1

Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Mindanao Station
Cagayan de Oro City

RICHARD BELLA CA-G.R. CV NO. 5678

Plaintiff-Appellant RTC Br. 17, Zamboanga City
Civil Case No.1234

- versus –

JASMINE ABUBAKAR RE: COLLECTION OF SUM OF

MONEY AND DAMAGES WITH
Defendant-Appellee.

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

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S BRIEF

COMES NOW Plaintiff-Appellant, in the above-entitled cases,

through the undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court, most

respectfully submit this Appellant’s Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant in the

above-entitled cases, and in support thereof state that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal filed by Plaintiff-Appellant of the Decision

dated 27 March 2019 of Branch 17, Regional Trial Court, Zamboanga

City, in Civil Case No. 1234, entitled “RICHARD BELLA versus

JASMINE ABUBAKAR” for “COLLECTION OF SUM OF MONEY AND

DAMAGES”, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in consideration of the premises,

the above-entitled case is hereby DISMISSED for failure

 2

to institute the action within the time prescribed by law

which is six (6) years from the time the right of action

accrued”

SO ORDERED.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ……………………………………………..1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………3

STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………………..4

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS …………………………………….……4

STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S ………………………………………………..5

ARGUMENTS …………………………………………………………………5

RELIEF ………………………………………………………………………..7
 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Philippine Statutes:

New Civil Code of the Philippines

Philippine Jurisprudence:

Chua vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88383, February 19, 1992, 206
SCRA 339, 346

Almeda vs Cario, G.R. No. 152143, January 13, 2003

 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On 01 January 2005, Defendant borrowed from Plaintiffs a

sum of money in the amount of ONE MILLION (Php 1,000,000.00)
PESOS, Philippine currency, payable on February 14, 2011 for which
the Defendant then issued a Promissory Note dated 01 January 2005.

2. On 14 February 2018, after a repeated demand from the

Plaintiff, Plaintiff sent a Demand Letter to the Defendant in order to
compel the latter to comply with her obligation.

3. Despite the continuous demands for the payment by the

Plaintiff, Defendant continuously failed and refused to pay their total
account with the Plaintiff thereby incurring damages and prejudice.

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

4. On 03 January 2019, Plaintiff-Appellant instituted the above-

entitled case before the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City which
was thereafter raffled in Branch 17 docketed as Civil Case No. 1234
against herein Defendant-Appellant.

5. Before the pre-trial, Defendant-Appellee filed a Motion to

Dismiss on the ground that the cause of action is already barred by
Statute of limitations since the Plaintiff instituted the action seven (7)
years after his right of action to collect from the defendant accrued.
Said Court in Its Order dated 15 March 2019, granted the motion in
which the dispositive portion reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court hereby

grants the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant for failure to
institute the action within the time prescribed by law which is
six (6) years from the time the right of action accrued”

SO ORDERED.”

6. Plaintiff-Appellant thereafter filed a Motion for

Reconsideration dated 22 March 2019 praying before the Trial Court
to set aside Its Order dismissing the case.
7.

8. On 27 March 2019, the Trial Court dismissed the aforesaid

Motion for lack of merit. The dispositive portion of the Order reads:

“WHEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the

Motion for Reconsideration filed by herein Plaintiff is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
 5

SO ORDERED.”

9. On 30 March 2019, Plaintiff-Appellant, through counsel,

received the above-mentioned Order and on April 05, 2019
immediately filed a Notice of Appeal.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN

HOLDING THAT THE INSTANT CASE WAS ALREADY BARRED
BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.\
II. WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT IS ENTITLED
TO RECOVER FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER EXPENSES.

DISCUSSION

FIRST ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED

IN HOLDING THAT THE INSTANT CASE WAS ALREADY
BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

10. According to Article 1144 of the New Civil Code, the following
actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of
action accrues:

(1) Upon a written contract;

(2) Upon an obligation created by law;

(3) Upon a judgment.

11. Art. 1145 on the other hand provides that the following actions
must be commenced within six years:

(1) Upon an oral contract;

(2) Upon a quasi-contract.

