Annexes - Legal Forms

Table of Contents
Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money AND Promissory Note .............................. Annex 1
First Demand Letter.........................................................................................................Annex 2
Final Demand Letter………………………………………………………………………………………….…… Annex 2-B
Certification to File Action………………………………………………………………………………………. Annex 3
1st Sheriff’s Return…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Annex 4
2nd Sheriff’s Return………………………………………………………………………………………………... Annex 4-A
Motion to Declare the Defendant in Default…………………………………………………….…….. Annex 5
Order of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Annex 6
Motion for Reconsideration……………………………………………………………………………………. Annex 7
Resolution…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Annex 8
Birth Certificate…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……. Annex 9

ANNEX 1
Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
7th Judicial Region
Branch 15, Cebu City
STEPHEN CURRY,
Plaintiff.
Civil Case No. 12345
- versus - For: Collection Sum of Money
LEBRON JAMES,
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, plaintiff, together with the undersigned counsel,

to this most honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES
THAT:
1. Plaintiff is a Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident

of House 20, Happiness Street, Maria Luisa Subdivision,
Banilad, Cebu City.; Defendant is also a Filipino, of legal
age, single, and currently residing at House 5, St. Patrick
Street, Silver Hills Subdivision, Nasipit Road, Talamban,
Cebu City, Cebu, where he may be served with summons
and other court processes.
2. On January 1, 2018, Defendant borrowed from Plaintiff

a sum of money amounting to Two Million Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00), where both agreed that it
be payable within one (1) year on January 12, 2019 with
five per centum (5%) interest. The loan was evidenced by a
promissory note dated January 13, 2018, attached herewith
as “Annex I” and made an integral part of this complaint.
3. Plaintiff presented the note to Defendant on January 14,

2019 and made a demand, but NO payment was made.
4. A demand letter was sent to Defendant on January 16,

2019 for the payment of the loan, but no reply nor payment
was received by the Plaintiff. This demand letter is
attached herewith as “Annex II” and made an integral
part of this complaint.
5. Another demand letter was sent to Defendant on January
20, 2019 for the payment of the loan, but still neither reply
nor payment was received by the Plaintiff. This demand
letter is attached herewith as “Annex III” and made an
integral part of this complaint.
6. Despite repeated demands, both oral and written,

Defendant failed and refused, and continues to fail and
refuse to pay the loan to Plaintiff.
7. Resort to the Barangay Conciliation process proved futile

as Defendant consistently refused to settle. Thus, a
Certification to File Action has been issued by the Barangay
Junquera through its Barangay Chairman, a copy of which
is attached herewith as “Annex D” and made an integral
part of this complaint.
8. Defendant’s obligation is due and demandable and

Plaintiff is entitled to the payment of the entire amount of
Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00)
plus five per centum (5%) interest as agreed upon.
9. By reason of Defendant’s unreasonable failure and

refusal to pay his due and demandable obligation, Plaintiff
was constrained to engage the services of counsel to
vindicate his rights thereby committing himself to pay legal
expenses amounting to Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment in his

favor through a Decision ordering Defendant to pay him Two
Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) plus five
per centum (5%) interest and Two Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P200,000.00) as Attorney’s Fees.
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
Cebu City, Cebu, 23 January 2019.
ARNOUGHLD SWARCHXNEGGER
Counsel for Plaintiff
Roll of Attorneys No. 321693
PTR No. 926154, January 7, 2019, Cebu City
IBP No. 101611, January 5, 2019, Cebu City
MCLE Compliance No. V-56231, January 15, 2018
Room 214, 7th flr. Big Bldg., Queen’s Rd., Cebu City
Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax no. 325-1372
alveroandassociates@gmail.com
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF
NON-FORUM SHOPPING
Republic of the Philippines)
City of Cebu . . . . . . . . . . . .)S.S.
I, STEPHEN CURRY, Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident

of House 20, Happiness Street, Maria Luisa Subdivision,
Banilad, Cebu City, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that:
1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled case;
2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint

and have read the allegations contained therein;
3. The allegations in the said complain are true and correct of

my own knowledge and belief, and based on authentic
records;
4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action

or proceeding involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;
5. If I should learn thereafter that a similar action or

proceeding has been filed or is pending, I hereby undertake
to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court
or agency where the original pleading and sworn
certification contemplated herein have been filed; and
6. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the

truth of the foregoing facts and to comply with the
provisions of Admin. Circular No. 04-94 of the Honorable
Supreme Court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature
this 23rd day of January 2019, in the City of Cebu, Philippines.
STEPHEN CURRY
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of

