REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

CITIFINANCIAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee
- versus LETICIA L. JORMAN
Defendant-Appellant
CA G.R. NO. CV-96837
(Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 143)
(RTC Civil Case No. 06-094)

APPELLEES BRIEF
PICAZO BUYCO TAN FIDER & SANTOS
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee Citifinancial Corporation
18th, 19th, 10th & 17th Floors, Liberty Center
104 H.V. dela Costa Street, Salcedo Village
1227 Makati City, Metro Manila
Tel. No. (+632) 888-0999
Fax No. (+632) 844-6169
Email Address: main@picazolaw.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
I.

Prefatory Statement

II. Counter-Statement of Facts

III. Counter-Arguments

17

First Argument
The Court a quo correctly ruled in the Decision that
defendant-appellant Jorman failed to prove that the alleged
destruction, if any, of the Leased Premises was caused by
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial considering that the
improvements removed therefrom were undisputedly owned
by plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial and, in fact, were never
claimed by defendant-appellant Jorman. Likewise, the Court
a quo correctly affirmed the Decision through the Order on
the grounds that the Motion for Reconsideration of
defendant-appellant Jorman was merely a pro forma motion
for failing to raise any new ground or persuasive reason to
warrant the reversal of the Decision and for violating the
three (3)-day notice rule. Thus, the Motion for
Reconsideration of defendant-appellant Jorman did not toll
the period to appeal the Decision and consequently, her
appeal to the Honorable Court of Appeals was filed out of
time.

19

Second Argument
The Court a quo correctly held that defendant-appellant
Jorman did not comply with the provisions of the Lease
Contract on deductions against the Security Deposit, thereby
enjoining her from claiming any such deductions assuming
solely for the sake of argument that she has proven that
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial caused damage to the Leased
Premises.

44

Third Argument

49

The Court a quo correctly found that the belated claim of

defendant-appellant Jorman contained in her 7 April 2006
letter to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial was a mere ruse to
avoid the inevitable refund of the Security Deposit.
Fourth Argument
The Court a quo correctly held that defendant-appellant
Jorman is liable for damages in favor of plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial in view of her unjustified refusal to return the
Security Deposit owned by plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial.

52

IV. Relief

55

TABLE OF LAWS AND CASES

A. RULES OF COURT
Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court
Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court
B. CIVIL CODE
Articles 1159, 1170, 2208, 2209, 2232, 2234
C. CASES
Philippine National Construction Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 272
SCRA 183, 191 (1997)
Marcelo Macalinao vs. Eddie Medecielo Ong, et. al., 477 SCRA 740 (2005)
Romeo Sison, et. al. vs. People of the Philippines, 250 SCRA 58, 75-76 (1995)
Marcos vs. Manglapus, et al., 178 SCRA 760, 763 (1989)
Cacho vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 276 SCRA 420 (1997)
Llantero vs. Court of Appeals, 105 SCRA 609, 614 (1981)
Garcia vs. Echiverri, 132 SCRA 631, 639 (1984)
Azajar vs. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 333, 338-339 (1986)
Picson vs. Picson, 61 SCRA 67 (1974)
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. vs. Delgado, 104 Phil. 920 (1958)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

CITIFINANCIAL CORPORATION,
PlaintiffAppellee,
- versus -

CA G.R. No. CV-96837

LETICIA L. JORMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
x ---------------------------------------------- x

APPELLEES BRIEF
Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial Corporation (Citifinancial), by counsel,
respectfully states:
I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
1.01 It is a fundamental rule that contracts, once perfected, bind both
contracting parties, and obligations arising therefrom have the force of law
between the parties and should be complied with in good faith.1
Philippine National Construction Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 272 SCRA 183, 191
(1997) citing Articles 1159, 1308, 1315 and 1356 of the Civil Code.
1

1.02 Verily, when plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial and defendant-appellant

Leticia L. Jorman (Jorman) executed the Lease Contract (as defined below), 2 the
terms and conditions thereof bound both of them and their obligations that arose
therefrom have the force of law between them which they should comply with in
good faith.

1.03 Under the Lease Contract, defendant-appellant Jorman can make

deductions from the Security Deposit only upon [i] giving plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial a ten (10)-day prior written notice and [ii] furnishing plaintiffappellee Citifinancial with proper documentation and official receipts supporting
such deductions. Thereafter, within thirty (30) days from the date of termination of
the Lease Contract, a joint ocular inspection of the Leased Premises (as defined
hereunder) shall be conducted by plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial and defendantappellant Jorman to determine if there is any damage to the Leased Premises and if
the cost thereof qualifies as a deduction from the Security Deposit. Absent any of
the foregoing conditions, defendant-appellant Jorman is not authorized to make
any deductions on the Security Deposit. This is the contract between plaintiff-

Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Exhibit B (Rollo, pp. 13-23, 93-103, 217-227). See also
defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 6 (Rollo, pp. 376-A- 386).
2

appellee Citifinancial and defendant-appellant Jorman which the latter

manifestly did not comply with respect to the Security Deposit.

1.04 By virtue of the manifest failure or refusal of defendant-appellant

Jorman to comply with the procedure for claiming deductions from the Security
Deposit, defendant-appellant Jorman is not authorized to make any deductions
therefrom and, conformably with the provisions of the Lease Contract, she is
obligated to return to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial the Security Deposit in full
within fifteen (15) days from the termination of the Lease Contract.

1.05 In any event, as found by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
Branch 143 (the Court a quo) in its Decision dated 30 April 2010 (Decision)3
and affirmed in its Order dated 9 December 2010 (Order),4 defendant-appellant
Jorman failed to establish any amount that should be deducted from the Security
Deposit.

II.
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS

3
4

Rollo, pp. 450-456.

Rollo, pp. 590-592.
3

2.01 Sometime in August 2001, plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial and

defendant-appellant Jorman entered into a Contract of Lease (the Lease
Contract) for the lease by plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial of defendant-appellant
Jormans property at 1030 Pasay Road, San Lorenzo Village, Makati City (the
Leased Premises), for a term of five (5) years from 1 September 2001 to 31
August 2006.

2.02 Pursuant to the Lease Contract, plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial

deposited with defendant-appellant Jorman a security deposit equivalent to three
(3) monthly rentals, amounting to Eight Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos
(PhP825,000.00) (the Security Deposit),5 subject to the following terms and
conditions in the Lease Contract:
The LESSEE shall also deposit with the LESSOR, an amount equivalent to 3
months rental, or the total sum of Php 825,000.00, excluding the 10% VAT and
5% Withholding Tax, by way of Security Deposit to answer for any of the
LESSEEs obligation [sic] by virtue of this Contract.

2.03 As expressly stipulated in the Lease Contract, the Security Deposit

should be immediately returned to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial by defendantappellant Jorman within fifteen (15) days from the termination of the lease. With
This was admitted by defendant-appellant Jorman in the first page of her Answer dated 20 April
2006 (Rollo, p. 46) as well as in page 4 of her Affidavit dated 6 August 2008 (defendantappellant Jormans Exhibit 7) (Rollo, pp. 263, 390).
5

respect to obligations of plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial that are allowed under the

Lease Contract to be deducted from the Security Deposit, a procedure for such
deduction was also expressly stipulated in Section II of the Lease Contract, to wit:
xxx The Security Deposit shall be returned by the LESSOR to the
LESSEE within fifteen (15) days from termination of this Contract.
The LESSOR may deduct from the Security Deposit unpaid
electric bills, telephone, or other utility bills, cost of repairs to the
Leased Premises for damages caused by negligence of the
LESSEE or any person under his custody or employ and all other
costs or charges properly for the account of the LESSEE under the
conditions, stipulations and covenants of this Contract.
Reimbursement to the LESSEE of the Security Deposit shall only
be made upon surrender by the LESSEE to the LESSOR of copies
of the official receipts for paid electric, water, telephone, or any
utility bills pertaining to the last month of the lease.
If the LESSOR fails to refund the Security Deposit or the
balance thereof within the prescribed fifteen (15) day period, the
LESSOR shall additionally pay the LESSEE late interest on the
unrefunded amount at the rate of one percent (1%) per month.
The LESSOR shall provide 10 days written notice to the
LESSEE for any deductions to be made against the Security
Deposit on a monthly basis. All deductions made against the
Security Deposit must be properly documented by the LESSOR
and supported by official receipts furnished to the LESSEE. Within
thirty (30) days from the date of termination of Lease, authorized
representatives of the LESSOR and the LESSEE will jointly
conduct an inspection of the Leased Premises to determine if there
is damage to the Leased Premises and it the cost of such damage
qualifies as a deduction from the Security Deposit.

