appellee's brief (cfc-jorman) - 5 march 2012 (f)

8/13/2019 Appellee's Brief (CFC-Jorman) - 5 March 2012 (F)

1/60

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALSMANILA

CITIFINANCIAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee

- versus -

LETICIA L. JORMAN

Defendant-Appellant

CA G.R. NO. CV-968!

"Re#$%&'( Tr$'( C%ur) %* M'+')$ C$), Br'& /01

"RTC C$v$( C'se N%. 26-2901

APPELLEES BRIEF

PICAZO BUYCO TAN FIDER & SANTOS

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee Citifinancial Corporation

/8), /9), /2)3 /!)F(%%rs, L$4er) Ce&)er

/20 H.V. 5e(' C%s)' S)ree), S'(e5% V$(('#e

/! M'+')$ C$), Me)r% M'&$('

Te(. N%. "761 888-2999

F' N%. "761 800-6/69

E'$( A55ress: '$&;.%


2/60

TABLE OF CONTENTS

P'#e N%.

I. Pre*')%r S)')ee&) /

II. C%u&)er-S)')ee&) %* F')s

III. C%u&)er-Ar#ue&)s /!

First Argument /9

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 as caused !y

plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial considering that the

improvements removed therefrom ere undisputedly oned

!y plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial and, in fact, ere never

claimed !y defendant-appellant Jorman" Li#eise, the Court

a quo correctly affirmed the Decision through the $rder on

the grounds that the %otion for &econsideration of

defendant-appellant Jorman as merely a pro forma motion

for failing to raise any ne ground or persuasive reason to

arrant the reversal of the Decision and for violating the

three '()-day notice rule" Thus, the %otion for&econsideration of defendant-appellant Jorman did not toll

the period to appeal the Decision and consequently, her

appeal to the *onora!le Court of Appeals as filed out of

time"

+econd Argument 00

The Court a quo correctly held that defendant-appellant

Jorman did not comply ith the provisions of the Lease

Contract on deductions against the +ecurity Deposit, there!y

enoining her from claiming any such deductions assuming

solely for the sa#e of argument that she has proven that

plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial caused damage to the Leased

Premises"

Third Argument 09


3/60

The Court a quo correctly found that the !elated claim of

defendant-appellant Jorman contained in her April .//0

letter to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial as a mere ruse to

avoid the inevita!le refund of the +ecurity Deposit"

Fourth Argument ?

The Court a quo correctly held that defendant-appellant

Jorman is lia!le for damages in favor of plaintiff-appellee

Citifinancial in vie of her unustified refusal to return the

+ecurity Deposit oned !y plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial"

IV. Re($e* ??


4/60

TABLE OF LAWS AND CASES

A. RULES OF COURT

Se)$%& 0, Ru(e /? %* )e Ru(es %* C%ur)

Se)$%& 0, Ru(e /? %* )e Ru(es %* C%ur)

B. CIVIL CODE

Ar)$(es //?9, //!2, 28, 29, , 0

C. CASES

Philippine 1ational Construction Corporation vs" Court of Appeals, et al", !

SCRA /8, /9/ "/99!1

%arcelo %acalinao vs" 2ddie %edecielo $ng, et" al", 0!! SCRA !02 "22?1

&omeo +ison, et" al" vs" People of the Philippines, ?2 SCRA ?8, !?-!6 "/99?1

%arcos vs" %anglapus, et al", /!8 SCRA !62, !6 "/9891

Cacho vs" Court of Appeals, et al", !6 SCRA 02 "/99!1

Llantero vs" Court of Appeals, /2? SCRA 629, 6/0 "/98/1

3arcia vs" 2chiverri, / SCRA 6/, 69 "/9801

A4aar vs" Court of Appeals, /0? SCRA , 8-9 "/9861

Picson vs" Picson, 6/ SCRA 6! "/9!01

Firestone Tire 5 &u!!er Co" vs" Delgado, /20 P$(. 92 "/9?81


5/60

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALSMANILA

CITIFINANCIAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-

Appellee,

- versus - CA G.R. N%. CV-968!