12. In deciding the instant case, the trial court completely disregarded
the existence of the promissory note executed by the Defendant. As
such, it ruled that the period of prescription of the instant case is six
(6) years. However, it must be noted that the Defendant herself did not
dispute the existence of such promissory note in her answer to the
complaint of the plaintiff.

13. “Clearly, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in
concluding that respondent specifically denied petitioner’s allegations
regarding the loan documents, as respondent’s Answer shows that he
failed to specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due
execution of the promissory note and its concomitant documents.
Therefore, respondent is deemed to have admitted the loan documents
and acknowledged his obligation with petitioner; and with
respondent’s implied admission, it was not necessary for petitioner to
 6

present further evidence to establish the due execution and

authenticity of the loan documents sued upon.

While Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court requires that
private documents be proved of their due execution and authenticity
before they can be received in evidence, i.e., presentation and
examination of witnesses to testify on this fact; in the present case,
there is no need for proof of execution and authenticity with respect to
the loan documents because of respondent’s implied admission
thereof.”1

THUS:

14. Pursuant to Article 1144 of the New Civil Code, since the contract
between the Defendant and the Plaintiff is one supported by a
Promissory note, it shall fall in the classification of a written contract
whose action for collection is ten (10) years from the time the right of
action accrues. Hence, since the obligation became due and
demandable on February 14, 2011 and the Plaintiff instituted the
instant action on February 14, 2018, the instant action is not barred
by the Statute of Limitations since it was only seven (7) years passed
after the obligation became due and demandable.

SECOND ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO

RECOVER FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER EXPENSES.

15. Article 1170 of The New Civil Code provides that 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.

16. Furthermore, Article 1228 of New Civil Code provides also that
proof of actual damages suffered by the creditor is not necessary in
order that the penalty may be demanded.

17. It cannot be denied that the Defendant in the case at bar is guilty
of negligence and delay in performing her obligations. As such, the
Plaintiff suffered damages.

18. Moreover, because of the failure of the Defendant to settle her

obligation, the Plaintiff has resorted to the services of a lawyer thereby
incurring several expenses.

19. “In this case, not only did the Defendant-Appellee continuously
failed to pay her obligation with Plaintiff-Appellant upon the latter’s
demand, but also her actions of surreptitious disposition of her
property, to the damage of herein Plaintiff-Appellant, entitled the latter
to be compensated through damages since Defendant-Appellee
wantonly acted in bad faith as she was already informed of the
demands made by Plaintiff-Appellant on several occassions.

1
Chua vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88383, February 19, 1992, 206 SCRA 339, 346.
 7

Conversely, so long as there is a showing of a violation of the right of

the plaintiff, an award of nominal damages is proper. 2”

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court

that Judgment be rendered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendant as follows:

a) Ordering Defendant to pay to Plaintiff the total sum of ONE

MILLION (Php 1,000,000.00).

b) Ordering Defendants to pay to Plaintiffs the sum of P80,000.00

by way of Attorney’s fee; P10,000.00 by way of deposit for legal
expenses; and P3,000.00 per appearance in Court, as well as
cost of litigation.

Other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the premises are

likewise prayed for.

City of Zamboanga, Philippines, 05 April 2019.

SPECTER, LITT &

ROSS
Counsel for the Defendant
Block E-43 & 44-E, Plaza del Pilar, Sta. Barbara Road,
Brgy. Zone IV, beside Hall of Justice, Zamboanga City
Email: [email protected]
Tel No. (062) 926 – 0995

BY:

ATTY. RUDOLFO HEETLER

Roll No. 42686; 05-25-05;
IBP No.787120; 01-04-18; ZAMBASULTA
PTR No. 1178276, 01-05-18, ZC.;
MCLE Compliance No. V – 0005155

Copy Furnished:
2
Almeda vs Cario, G.R. No. 152143, January 13, 2003
 8

Atty. BAROCK OHBUMMA

OHBUMMA Law Firm
Zamboanga City