Position Paper Unlawful Detainer Practice Court - Defendant ( Finals) PDF

Preview

Summary

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESFOURTH JUDICIAL REGIONMUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTBauan, BatangasSONIA DUTERTE y PALAMURA, CIVIL CASE NO. CV-10 19 Plaintiff, -versus- - for-ISKO DOMAGOSO y TOLONGGES UNLAWFUL DETAINER Defendant. WITH DAMAGESx-----------------------------------------------------------------------...

Description

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT Bauan, Batangas SONIA DUTERTE y PALAMURA, Plaintiff, -versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. CV-1019

ISKO DOMAGOSO y TOLONGGES Defendant.

UNLAWFUL DETAINER WITH DAMAGES

- for-

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

POSITION PAPER (For the DEFENDANT) DEFENDANT, through counsel and unto the Honorable Court, respectfully submits this position paper and states; STATEMENT OF THE CASE On September 21, 2021, a complaint was filed against the defendant for unlawful detainer as defined under Section 1, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court pertaining to a property in F. Mangobos St., Barangay Poblacion, Bauan, Batangas. Said complaint is docketed as Civil Case No. CV-1019. Moreover, the defendant filed their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim on September 24, 2021. This Court remanded the case to Philippine Mediation Center for mediation proceedings. However, despite earnest effort, and denial of the plaintiff that payment has been received, an amicable settlement was not reached. Hence, parties were directed to submit their preliminary conference brief and subsequently the filing of this position paper within the reglementary. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS The defendant and the plaintiff entered into an oral lease agreement on February 14, 2016 subject of which is the lease of the former’s apartment located at F. Mangobos St., Barangay Poblacion, Bauan, Batangas. The amount of Four Thousand Pesos (PhP4,000.00) shall be paid to the Plaintiff on a month-to-month basis.

POSITION PAPER Civil Case No. CV-1019 Page 2

The defendant has been paying the monthly rent in cash to the plaintiff. However, during the pandemic, the defendant and the the plaintiff mutually agreed that the payment be transferred online though Gcash to reduce face-to-face interaction. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant defaulted in the payment of monthly rent for six (6) months starting February 2021. The defendant does not deny the fact that the payment for the months of February, March and April has been delayed due to the latter’s resignation from Converge and transfer to a new work in April. The defendant promised to pay in May 2021 after receipt first salary from the latter’s new work in Accenture. Said promise was willingly accepted by the plaintiff. On May 18, 2021, the defendant already received first salary from Accenture and immediately transferred the amount of Eighteen Thousand Pesos (PhP18,000.00) to the Gcash account of the plaintiff which is equivalent to the four (4) months of unpaid rentals. After said transfer, no further demands, in any form, for the payment of monthly rentals were received from the plaintiff. However, the defendant admittedly again delayed in the payment of monthly rent for June and July due to the fact that the latter’s sister has been positive of COVID-19 and the huge medical expenses has been single-handedly shouldered by the defendant. Despite the situation, the plaintiff showed no compassion and has kept on going to the apartment demanding payment for the months of June and July in the midst of the defendant’s family crisis. As such, on July 5, 2021, the defendant immediately transferred the amount of Six Thousand Pesos (PhP6,000.00) to the Gcash account of the plaintiff. On July 21, 2021, the defendant was shocked to receive a Notice/Demand to Vacate the apartment despite the fact that the latter has already made payments to the plaintiff. The Demand to Vacate was sternly not heeded by the defendant since there are already no unpaid monthly rentals. For the alleged failure of the defendant to vacate the property due to the fact that the monthly rentals have already been paid to the plaintiff, the matter was still brought to the Barangay for conciliation proceedings. It was only the Punong Barangay Leni Pacquiao who tried to mediate between the parties and was witnessed only by the Barangay Secretary Manny Marcos. No Lupon or Pangkat was convened, and a Certificate to File Action was even issued by the Punong Barangay in favor of the plaintiff stating that no settlement was reached.