LETICIA L. JORMAN,

Defendant-Appellant"

----------------------------------------------

APPELLEE@S BRIEF

P('$&)$**-'ee& )e


6/60

/.2 Ver$(, >e& 4e)>ee& )e >$ )e s%u(5 %$) $&

#%%5 *'$).

/.2 U&5er )e Le'se C%&)r'), 5e*e&5'&)-'


7/60

app$ll$$ C!#!)!nan%!al and d$)$ndan#*app$llan# /o0an (!% #$ la##$

0an!)$"#ly d!d no# %o0ply (!# $"p$%# #o #$ S$%u!#y D$po"!#.

/.20 B v$r)ue %* )e '&$*es) *'$(ure %r re*us'( %* 5e*e&5'&)-'$) )e


8/60

.2/ S%e)$e $& Au#us) 22/, e&)-F$ve T%us'&5 Pes%s

"PP8?,222.221 ")e Seur$) De$ )ers '&5

%&5$)$%&s $& )e Le'se C%&)r'):

Te LESSEE s'(( '(s% 5e$) )e LESSOR, '& '%u&) eu$v'(e&) )% 1%&)s re&)'(, %r )e )%)'( su %* Pp 2345666.66, e(u5$ )e /2 VAT '&5

? $)%(5$ T', 4 >' %* Seur$) De


9/60

rese5 u&5er )e

Le'se C%&)r') )% 4e 5e5u)e5 *r% )e Seur$) De$):

Te Seur$) De


10/60

$)s 5e$s$%& )%


11/60

.26 C%&)r'r )% )e '((e#')$%&s %* 5e*e&5'&)-''s )e )$r5 '&5 ('s) 5' %* )e %ve-%u) %*


12/60

.2!./ U&5er )e Se)$%& II %* )e Le'se C%&)r'), 5e*e&5'&)-

'e& $) re%ve5 )e '%us)$ e$($ 4%'r5s, )%$(e)

4%>(s, 4')r%% *$)ures, e'us) *'&s, )e(e$res, 5%%rs, >'(( '((


13/60

>r$))e& &%)$e *%r 5e5u)$%& *r% )e Seur$) De$ >ere


14/60

Le'se5 Pre$ses >ere &%) eve& $& ' )e&'&)'4(e %&5$)$%& u $

' 4e 5%&e >$)%u) eer)$ '& *%re %&)r'r )% 5e*e&5'&)-'ere *%r$4( re%ve5. F%r


15/60

.29. H%>ever,


16/60

deduction from the +ecurity Deposit,:$& '%r5'&e >$) Se)$%& II %* )e Le'se

C%&)r'). U&*%r)u&')e(, 5e*e&5'&)-'$)$& >$ )% *$(e

)e '&s>er/96ii7 %otion for 2>tension of Time 'To File Anser) 5')e5 ! M'r

226 's+$ *%r '


17/60

*$(e )e '&s>er2 '&5 6iii7 Final %otion for 2>tension of Time 'To File Anser)

5')e5 // A


18/60

*r% /? Au#us) 220 u&)$( )e *u(( re*u&5 %* )e Seur$) De


19/60

./! O& 6 Au#us) 2/2, 'r#ue&)s %r % %* )e Decision, '% %)ers. Tus, *%r )e s'$5

re's%&s, )e%otion for &econsideration %* 5e*e&5'&)-'punge %* 'rr'&) su ')$%&. Tus, )e 5$s


20/60

4. O&e


21/60

THE LEASED PROPERT, ARRANTING FORFEITURE OF THE

SECURIT DEPOSIT OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE.

. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANT-

APPELLANT FAILED TO COMPL ITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE

LEASE CONTRACT IN FORFEITING PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE@SSECURIT DEPOSIT.

. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED HEN IT CONCLUDED THAT THEDELA OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IN MAING NON HER

INTENTION TO FORFEIT THE SECURIT DEPOSIT B MEANS OF

AN OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENT IS TANTAMOUNT TO A RUSE TO

AVOID ITS INEVITABLE REFUND.

0. CONCOMITANTL, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AARDING

DAMAGES TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE.

COUNTER*AR8U:ENTS

0.2/ T;E COURT A QUO CORRECTLY RULED IN T;E

DECISION T;AT DEFENDANT*APPELLANT /OR:AN

FAILED TO PROVE T;AT T;E ALLE8ED DESTRUCTION5

IF ANY5 OF T;E LEASED PRE:ISES WAS CAUSED BY

PLAINTIFF*APPELLEE CITIFINANCIAL CONSIDERIN8

T;AT T;E I:PROVE:ENTS RE:OVED WERE

UNDISPUTEDLY OWNED BY PLAINTIFF*APPELLEECITIFINANCIAL AND5 IN FACT5 WERE NEVER CLAI:ED

BY DEFENDANT*APPELLANT /OR:AN. LI*DAYNOTICE RULE. T;US5 T;E MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANT*APPELLANT

/OR:AN DID NOT TOLL T;E PERIOD TO APPEAL T;E

DECISIONAND CONSE?UENTLY5 ;ER APPEAL TO T;E

;ONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS WAS FILED OUT OF

TI:E.

/!


22/60

0.2 T;E COURT A QUO CORRECTLY ;ELD T;AT

DEFENDANT*APPELLANT /OR:AN FAILED TO CO:PLY

WIT; T;E PROVISIONS OF T;E LEASE CONTRACT ON

DEDUCTIONS A8AINST T;E SECURITY DEPOSIT5

T;EREBY EN/OININ8 ;ER FRO: CLAI:IN8 ANY SUC;

DEDUCTIONS ASSU:IN8 SOLELY FOR T;E SA


23/60

failing to raise any ne ground or

persuasive reason to arrant the reversal of

the Decision and for violating the three '()-

day notice rule" Thus, the %otion for

&econsideration of defendant-appellant

Jorman did not toll the period to appeal the

Decision and consequently, her appeal to

the *onora!le Court of Appeals as filed

out of time"

-------------------------------------------------------

?.2/ I& )e Decision %* )e C%ur) a quo, $) >'s %rre)( e(5 $& )e

*%((%>$ '&&er )') 5e*e&5'&)-''rr'&)$ )e *%r*e$)ure

%* )e Seur$) De, >$ $s$ se us)


24/60

'$a$" ($$ n$$ %la!0$d 'y d$)$ndan# a" $" o !#$0" #a# a$ '$$n

a))!+$d #o #$ l$a"$d p$0!"$" p!o #o pla!n#!))" o%%upan%y #$$o).

"E$


25/60

&e#($#e&e %* e&


26/60

$&s)'((e5 $& )e

'((


27/60

6.20 C%&s$5er$ )') u&5er Se)$%& %* )e Le'se C%&)r') $ , )e ('$s %* 5e*e&5'&)-'$ $) )e )ers %* )e Le'se C%&)r') >$)%u) 5e*'$ )e

Le'se5 Pre$ses.

9P'r'#r'


28/60

!.2/ I& er 5es


29/60

)e $&s)'&) ere


30/60

229,!Er. B'&)u# e&)$%&e5 )') $s group too# pictures of the property,

which pictures were turned over to the Defendnt":He 5$5 &%), %>ever, $&5$')e

)e &'e %* )e % ')u'(( )%%+ )e ere, $& e& )ese ere )'+e&.

