Está en la página 1de 8

Page 1 of 8

Answer with Counterclaim


Hutt v. Sps. Solo, et al.

Republic of the Philippines


Regional Trial Court
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 96, Quezon City
Jabba D. Hutt,
Plaintiff
-versus-

Civil Case No.16-100


For Collection of Sum of Money

Spouses Han and Leia Solo,


and The Trade Federation, Inc.
Defendants.
x----------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM


Defendants HAN SOLO and LEIA SOLO, through the
undersigned counsel and in answer to the Plaintiffs complaint,
respectfully aver:
1. That, defendants admit paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the complaint;
2. That, defendants deny specifically each and every material
allegations made in the complaint, and allege that:
a. Defendant Han Solo has not obtained any loan from the
plaintiff, especially the loan alleged in paragraph 4 of the
complaint;
b. Neither defendant Han Solo nor defendant Leia Solo has
obtained any loan for the payment of their new house, as
alleged by the plaintiff in the same paragraph;
c. The Contract of Loan1 presented by the plaintiff in the
same paragraph is a mere fabrication which defendant
Han Solo has never entered into;
d. The identification card attached thereon was used without
the knowledge and consent of defendant Han Solo, and

1 Annex A of the Complaint

Page 2 of 8

Answer with Counterclaim


Hutt v. Sps. Solo, et al.

the signature of defendant Han Solo appearing thereon is


a forgery;
e. Assuming arguendo that the Contract of Loan exists, the
knowledge of the plaintiff of the intention of defendant
spouses to use personally the alleged loan for the payment
of their new house should have alerted the plaintiff when
the property of defendant TFI was attached as a mortgage
thereto;
f. Also, paragraph 7 of the Contract of Loan states that
defendant Han Solo co-owns the mortgaged property
Millenium Falcon under Section 4 (b)2 of Board
Resolution 14 but upon reading such provision said coownership has never been stated;
g. Plaintiff should have been more cautious in entering into
the said Contract of Loan and Chattel Mortgage by
understanding that the above-mentioned provision has
not vested co-ownership to defendant Han Solo;
h. Under Article 2085 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, in
contracts of mortgage, the mortgagor must be the
absolute owner of the thing mortgaged;
i. Defendant Han Solo is not an owner nor a co-owner of
Millenium Falcon, hence, defendant Han Solo has no
right to attach the Millenium Falcon as security to the
alleged loan;
j. The amount of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) in
paragraph 4 of the complaint was actually deposited to
the savings account of defendant TFI as evidenced by the
Airborne Bank of Brothers Bank Account Statements 3 of
Trade Federation, Inc.

2 Section 4 (b) of Board Resolution No. 14: The Chief Operating Officer may, upon his
discretion, execute a chattel mortgage in his name, on any property of the Corporation,
whenever feasible, in furtherance of the corporations purposes and objectives.
3 Attached is Annex 1: Airborne Bank of Brothers Bank Account Statement, dated Sept. 05, 2014
Attached is Annex 1-1: Airborne Bank of Brothers Bank Account Statement, dated Oct. 06, 2014

Page 3 of 8

Answer with Counterclaim


Hutt v. Sps. Solo, et al.

k. The amount mentioned is not a loan to defendant Han


Solo but actually an investment to defendant TFI, as
evidenced by the Subscription Agreement4;
l. Defendants have no knowledge or information to form a
belief as to the truth of the averments made in paragraphs
5 to 7 of the complaint;
m. The Promissory Note5 attached unto and mentioned in
paragraph 8 of the complaint is also fabricated and the
signature of defendant Han Solo thereto is a forgery,
hence, does not bind him thereto;
n. Defendant Han Solo did not issue any of the checks6
mentioned in paragraph 9 to the plaintiff, and the truth is
that stated in the special and affirmative defenses made
hereunder;
o. Defendants have no knowledge or information to form a
belief as to the truth of the averments made in paragraph
10 of the complaint;
p. Defendant Han Solo did not execute the Chattel
Mortgage7 attached unto and mentioned in paragraph 11
of the complaint, the same and the signature thereon
being mere production of the plaintiff;
q. Also, the identification card of defendant Han Solo was
used in the said Chattel Mortgage without his knowledge
and consent;
3. That, defendants admit paragraph 12 of the complaint insofar
as defendant Han Solo informed the plaintiff about his
authority being the Chief Operating Officer of defendant Trade
Federation, Inc. (TFI), but deny that defendant Han Solo has
presented to the plaintiff a Board Resolution, the truth is that
stated in the special and affirmative defense made hereunder;
4 Attached is Annex 2: Subscription Agreement of Hutt and Trade Federation, Inc.
5 Annex B of the Complaint
6 Annex C of the Complaint
7 Annex D of the Complaint