2.04 In its letter dated 15 March 2004,6 which was received by defendantappellant Jorman on the same date, plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial, conformably
with Section XVI of the Lease Contract, informed defendant-appellant Jorman of
6

Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Exhibit C (Rollo, pp. 24, 104, 228).

5

its decision to pre-terminate the lease effective 15 May 2004. In the same letter,
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial likewise informed defendant-appellant Jorman that
it was expecting a refund in full of the Security Deposit, given that it would be
turning over the Leased Premises in a properly maintained condition, with all
utility bills fully paid.

2.04.1 Section XVI of the Lease Contract pertinently reads:

xxx
However, at any time during August 01, 2002 up to July 31, 2006 of the
term of this Contract, should LESSEE decide to preterminate or cancel
this lease, the LESSEE shall give the LESSOR not less than two (2)
months prior written notice before the pretermination date. In which case,
the LESSOR shall neither hold nor claim any amount fines and penalties,
nor file suit against LESSEE, nor shall any amount such as the Security
Deposit be forfeited to the LESSOR.
xxx.

2.05 Although plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial initially decided to preterminate the lease on 15 May 2004, plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial vacated the
Leased Premises only on 31 July 2004 without any objection from defendantappellant Jorman7 considering that plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial fully paid the
rent for its stay in the Leased Premises until 31 July 2004.8
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) of the hearing held on 2 August 2007, pp.14-15;
Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Exhibit F (Rollo, pp. 152 and 235).
8
TSN of the hearing held on 2 August 2007, pp. 7-8.
7

2.06 Contrary to the allegations of defendant-appellant Jorman in

Paragraph 5 of the Appellants Brief dated 23 December 2011 (Appellants
Brief), defendant-appellant Jorman was informed by Mr. Fernando R. Lising
(Lising), then Manager and Head of the Corporate Realty Services of plaintiffappellee Citifinancial, that plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial would vacate the Leased
Premises on 31 July 2004.9 Further, plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial was no longer
casually conducting business on the Leased Premises on 31 July 2004 since said
date was the third and last day of the move-out of plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial
from the Leased Premises.10

2.07 Notwithstanding the foregoing and the fact the plaintiff-appellee

Citifinancial had properly vacated the Leased Premises on 31 July 2004,
defendant-appellant Jorman has yet to refund to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial the
Security Deposit. Defendant-appellant Jorman continues to unjustifiably fail and
refuse to refund the Security Deposit despite the clear absence of any valid reason
therefor or any valid notice of deduction from the Security Deposit (with the
supporting documents therefor), as required under Section II of the Lease Contract.

9
10

Id., pp. 5-6.

Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Exhibit G (Rollo, pp. 175 and 242).
7

2.07.1

Under the Section II of the Lease Contract, defendant-

appellant Jorman was required to provide 10 days written notice [to

plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial] for any deductions to be made against the
Security Deposit on a monthly basis which deductions must be properly
documented by the [defendant-appellant Jorman] and supported by official
receipts furnished to the [plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial].

2.08 In a letter dated 10 August 2004,11 defendant-appellant Jorman

belatedly and baselessly accused plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial of

violating

Section X of the Lease Contract when it removed the acoustic ceiling boards, toilet
bowls, bathroom fixtures, exhaust fans, telephone wires, doors, wall papers and
circuit breakers/box. Aside from the fact that this letter was sent to plaintiffappellee Citifinancial beyond the stipulated period in the Lease Contract, it is,
more importantly, not true that plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial removed the
electrical/telephone wires, the marble flooring and the wall paper.12

2.09 However, aside from the fact that the above-mentioned letter of
defendant-appellant Jorman did not comply with the required ten (10)-day prior
Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Exhibit D (Rollo, pp. 25-26, 105-106, 229-230). See also
defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 2 (Rollo, pp. 58-59, 372, 373).
12
Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Exhibit F, (Rollo, pp. 150-157, 233-240) and Exhibit G,
(Rollo, pp. 174-177, 241-244).
11

written notice for deduction from the Security Deposit under Section II of the
Lease Contract, defendant-appellant Jorman conveniently disregarded the fact that
the assets removed from the Lease Premises were actually owned by plaintiffappellee Citifinancial, having been supplied and installed by plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial at the beginning of the lease.

Accordingly, plaintiff-appellee

Citifinancial, notwithstanding the protestation of defendant-appellant Jorman, had

every right under Section X of the Lease Contract to remove these assets from the
Leased Premises. Section X pertinently provides:
Any improvements made or introduced by the LESSEE may be removed
by the LESSEE without defacing the Leased Premises.
XXX
Upon termination of this Contract as provided herein, unless with the
consent of the LESSOR, the LESSEE shall not remove, take-off or detach any
faucet, light switch, current outlet, bulb, air-condition units or similar fixtures in
the Leased Premises which were present in the Leased Premises upon
commencement of this lease. (Underscoring supplied)

2.09.1 Conformably with the aforequoted Section of the Lease

Contract, upon termination of the lease period, plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial had the undisputed right to remove all the improvements it had
introduced to the Leased Premises when it commenced the said lease. These
improvements included the acoustic boards and ceiling grids, toilet bowls,
bathroom fixtures, exhaust fans, marble flooring and wallpaper. In fact, the

Leased Premises were not even in a tenantable condition upon the

commencement of the lease period, which explains why plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial was constrained to introduce major improvements, which
included the foregoing, in order to make the Leased Premises suitable for
occupancy.13

2.09.2 On 31 July 2004, when plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial vacated

the Leased Premises, it removed the acoustic boards in the ceiling, which
may be done without exerting any force contrary to defendant-appellants
Jormans allegation in Paragraph 6.1 of the Appellants Brief that the
acoustic boards were forcibly removed. For purposes of reusing some of
the other improvements in its new leased premises, plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial likewise removed the toilet bowls, bathroom fixtures, exhaust
fans, bathroom doors, circuit breakers (except the main circuit breakers), 14
which were all properties that were supplied and installed by plaintiffappellee Citifinancial and which were not originally present in the Leased
Premises upon the commencement of the said lease.

13
14

TSN of the hearing held on 2 August 2007, page 10.

Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Exhibit F (Rollo, pp. 153 and 236).
10

2.09.3 However, plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial did not dismantle the

water pipes, or remove the electrical or telephone wires and wallpaper, but
left them in the Leased Premises so as not to unduly cause any defacing
thereof. This fact, coupled with the right of plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial
under both the Lease Contract and the law, to remove any faucet, light
switch, current outlet, bulb, air-condition units or similar fixtures in the
Leased Premises which were not present in the Leased Premises upon
commencement of the lease and any improvements made or introduced by
the LESSEE that may be removed without defacing the Leased Premises
demonstrate that there was no bad faith on the part of plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial when it removed the improvements it had introduced to the
Leased Premises upon the commencement of the lease.

2.10 Due to the continued unjustifiable failure and refusal of defendantappellant Jorman to refund the Security Deposit to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial
in accordance with the Lease Contract, plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial, through the
1 September 2005 letter15 of its lawyer, demanded from defendant-appellant
Jorman the return of the Security Deposit and advised defendant-appellant Jorman
that it will coordinate with her the ocular inspection of the Leased Premises to
determine if the alleged damage [to the Leased Premises indeed] qualifies as a
15

Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Exhibit E (Rollo, pp. 27-28, 107-108, 231-232).

11

deduction from the Security Deposit, in accordance with Section II of the Lease
Contract. Unfortunately, defendant-appellant Jorman failed and refused to
coordinate with plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial.16

2.11 Notwithstanding all the foregoing, defendant-appellant Jorman still

failed and refused to return to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial the Security Deposit
and to make arrangements for the suggested ocular inspection of the Leased
Premises. Thus, in order to enforce its right to the return of the Security Deposit,
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial was compelled to finally institute the Complaint
dated 29 November 2005 before the Court a quo on 2 February 2005.17

2.12 Through her letter dated 7 April 2006 18 or more than two (2) months
after the Complaint of plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial was filed and after
defendant-appellant Jorman had filed three (3) motions for extensions of time as
follows: [i] Motion for Extension of Time (To File Answer) dated 10 March 2006
asking for a period of fifteen (15) days or until 25 March 2006 within which to file
the answer;19 [ii] Motion for Extension of Time (To File Answer) dated 27 March
2006 asking for a period of fifteen (15) days or until 11 April 2006 within which to
Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Exhibit F (Rollo, pp.154 and 237).
Rollo, pp. 1-28.
18
Defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 4 (Rollo, page 61).
19
Rollo, pp. 34-37.
16
17

12

file the answer;20 and [iii] Final Motion for Extension of Time (To File Answer)
dated 11 April 2006 again asking for a period of fifteen (15) days or until 25
March 2006 within which to file the answer, 21 defendant-appellant Jorman
belatedly informed plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial of her decision to forfeit the
Security Deposit purportedly on the account of the damage caused to the Leased
Premises which allegedly amounted to Nine Hundred Sixty Thousand Pesos
(Php960,000.00) more or less.

