Complaint For Interpleader

(COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
CITY OF MANILA
BRANCH II
Chris Chuper,
Plaintiff,
-versusCivil Case No.: __________
Christine Dera and Matha Dera
Defendants
x----------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, through counsel, and to this Honorable Court most respectfully
states:
1. That Chris Chuper, herein plaintiff, of legal age, Filipino and with
residence at 123 Malvar St., Malate, Manila.
2. That on October 25, 2009, plaintiff borrowed from the late Pedro Dera,
who was the father of herein defendants, the sum of P500,000.00 payable within
the period of one (1) year from the said date, and, to secure the payment of said
obligation, plaintiff executed a Deed of Mortgage over a parcel of land, the
description of which is contained in said Deed of Mortgage, copy of which is
attached to this complaint as Annex A;
3. That the aforementioned Pedro Dera died intestate on December 1, 2009,
leaving two legitimate children, defendants in this case, as his surviving heirs;
4. That the said defendants, both of whom are of legal age, prepared a deed
of extrajudicial partition of the properties and assets left by their late father; but
failed to specify in said document the heirs to whom plaintiff's mortgage

indebtedness would be assigned;
5. That the contractual period for the payment of said obligation will lapse
on the 25th of this month, and plaintiff is desirous, ready and willing to pay the
same;
6. That both defendants claim that each is solely entitled to said payment by
virtue of an agreement between them, and plaintiff has no means of knowing
definitely to whom of the two indebtedness should be paid;
7. That without this action, more damage and inconveniences will be caused
to plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment issue:
1. Ordering defendants to interplead and litigate their conflicting claims
between them;
2. Ordering the payment of indebtedness to this Court during the pendency
of this action, and considering said payment as made to whomever of defendants is
entitled to the same;
3. Adjudging the mortgage, marked as Annex A hereof, released and
canceled and ordering that proper documents for said release, be executed and
signed, and that said release shall be retroactive to the day payment is made to this
Court.
4. Plaintiffs likewise pray for such other and further relief or reliefs to this
Honorable Court may deem just and equitable in the premises.
Manila, October 4, 2010, Chris Chuper.
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM

SHOPPING
I, Chris Chuper, Filipino, of legal age, married and residing at 123 Malvar
St., Malate, Manila, under oath, depose and state:
1. That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing complaint;
3. That I have read and understood the allegations therein contained and the
same are true and correct of my own knowledge and based on authentic records.
4. That I have not heretofore commenced or filed any other action involving
the same issues in any court, tribunal or agency; that to the best of my own
knowledge, no such action is pending in any court, tribunal or agency; that should I
hereafter learn of any such pending action, I undertake to inform this Honorable
Office of such fact within five (5) days therefrom.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day of
October, in the City of Manila.
Chris Chuper
Affiant
(Jurat)
(PETITION FOR PROHIBITION)
CITY OF MANILA
BRANCH II
Jack Papa,
Petitioner,
Hon. Chris Chuper, Metropolitan Trial Court
Judge of the City of Manila and Matt Dera
Respondents
x----------------------------------x
PETITION
PETITIONER, through counsel, alleges:
1. That petitioner is a residence of 123 Malvar St, Malate, Manila,
respondent Hon. Chris Chuper is the Metropolitan Trial Court Judge of the City of
Manila; while other respondent Matt Dera is a resident of 321 Singalong St.,
Malate, Manila.
2. That, on August 10, 2010, respondent Matt Dera, filed a complaint for
Forcible Entry and Detainer against petitioner, in the Metropolitan Trial Court of
the City of Manila, and docketed in said court as Civil Case No. 1234567.
3. That the subject matter of the aforementioned complaint is a certain parcel
of land which is situated in the City of Pasay, and which is more particularly
described as follows:
(Description of parcel of land)
4. That there is a duly constituted and functioning Metropolitan Trial Court
for and in the City of Pasay.
5. That respondent Hon. Chris Chuper, as Metropolitan Judge of the City of
Manila, allowed said complaint to be filed in his court, and forthwith issued, and
ordered to be served, the corresponding summons to petitioner.
6. That petitioner, immediately after service of the summons upon him filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that respondent judge had no
jurisdiction to try the same, which motion was heard and argued on September 10,
2009.
7. That, on September 25, 2010, respondent judge issued order denying the
aforementioned motion to dismiss, and ordering the petitioner to answer the
complaint and to enter trial on September 27, 2010, at 9 a.m.
8. That the above-mentioned case for Forcible Entry and Detainer is outside
the jurisdiction of respondent judge, and the order requiring the petitioner to
answer the complaint and enter trial is done without and/or in excess of jurisdiction
of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay.
9. That petitioner has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that respondent judge be prohibited from
enforcing the order requiring petitioner to answer the complaint and to enter trial in
Civil Case No. 1234567 of said court, and from further proceeding in the action
which is clearly beyond its jurisdiction, and for such other remedy as may just and
equitable in the premises.
City of Manila, October 4, 2010, Jack Papa

SHOPPING
I, Jack Papa, Filipino, of legal age, married and residing at 123 Malvar St.,
Malate, Manila, under oath, depose and state:
1. That I am the petitioner in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing petition;
Jack Papa
Affiant
(Jurat)
(PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO)