A4se&) )ese %$))e5 *')s, )%se 's v'')e5 4 '& %u


31/60

: M'5' >$)&ess, I 've $& $) )%se )') %u us) e&)$%&e5Q

A: Te 're )e s'e $ )ese ere )'+e& '&5 >% )%%+ )e, 5e*e&5'&)-'$)&ess. Bu) )e %)er %&e 4e(%s )% )e

Ger'& N')$%&'( 4u) 5$e5.

A)). O: Te se) %* 's


32/60

'$)&ess, $& $s Judicial Affidavit5')e5 /9 M'r 22902

)') )e $ >ere )'+e& 4 $s #r%u< >ere )ur&e5 %ver )% 5e*e&5'&)-

'$)&ess. I& *'), $) >'s &%) eve& e&)$%&e5 4

5e*e&5'&)-'


33/60

)e $5e&)$) '&5 'u)e&)$$) %* er E$4$) , $& 4(')'&) 5$sre#'r5 %* )e ru(es %&

ev$5e&e, $s re's%& e&%u# *%r )e H%&%r'4(e C%ur) &%) )% %&s$5er )e s'e.

!.29 I& '55$)$%& )% )e *%re#%$, 5e*e&5'&)-'r$))e& $& )e s'$5 (e))er. Mr. Gr'ss%** %u(5 ver >e(( 4e us) '&

$'#$&'r 'r')er >$ 5e*e&5'&)-'


34/60

J%r'&@s &%&-e %&s$5er )') $) $s *ur)er e


35/60

H%&%r'4(e C%ur) '&5 $ $s %re )'& 5%u4(e )e s$=e %* )e

Le'se5 Pre$ses. He *ur)er '5$))e5 )') )e s'$5 es)$')e '(s% $&(u5e5 )e %s) *%r

'55$)$%&'( $% s)%re 4u$(5$.

A)). L%$4'%: A&5 )e su4e)


36/60

A)). L%$4'%: $ %u(5 4e )e *(%%r 're' %* e&)$re #r%u&5 *(%%rQ

$)&ess: Te e&)$re #r%u&5 *(%%r >%u(5 4e %re )'& 5%u4(e.

A)). L%$4'%: S% )') >%u(5 4e 'r%u&5 022 %r ?22 su're e)ersQ

$)&ess: es, s$r.

A)). L%$4'%: $) re#'r5 )% %ur es)$')e '%u&)$ )% O&e M$(($%& E$#)

Hu&5re5 F$*)-O&e T%us'&5 Seve& Hu&5re5 F$*)-Seve& ere >'s )$s se% T%us'&5 Pes%s, >ere >'s )$s '5eQ


37/60

$)&ess: A) )e #r%u&5 *(%%r, s$r.

A)). L%$4'%: ') '4%u) *(%%r *$&$s, $)e &u4er 0, %u)s$5e %* )e 4u$(5$Q

$)&ess: es, s$r.

A)). L%$4'%: I)e &u4er , C%&re)$ %r+s, )ese >ere '5e $& >$

er %& ues)$%& &u4er

9, ($&e ! '&5 I u%)e as ell as for the additional improvementsthat the Defendant anted to introduce. ere $


38/60

damage is caused !y the negligence of 6plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial7 or any

person under its custody or employ:, 'ssu$ s%(e( *%r )e s'+e %* 'r#ue&) )')

)e Le'se5 Pre$ses >'s $&5ee5 $& ' )err$4(e %&5$)$%&, 5e*e&5'&)-'% 'use5 )e Le'se5 Pre$ses )% 4e '((e#e5( $& ' )err$4(e %&5$)$%& 's

e >'s '(s% &%) 's v'')e5 4


39/60

229, e 5$5 &%) eve& s)')e >e& e *$rs) s'> )e Le'se5 Pre$ses '*)er


40/60

D$5 %u $&*%r Mrs. J%r'& )') %u >$(( v'')e )e er %* Mr. L$s$ >$ $s 5$re)(

%


41/60

'ere re%ve5 4C$)$*$&'&$'( >e& $) v'')e5 )e Le'se5 Pre$sesQ

A: Jus) )e '%us)$ 4%'r5s, e$($ $se re%ve5 )e *(%%r$ '&5

>'((e 5$5 re%ve5 'sic) )e '%us)$ 4%'r5s s$&e

)ese >ere ')u'(( $&s)'((e5 4 C$)$*$&'&$'( ') )e 4e#$&&$ %* )e (e'se'&5 %u 5% &%) &ee5 )% eer) *%re )% re%ve )e, >e &ever re%ve5 )e