2.13 After several days from the belated issuance of the aforesaid letter
dated 7 April 2006 by defendant-appellant Jorman, she finally filed her Answer
dated 20 April 2006 on 26 April 2006.22

2.14 On 30 April 2010, the Court a quo rendered the Decision in favor of
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial. The dispositive portion of the Decision states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in

favor of the plaintiff directing defendant to pay plaintiff the following:
a.

The sum of Eight Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (Php 825,000.00)
representing the plaintiffs Security Deposit;

b.

The amount of One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php
115,500.00) as the Lease Contract stipulated one percent (1%) interest,

Id., pp. 39-41.

Id., pp. 43-45.
22
Id., pp. 46-62.
20
21

13

from 15 August 2004 until the full refund of the Security Deposit by
defendant Leticia Jorman to plaintiff Citifinancial, or;
c.

Damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand (Php 50,000.00). in accordance

with Article 1170 of the Civil Code;

d.

Exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand (Php 50,000.00);

and

e.

Litigation/legal expenses and attorneys fees in the amount of One

Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

2.15 On 7 June 2010, plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial filed its Motion for

Partial Reconsideration/Clarification23 dated 3 June 2010 (Motion for Partial
Reconsideration) of the Decision of the Court a quo with respect to the amount of
the interest that defendant-appellant Jorman should pay to it.

2.16 On 11 June 2010, plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial received a copy of

the Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 30 April 2010)24 of defendantappellant Jorman (Motion for Reconsideration) requesting that the same be heard
on the same day, 11 June 2010, at 2:00 p.m. in manifest violation of the three (3)day notice rule provided in Section 4, Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court.

23
24

Id., pp. 457-462.

Id., pp. 472-508.
14

2.17 On 6 August 2010, plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial filed its Opposition

and Motion to Expunge25 dated 6 August 2010 (Motion to Expunge) the Motion
for Reconsideration of defendant-appellant Jorman on the grounds: [i] that it is but
a mere scrap of paper as it failed to comply with the three (3)-day notice rule; and
[ii] that it failed to raise new arguments or compelling reasons to warrant a
reversal or at least a review of the Decision, among others. Thus, for the said
reasons, the Motion for Reconsideration of defendant-appellant Jorman was merely
a pro forma motion.

2.18 On 9 December 2010, the Court a quo issued the Order granting the
Motion for Partial Reconsideration and the Motion to Expunge of plaintiffappellee Citifinancial and denying the Motion for Reconsideration of defendantappellant Jorman for being a mere scrap of paper and for having no persuasive
reason to reverse the Decision as no new argument was raised in the Motion for
Reconsideration to warrant such action. Thus, the dispositive portion of the Order
states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in

favor of the plaintiff directing defendant to pay plaintiff the following:
a.

25

The sum of Eight Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (Php 825,000.00)
representing the plaintiffs Security Deposit;

Id., pp. 552-571.

15

b.

One percent (1%) interest per month on the Security Deposit of Eight
Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (Php825,000.00) from 15 August
2004 and until the full refund of the Security Deposit by defendant Leticia
Jorman to plaintiff Citifinancial;

c.

Damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand (Php 50,000.00). in accordance

with Article 1170 of the Civil Code;

d.

Exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand (Php 50,000.00);

and

e.

Litigation/legal expenses and attorneys fees in the amount of One

Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00).

SO ORDERED. (Underscoring in the original.)

2.19 In view of the denial of her Motion for Reconsideration, defendantappellant Jorman appealed to the Honorable Court of Appeals.

2.20 On 29 December 2011, plaintiff-appellee received the Appellants

Brief of defendant-appellant Jorman.

III.
ARGUMENTS
3.01 In her appeal, defendant-appellant Jorman raises the following
assignment of errors:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANTAPPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THAT DAMAGE WAS CAUSED TO
16

THE LEASED PROPERTY, WARRANTING FORFEITURE OF THE

SECURITY DEPOSIT OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE.
2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANTAPPELLANT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
LEASE CONTRACT IN FORFEITING PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES
SECURITY DEPOSIT.
3. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THE
DELAY OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IN MAKING KNOWN HER
INTENTION TO FORFEIT THE SECURITY DEPOSIT BY MEANS OF
AN OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENT IS TANTAMOUNT TO A RUSE TO
AVOID ITS INEVITABLE REFUND.
4. CONCOMITANTLY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING
DAMAGES TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE.

COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
4.01 THE COURT A QUO CORRECTLY RULED IN THE
DECISION THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JORMAN
FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ALLEGED DESTRUCTION,
IF ANY, OF THE LEASED PREMISES WAS CAUSED BY
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CITIFINANCIAL CONSIDERING
THAT
THE
IMPROVEMENTS
REMOVED
WERE
UNDISPUTEDLY OWNED BY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
CITIFINANCIAL AND, IN FACT, WERE NEVER CLAIMED
BY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JORMAN. LIKEWISE, THE
COURT A QUO CORRECTLY AFFIRMED THE DECISION
THROUGH THE ORDER ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTAPPELLANT JORMAN WAS MERELY A PRO FORMA
MOTION FOR FAILING TO RAISE ANY NEW GROUND OR
PERSUASIVE REASON TO WARRANT THE REVERSAL OF
THE DECISION AND FOR VIOLATING THE THREE (3)-DAY
NOTICE
RULE.
THUS,
THE
MOTION
FOR
RECONSIDERATION
OF
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JORMAN DID NOT TOLL THE PERIOD TO APPEAL THE
DECISION AND CONSEQUENTLY, HER APPEAL TO THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS WAS FILED OUT OF
TIME.
17

4.02 THE COURT A QUO CORRECTLY HELD THAT

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JORMAN FAILED TO COMPLY
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LEASE CONTRACT ON
DEDUCTIONS AGAINST THE SECURITY DEPOSIT,
THEREBY ENJOINING HER FROM CLAIMING ANY SUCH
DEDUCTIONS ASSUMING SOLELY FOR THE SAKE OF
ARGUMENT THAT SHE HAS PROVEN THAT PLAINTIFFAPPELLEE CITIFINANCIAL CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE
LEASED PREMISES.
4.03 THE COURT A QUO CORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE
BELATED CLAIM OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JORMAN
CONTAINED IN THE 7 APRIL 2006 LETTER TO PLAINTIFFAPPELLEE CITIFINANCIAL WAS A MERE RUSE TO
AVOID THE INEVITABLE REFUND OF THE SECURITY
DEPOSIT.
4.04 THE COURT A QUO CORRECTLY HELD THAT
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JORMAN IS LIABLE FOR
DAMAGES
IN
FAVOR
OF
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
CITIFINANCIAL IN VIEW OF HER UNJUSTIFIED REFUSAL
TO RETURN THE SECURITY DEPOSIT OWNED BY
CITIFINANCIAL.
The Court a quo correctly ruled in the
Decision that defendant-appellant Jorman
failed to prove that the alleged destruction,
if any, of the Leased Premises was caused
by
plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial
considering that the improvements removed
therefrom were undisputedly owned by
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial and, in fact,
were never claimed by defendant-appellant
Jorman. Likewise, the Court a quo correctly
affirmed the Decision through the Order on
the grounds that the Motion for
Reconsideration of defendant-appellant
Jorman was merely a pro forma motion for
18

failing to raise any new ground or

persuasive reason to warrant the reversal of
the Decision and for violating the three (3)day notice rule. Thus, the Motion for
Reconsideration of defendant-appellant
Jorman did not toll the period to appeal the
Decision and consequently, her appeal to
the Honorable Court of Appeals was filed
out of time.
-------------------------------------------------------

5.01 In the Decision of the Court a quo, it was correctly held in the
following manner that defendant-appellant Jorman failed to discharge her burden
of proving her affirmative defense that plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial caused
destruction of the Leased Premises:

Has the defendant been able to discharge her burden of proving her
affirmative defense that the plaintiff caused destruction to the leased premises
when it (plaintiff) detached certain items therefrom thus warranting the forfeiture
of the Security Deposit?
The answer is, no.
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law, which is
preponderance of evidence in civil cases. The party, whether plaintiff or
defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof to
obtain a favorable judgment. For the defendant, the plaintiffs alleged act of
defacing the leased premises by removing or detaching things therefrom
constitute her cause of action which she must prove by preponderance of
evidence. However, the Court notes that the items allegedly detached by the
plaintiff have been expressly referred to by the latter as its belongings. This
has been the emphatic submission of the plaintiff in its Complaint and during
the reception of the parties evidence at the trial stage. Curiously, these
items, which consist of acoustic ceiling boards, toilet bowls, bathroom
fixtures, exhaust fans, telephone wires, doors, wall papers and circuit
19

breakers were never claimed by defendant as hers or items that have been
affixed to the leased premises prior to plaintiffs occupancy thereof.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