January 2019 in the City of Cebu, affiant exhibiting to me his
Driver’s License with numbers ZX5627165 issued at Cebu City
on January 5, 2019 valid until January 4, 2024, as his competent
evidence of identity, and I have personally examined herein
affiant, and I am convinced that he is the same person who
executed this affidavit, and that I am satisfied that he have fully
read and understand the contents herein.
ARNOLD ARAN T. ABRIL

Notary Public for Cebu City
Notarial Commission No. 42679, until December 31, 2019
Roll of Attorneys no. 710890
IBP LRN No. 109299, January 8, 2019, Cebu City
7th Flr.,Ebloc 2 Bldg., IT Park, Cebu City
Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax No. 325-7266
abrilandassociates@gmail.com
Doc. No: 03;

Page No: 04;
Book No: 21;
Series of 2019.
Copy furnished through personal service:
Counsel for Defendant Received on:

5th flr., Madrigal Business Tower, Received by:
Cebu City
Proof of Service
I, Kobe Saya, messenger for ARNOUGHLD
SWARCHXNEGGER, herein counsel for Plaintiff Stephen Curry,
hereby certify that I personally delivered Plaintiffs Complaint
dated January 23, 2019 House 5, St. Patrick Street, Silver Hills
Subdivision, Nasipit Road, Talamban, Cebu City, Cebu. The
complaint was received by a certain Cardo Dalisay, Mr. James’
houseboy, since the latter was not present thereat.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my

signature this 23rd day of January 2019, in the City of Cebu,
Philippines.
KOBE SAYA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of

January 2019 in the City of Cebu, affiant exhibiting to me his
Driver’s License with numbers QX6637164 issued at Cebu City
on January 10, 2019 valid until January 9, 2024, as his
competent evidence of identity, and I have personally examined
herein affiant, and I am convinced that he is the same person who
executed this affidavit, and that I am satisfied that he have fully
read and understand the contents herein.
Doc. No: 04;

Page No: 04;
Book No: 21;
Series of 2019.
ARNOLD ARAN T. ABRIL

Notary Public for Cebu City
Notarial Commission No. 42679, until December 31, 2019
Roll of Attorneys no. 710890
IBP LRN No. 109299, January 8, 2019, Cebu City
7th Flr.,Ebloc 2 Bldg., IT Park, Cebu City
Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax No. 325-7266
abrilandassociates@gmail.com
PROMISSORY NOTE
Amount: P2,500,000.00 Date: January 13, 2018

Place: Cebu City Due Date: January 12, 2019
I, LEBRON JAMES, make a commitment and promise to

pay to STEPHEN CURRY, the sum of Two Million Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00). Repayment is to be made on or
before January 12, 2019 at the interest rate of 5% per annum.
Lebron James
Stephen Curry
ANNEX 2
DEMAND LETTER
January 16, 2019
Dear LEBRON JAMES:
Good day! This letter shall serve as a formal written

demand for immediate payment in full of the principal amount of
indebtedness of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P2,500,000.00) with an interest rate of 5% per annum as agreed
upon in the promissory note executed by you in favor of
STEPHEN CURRY on January 13, 2018, which has been due
since January 12, 2019.
Although we wish to resolve this matter amicably, we are

prepared to take legal action in the event that it shall be
necessary. If you have already sent in your payment, please
disregard this demand letter.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Yours Truly,
Stephen Curry
ATTY. ARNOUGHLD SWARCHXNEGGER

IBP No.01611, January 5, 2019, Cebu City
Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax no. 325-1372
ANNEX 2-A
FINAL DEMAND LETTER
January 20, 2019
Dear LEBRON JAMES:
Good day. This letter shall serve as the last and final
written demand for immediate payment in full of the principal
amount of indebtedness of Two Million Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P2,500,000.00) with an interest of 5% per annum as
agreed upon in the promissory note executed by you in favor of
STEPHEN CURRY on January 13, 2018, which has been due
since January 12, 2019.
Despite the demand letter sent on January 16, 2019, there

has been no payment received. We shall give you a period of three
(3) days to satisfy your outstanding debt. Failure to heed such
demand within the period given will result to our relentless legal
action against you for payment of your total indebtedness
including the stipulated interest.
We wish for your immediate and full compliance.
Yours Truly,
Stephen Curry

Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax no. 325-1372
ANNEX 3
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