Page 4 of 8

Answer with Counterclaim


Hutt v. Sps. Solo, et al.

4. That, defendants admit paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the


complaint insofar as defendants received Demand Letters from
the plaintiff, but deny the rest of the allegations therein, the
truth is that stated in the special and affirmative defense made
hereunder;
5. That, defendants deny the rest of the allegations made in the
complaint, and the truth is stated in the special and affirmative
defenses made hereunder;
6. That, as special and affirmative defenses, the defendants allege:
a. That, the complaint has been improperly laid in the RTC
of Quezon City and is dismissible, the plaintiff being a
resident of New York City, USA and the defendant
spouses being resident of Makati City8;
b. Assuming the existence of the alleged Contract of Loan,
the venue stipulation in paragraph 13 thereof is merely
permissive in nature and not restrictive;
c. The complaint filed by the plaintiff should be dismissed
outright by applying the ruling in the case of Nicolas v.
Reparations Commission9 (1975);
d. That, defendant Han Solo had a few meetings with the
plaintiff starting early August 2014, and during one of
those meetings informed the latter of his position in the
defendant TFI;
8 Rules of Court, Rule 4, Section 2. Venue of personal actions. All other actions may
be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or
where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a nonresident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
9 This Court declared that the stipulation does not clearly show the intention of the
parties to limit the venue of the action to the City of Manila only. "It must be noted that
the venue in personal actions is fixed for the convenience of the plaintiff and his
witnesses and to promote the ends of justice. We cannot conceive how the interest of
justice may be served by confining the situs of the action to Manila, considering that the
residences or offices of all the parties, including the situs of the acts sought to be
restrained or required to be done, are all within the territorial jurisdiction of Rizal. . .
Such agreements should be construed reasonably and should not be applied in such a
manner that it would work more to the inconvenience of the parties without promoting
the ends of justice

Page 5 of 8

Answer with Counterclaim


Hutt v. Sps. Solo, et al.

e. That, defendant Han Solo has not presented nor given the
plaintiff the copy of the Board Resolution No. 14 attached
in the complaint and the same was not certified as a true
copy thereof, hence, a mere scrap of paper and cannot
serve as an evidence;
f. The discussions of defendant Han Solo and the plaintiff
revolved around the investment to be made by the
plaintiff to the defendant TFI;
g. During one of the meetings of defendant Han Solo and the
plaintiff, the latter informed the former that he had
decided to invest the amount of Five Million Pesos
(P5,000,000.00) in the corporation and had deposited
the amount in defendant TFIs account;
h. That, defendants Han Solo and Leia Solo do not know Mr.
Master Oogway and Mr. Master Shifu;
i. That, defendant Leia Solo has never met the plaintiff
personally;
j. That, the checks attached unto and mentioned in
paragraph 9 of the complaint are the checks of defendant
Leia Solo. However, said checks, which were blank as to
the payee but signed and post-dated when given to
defendant Han Solo at their home, were for the payment
of the installments of a house they are trying to buy10;
k. The checks in the preceding paragraph, altogether with an
identification card and other documents in one envelope,
were brought by defendant Han Solo in one of his
meetings with the plaintiff, specifically on August 23,
2014;
l. The envelope was lost by defendant Han Solo and did not
know where he left them so he called defendant Leia Solo
to tell about the same;
m. Acting on defendant Han Solos call, defendant Leia then
and there informed her bank through call and letter that
said checks were lost;
10 Attached is Annex 3: Contract to Sell