5.02 Notwithstanding the foregoing categorical findings of the Court a quo,

it is the opinion of defendant-appellant Jorman that the evidence adduced by her is
more than enough to justify the forfeiture of the security deposit and establish an
action for damages xxx and that [i]t certainly outweighs any contrary evidence
presented by Plaintiff-Appellee, if there is any, that may tend to rebut or disprove
them.26 Nevertheless, while admitting that plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial has the
right to remove the improvements and items in the Leased Premises pursuant to the
Lease Contract,27 defendant-appellant Jorman still insists that she has the right to
deduct from the Security Deposit the alleged damage caused by plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial based on the following provision of the Lease Contract:
The LESSOR may deduct from the Security Deposit unpaid electric bills,
telephone, or other utility bills, cost of repairs to the Leased Premises for damages
caused by the negligence of the LESSEE or any person under his custody or
employ and all other costs or charges properly for the account of the LESSEE
under the conditions, stipulations and covenants of this Contract. XXX

5.03 Based on the foregoing provision of the Lease Contract, before

defendant-appellant Jorman could deduct from the Security Deposit, there must
first be damage to the Leased Premises and that such damage was caused by the
26
27

Paragraph 18 of the Appellants Brief.

Paragraph 22 of the Appellants Brief.
20

negligence of plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial or any person under its custody or

employ. As discussed hereunder, defendant-appellant Jorman miserably failed to
prove any of the foregoing requisites.

6.01 Contrary to the claims of defendant-appellant Jorman, there was no

damage to the Leased Premises when plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial vacated the
Leased Premises. To begin with, the Leased Premises was not even in a tenantable
condition upon the commencement of the lease period. Thus, plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial was compelled to introduce major improvements in order to make the
Leased Premises suitable for occupancy.

6.02 Moreover, under the terms of the Lease Contract, [a]ny improvements
made or introduced by [plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial] may be removed by [plaintiffappellee Citifinancial] without defacing the Leased Premises. What plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial cannot remove are only those fixtures which were present in the Leased
Premises upon the commencement of this lease. The fact that it was plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial which introduced the improvements it removed from the Leased Premises,
and that they own the same, is uncontroverted. It must be emphasized that when defendantappellant Jorman leased the property to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial, it was bare that

21

plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial practically improved everything, as testified to by Mr.

Lising. Thus:

Atty. Catindig:

Mr. Witness, did you personally oversee the installation of the

improvements introduced on the premises?

Witness:

Yeah.
xxx

Atty. Catindig:

Can you enumerate these items which you saw installed in the
premises?

Witness:

When Mrs. Jorman leased the property to Citifinancial, it was

bare. So, we practically improved everything. We installed the
carpet, we installed the ceiling, we installed the wall paper.

Atty. Catindig:

And you also claim to have installed the bathroom fixture, Mr.
Witness?

Witness:

Yes, maam. 28

6.03 Significantly, defendant-appellant Jorman neither denied and, more

importantly, nor disproved the foregoing testimony. In fact, the Court a quo held in the
Decision that the said improvements were never claimed by defendant as hers or
items that have been affixed to the leased premises prior to plaintiff[-appellee
Citifinancial]s occupancy thereof.

28

TSN of the hearing held on 2 August 2007, pp. 9-11.

22

6.04 Considering that under Section X of the Lease Contract plaintiffappellee Citifinancial had the right to remove any improvement made or
introduced by it without defacing the Leased Premises, what defendant-appellant
Jorman can only demand, which plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial more than
complied with, is that after the termination of the Lease Contract, plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial was to return the Leased Premises in the same condition as it was at
the commencement of the lease with reasonable wear and tear. Since the Leased
Premises was bare at the commencement of the lease, plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial cannot be faulted for removing the improvements it introduced
especially if it has done so without defacing the Leased Premises.

6.05 In spite of the foregoing, defendant-appellant Jorman claims that

ownership of the improvements has nothing to do, or at least, if at all, merely
incidental in the subject matter of the present controversy. 29 However, as
discussed below, the claims of defendant-appellant Jorman revolved around the
removal of the improvements which she herself admitted were owned by plaintiffappellee Citifinancial and which plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial had the right to
remove conformably with the terms of the Lease Contract without defacing the
Leased Premises.

29

Paragraph 35 of the Appellants Brief.

23

7.01 In her desperate attempt to keep for herself the Security Deposit
which properly belongs to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial, defendant-appellant
Jorman made a sweeping allegation that the Leased Premises was in a terrible
condition.30 However, she miserably failed to substantiate such sweeping
allegation with evidence. Aside from her self-serving and unreliable testimony,
defendant-appellant Jorman presented photographs,31 a letter dated 12 August 2004
allegedly from a certain Jochen Grasshoff,32 and an undated Certification33 from
Engr. Jonathan R. Bantug (Bantug) of the alleged cost of the damages she claims
her property suffered. Nevertheless, all of them are inadmissible in evidence for
being immaterial and irrelevant. They were not even duly authenticated. Thus, they
cannot be admitted in evidence or relied upon.

7.02 Defendant-appellant Jorman offered in evidence a number of photographs

purportedly to be that of the Leased Premises.34 However, these photographs cannot and
should not be considered by the Honorable Court as evidence because the same are
immaterial and irrelevant. They were not properly identified and authenticated and
there was no testimony presented showing that they constitute an accurate
representation of the appearance of the subject property as of the time material to
Defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 7 (Rollo, pp. 260-264, 387-391).
Defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibits 1 to 1-e (Rollo, pp. 366-371).
32
Defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 3 (Rollo, page 374).
33
Defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 5 (Rollo, page 376).
34
Defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibits 1 to 1-e (Rollo, pp. 366-371).
30
31

24

the instant proceeding. While photographs are admissible in evidence when they
appear to have been accurately taken and are proved to be a faithful and clear
representation of the subject, its accuracy or correctness must be proved, and it
must be authenticated or verified first.35 On this note the Supreme Court has held that:
The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented in
evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified
as to the circumstances under which they were produced. The value of this kind of
evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the original,
and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the
time of the crime. The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can
identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of the photograph as a faithful
representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the
testimony of the person who made it or by other competent witnesses, after which
the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. Photographs,
therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by any other competent
witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy.36

7.03 In the proceedings before the Court a quo, it must be emphasized that
no one testified on the circumstances under which these pictures were taken (e.g.,
who took these pictures, when these pictures were taken, what the pictures
represent, how accurate is the camera that was used to take the pictures, how
reliable was the processing or printing of the pictures.)

7.04 Neither defendant-appellant Jorman nor Engr. Bantug even bothered

to state who took these photographs. In his Judicial Affidavit dated 19 March
35
36

Marcelo Macalinao vs. Eddie Medecielo Ong, et. al., 477 SCRA 740 (2005).
Romeo Sison, et. al. vs. People of the Philippines, 250 SCRA 58, 75-76 (1995).
25

2009,37 Engr. Bantug mentioned that his group took pictures of the property,
which pictures were turned over to the Defendant. He did not, however, indicate
the name of the person who actually took the pictures so that the latter can
authenticate the same. He also did not state where, in particular, those pictures
were taken. In addition, he did not also indicate when these pictures were taken.
Absent these omitted facts, those pictures do not and could not prove [i] that the
property being depicted is the one that was leased out to plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial, [ii] the condition of the subject property immediately after the same
was vacated by plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial, and [iii] that the subject property
was damaged by plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial.

7.05 Defendant-appellant Jormans Affidavit dated 6 August 2008 likewise

failed to authenticate and prove the accuracy or correctness of these pictures.
Defendant-appellant Jorman did not state who took these pictures and when the
same were taken. Quoted below is the portion of the said Affidavit which makes
reference to the pictures:

37

Q:

Madam witness, how can you prove that the leased premises were in fact
in a terrible condition after Citifinancial vacated the said premises?

A:

I have several pictures of the leased premises right after the lessee vacated
the premises, showing the condition of the premises.

Defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 10 (Rollo, pp. 343-346, 399-405).

26

Q:

Madam witness, I have in my possession several pictures, previously

marked as Exhibits 1 to 1-E, what relation, if any, does the said
pictures have with those that you just mentioned?

A:

They are the same pictures.38

7.06 On the other hand, instead of clarifying the circumstances under

which these pictures were taken and who took them, defendant-appellant Jormans
testimony created more doubts as to the authenticity of the same. Thus:
Atty. Ong:

Madam Witness, in your Judicial Affidavit, you also mentioned

that there were pictures taken proving the alleged destruction of
your property?