City of Cebu
Barangay Talamban
OFFICE OF THE LUPONG TAGAPAMAYAPA
LEBRON JAMES,
complainant
Barangay Case No. 2019 -47
-against- For: Collection of Sum of
Money
STEPHEN CURRY,
Respondent
CERTIFICATION TO FILE ACTION
This is to certify that:
1. There has been a personal confrontation between the parties before

the Punong Barangay, but the mediation failed;
2. The Pangkat Tagapagkasundo was constituted but the personal

confrontation before the Pangkat likewise did not result into a
settlement; and
3. Therefore, the corresponding complaint for the dispute may now be

filed in court.
This 21st day of January 2019.

Sarah Sabaht
Pangkat Secretary
Attested by:
Dove Jane Maynucas

Pangkat Chairperson
JOEY TADLE ANDITH O. LANG

Pangkat Member Pangkat Member
Noted by:
REYNATO SAYCON
Punong Barangay/Lupon Chairperson
ANNEX 4

7th Judicial Region
STEPHEN CURRY,
Plaintiff,
- versus - Civil Case No. 12345
For: Collection of Sum of
Money
LEBRON JAMES,
Defendant.
x--------------------------------x
SHERIFF’S RETURN OF SUMMONS
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on January 28 2019, the

undersigned failed to serve the summons together with a copy of
the complaint with its annexes to defendant Lebron James at his
given address House 5, St. Patrick Street, Silver Hills
Subdivision, Nasipit Road, Talamban, Cebu City, Cebu, as stated
in the Complaint, due to the following circumstances:
1. Only his houseboy, named Cardo Dalisay was present as

the Defendant was at that time, in some other place;
2. On the same date, I explained to Dalisay my identity, my
purpose, and the nature of the documents that are supposed
to be served to his employer;
3. The houseboy Dalisay, told me to return by two o’clock in
the afternoon of the same date, as he was sure that Mr.
James will be home at that time;
4. He also assured me that he would inform Mr. James, that I
came to serve summons together with a copy of the
complaint with annexes; and
5. When I returned to the house at 2 o’clock the houseboy told
me to return on February 5, 2019, as per instruction of his
employer.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, herein
undersigned failed to serve the summons together with a copy of
the complaint with annexes to the defendant Lebron James
Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines, January 28, 2019.
BRIAN SCALABRINE
Sheriff
ANNEX 4-A

7th Judicial Region
STEPHEN CURRY,
Plaintiff,
For: Collection of Sum of
Money
LEBRON JAMES,
Defendant.
x--------------------------------x
SHERIFF’S RETURN OF SUMMONS
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on February 4, 2019, the

undersigned caused the service of summons together with a copy
of the complaint with its annexes to defendant Lebron James at
his given address House 5, St. Patrick Street, Silver Hills
Subdivision, Nasipit Road, Talamban, Cebu City, Cebu, as stated
in the Complaint. Unfortunately, only his houseboy, a young man
named Cardo Dalisay was present. He told me that Mr. James
was on a vacation in Palawan. On the same date, I explained
to Dalisay the contents of the summons I brought with me and he
readily signed the acknowledgment receipt and received the
summons together with the copy of the complaint and its
annexes.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, herein

undersigned effected the Substitute Service of the summons to
the defendant’s houseboy named Dalisay.
Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines, February 5, 2019.
BRIAN SCALABRINE
Sheriff
ANNEX 5

7th Judicial Region
STEPHEN CURRY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No:12345
-versus- For: Collection of Sum of
Money
LEBRON JAMES,
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------------------x
MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT
Plaintiff, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court

respectfully avers that:
1. The records of the Honorable Court show that Defendant

was served a copy of the summons and of the complaint,
together with the annexes thereto on February 4, 2019;
2. Upon verification however, the records show that

Defendant Lebron James has failed to file his answer
within the 15-dayreglementary period specified of by the
Rules of Court despite service of summon and complaint;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Defendant

Lebron James be declared in default pursuant to the Rules of
Court and that the Honorable Court proceed to render judgment
as the complaint may warrant.
Given this 21th day of February 2019 at Cebu City, Philippines.

ARNOUGHLD SWARCHXNEGGER
Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax no. 325-1372
NOTICE OF HEARING
HON. CLERK OF COURT
Regional Trial Court
Greetings!
Kindly bring the foregoing motion to the attention of the

Honorable Court immediately upon receipt thereof and set the
same for hearing on 25th day of February 2019, Friday, at 8:30
A.M.

