Scribd
Upload
48 views

(To Defendant'S Motion For Leave To File Amended Answer) : Comment / Opposition

The plaintiff opposes the defendant's motion for leave to file an amended answer on the grounds that: [1] Laches cannot abate a collection suit filed within the 10-year prescriptive period mandated by law; [2] The plaintiff filed the suit within the 10-year prescriptive period according to Article 1144 of the Civil Code; [3] Non-payment of docket fees alone does not cause automatic dismissal if the fees are paid within the applicable period.

Uploaded by

Buenavista Mae
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
48 views

(To Defendant'S Motion For Leave To File Amended Answer) : Comment / Opposition

The plaintiff opposes the defendant's motion for leave to file an amended answer on the grounds that: [1] Laches cannot abate a collection suit filed within the 10-year prescriptive period mandated by law; [2] The plaintiff filed the suit within the 10-year prescriptive period according to Article 1144 of the Civil Code; [3] Non-payment of docket fees alone does not cause automatic dismissal if the fees are paid within the applicable period.

Uploaded by

Buenavista Mae
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Makati City, Branch 148

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

COMMENT / OPPOSITION
[TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER]

Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully states:

1. The defendant in claiming that he is entitled for leave to file an


amended Answer alleged that he found in his old files a 2011 demand letter
which allegedly indicates that its complaint accrue and became ripe for
judicial action in 2011, and this allegedly indicates laches when the complaint
was filed only in September 27, 2017 and would allegedly result in unfair
injury to defendant if the present complaint is not barred.

2. Plaintiff respectfully disagrees.

3. Laches is a recourse in equity. Equity, however, is applied only


in the absence, never in contravention, of statutory law. Thus, laches cannot,
as a rule, abate a collection suit filed within the prescriptive period mandated
by the Civil Code.1

4. It is respectfully submitted that the prevailing law on the case at


bar is Article 1144, Civil Code, as amended, which provides that an actions
based upon a written contract, must be brought within ten (10) years from the
time the right of action accrues.

5. It can be recalled that the alleged demand letter sent by plaintiff


was dated May 3, 2011 or six (6) years from the filing of an action by the

1
G.R. No. 133317 June 29, 1999.
plaintiff in court. Plaintiff filed the abovementioned case on September 27,
2017, hence, the ten year prescription has not lapse.

6. Moreover, it is respectfully submitted that defendant wants to


make this Honorable Court believe that the demand letter allegedly dated 2011
was allegedly found a month after the filing of this case.

7. In the normal course of things, if someone received an important


document, he would inquire on its veracity and object to the same if he does
not subscribe to its content. At any rate, he must have read it once the letter
was sent to him.

8. Moreover, the defendant also claims non-payment of docket fees,


and alleged that “plaintiff did not pay the proper docket fees for its (sic) more
than twenty million peso (P20, 000,000.00) claims.”

9. The plaintiff respectfully disagrees.

10. In Proton Pilipinas Corporation et al., v. Banque Nationale De


2
Paris, the Honorable Supreme Court held that while the payment of the
prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment at
the time of filing does not automatically cause the dismissal of the case, thus-

“The ruling in Sun Insurance Office was echoed in


the 2005 case of Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Hon. Achilles
Melicor:
Plainly, while the payment of the prescribed docket
fee is a jurisdictional requirement, even its non-payment
at the time of filing does not automatically cause the
dismissal of the case, as long as the fee is paid within the
applicable prescriptive or reglementary period, more so
when the party involved demonstrates a willingness to
abide by the rules prescribing such payment. Thus, when
insufficient filing fees were initially paid by the plaintiffs
and there was no intention to defraud the government,
the Manchester rule does not apply.” (Citations omitted)

11. Moreover, it is respectfully submitted that:

12. In view of all the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that the


defendant’s liability to pay herein plaintiff remains.

2
G.R. No. 151242, June 15, 2005.
2
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this


Honorable Court that this Comment / Opposition [To Defendant’s Motion for
Leave to File Amended Answer] be noted.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, June 20, 2018.

You might also like