Witness:

Yes, sir.

Atty. Ong:

I will show you some documents, please tell the Honorable Court
if you are familiar with the same.

Court:

Make it of record that the witness is going over a set of pictures.

Witness:

There are no pictures in my possession. It was the German

National who took several pictures but those are with him. These
were taken by one witness. But the other one belongs to the
German National but died.

Atty. Ong:

The set of pictures was previously marked as Exhibits 1 to 1B. May we ask that the same pictures be also marked as such.

Court:

Mark.39 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).

7.07 Defendant-appellant Jormans testimony that (t)here are no pictures

in her possession is inconsistent with the statement of Engr. Bantug, defendant38
39

Defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 7-A and 7-B (Rollo, pp. 261-262, 388-389).
TSN of the hearing held on 15 January 2009, pp. 26-28.
27

appellant Jormans own witness, in his Judicial Affidavit dated 19 March 200940
that the pictures which were taken by his group were turned over to defendantappellant Jorman. If Engr. Bantug indeed turned over the pictures they took to
defendant-appellant Jorman, why did defendant-appellant Jorman testify that she
has no pictures in her possession. Moreover, since Engr. Bantug has already turned
over the pictures they took to defendant-appellant Jorman, hence, was no longer in
possession of the same, and defendant-appellant Jorman likewise testified under
oath that (t)here are no pictures in her possession, then where did defendantappellant Jormans Exhibits 1 to 1-E come from? Again, defendant-appellant
Jorman failed to explain this irregularity with regard to the pictures, therefore,
these pictures must not be considered by the Honorable Court.

7.08 Similarly, defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 3 which is a letter dated

12 August 2004 allegedly from a certain Mr. Grasshoff to defendant-appellant Jorman is
also inadmissible and does not warrant any consideration since the same was neither
identified nor authenticated by any witness. In fact, it was not even mentioned by
defendant-appellant Jorman in her Affidavit dated 6 August 200841 and during the
hearing held on 15 January 2009, nor was it mentioned by any of her other
witnesses. This suspicious silence on the part of defendant-appellant Jorman as to
40
41

Defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 10 (Rollo, pp. 343-346, 399-405).

Defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 7, (Rollo, pp. 260-264, 387-391).
28

the identity and authenticity of her Exhibit 3, in blatant disregard of the rules on
evidence, is reason enough for the Honorable Court not to consider the same.

7.09 In addition to the foregoing, defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 3

is also inadmissible for being hearsay because Mr. Grasshoff was never called to
attest to, and be cross-examined in relation to, the truth and accuracy of what he
has allegedly written in the said letter. Mr. Grasshoff could very well be just an
imaginary character which defendant-appellant Jorman has created in her desperate
attempt to substantiate her claims.

7.10 Lastly, the undated Certification42 issued by Engr. Bantug indicating that the
cost of repair on the Leased Premises amounted to Nine Hundred Sixty Thousand Pesos
(Php960,000.00), more or less, is also inadmissible under the Best Evidence Rule.
Considering that defendant-appellant Jorman is intending to prove the expenses of
the repair allegedly made on the subject property, originals of the receipts issued
with respect to the materials purchased and the cost of labor paid must be
presented in evidence.

7.11 Further, during the hearing held on 14 May 2009, Engr. Bantug failed
to testify on the circumstances that would excuse his or defendant-appellant
42

Defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 5 (Rollo, pp. 62, 349, 376).

29

Jormans non-production of the originals of the receipts. The absence of the

official receipts becomes more glaring if we consider that it is further expressly
stipulated in the Lease Contract that (a)ll deductions made against the Security
Deposit must be properly documented by [defendant-appellant Jorman] and
supported by official receipts furnished to [plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial]

7.12 In addition, the said Certification did not even explain the basis of the
amount stated therein. It simply said that it is for the repair, including materials, labor
and other costs. It is important to enumerate what repairs were done, what materials were
purchased and what other costs have been incurred so that plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial
could verify the truth and the accuracy thereof. In failing to indicate with particularity the
basis of the amount indicated in the Certification, defendant-appellant Jorman, in effect,
deprived plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial the opportunity to cross-examine such
Certification. Hence, the same must not be considered by the Honorable Court.

7.13 The inaccuracy and falsehood of the Certification becomes more apparent if
we consider defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 12 which states that the estimated
additional cost incurred because of the extent of the damage to [d]efendants property
only amounted to Six Hundred Two Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Nine Pesos and
Fifty Centavos (Php602,399.50). Engr. Bantug did not even care to enlighten the
30

Honorable Court and plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial on the discrepancy between the

figures indicated in the Certification and that in defendant Jormans Exhibit 12.

7.14 Moreover, Engr. Bantug admitted on cross-examination that his estimate

amounting to One Million Eight Hundred Fifty-One Thousand Seven Hundred FiftySeven Pesos and Eighteen Centavos (Php1,851,757.18) was not only for the repair of the
Leased Premises but for the entire ground floor which is more than double the size of the
Leased Premises. He further admitted that the said estimate also included the cost for
additional improvements that defendant-appellant Jorman wanted to introduce in the entire
building such as the construction of additional septic vault amounting to Two Hundred
Sixty Five Thousand Pesos (Php265,000.00), additional partition amounting to about One
Hundred Sixty Two Thousand Pesos (Php162,000.00), concreting works outside the
building amounting to Two Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Ninety One
Pesos and Thirty Five Centavos (Php237,391.35), floor finish to be done outside the
building amounting to One Hundred Ninety Thousand Nine Hundred Eighteen Pesos
(Php190,918.00), etc. Quoted below are the relevant portions of Engr. Bantugs testimony:
Atty. Lomibao:

Is this a building?

Witness:

Yes, I think its a two storey building.

Atty. Lomibao:

And the subject property of this case is located where of that

building?

Witness:

The ground floor.

31

Atty. Lomibao:

Which part of the ground floor?

Witness:

Corner.

Atty. Lomibao:

What is the floor area of the subject property?

Witness:

Approximately its more than 200 square meters, sir.

Atty. Lomibao:

And what would be the floor area of entire ground floor?

Witness:

The entire ground floor would be more than double.

Atty. Lomibao:

So that would be around 400 or 500 square meters?

Witness:

Yes, sir.

Atty. Lomibao:

With regard to your estimate amounting to One Million Eight

Hundred Fifty-One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-Seven pesos
and eighteen centavos (Ph1,851,757.18) earlier marked as Exhibit
11 and 11-A, when did you prepare this estimate?

Witness:

A long time ago, 2004 or 2005.

Atty. Lomibao:

What would be the portions of the building covered by this

estimate?

Witness:

Covered mostly outside of the building and some repairs due to...
xxx

xxx

xxx

Atty. Lomibao:

In this estimate, it says here, construction of additional septic vault

amounting to Two Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Pesos
(Ph265,000.00), where was this septic vault located?

Witness:

It is located at the parking slot.

xxx

xxx

xxx

Witness:

No, I think the septic vault before is so small to accommodate the

entire sewage of the building because I dont know what is in the
second floor.

Atty. Lomibao:

What about additional partition amounting to about One Hundred

Sixty-Two Thousand Pesos, where was this made?
32

Witness:

At the ground floor, sir.

Atty. Lomibao:

What about floor finish, item number 4, outside of the building?

Witness:

Yes, sir.

Atty. Lomibao:

Item number 3, Concreting Works, these were made in which

part of the building?

Witness:

Outside of the building.

xxx

xxx

xxx

Atty. Lomibao:

May I refer your attention to your answer to question number 9

found on page 3 of your Affidavit, in answer on question number
9, line 7 and I quote as well as for the additional improvements
that the Defendant wanted to introduce. Were improvements
introduced to the building during the time that you carried out the
supposed construction works?

Witness:

Yes, for the parking of the septic vault.

xxx

xxx.43

xxx

7.15 Given the foregoing propensity of defendant-appellant Jorman of not

authenticating the evidence she presented despite the grave consequences therefor,
rendering such evidence inadmissible, one cannot help but think that defendant-appellant
Jorman merely fabricated these pieces of evidence in her dire attempt to justify her refusal
to return to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial its Security Deposit.

8.01 With respect to the second requisite before defendant-appellant

Jorman could claim deductions from the Security Deposit, particularly that such
43

TSN of the hearing held on 14 May 2009, pp. 23-35.

33

damage is caused by the negligence of [plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial] or any

person under its custody or employ, assuming solely for the sake of argument that
the Leased Premises was indeed in a terrible condition, defendant-appellant
Jorman did not present any evidence which points to plaintiff-appellant
Citifinancial as the one who caused such condition.