Page 6 of 8

Answer with Counterclaim


Hutt v. Sps. Solo, et al.

n. That, defendant Leia Solo ordered stop payment 11 for


the lost checks to which the bank in a letter12
acknowledged, hence, the checks would not bounce by
reason of Closed Account;
o. That, defendant Leia Solo received a letter 13 reporting that
a certain Jabba D. Hutt presented on January 15, 2016 the
check no. 12-34567 which she ordered stop payment;
p. That, the Drivers License of defendant Han Solo used by
the plaintiff as an identification card in the Contract of
Loan and in the Chattel Mortgage was in an envelope
together with the lost checks mentioned above;
q. That, the above-mentioned identification card was lost
and an Affidavit of Loss14 was made therefor;
r. That, the demand letters sent by the plaintiff were ignored
by the defendants for being without basis;
s. That, by carefully studying the second Demand Letter 15, it
can be seen and noticed that it was dated earlier, 15
January 2016, than the date, 16 January 2016, when the
check was presented and had bounced, raising more
doubt that the filing of the Complaint is without cause and
basis;
t. And that, the only intention of the plaintiff in filing this
suit is to cause the defendants mental anguish and
suffering and public humiliation and embarrassment.
COUNTERCLAIM

11 Attached is Annex 4: Letter (Notice to the Bank of Lost Checks) of defendant Leia
Solo to the Airborne Bank of Brothers Bank Manager
12 Attached is Annex 5: Acknowledgement Letter of the Bank of Brothers
13 Attached is Annex 6: Report of Check Presentment
14 Attached is Annex 7: Affidavit of Loss
15 Annex H of the Complaint

Page 7 of 8

Answer with Counterclaim


Hutt v. Sps. Solo, et al.

7. That, by reason of the abuse of right 16 committed by the


plaintiff and by reason of the instant precipitate and unfounded
suit, defendant Han Solo was put into a preventive suspension
by defendant TFI;
8. That, being under preventive suspension, defendant Han Solo
has not received any salary and other benefits due him;
9. That, rumors have spread causing mental anguish and public
humiliation to the spouses and their children;
10. That, the plaintiffs unfounded suit has caused the defendants
mental anguish and suffering and public humiliation and
embarrassment, for which the defendants claim moral and
actual damages of P800,000.00;
11. That, defendant spouses were constrained to hire the services of
lawyers to defend their rights and interests for a professional
fee of P50,000.00 plus P4,000.00 per court appearance.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendants most


respectfully pray before this Honorable Court to render judgment, as
follows:
1. Order the dismissal of the present case; and
2. Grant the payment of the defendants counterclaim.
All other reliefs that this Honorable Court may deem just and
equitable are likewise prayed for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Makati City. 1 February 2016.

IDEA, CARAIG AND ASSOCIATES


16Article 19, Civil Code of the Philippines: Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and
in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty
and good faith. Article 20, Civil Code of the Philippines: Every person who, contrary to law,
willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Article 21, Civil Code of the Philippines: Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate
the latter for the damage.

Page 8 of 8

Answer with Counterclaim


Hutt v. Sps. Solo, et al.

Counsel for the Defendants


1914 Hunters Bldg., Makati Avenue
Makati City, Philippines
Email address: icalawfirm@gmail.com
Telephone no.: 727-4191
By:

Dennie Vieve Idea


Roll of Attorneys No. 64833
IBP Lifetime Member No. 5127
PTR No. 53797-57 May 21, 2009-QC
MCLE Compliance No. V-389-07/12/14

Anna Faye G. Caraig


Roll of Attorneys No. 090270
IBP Lifetime Member No. 81366
PTR No. 08159-93 July 2, 2010-QC
MCLE Compliance No. V-738-04/10/15

COPY FRUNISHED:
CONCEPCION AND PARTNERS
Counsel for the Plaintiff
109 Shining Star Bldg.,
Nagniningning Condominiums, Central Avenue,
1107 Quezon City, Philippines

EXPLANATION
Copy of the foregoing ANSWER was served to plaintiffs counsel
by registered mail due to time and distant constraints and for lack of
the undersigneds staff who can serve the same in person.

Anna Faye G. Caraig