a) and
(b) of Rule 56 of the Rules of Court.
33. Without a writ of preliminary attachment issued in this case,
plaintiff will not have the chance to recover their actual damages against
defendants especially that the items embezzled consist of money that can
easily be transferred and be made beyond the reach of the law.

34. Plaintiff is ready to post a bond that may be fixed by this

Honorable Court to support the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment in the present case.

COMMON ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

EXCEPT DEFENDANT LBP

35. Plaintiff is a cooperative. It is an association of ordinary

working men and women who, having no capital of their own, joined hands
to contribute the little money they had in the striving for a better future for
themselves and their families. The capital of plaintiff cooperative came
from the little - but hard-earned - contributions of their members. To
defraud plaintiff is to defraud the many ordinary working men and women
that it composes. The actuations then of defendants in conspiring with
each other in defrauding plaintiff of millions of pesos is so outrageous,
unlawful, and unjust such that they should be assessed exemplary damages
as a lesson for the public good. Although incapable of pecuniary
estimation, they should be assessed P200,000.00 as exemplary damages.
35. Because of defendants’ unlawful and unjust acts of defrauding
plaintiff in conspiracy of each other, plaintiff was compelled to hire the
services of counsel to maintain and enforce its rights. Hence, defendants
should be made to pay the attorney’s fees that it will incur in the amount of

8
P50,000.00 as acceptance fee, P3,000.00 per appearance, and 15% of
whatever judgment award may be awarded in plaintiff’s favour in the case.
37. Because of defendants’ unlawful and unjust acts of defrauding
plaintiff in conspiracy with one another, plaintiff had to litigate and to incur
costs of litigation. Said costs should be charged against defendants.

PRAYER

PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed to this Honourable

Court that judgment be rendered ordering the payment to plaintiff of the
following:
1. ACTUAL DAMAGES in the following amounts:
(a) P8,400,000.00 from defendants spouses Rodolfo
Leyson and Melba Leyson;
(b) P870,000.00 from defendant Evangeline Panes;
(c) P5,760,000.00 from the first defendant “John
Doe” who is the owner of Account No. 3411-
0047-66; and
(d) P450,000.00 from the second defendant “John
Doe” who is the owner of Account No, 3411-
0010-07.
The above amounts of actual damages are not
cumulative, the liabilities of the last three defendants
being joint and solidary with defendant spouses
Rodolfo and Melba to the extent only of the actual
damages individually due from them;
2. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES in the amount of P200,000.00
from all defendants except defendant LBP;
3. ATTORNEY’S FEES in the amount equivalent to
P50,000.00 acceptance fee, P3,000 per appearance,
and 15% of the judgment award from all defendants
except defendant LBP; and
4. COST OF LITIGATION from all defendants except
defendant LBP.
Plaintiff prays for the issuance of (a) a writ of preliminary attachment
of the properties belonging to the defendants except defendant LBP to the
extent of the actual damages that they are supposed to pay; and (b) an
order directing defendant LBP to reveal the owners of Account No. 3411-
0047-66 and Account No. 3411-0010-07.

9
 Plaintiff prays for such other remedies as maybe just and equitable
under the premises.
General Santos City, Philippines, 11 February 2016.

EDWIN E. TORRES
Counsel for Plaintiff
Denoga Subdivision, Barangay Lagao
General Santos City Tel. (083)302-0631
IBP OR No. 1013383 – 1/6/16 – GSC
PTR No. 6595754 – 1/11/6 – GSC
Roll No. 30347 – 5/9/80

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF

NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, FLORIFE A. ABORDO, of legal age, Filipino, residing at Lot 13a, Block

11, Phase II, San Gabriel Homes, Barangay Poblacion, Polomolok, South
Cotabato, after having been sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose
and say:

1. That I am the General Manager of CANNERY MULTI-PURPOSE

COOPERATIVE with office address at Purok Sagrado, Barangay
Poblacion, Polomolok, South Cotabato, who is the plaintiff in the
instant case.
2. That, having been authorized by the Board of Directors of said
cooperative, I cause the preparation of the foregoing complaint
and that I have read the same and that the allegations therein are
true and correct on my personal knowledge or based on authentic
records;

3. That said cooperative has not heretofore commenced any action

or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal
or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such
other action or claim is pending therein; if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present
status thereof shall be made; and if I should thereafter learn that
the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I
shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this court.

10
 IN WITNESSED HEREOF, I hear and to set my signature this ___ day of
February 2015. In the Municipality of Polomolok, South Cotabato.

FLORIFE A. ABORDO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of February

2016, affiant exhibiting to me her BIR ID No. 128-845-346 issued at
Polomolok, South Cotabato.

Doc. No. ____

Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of 2016.

11
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
MUNICIPALITY OF POLOMOLOK )
PROVINCE OF SOUTH COTABATO ) s.s.

SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE

I, LIEZLE L. PONCE, Filipino, of legal age, married, and a resident of Polomolok,

South Cotabato, after having been sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and
say that:
1. I am the Cooperative Secretary of CANNERY MULTI-PURPOSE
COOPERATIVE, a duly established cooperative with office at Purok Sagrado, Polomolok,
South Cotabato;
2. I hereby attest to the fact that the Board of Directors of said Cooperative
had a meeting on 9 February 2016 at 10 o’clock AM in its office and during said meeting
where a quorum, it unanimously adopted the following resolution:
“RESOLVED, that FLORIFE A. ABORDO and/or her duly designated
representative, are hereby named, constituted and appointed to be the
Cooperative’s true and lawful attorney-in-fact to file in its behalf a civil
complaint for damages against the spouses Rodolfo and Melba Leyson,
Evangeline Panes, the owners of Account Nos. 3411-0047-66 and 3411-
0010-07 with Land Bank, and Land Bank of Philippines, DOLE Extension,
with full power to enter into pre-trial to decide on the following:
1. To negotiate, conclude, enter into and execute a
Compromise Agreement or Amicable Settlement of the
case, under such terms and conditions as the above
named attorney-in-fact may deem just and reasonable;
2. To agree on the simplification of the issue;
3. To amend the pleading;
4. To obtain stipulations or admissions of facts and
documents to avoid unnecessary proof;
5. To limit the number of witnesses;
6. To undertake preliminary reference of issues to a
commissioner; and
7. To do and agree on such other matters as may aid in the
prompt disposition of the action.”

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my signature this _____ day of February

2016 in the Municipality of Polomolok, South Cotabato.

LIEZLE L. PONCE
Cooperative Secretary

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of February 2016, affiant
exhibiting her _______________ dated _______ and issued by__________.

12
Doc. No._____
Page No._____
Book No._____
Series of 2016.

13