8.02 In her Affidavit, defendant-appellant Jorman merely stated that when

[she] went to the leased premises on 01 August 2004 at 7:30 oclock in the
evening, and was shocked to see that the leased premises was in a terrible
condition. Hence, assuming that the Leased Premises was in a terrible
condition, she did not see who caused such condition. It bears repeating that,
pursuant to the Lease Contract, the second requisite that must be present before
defendant-appellant Jorman can claim from the Security Deposit is that such
damage is caused by the negligence of [plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial] or any
person under its custody or employ.

8.03 Neither could Engr. Bantug point to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial as

the one who caused the Leased Premises to be allegedly in a terrible condition as
he was also not present in the Leased Premises when the same was vacated by
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial. In fact, in his Judicial Affidavit dated 19 March
34

2009, he did not even state when he first saw the Leased Premises after plaintiff
Citifinancial vacated the same, viz:

Q:

Were you able to see the Property after Plaintiff Citifinancial Corporation
vacated it?

A:

Yes. If I remember correctly, our group took pictures of the property,

which pictures were turned over to the Defendant.

8.04 Perhaps to counter the clear absence of any evidence to prove that the
alleged damage caused to the Leased Premises is attributable to plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial, defendant-appellant Jorman claims in Paragraph 25 of the
Appellants Brief that [p]laintiff-[a]ppellee [Citifinancial] surreptitiously caused
the removal of the improvements and/or articles within the leased premises on 31
July 2004 contrary to the previous agreement between the parties to the effect that
the same shall be done on 01 August 2004 to enable herein [d]efendant[a]ppellant [Jorman] to supervise the same. However, this was disproved during
the cross-examination of Mr. Lising wherein, upon questioning by the counsel of
defendant-appellant Jorman, he categorically answered that he informed defendantappellant Jorman that plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial would vacate the Leased
Premises on 31 July 2004 as follows:

ATTY. CATINDIG:
35

Did you inform Mrs. Jorman that you will vacate the premises on July 31, 2004?
WITNESS:
Yeah.44

8.05 Despite the categorical answer of Mr. Lising which is directly

opposite to the claim of defendant-appellant Jorman that she was not informed that
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial would vacate the Leased Premises on 31 July 2004,
defendant-appellant Jorman failed to rebut the same.

9.01 On the other hand, the evidence of plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial

sufficiently proved that there was no damage on the Leased Premises and only the
improvements introduced by it which can be removed without defacing the Leased
Premises were taken during the move-out conformably with the terms of the Lease
Contract that [a]ny improvements made or introduced by [plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial] may be removed by [plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial] without defacing the
Leased Premises.

9.02 In the Affidavit of Mr. Lising dated 23 April 2007, he expressly stated
in the following manner that only the improvements introduced by plaintiff-

44

TSN of the hearing held on 2 August 2007, pp. 5-6.

36

appellee Citifinancial which can be removed without defacing the Leased Premises
were taken:

Q:

When Citifinancial vacated the Leased Premises, what property, if any,

did it take along with it?

A:

Only the improvements and assets it introduced and installed at the

beginning of the lease which could be removed without damaging the
original condition of the Leased Premises, sir.
xxx

xxx

xxx

Q:

What specifically were these improvements that were removed by

Citifinancial when it vacated the Leased Premises?

A:

Just the acoustic boards, ceiling panels, toilet doors, bathroom fixtures,
circuit breakers (except the main circuit breakers), the air-conditioning
units, lighting fixtures and glass panels. All these were not part of the
original condition of the Leased Premises.

Q:

I have with me right now the Answer dated 20 April 2006 of Jorman to the
Complaint of Citifinancial. In Paragraph 14 thereof, it is alleged that the
acoustic boards and the telephone wires and electrical wiring were all
forcibly removed, and that Citifinancial likewise removed the flooring and
wallpaper. What can you say about this?

A:

That is not true. While we did removed (sic) the acoustic boards since
these were actually installed by Citifinancial at the beginning of the lease
and you do not need to exert force to remove them, we never removed the
wallpaper, marble flooring and electrical/telephone wires. In fact, the
electrical wiring was embedded in the walls of the Leased Premises, and
when Citifinancial vacated the Leased Premises, the same was in
tenantable condition, sir.

9.03

The Affidavit of Mr. Rodrigo C. Terrado, the security guard assigned

in the Leased Premises on 30 and 31 July 2004, is equally categorical that no

37

damage was caused to the Leased Premises and the same was vacated by plaintiffappellee Citifinancial in good condition:

Q:

In Mrs. Jormans Answer, dated 20 April 2006, which she filed in this
case, she said that the electrical/telephone wiring, flooring, and wall paper
were all removed, what, if any, can you say about this?

A:

Based on what I observed during Citifinancials move-out, the

electrical/telephone wiring, flooring, and wall paper were not removed,
Maam. They were still intact on the third and last day of Citifinancials
move-out, or when the old leased premises was padlocked.

Q:

It was also mentioned by Mrs. Jorman that Citifinancial used force to

remove the items you mentioned earlier. What, if any, can you say about
this statement?

A:

Based on what I observed, Maam, the employees of Citifinancials

contractor did not use force because they were instructed that these items
had to be used again in the new leased premises. If they were to be
forcibly removed, they would be destroyed and the contractor would not
be able to use them again, Maam.

Q:

How is that you say that the electrical/telephone wiring and flooring were
not removed?

A:

I say this because when the items removed from the old leased premises
were delivered under my watch on the third and last day of move-out to
the new leased premises of Citifinancial, there was already electricity and
telephone services as well as new flooring in the new leased premises. So
there was no need for Citifinancial to remove the wiring and flooring
when it moved out of Mrs. Jormans premises. Also, during the third and
last day of move-out, I recall that the marble flooring, electrical/telephone
wiring, were all still intact at the old leased premises of Mrs. Jorman,
Maam.

Q:

Based on your observations during the second and third day of move-out
of Citifinancial from Mrs. Jormans premises, in what condition did (sic)
Citifinancial leave it?

38

A:

From what I recall, Citifinancial left Mrs. Jormans premises still in good
condition, Maam, except for the absence of the furniture, fixtures and the
items removed for use in the new premises.45

9.04 The testimony of Mr. Terrado that the Leased Premises was still in
good condition when plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial vacated the same except for
the absence of some items belonging to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial which were
carefully removed since they had to be used again in the new leased premises is
fully consistent with ordinary human experience. After all, if one intends to re-use
an item, one shall be careful in preserving the same while removing or moving it
from its current location, and one cannot be careful in removing or moving that
item without being careful in its treatment of the location from where that item has
to be moved from or removed.

10.01 In any event, the issues raised by defendant-appellant Jorman in her

Motion for Reconsideration which are identical with the assignment of errors
stated in the Appellants Brief were already considered and judiciously resolved in
the Decision of the Court a quo. Thus, the Motion for Reconsideration is blatantly
pro forma as it makes no sincere effort to demonstrate any error in the Decision
that would require its reversal or justify a review by the Court a quo. Accordingly,
the Court a quo held in its Order that:
45

Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Exhibit G (Rollo, pp. 175-176, and 242-243).

39

Anent the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, the Court
observes that indeed there was a blatant disregard of the three-day notice rule.
While this Court in an apparent oversight ordered on 25 June 2010 the granting of
a period for the plaintiff to submit its comment thereto thus ordinarily curing
whatever defect the Motions status as a mere scrap of paper which should have
not merited any attention from this Court. In any event, even if technical
considerations will have to be ignored, still there exists no persuasive reason
for this Court to reverse its prior position as no new argument has been
raised in the Motion for Reconsideration to warrant such an action. 46
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

10.02 It is settled that a movant seeking reconsideration has the burden of

showing new, compelling and meritorious reasons for the court to reconsider and
reverse the assailed decision. Thus, it was held in Marcos vs. Manglapus, et al.47
that:

1. It must be emphasized that as in all motions for reconsideration, the burden is

upon the movants, petitioner herein, to show that there are compelling reasons to
reconsider the decision of the Court. (Underscoring supplied.)

10.03 Guided by this jurisprudential principle, the Supreme Court has

denied motions for reconsideration where movants submitted no controverting
evidence to refute the findings and no new arguments not already considered and

46
47

Rollo, page 592.

178 SCRA 760, 763 (1989).
40

passed upon have been raised.48 In the case of Llantero vs. Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court held that:

XXX Petitioner's arguments in his Motion for Reconsideration were a mere

reiteration of his evidence presented to the trial Court. Clearly then, the Motion
for Reconsideration, even if correctly numbered, was pro forma, filed to gain
time, and could not toll the running of the period of appeal.49

10.04 For failing to raise any new, compelling and/or meritorious reason
before the Court a quo for it to reconsider and reverse the Decision, the Motion for
Reconsideration of defendant-appellant Jorman did not toll the running of the
period to file an appeal to the Honorable Court of Appeals.