Tel No. 325-2622 / Fax no. 325-1372
Please be notified that the foregoing motion will be set for hearing
this 25th day of February 2019, Friday, at 8:30 A.M.
COPY FURNISHED:
RECEIVED BY:
CHILL H. JOKENO Received on:

Counsel for the Respondent Received by:
Cebu City, Philippines
ANNEX 6

7th Judicial Region
STEPHEN CURRY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No: 12345
Money
LEBRON JAMES,
Defendant.
x--------------------------------x
ORDER
This resolves the Motion to Declare Defendant in Default

filed by Plaintiff Stephen Curry on March 1, 2019.
Plaintiff claims that defendant failed to file his Answer

within the 15-day reglementary period set forth under Section 1
Rule 11 of the Rules of Court. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant
was served a copy of the summons and of the Complaint, together
with the annexes thereto on January 23, 2019. However,
defendant failed to file an Answer within the period required.
Under Section 1 Rule 11 of the Rules of Court, the

defendant is required to file his Answer to the Complaint within
fifteen (15) days after the service of summons, unless a different
period is fixed by the court. If defendant fails to comply with the
aforesaid requirement of filing the Answer within the said period,
Section 3 Rule 9 of the Rules of Court allows the court to declare
the defendant in default, to wit:
Sec. 3. Default; declaration of. – If the defending

party fails to answer within the time allowed
therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming
party with notice to the defending party, and proof of
such failure, declare the defending party in default.
Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render
judgment granting the claimant such relief as his
pleading may warrant, unless the court in its
discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence.
Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the
clerk of court. xxx
In the case at bar, Plaintiff Stephen Curry served to

defendant Lebron James a copy of the summons and of the
Complaint, together with the annexes on January 23, 2019.
However, Defendant did not file an Answer within the fifteen (15)
day reglementary period set forth under Section 1 Rule 11 of the
Rules of Court. As such, this court may declare defendant in
default pursuant to Section 3 Rule 9 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the Motion to Declare defendant Lebron

James in default is hereby GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Cebu City, Philippines, March 1, 2019.
DEMAR F. DEROZAN
Presiding Judge
ANNEX 7

7th Judicial Region
STEPHEN CURRY,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No: 12345
Money
LEBRON JAMES,
Defendant.
x--------------------------------x
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Defendant by counsel respectfully state:
1. The subject matter of this motion for reconsideration is the

decision of the honorable court on March 1, 2019 which
declared defendant in default for failure to file an answer
within the allowed period under the rules;
MATERIAL DATES
2. The undersigned counsel for the defendants personally

received a copy of the said Decision on February 14, 2019.
His 15th day to file this motion expires on March 1, 2019.
BASIS OF COURT IN DECLARING DEFENDANT IN

DEFAULT
3. On March 1, 2019, the honorable court declared defendant

in default and the order was based on the following
grounds:
a. There was proper service of summons;

b. Defendant failed to file his answer within the period
allowed by law.
ISSUES
4. The main issue defendant wants to raise in this motion for

reconsideration pertains to the manner in which the service
of summons was done. It will be recalled that the service of
summons was done through substituted service at the
residence of defendant but to a houseboy therein who was
then only 13 years old.
ARGUMENTS
This motion for reconsideration respectfully submits that

the honorable court erred in its order declaring defendant in
default for reasons stated below:
I. THE INSTANT CASE IS AN ACTION IN

PERSONAM
5. In ascertaining the proper mode of service of summons in

an action, there has to be a determination as to kind of
action that is involved whether the action is in personam or
is in rem or quasi in rem;
6. In the case of Paderanga v. Buissan, G.R. No. L-49475,

September 28, 1993 the court had the occasion to define an
action in personam and an action in rem or quasi in rem.
The court said that, [a]n action in personam is an action
against a person on the basis of his personal liability, while
an action in rem is an action against the thing itself,
instead of against the person.
7. The instant is classified as an action in personam as it seeks

a claim based not against a specific thing, but rather
against the person of defendant on the basis of personal
liability;
II. THERE WAS NO PROPER SERVICE OF

SUMMONS
8. The case of Biaco v. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank,

