REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 120, Pasay City
MARLON GANISA,
Plaintiff,
-versusJOVY
BIMBAP,
Civil Case No. R-PSY-2012345-CV
For: Collection of Sum of
Money
Defendant.
x--------------------------------------------x
ANSWER
Defendant, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court,
respectfully avers that:
1. On 5 October 2020, Summons was served personally upon Jovy
Bimbap (defendant) to his personal address at 456 Mercado Street,
Makati City by the Sheriff of the Honorable Court;
2. Upon receipt on the above-mentioned date, defendant has thirty (30)
days within which to file his Answer, hence, this Answer is filed on
time;
ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS
3. Defendant admits the averments in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the
Complaint;
4. Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraph 6 of the
Complaint, in fact, Marlon Ganisa (Plaintiff) was notified by the
defendant that the account has sufficient funds as early as 13 August
2007. A photocopy of the Notice sent to Marlon Ganisa is attached
hereto and marked as Annex “A”;
5. Defendant denies paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Complaint, due to lack
of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
veracity or falsity thereof, the allegations therein being matters
known only to and are within the control only of the Plaintiff;
6. Defendant specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 9 and 10,
on the ground that he never received the alleged notice of dishonor
dated 29 December 2019, thirteen (13) years after the contract of
loan was executed;
7. Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraph 11, there
were no demand letters allegedly received from the Plaintiff,
fourteen (14) years after the contract of loan;
8. Any allegation not expressly and specifically admitted shall be
generally denied.
SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
9. On 1 March 2006, Plaintiff and Defendant met in Plaintiff’s home
at 123 Bonifacio St., Pasay City to transact their business. During
their negotiation, plaintiff agreed to let the Defendant borrow a sum
of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00), secured by Open-Dated
Check with Check Number 0000239020;
10. Prescription has set in from the accrual of the obligation, while
the loan was transacted in 2006, the alleged demand was made only
in February 2020, fourteen (14) years after the transaction;
11. Section 119 of the Negotiable Instruments Law provides that:
A check is a bill of exchange drawn on a bank
payable on demand, it further states that a
negotiable instrument like a check may be
discharged by any other act which will discharge a
simple contract for the payment of money, to wit:
xxx
(d) By any other act which will discharge a
simple contract for the payment of money.
(emphasis supplied)
12. A check can be subject to prescription of actions upon a written
contract. The cause of action on the checks has become stale, hence,
time-barred. Also, there being no written extrajudicial or judicial
demand was shown to have been made within 10 years which could
have tolled the period. Prescription therefore set in. Article 1144 of
the New Civil Code, provides that, actions upon a written contract
must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action
accrues.
13. The delivery of the check produces the effect of payment when
through the fault of the creditor they have been impaired. It is a
settled rule that the creditor's possession of the evidence of debt is
proof that the debt has not been discharged by payment. The failure
of the Plaintiff to encash the checks within a reasonable time after
issue, or more than 10 years in this instance, not only results in the
checks becoming stale but also in the obligation to pay being
deemed fulfilled by operation of law.
14. Article 1249 of the New Civil Code, provides that, the delivery
of promissory notes payable to order, or bills of exchange or other
mercantile documents shall produce the effect of payment only
when they have been cashed, or when through the fault of the
creditor they have been impaired. (emphasis ours)
15. Lastly, the Supreme Court, in the case of International
Corporate Bank (Union Bank of the Philippines) v. Spouses Francis
S. Gueco and Ma. Luz E. Gueco, held that:
A check must be presented for payment within a
reasonable time after its issue, and in determining
what is a “reasonable time,” regard is to be had to
the nature of the instrument, the usage of trade or
business with respect to such instruments, and the
facts of the particular case. The test is whether the
payee employed such diligence as a prudent man
exercises in his own affairs. This is because the
nature and theory behind the use of a check points
to its immediate use and payability.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed to the Honorable
Court that the instant case be dismissed on the ground of the affirmative defenses
raised and for lack of merit. It is further prayed that the plaintiff be ordered to pay
the following to the defendant:
1. Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) as moral damages, and
2. Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) as attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses.
Other reliefs and remedies deemed just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
23 October 2020, Pasay City, Philippines
DOE Law Office
Counsel for Defendant
123 Ave., Marikit St., Pasay City
Mobile No: 09172326758
Email Address: DOE_law01@gmail.com
(Sgd.)
ATTY. RENZ R. BAUSTISTA
IBP No. 1234567 10/21/15 Pasay City
PTR No. 0987654 1/5/15 Pasay City
MCLE Exempted
Roll No. 00015
Copy Furnish:
Branch Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court Pasay City Branch 120
DONASA, MENLO AND TAFT LAW OFFICES
Arellano University School of Law Taft Ave., cor. Menlo St., Pasay City