10.05 In the case of Garcia vs. Echiverri, it was held that:

XXX A pro-forma motion will not toll the running of the period for appeal. And
once a decision becomes final, the court can no longer amend or modify the same,
much less set aside, as was erroneously done by the respondent Judge in the case.
For to allow courts to mean final judgments will result in endless litigations.50

10.06 In addition, the Motion for Reconsideration of defendant-appellant

Jorman violated the three (3)-day notice rule under Section 4, Rule 15 of the
Revised Rules of Court. Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial received a copy of the said
Please see Cacho vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 276 SCRA 420 (1997).
105 SCRA 609, 614 (1981).
50
132 SCRA 631, 639 (1984).
48
49

41

Motion for Reconsideration of defendant-appellant Jorman only on 11 June 2010 at

11:40 a.m.51 Significantly, however, in the Notice of Hearing of the Motion for
Reconsideration, defendant-appellant Jorman submitted the same for hearing on
the same day or on 11 June 2010 also, albeit at 2:00 p.m. In other words,
defendant-appellant Jorman only served a copy of her Motion for Reconsideration
on plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial on the very day that it was set for hearing.

10.07 Sections 4 and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court pertinently provide

that:
Sec. 4. Hearing of motion. Except for motions which the court may act
upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion
shall be set for hearing by the applicant.
Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing
thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party
at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause
sets the hearing on shorter notice.
Sec. 6. Proof of service necessary. No written motion set for hearing
shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof.

10.08 In Azajar vs. Court of Appeals,52 the Supreme Court declared in no

uncertain terms the rationale of these requirements and the consequence of the
non-observance thereof. Thus,

51
52

Rollo, page 462.

145 SCRA 333, 338-339 (1986).
42

XXX The law explicitly requires that notice of a motion shall be served by the
appellant to all parties concerned at least three (3) days before the hearing thereof,
together with a copy of the motion, and of any affidavits and other papers
accompanying it; and that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned,
stating the time and place for the hearing of the motion. The uniform holding of
this Court has been that a failure to comply with the requirement is a fatal
flaw. Such notice is required to avoid surprises upon the opposite party and give
the latter time to study and meet the arguments of the motion, as well as to
determine or make determinable the time of submission of the motion for
resolution. (Underscoring supplied.)

10.09 In view of the foregoing, no motion for reconsideration was validly

filed by defendant-appellant Jorman within fifteen (15) days from her receipt on 20
May 2010 of the Decision. Thus, the said Decision has already become final and
executory against her and cannot be considered and reviewed by any court.

The Court a quo correctly held that

defendant-appellant Jorman did not comply
with the provisions of the Lease Contract on
deductions against the Security Deposit,
thereby enjoining her from claiming any
such deductions assuming solely for the
sake of argument that she has proven that
plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial
caused
damage to the Leased Premises.
------------------------------------------------------

11.01 In the Decision, the Court a quo wisely held in the following manner
that defendant-appellant Jorman did not comply with any of the mandatory

43

requirements for the refund of the deposit and therefore, her continued refusal to
refund the same is unjustified:

There is no dispute that plaintiff has delivered to the defendant a Security

Deposit of Php 825,000.00 upon the commencement of the lease. The governing
provision concerning the said deposit, both as to its application as well as
forfeiture are the following provisions in the parties Contract of Lease, viz:
xxx
The LESSOR shall provide 10 days written notice to the LESSEE
for any deductions to be made against the Security Deposit on a
monthly basis. All deductions made against the Security Deposit
must be properly documented by the LESSOR and supported by
official receipts furnished to the LESSEE. Within thirty (30) days
from the date of termination of Lease, authorized representatives
of the LESSOR and the LESSEE will jointly conduct an inspection
of the Leased Premises to determine if there is damage to the
Leased Premises and it the cost of such damage qualifies as a
deduction from the Security Deposit. (Italics in the original.)
The above-quoted provision of the contract is notable for three (3)
mandatory requirements for the refund of the deposit, namely: 10 days written
notice to the lessee for any deductions to be made against the Security Deposit on
a monthly basis; all deductions made against the Security Deposit must be
properly documented by the Lessor and supported by official receipts furnished to
the Lessee; and, within thirty (30) days from the date of termination of Lease,
authorized representatives will jointly conduct an inspection of the leased
premises to determine if there is damage to the leased premises and if the cost of
such damage qualifies as a deduction from the Security Deposit.
That the tenor of the above-said provisions is mandatory is readily
apparent. And this is understandably so if mutual protection of the parties is to be
considered. It bears nothing that indeed, Section II of the lease contract
unequivocally requires 10 days written notice to the plaintiff for any deduction to
be made against the security deposit on a monthly basis, and which deductions
must be properly documented and supported by official receipts furnished to
plaintiff. Defendants unilateral act of making deductions for the supposed repair
on the property obviously did not comply with the provisions of her contract with
the plaintiff. In view thereof, her continued refusal to refund the deposit is
unjustified. She, needless to state, has the burden of proving the bases for such
continued refusal.
44

11.02 A reading of the Appellants Brief indubitably shows that defendantappellant Jorman does not claim that she strictly complied with the aforesaid
mandatory provisions of the Lease Contract because, in fact, she did not.
Defendant-appellant Jorman can only submit that she has substantially complied
with the said provisions although the Court a quo twice ruled against her claims.
Thus, assuming solely for the sake of argument that defendant-appellant Jorman
has proven that plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial caused damage to the Leased
Premises, she cannot claim deductions from the Security Deposit because she
miserably failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Lease Contract on
deductions/forfeiture of the Security Deposit.

11.03 With respect to the mandatory requirement of the issuance of a ten

(10)-day written notice by defendant-appellant Jorman to plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial prior to making any deduction from the Security Deposit, defendantappellant Jorman did not send any letter that is compliant with Section II of the
Lease Contract. There is nothing in the 10 August 2004 letter of defendantappellant Jorman which even suggested that she was claiming deductions from or
forfeiting the Security Deposit of plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial. Such is bolstered
by the fact that it was only in the 7 April 2006 letter of defendant-appellant Jorman
45

that she had formally advised53 plaintiff-appellee of the purported damages

caused to the Leased Premises. It must, however, be noted that the 7 April 2006
letter was sent only after the Complaint of plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial was filed
before the Court a quo and after three (3) motions for extensions were filed by
defendant-appellant Jorman. In addition, both letters post-date the termination of
the lease period when plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial vacated the Lease Premises
on 31 July 2004.

11.04 In connection with the mandatory presentation of official receipts, as

discussed above, the unauthenticated pictures of the Leased Premises and the
undated Certification of Engr. Bantug are not sufficient to document the actual
costs of the repairs, if any.

11.05 Defendant-appellant Jorman cannot seriously claim that she had no

occasion to present the proper receipts and documents manifesting the costs of the
repairs as required by the Lease Contract on account of the alleged refusal of
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial to meet with her.54 There is absolutely nothing
which prevented defendant-appellant Jorman from presenting the said receipts, if
any, especially after plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial sent her the 1 September 2005
53
54

Paragraph 8 of the Appellants Brief.

Paragraph 43 of the Appellants Brief.
46

letter demanding the return of the Security Deposit and advising defendantappellant Jorman that it will coordinate with her for the ocular inspection of the
Leased Premises. Unfortunately, defendant-appellant Jorman failed or refused to
coordinate with plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial. Moreover, there was nothing that
prevented defendant-appellant Jorman from presenting the said receipts during the
trial before the Court a quo. The complete reliance of defendant-appellant Jorman
with the undated Certification of Engr. Bantug in the face of serious objections
raised by plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial proves that she simply could not provide
such official receipts because there was none.

11.06 The claim of defendant-appellant Jorman that the ocular inspection

was not held because of the alleged refusal of plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial to
meet with her is belied by the fact that she herself refused to coordinate with
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial especially after the latter demanded the return of the
Security Deposit and advised defendant-appellant Jorman that it will coordinate
with her for the ocular inspection of the Leased Premises.

11.07 Defendant-appellant Jormans failure to abide by the provisions of the

Lease Contract on claiming deductions on the Security Deposit leads one to
conclude that she only made up the alleged damage to the Leased Premise or that
47

the same was not caused by plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial. In either case, plaintiffappellee Citifinancial cannot be held liable therefor and defendant-appellant
Jorman had no basis to refuse to return the Security Deposit owned by plaintiffappellee Citifinancial.