G.R. No. 161417, February 8, 2007, the court differentiated
an action in personam from an action in rem or quasi in rem
in terms of acquisition of jurisdiction ruling that, [i]n an
action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide
the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in
rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that
the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction
over the res is acquired either (1) by the seizure of the
property under legal process, whereby it is brought into
actual custody of the law; or (2) as a result of the institution
of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is
recognized and made effective;
9. Jurisdiction in personam—the power of the court to subject

the parties in a particular action to its judgment and other
rulings—is an element of due process. In Prudential Bank
v. Magdamit Jr.., G.R. No. 183795, 12 November 2014 the
court said that Fundamental is the rule that jurisdiction
over a defendant in a civil case is acquired either through
service of summons or through voluntary appearance in
court and submission to its authority. In the absence or
when the service of summons upon the person of the
defendant is defective, the court acquires no jurisdiction
over his person, and a judgment rendered against him is
null and void. Hence, the import of this pronouncement is
that jurisdiction over the defendant in actions in personam
can only be acquired either through a valid service of
summons or voluntary appearance;
10. Insofar as valid service of summons is concerned, the

case of Carson Realty and Management Corporation v. Red
Rubin Security Agency , G.R. No. 225035, 8 February 2017
ruled that in actions in personam, [such as the present
case], the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant through personal or substituted service of
summons. Hence, only two modes of summons are allowed
for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant in an action in personam which are, personal
service and substituted service of summons;
11. Carson Realty and Management Corporation v. Red

Rubin Security Agency, G.R. No. 225035, 8 February 2017
that parties do not have unbridled right to resort to
substituted service of summons. Further, the same case
ruled that substituted service is in derogation of the usual
method of service and personal service of summons is
preferred over substituted service;
12. There was no personal service of summons in this
case. According to the Proof of Service, the copy of the
summons was not given to Petitioner personally;
13. Hence, the only other mode of service is through

substituted service of summons which was also not done
within the contemplation of the law;
14. In Administrative Circular No. 59, issued on 19

November 1989, the Supreme Court stressed that
substituted service is a method extraordinary in character.
It can only be resorted to after earnest efforts to effect
prompt, personal service have failed;
15. In the case of Hamilton v. Levy, G.R. No. 39283, 15

November 2000, the Supreme Court held that the
impossibility of personal service within a reasonable time
should be clearly shown in the Proof of Service. Otherwise,
any substituted service cannot be upheld;
16. In the instant case, the proof of service contained no

facts and circumstances indicative of such impossibility of
personal service;
17. Assuming arguendo that the sheriff could have validly

resorted to substituted service of summons, the law
requires that a copy of the summons must be left with a
person of sufficient age and discretion then residing
therein;
18. In the case of Macasaet v. Co., G.R. No. 156759, 5

June 2013, the court said that, If, for justifiable reasons, the
defendant cannot be served in person within a reasonable
time, the service of the summons may then be effected
either (a) by leaving a copy of the summons at his residence
with some person of suitable age and discretion then
residing therein, or (b) by leaving the copy at his office or
regular place of business with some competent person in
charge thereof. Hence, if the summons were to be served at
the residence of defendant, the summons must be given to
a person of suitable age and discretion and if such summons
were to be served at the office or principal place of business
of defendant, the summons must be given to a competent
person in charge. This case falls under the first instance.
19. In the case of Prudential Bank v. Magdamit Jr.., G.R.
No. 183795, 12 November 2014, the court said that a person
of suitable age and discretion is one who has attained the
age of full legal capacity (18 years old) and is considered to
have enough discernment to understand the importance of
a summons. "Discretion" is defined as "the ability to make
decisions which represent a responsible choice and for
which an understanding of what is lawful, right or wise may
be presupposed". Thus, to be of sufficient discretion, such
person must know how to read and understand English to
comprehend the import of the summons, and fully realize
the need to deliver the summons and complaint to the
defendant at the earliest possible time for the person to take
appropriate action. The houseboy certainly does not qualify
as a person of suitable age as shown by his certificate of Live
birth where is below 18 years of age.He is also not a person
of discretion. But even if he is a person of discretion, the
requirement is still not met as the law uses the conjunction
“and” which means that both the requirement of suitable
age and discretion must be possessed by such person.
Hence, the substituted service is still patently defective.
WHEREFORE, premises considered it is respectfully prayed

that the order February 14, 2019 be reconsidered:
a. By setting aside such order declaring defendant in

default;
b. Allowing defendant to file his answer after a proper

service of summons is done.
Cebu City, March 7, 2019
CHILL H. JOKENO
Counsel for Lebron James
MCLE Compliance No. V-56256, October 3, 2018
5th Floor, Madrigal Business Tower
Tel No. 325-2656 / Fax no. 325-1356
chilljokeno@gmail.com
NOTICE OF HEARING
HON. CLERK OF COURT
Regional Trial Court
Greetings!
Kindly bring the foregoing motion to the attention of the