>'(($r$ >'s e4e55e5 $& )e >'((s %* )e Le'se5 Pre$ses, '&5

>e& C$)$*$&'&$'( v'')e5 )e Le'se5 Pre$ses, )e s'e >'s $&)e&'&)'4(e %&5$)$%&, s$r.

9.2 TeAffidavit %* Mr. R%5r$#% C. Terr'5%, )e seur$) #u'r5 'ss$#&e5

$& )e Le'se5 Pre$ses %& 2 '&5 / Ju( 220, $s eu'(( ')e#%r$'( )') &%

!


42/60

5''#e >'s 'use5 )% )e Le'se5 Pre$ses '&5 )e s'e >'s v'')e5 4 ') I %4serve5 5ur$ C$)$*$&'&$'(@s %ve-%u), )e

e(e)r$'()e(e$r$, *(%%r$, '&5 >'(( 's '(s% e&)$%&e5 4 Mrs. J%r'& )') C$)$*$&'&$'( use5 *%re )%re%ve )e $)es %u e&)$%&e5 e'r($er. '), $* '&, '& %u s' '4%u)

)$s s)')ee&)Q

A: B'se5 %& >') I %4serve5, M'@', )e eere $&s)ru)e5 )') )ese $)es'5 )% 4e use5 '#'$& $& )e &e> (e'se5 ere )% 4e

*%r$4( re%ve5, )e >%u(5 4e 5es)r%e5 '&5 )e %&)r')%r >%u(5 &%)

4e '4(e )% use )e '#'$&, M'@'.

: H%> $s )') %u s' )') )e e(e)r$'()e(e$r$ '&5 *(%%r$ >ere

&%) re%ve5Q

A: I s' )$s 4e'use >e& )e $)es re%ve5 *r% )e %(5 (e'se5 ere 5e($vere5 u&5er >') %& )e )$r5 '&5 ('s) 5' %* %ve-%u) )%

)e &e> (e'se5 's '(re'5 e(e)r$$) '&5)e(e *(%%r$ $& )e &e> (e'se5 's &% &ee5 *%r C$)$*$&'&$'( )% re%ve )e >$r$ '&5 *(%%r$

>e& $) %ve5 %u) %* Mrs. J%r'&@s


43/60

A: Fr% >') I re'((, C$)$*$&'&$'( (e*) Mrs. J%r'&@s e& $(e re%v$ %r %v$ $)

*r% $)s urre&) (%')$%&, '&5 %&e '&&%) 4e 're*u( $& re%v$ %r %v$ )')

$)e >$)%u) 4e$ 're*u( $& $)s )re')e&) %* )e (%')$%& *r% >ere )') $)e 's

)% 4e %ve5 *r% %r re%ve5.

/2.2/ I& '& eve&), )e $ssues r'$se5 4 5e*e&5'&)-'$) )e 'ss$#&e&) %* err%rs

s)')e5 $& )eAppellant8s 9rief >ere '(re'5 %&s$5ere5 '&5 u5$$%us( res%(ve5 $&

)eDecision %* )e C%ur) a quo"Tus, )e%otion for &econsideration $s 4(')'&)(

pro forma 's $) '+es &% s$&ere e**%r) )% 5e%&s)r')e '& err%r $& )e Decision

)') >%u(5 reu$re $)s revers'( %r us)$* ' rev$e> 4 )e C%ur) a quo"A%r5$(,

)e C%ur) a quo e(5 $& $)s $rder)'):

0?P('$&)$**-'


44/60

A&e&) )e M%)$%& *%r Re%&s$5er')$%& *$(e5 4 )e 5e*e&5'&), )e C%ur)

%4serves )') $&5ee5 )ere >'s ' 4(')'&) 5$sre#'r5 %* )e )ree-5' &%)$e ru(e.