POSITION PAPER Civil Case No. CV-1019 Page 3

Likewise, rumors about the defendant have spread around the barangay alleging that he has no money to pay for the rent despite being employed and that most of the defendant’s money was spent on boys, insulting the gender of the defendant which is being gay. Due to these malicious rumors, the defendant has suffered much anxiety and humiliation. Defendant also experienced sleepless nights worrying that the malicious imputations might reach their company who strictly upholds good reputation among employees. Moreover, the defendant was constrained to secure the services of a lawyer to pursue legal remedy; hence, this case was filed to this Honorable Court. ISSUES 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAINTIFF HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WHO HAS ALREADY PAID THE AMOUNT OF TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND PESOS (PHP 24,000.00) FOR THE MONTHLY RENTS OF THE APARTMENT. 2. WHETHER OR NOT THE CONCILIATION BEFORE THE BARANGAY CONFORM WITH THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY LAW. DISCUSSION Having transferred online the amount of Eighteen Thousand Pesos (PhP18,000.00) on May 18, 2021 and Six Thousand Pesos (PhP6,000.00) on July 5, 2021, though the Gcash account of the plaintiff, as evidenced by two (2) Gcash Transaction History Record, the defendant strongly interposes the defense of payment against the claims of the plaintiff. After the first payment by the defendant, no further demands, in any form, for the payment of monthly rentals for the months of February, March, April, and May were received from the plaintiff, and it payments for the months of June and July were once again demanded by the Plaintiff. This gives the presumption that the amount of Eighteen Thousand Pesos (PhP18,000.00) has been recognized and received by the plaintiff. Despite the abovementioned payments made by the defendant, the plaintiff maliciously alleged in her complaint that the former defaulted in paying six (6) monthly rentals. Respectfully, this Court should not give any merit to such unjust claim. The amounts of Eighteen Thousand Pesos (PhP18,000.00) and Six Thousand Pesos (PhP6,000.00) has been credited to the Gcash account of the plaintiff, respectively, as evidenced by two (2) Gcash Transaction History Record (Exhibit A). The presentation of the transaction

POSITION PAPER Civil Case No. CV-1019 Page 4

history of the defendant is clear and convincing evidence enough to persuade the Honorable Court that the payment has been made to the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff has not presented any documentary evidence nor witnesses to prove otherwise. Since the amount has been paid, there is no more obligation on the part of the defendant to pay for the months which he has already transferred to the plaintiff. It is clear under Section 1 of Article 1231 of the Civil Code that obligations are extinguished by payment or performance. Paying for what has already been paid will constitute unjust enrichment of the plaintiff. Likewise, this instant case should be dismissed on the ground that it has been prematurely filed due to non-compliance of the conciliation proceedings with the procedural requirements of the Katarungang Pambarangay Law. In Section 2, Paragraph 4 of Circular No. 14-93, it is stated that: “4. If mediation or conciliation efforts before the Punong Barangay proved unsuccessful, there having been no agreement to arbitrate (Sec. 410 [b], Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law; Sec. 1, c. (1), Rule III, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules), or where the respondent fails to appear at the mediation proceeding before the Punong Barangay (3rd par. Sec. 8, a, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules), the Punong Barangay shall not cause the issuance at this stage of a certification to file action, because it is now mandatory for him to constitute the Pangkat before whom mediation, conciliation, or arbitration proceedings shall be held.”

In the case at bar, it is worth noting that it was only Barangay Leni Pacquiao who mediated between the parties. No Lupon or Pangkat has been convened for the purpose. As a result of this conciliation proceeding, no settlement has been reached between the parties and the mediation or conciliation efforts before the Punong Barangay proved unsuccessful. Law dictates that under this circumstance, the Punong Barangay shall not cause the issuance at this stage of a certificate to file action, because it is now mandatory for him to constitute a Pangkat for the conduct of mediation, conciliation, or arbitration. Considered the foregoing, the defendant is not unlawfully detaining said apartment since all the monthly rentals have been settled and paid accordingly. However, the plaintiff has subjected the defendant to a vexatious and unfounded complaint and to the expenses of litigation. When these circumstances arose, the defendant suffered anxiety, sleepless nights and social humiliation.

POSITION PAPER Civil Case No. CV-1019 Page 5

These circumstances prompted him to exercise constraint and secure the services of a lawyer to litigate the matter which entailed a considerable amount of money as evidenced by an Official Receipt (Exhibit B). Had the plaintiff rightfully acknowledged the payments made by the defendant, the parties should not have suffered the rigors of litigation. Hence, the plaintiff should be held accountable. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable court that after trial and hearing, a judgment be rendered: 1. Dismissing the Complaint against the defendant for (1) lack of cause of action as the monthly rentals have already been paid; and/or (2) for being prematurely filed for non-compliance with Katarungang Pambarangay Law; 2. Ordering herein plaintiff to pay herein defendants Moral Damages in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00); 3. Ordering herein plaintiff to pay herein defendants Exemplary Damages in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00); 4. Ordering herein plaintiff to pay herein defendants Attorney’s Fees in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) and Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) for every hearing. 5. Ordering the Plaintiff to pay the costs of suit. Such other reliefs deemed just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. Bauan, Batangas, October 27, 2021.

ATTY. BONGBONG A. BOND Counsel for the Defendant IBP No. 998877, Batangas PTR No. 08302017-2021, Bauan, Batangas Roll of Attorneys No. 7788 MCLE COMPLIANCE NO.6354263/ June 2, 2021...