Honorable Court immediately upon receipt thereof and set the
same for hearing on February 26, 2019.
CHILL H. JOKENO
Counsel for Lebron James
MCLE Compliance No. V-56256, October 3, 2018
5th Floor, Madrigal Business Tower
Tel No. 325-2656 / Fax no. 325-1356
chilljokeno@gmail.com
Please be notified that the foregoing motion will be set for hearing
this DATE.
COPY FURNISHED:
RECEIVED BY:
ACE NORMAN ALVERO

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Cebu City, Philippines
ANNEX 8

7th Judicial Region
STEPHEN CURRY,
Plaintiff,
For: Collection of Sum of Money
LEBRON JAMES,
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration filed by

defendant Lebron James on March 7, 2019. Defendant-Movant
assails the order dated on March 1, 2019 granting plaintiff’s
motion to declare defendant in default thereby declaring
defendant in default for failure to file an answer within the
reglementary period as provided by the rules. James claims that
he was denied due process and that it was improper for this court
to declare him in default. Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Court allows
the Court to declare a party in default for failure to answer within
the time allowed therefore upon motion of the claiming party
with notice of the defending party.
In the case at bar and as reflected in the records, defendant

upon receiving summons on February 4, 2019 is obliged by the
rules to file his answer within 15 days from such date or until
February 17, 2019. However, this defendant failed to do so. As
such, it is within the Jurisdiction of this Court to declare
defendant Lebron James in default.
All considered, defendant failed to present any newly

discovered evidence or established grave errors of facts or laws or
serious irregularities in the Decision that would justify a reversal
or modification of the same.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of

Defendant Lebron James is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Cebu City, Philippines, March 14, 2019

DEMAR F. DEROZAN
Presiding
Judge

Annexes - Legal Forms

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Annexes - Legal Forms

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Table of Contents

Certification to File Action………………………………………………………………………………………. Annex 3

1st Sheriff’s Return…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Annex 4

2nd Sheriff’s Return………………………………………………………………………………………………... Annex 4-A

Motion to Declare the Defendant in Default…………………………………………………….…….. Annex 5

Order of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Annex 6

Motion for Reconsideration……………………………………………………………………………………. Annex 7

Birth Certificate…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……. Annex 9

Republic of the Philippines

COMES NOW, plaintiff, together with the undersigned counsel,

1. Plaintiff is a Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident

2. On January 1, 2018, Defendant borrowed from Plaintiff

3. Plaintiff presented the note to Defendant on January 14,

4. A demand letter was sent to Defendant on January 16,

6. Despite repeated demands, both oral and written,

7. Resort to the Barangay Conciliation process proved futile

8. Defendant’s obligation is due and demandable and

9. By reason of Defendant’s unreasonable failure and

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment in his

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Cebu City, Cebu, 23 January 2019.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF

Republic of the Philippines)

City of Cebu . . . . . . . . . . . .)S.S.

I, STEPHEN CURRY, Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident

1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint

3. The allegations in the said complain are true and correct of

4. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other action

5. If I should learn thereafter that a similar action or

6. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of

ARNOLD ARAN T. ABRIL

Doc. No: 03;

Copy furnished through personal service:

Counsel for Defendant Received on:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of

Doc. No: 04;

ARNOLD ARAN T. ABRIL

Amount: P2,500,000.00 Date: January 13, 2018

I, LEBRON JAMES, make a commitment and promise to

January 16, 2019

Dear LEBRON JAMES:

Good day! This letter shall serve as a formal written

Although we wish to resolve this matter amicably, we are

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

ATTY. ARNOUGHLD SWARCHXNEGGER

FINAL DEMAND LETTER

January 20, 2019

Dear LEBRON JAMES:

Despite the demand letter sent on January 16, 2019, there

We wish for your immediate and full compliance.

ATTY. ARNOUGHLD SWARCHXNEGGER

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE LUPONG TAGAPAMAYAPA

CERTIFICATION TO FILE ACTION

This is to certify that:

1. There has been a personal confrontation between the parties before

2. The Pangkat Tagapagkasundo was constituted but the personal

3. Therefore, the corresponding complaint for the dispute may now be

This 21st day of January 2019.

Dove Jane Maynucas