$(e )$s C%ur) $& '& ''s e(5 $& %arcos vs" %anglapus, et al"0!

)'):

/. I) us) 4e e 'r#ue&)s &%) '(re'5 %&s$5ere5 '&5

06&ollo,


45/60

's e(5 )'):

A 's err%&e%us( 5%&e 4 )e res %ur)s )% e'& *$&'( u5#e&)s >$(( resu() $& e&5(ess ($)$#')$%&s.?2

/2.26 I& '55$)$%&, )e %otion for &econsideration %* 5e*e&5'&)-'


46/60

%otion for &econsideration%* 5e*e&5'&)-'


47/60

Te ('> e


48/60

reu$ree&)s *%r )e re*u&5 %* )e 5e$)$& )$r) "21 5's *r% )e 5')e %* )er$&')$%& %* Le'se,

'u)%r$=e5 re


49/60

//.2 A re'5$ %* )e Appellant8s 9rief$&5u4$)'4( s%>s )') 5e*e&5'&)-

'r$))e& &%)$e 4 5e*e&5'&)-'


50/60

)') se '5 *%r'(( '5v$se5?


51/60

(e))er 5e'&5$ )e re)ur& %* )e Seur$) De$(( %%r5$&')e

>$) er *%r )e %u('r $&s


52/60

)e s'e >'s &%) 'use5 4


53/60

C%&)r') %* Le'se )') cost of repairs to the leased premises for damages caused

!y negligence >>> may!e 'sic) deducted from the +ecurity Deposit >>>:"In l!@#

o) #!" o'"$a#!on5 #$ '$la#$d %la!0 )o u"#!)!$d d$du%#!on o )o)$!#u$ o)

#$ S$%u!#y D$po"!# !" !$($d 'y #!" Cou# a" "!0ply a u"$ #o ao!d !#"

!n$!#a'l$ $)und."I)'($s $& )e %r$#$&'( e


54/60

contracts have the force of la !eteen the contracting parties and should !e

complied ith in good faith":?? Assu$ )') 5e*e&5'&)-''$ve $)s %>& 5e*'u().

/.20 C%&s$5er$ )') $) >'s %u(5 4e

*%r*e$)$ )e Seur$) De's '$ve )e 5e(' %$))e5 4 5e*e&5'&)-'$)%u) s'$ )') 's se&) )% er %r ' )%)'( %* ') (e's)

??Ar)$(e //?9, C$v$( C%5e.

?2


55/60

*%r)-*$ve "0?1 5's. I) >'s %&( '*)er )e ! A's se&) )') 5e*e&5'&)-

'


56/60

5e*e&5'&)-'


57/60

)ere 4e$ &% s)$' %* e'


58/60

%4($#')$%&. Tus,


59/60

PICAZO BUYCO TAN FIDER & SANTOS

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee Citifinancial Corporation

/8), /9), /2)3 /!)F(%%rs, L$4er) Ce&)er

/20 H.V. 5e(' C%s)' S)ree), S'(e5% V$(('#e

/! M'+')$ C$), Me)r% M'&$('

Te(. N%. "761 888-2999

B:

C;ARLIE C. YALUN8

IBP N%. LRN-2?/02/-!-22?P'


60/60

COP FURNISHED EPLANATION: T$s $ )e reu$ree&)s %* )e Ru(es %* C%ur), 5ue )% )e

appellee's brief (cfc-jorman) - 5 march 2012 (f)

Documents