Answer With Counterclaim: Republic of The Philippines

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch ___
Makati City
JORGE GONZALES, CIVIL CASE NO. _______

Plaintiff, For:
-versus-
__________________________
EXON BANK,
Defendant.
x--------------------x
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM
COMES NOW, defendant through counsel and unto this Honorable Court most
respectfully states that:
1. Defendant ADMITS paragraphs (1) to (2) of the complaint only in so far as to

his personal circumstances are concerned;
2. Defendant ADMITS paragraphs (3) to (7) of the complaint insofar as Plaintiff
currently having a Foreign Currency Deposit (FCD) of USD 8,715.72 with
defendant-bank and as to the grant of a credit line to Plaintiff through the
execution of a Credit-On-Hand Loan Agreement (COHLA), in which the
aggregate amount of the accounts of Plaintiff served as collateral for and his
availment limit under the credit line;
3. Defendant specifically and categorically DENIES the allegations contained in
paragraphs (8) to (10) of the complaint for lack of knowledge and information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity thereof;
paragraph (11), (12), (14) and (15) of the complaint, the truth being those alleged
in the special and affirmative defenses part herein below;
5. Defendant ADMITS paragraphs (13) of the complaint;
paragraphs (16) and (17) of the complaint for lack of knowledge and information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity thereof;
7. Defendant insofar as Paragraph (18) of the Complaint is DENIED for lack of
knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity or falsity
of the alleged amounts of moral damages. The truth being those alleged in the
special and affirmative defenses part herein below.
SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant-bank hereby re-pleads the foregoing averments in so far as they
are applicable herein and further states by way of Special Affirmative Defenses as
follows:
Plaintiff is solidarily liable for the promissory notes
8. That Plaintiff is solidarily liable with the spouses Robilio for the three promissory
notes covering the PhP 1,800,000 loan as shown by:
(1) Promissory Note BD-090-1766-95, dated October 30, 1995, for PhP
500,000 was signed by Gonzales and his wife, Jessica Gonzales;
(2) Promissory Note BD-090-2122-95,14 dated December 26, 1995, for PhP
1,000,000 was signed by Gonzales and the spouses Robilio; and
(3) Promissory Note BD-090-011-96,15 dated January 3, 1996, for PhP
300,000 was signed by Gonzales and the spouses Robilio.
Machine copy of these promissory notes are hereto attached as Exhibits “1”,
“2”, and “3” respectively;
9. That plaintiff is liable to pay Defendant-Bank as principal under the promissory
notes it having admitted under paragraph (7) of the Complaint that a real estate mortgage
(REM) over a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 38012 was
executed by the Plaintiff himself and Spouses Robilio duly established by Annex “A” of
the Complaint;
10. The fact that the loans were undertaken by Gonzales when he signed as borrower or
co-borrower for the benefit of the spouses Robilio is beside the point, for signing as
borrower and co-borrower on the promissory notes with the proceeds of the loans going to
the spouses Robilio, Plaintiff has extended an accommodation to said spouses;
11. That as an accommodation party, Plaintiff is solidarily liable with the spouses
Panlilio for the loans. In Ang v. Associated Bank, quoting the definition of an
accommodation party under Section 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, the Court cited
that an accommodation party is a person "who has signed the instrument as maker, drawer,
acceptor, or indorser, without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his
name to some other person." The accommodation party is liable on the instrument to a
holder for value even though the holder, at the time of taking the instrument, knew him or
her to be merely an accommodation party, as if the contract was not for accommodation.
12. the solidary liability of Gonzales is clearly stipulated in the promissory notes
There was no improper Dishonor of Check by Defendant-Bank
13. That Defendant promptly called the attention of Plaintiff regarding the default of
payment
14. That under the promissory notes signed by Plaintiff and the unpaid monthly interest
dues “Failure to pay monthly interest shall render the entire obligation immediately due
and demandable without need of demand”;
15.
16. That there is justification on part of the defendant Bank to dishonor the check, it
having been admitted by Plaintiff in paragraph (1) of the Complaint that he is aware of his
solidary liability with with the spouses Rubilios on the three promissory notes relative to
the outstanding REM loan;
17. That Defendant-bank has neither negligence nor fault in the termination of the
COHLA with Plaintiff and in freezing the latter’s accounts to answer for the past due PhP
1,800,000 loan for it was merely exercising its rights under the contractual stipulations in
the COHLA brought about by the outstanding past dues of the REM loan and interests for
which Gonzales was solidarily liable with the spouses Panlilio to pay under the promissory
notes;
18. That the Defendant-bank’s dishonor of the check issued by Gonzales in favor of
Unson was proper considering that the credit line under the COHLA had already been
terminated or revoked before the presentment of the check;
19. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has no legal right to compel acceptance of the check
as the High Court in Philippine Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150318, 22
November 2010 ratiocinated that because the business of banks is imbued with public
interest, they are expected to exercise more care and prudence than private individuals,
even in cases involving registered lands. Banks, therefore, have the duty of proving that
they have exercised extraordinary diligence.
20. That in exercising extraordinary diligence required of
COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant reiterates, re-pleads and incorporates by reference all the
foregoing insofar as they are material and additionally submit that he is entitled to
relief arising from the filing of this malicious and baseless suit, as follows:
18. Attorney’s Fees amounting to ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php
150,000.00) because the Bank for the services of counsel to vindicate its legal rights.
13. Litigation expenses in the amount of not less than FORTY THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 40,000.00) incurred by Defendant;
PRAYER
Other reliefs, just and equitable with the premises, are likewise prayed for.
Makati City, Philippines, August 7, 2018.
DEL ROSARIO SABANDO AND BAUTISTA LAW OFFICE

8th Floor Pacific Star Building, Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue corner Makati Avenue,
Makati, 1200 Metro Manila
By:
CLEMENT DEL ROSARIO

IBP No.1549261 01/01/2017
PTR No. 128282 01/01/2017
Attorney’s Roll No. 12345
MCLE No. NCR-0001234
TIN: 123-456-789
[email protected]
FYDAH MARIE SABANDO

IBP No.1549261 01/01/2017
PTR No. 128282 01/01/2017
TIN: 123-456-788
[email protected]
JOSEPH RAYMUND BAUTISTA
IBP No.1549261 01/01/2017
PTR No. 128282 01/01/2017
TIN: 123-456-787
[email protected]

Answer With Counterclaim: Republic of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Answer With Counterclaim: Republic of The Philippines

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

Answer With Counterclaim: Republic of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION

JORGE GONZALES, CIVIL CASE NO. _______

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

1. Defendant ADMITS paragraphs (1) to (2) of the complaint only in so far as to

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Makati City, Philippines, August 7, 2018.

DEL ROSARIO SABANDO AND BAUTISTA LAW OFFICE

CLEMENT DEL ROSARIO

FYDAH MARIE SABANDO

You might also like