The Court a quo correctly found that the

belated claim of defendant-appellant
Jorman contained in her 7 April 2006 letter
to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial was a
mere ruse to avoid the inevitable refund of
the Security Deposit.
------------------------------------------------------

12.01 In the Decision, the Court a quo made the astute observation that the
belated claim of defendant-appellant Jorman contained in her 7 April 2006 letter to
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial was only a mere ruse to avoid the inevitable refund
of the Security Deposit. Thus, the Court a quo held that:

Another thing. It does not escape the attention of this Court that defendant
wrote plaintiff herein on 10 August 2004 expressing her displeasure as she was
stunned that the premises was already empty and would like to discuss the
damages caused to her property. The same letter bears the defendants warning
that she may have to discuss the matter with her lawyer to find out if she can
remedy the prejudices she suffered from the destruction of the leased premises.
However, she found it proper to formally inform the plaintiff herein of her resolve
to forfeit the Security Deposit only on April 7, 2006, or almost two (2) years from
her discovery of the plaintiffs supposed act of destruction or defacement of the
premises. Notably, defendant sent this letter almost a year after plaintiffs counsel
sent her (defendant) a letter demanding the return of the same deposit. The Court
finds the delay unexplained given the clear provision under Section II of the
48

Contract of Lease that cost of repairs to the leased premises for damages caused
by negligence xxx maybe (sic) deducted from the Security Deposit xxx. In light
of this observation, the belated claim for justified deduction or forfeiture of
the Security Deposit is viewed by this Court as simply a ruse to avoid its
inevitable refund. (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

12.02 In Paragraph 47 of the Appellants Brief, defendant-appellant Jorman

attempted to refute the said observation of the Court a quo by citing Section XVII
(Waiver of Rights) of the Lease Contract which states:

It is understood that failure of any party to this Contract to insist on one or

more instances upon strict performance of any covenants, conditions, or
stipulations of this Contract and/or exercise any right or option herein contained
shall not be construed as abandonment or cancellation of such covenants,
conditions, stipulations, rights or options. Any waiver of any right in this Contract
should be made in writing by the party waiving, and no waiver shall in any
instance be presumed or implied.

12.03 The aforesaid provision does not apply to defendant-appellant Jorman,

the party in default. It bears emphasis that the Court a quo was referring to the
delay of the defendant-appellant Jorman from formally advising plaintiffappellee that she was forfeiting the Security Deposit of the latter and not her
alleged ground to forfeit the same, which she has miserably failed to substantiate.
In such case, defendant-appellant Jorman being the party in default is in no
position to waive her own delay. Such misreading of Section XVII of the Lease
Contract is directly contrary to the basic principle that [o]bligations arising from
49

contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be
complied with in good faith.55 Assuming that defendant-appellant Jormans
interpretation of Section XVII of the Lease Contract is correct, then contracts
would have no obligatory force between the contracting parties considering that the
party at fault can easily waive its own default.

12.04 Considering that it was plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial which had the

right to be timely informed by defendant-appellant Jorman that she would be
forfeiting the Security Deposit, then it was plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial which
was the party entitled to waive the delay committed by defendant-appellant
Jorman. It goes without saying that plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial has no intention
of waiving such right.

12.05 Furthermore, the facts of the case support the observation of the Court
a quo that the decision of defendant-appellant Jorman to forfeit the Security
Deposit contained in the 7 April 2006 letter to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial was
only a mere ruse to avoid the inevitable refund of the Security Deposit. It must be
emphasized that the said letter was sent to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial after
Complaint had been filed on 2 February 2005 and after defendant-appellant Jorman
filed three (3) motions for extension of time to file her answer or a total of at least
55

Article 1159, Civil Code.

50

forty-five (45) days. It was only after the 7 April 2006 was sent that defendantappellant Jorman filed her Answer perhaps on the belief that she had finally built a
defense against the valid claims of plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial.

The Court a quo correctly held that

defendant-appellant Jorman is liable for
damages in favor of plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial in view of her unjustified
refusal to return the Security Deposit owned
by Citifinancial.
------------------------------------------------------

13.01 Since the Court a quo held in the Decision, which was affirmed by the
Order, that defendant-appellant Jorman failed to prove her affirmative defense that
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial caused damage to the Leased Premises and that
defendant-appellant Jorman did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the
Lease Contract on claiming deductions against the Security Deposit, then the
refusal of defendant-appellant Jorman to return the Security Deposit is without any
legal and factual basis and therefore, renders her liable for damages.

13.02 Hence, on account of defendant-appellant Jormans unjustifiable

failure and refusal to refund to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial the Security Deposit,
which is in violation of the Lease Contract, the Court a quo correctly held that
51

defendant-appellant is obliged to pay plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial the amount of

Eight Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (PhP825,000.00), by way of refund
of the Security Deposit in accordance with the Lease Contract. Defendantappellant Jorman is likewise liable to pay the stipulated damages or interest of one
percent (1%) per month on the Security Deposit from 15 August 2004, the date
defendant-appellant Jorman was obliged to refund to plaintiff-appellant
Citifinancial the Security Deposit, until her full refund thereof to plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial.

13.03 Given that defendant-appellant Jormans obligation consists in the

refund of plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Security Deposit, which constitutes a
payment of a sum of money, said Security Deposit and the accrued/accruing one
percent (1%) interest per month, shall also earn legal interest pursuant to Article
2209 of the Civil Code from the time of judicial demand 56 or from the time of
filing of the Complaint, until the time that defendant-appellant Jorman makes full
payment to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial.

13.03.1

Article 2209 of the Civil Code pertinently reads:

Art. 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of

money, and the debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages,
See also Picson vs. Picson, 61 SCRA 67 (1974); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. vs. Delgado,
104 Phil. 920 (1958).
56

52

there being no stipulation to the contrary, shall be the payment of

the interest agreed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the legal
interest, which is six per cent per annum. (Underscoring supplied.)

13.04 On account of the delays incurred by defendant-appellant Jorman in

refunding the Security Deposit in violation of the Lease Contract, the Court a quo
correctly held that defendant-appellant Jorman is liable to plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial for damages, pursuant to Article 1170 of the Civil Code. As provided
in the said Article 1170, [t]hose 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.

13.05 Based on the foregoing described conduct of defendant-appellant

Jorman and by way of example or correction for the public good, the Court a quo
correctly found defendant-appellant Jorman liable for exemplary damages in
accordance with Articles 2229, 2232 and 2234 of the Civil Code.

13.06 Defendant-appellant Jormans obligation to return the Security

Deposit to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial is clear and unmistakable. However,
despite repeated demands from plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial, defendant-appellant
Jorman still unjustly failed and refused to comply with such valid and demandable

53

obligation. Thus, plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial was compelled to engage the

services of counsel to protect its interest, and also incurred expenses in its efforts to
recover the Security Deposit. Accordingly, the Court a quo correctly found that the
defendant-appellant Jorman is liable to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial for
attorneys fees and legal/litigation expenses, conformably with Article 2208 of the
Civil Code.

RELIEF
WHEREFORE,

premises

considered,

plaintiff-appellee

Citifinancial

Corporation respectfully prays that the Honorable Court of Appeals deny the
instant appeal of defendant-appellant Leticia L. Jorman for any of the reasons
stated above and affirm the Decision dated 30 April 2010 and the Order dated 9
December 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 143.

Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial likewise prays for such other reliefs that may
be just or equitable in the premises.

Makati City for City of Manila, 3 March 2012.

54

PICAZO BUYCO TAN FIDER & SANTOS

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee Citifinancial Corporation
18th, 19th, 10th & 17th Floors, Liberty Center
104 H.V. dela Costa Street, Salcedo Village
1227 Makati City, Metro Manila
Tel. No. (+632) 888-0999
By:
CHARLIE C. YALUNG
IBP No. LRN-05134/01-27-2005/Pampanga
PTR No. 3184875/01-10-2012/Makati City
Roll of Attorneys No. 39237
MCLE Compliance Cert. No. III-0004489/08-07-2009

ROBEL C. LOMIBAO
IBP No. 874152/01-02-2012/Quezon City
PTR No. 3184883/01-10-2012/Makati City
Roll of Attorneys No. 51281
MCLE Compliance Cert. No. III-00017189/06-09-2010

KRISTOFFER N. BUENAVENTURA
IBP No. 874174/01-02-2012/Makati City
PTR No. 3184905/01-10-2012/Makati City
Roll of Attorneys No. 59100
Exempt Pursuant to MCLE Governing Board Order No.1 s. 2008

55

COPY FURNISHED/ EXPLANATION: This pleading was served upon the

adverse party and the court a quo and filed with this Honorable Court through
registered mail, following the requirements of the Rules of Court, due to temporary
lack of messengerial personnel to complete personal service and filing.
SUAREZ & NARVASA LAW FIRM
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Leticia L. Jorman
3rd Floor, CSJ Building, 105 Aguirre Street, Legaspi Village
Makati City
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 143, Makati City

KRISTOFFER N. BUENAVENTURA

56