CITY OF MANILA
BRANCH II
Jack Papa,
Petitioner,
Chris Chuper,
Respondents
x----------------------------------------------x
PETITION
PETITIONER, through counsel, alleges:
1. That both, petitioner and respondent are residents of the City of Manila.
2. That the petitioner is the Metropolitan Trial Court Judge of the City of
Manila, having duly appointed and commissioned the said office on January 15,
2010.
3. That on January 24, 2010 the petitioner, by virtue of said appointment and
commission, duly qualified for, assumed the duties of said office.
4. That on August 23, 2010, petitioner was informed by the Secretary of
Justice that the President had revoked the appointment extended to petitioner.
5. That the petitioner faithfully and uninterruptedly discharged the functions
of said office until September 30, 2010, when respondent usurped said office,
thereby illegally depriving petitioner of the same, under an alleged appointment by
the President.
6. That there exists no cause or reason whatsoever whereby the petitioner

should be disqualified from, or deprived of said office.
7. That the respondent is now unlawfully holding and exercising said office,
performing the functions connected therewith.
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays for judgment declaring that respondent is
not entitled to said office and ousting him therefrom, and declaring petitioner as the
legal person entitled to hold and exercise the same, and restoring him to the
possession thereof.
City of Manila, October 4, 2010, Jack Papa
SHOPPING
I, Jack Papa, Filipino, of legal age, married and residing at 123 Malvar St.,
Malate, Manila, under oath, depose and state:
1. That I am the petitioner in the above-entitled case;
2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing petition;
Jack Papa
Affiant
(Jurat)
REPUBIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF _______
____________ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
IN RE: QUIETING OF TITLE OVER THE

PROPERTY COVERED BY TCT NO. 12345
SCA:_________
Juan dela Cruz, as special administrator
Of the Esatate of Maya Man,
Petitoner
Mang Gagantso
Respondent
X____________________________X
PETITION
Petitioner, by counsel respectfully states that:
1. He is the administrator of the estate of the deceased Maya Man.
2. The deceased, during her lifetime, executed a Deed of Sale of real property
in favor of respondent Mang Gagantso dated, October 21, 1999, and
particularly described as follows:
(Description of the Property)
covered by TCT NO. 12345 in the Register of Deeds in Manila. The same is
annotated on the title as the only encumbrance on the property.
3. The sale was fictitious and the deed of sale was a forgery evidenced by the
decision on Civil Case no. 12345, attached herein.
4. The spurious deed of sale is prejudicial to the title of the lawful owner of the
property. The Deed of Sale should be surrendered and cancelled, as it is a
cloud in the title of the owners property
WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays to this Honorable Court to
render judgment in favor of the Estate by ordering the Deed of Sale should
be surrendered and cancelled so as to remove the cloud over the Title no.
12345.
Pasay City; October 8, 2010.
(Sgd) Atty. X
Counsel for Petitioner
123 Bahay St. Pasay, City
Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping
Republic of the Philippines
)
City of Manila
) SS.
I, Juan dela Cruz, of legal age, do hereby state that: I am the plaintiff caused
this complaint to be prepared; I have read its contents and affirm that they are true
and correct to the best of my personal knowledge; I hereby certify that there no
other case/s commenced or pending before any court or tribunal involving the
same parties and the same issues that, should I learn of any case, I shall notify the
court within five (5) days from my notice.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument on September 22,
2010.
(Sgd)Juan dela Cruz
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the City of Quezon, this 21 st
day of September, 2010, the affiant exhibiting to me his Drivers License No. N2502-003180 issued by Land Transportation Office , on March 4, 2010, that he is
one and the same person who presented the foregoing affidavit whoc he voluntarily
signed in my presence.
Name: Atty. Magaling N. Abogado

Notary Public for City of Quezon
Office Address of Notary Public
_____
Appointment No. _____ Until [date]
[year]
Roll of Attorneys No. _____
PTR No. ______; [date issued][place
issued]
IBP No. ______; [date issued]
[Chapter]
Serial No. Of Commission
______________
Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____:
Book No. _____;
Series of 2010.
JUAN DELA CRUZ
Plaintiff
-versus-
Civil Case No. ________

(Description of the Pleading)
CITY COUNCIL OF MANILA

Defendant
X------------------------------X
PETITION
COMES NOW, the plaintiff by the undersigned counsel, and unto this
Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:
1. Plaintiff Juan dela Cruz is single, a Filipino, of legal age and resident of
#69 Bahay na Bato Street, Manila; the defendant City Council of Manila,
the duly constituted legislative body of the City of Manila, its members
may be served with notices at the City Hall of Manila.
2. City council passed Ordinance no. 1095 last January 21, 2010 prohibiting
the use of cellphones on a moving vehicle and penalizing any violation
with Php 5,000 pesos for each offense and impounding the unit. The
relevant provision of the ordinance is as follows:
(quote pertinent provision)
3. The above quoted provision is ambiguous because it leaves discretion to
the authorities to prevent even on emergency calls which may occur
while riding the moving vehicle. Considering that there is always traffic
most of the businesses are conducted while in transit. The plaintiff as a
business man usually makes necessary orders for business purposes while
on transit and the plaintiff is unaware of his limitation within the bounds
of the ordinance.
4. The ordinance unduly prejudices him and his means of livelihood unless
a declaratory relief is granted. Due to uncertainty of important calls that
he would receive during transit may cause confiscation of his cellphone
and a fine.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court to
grant a declaratory relief and declare the rights and duties under the
Ordinance.
City of Manila; September 22, 2010
(Sgd) Benta Han
Counsel for the Plaintiff
#69 DVD/VCD St. Manila
)
City of Manila
) SS.
2010.
(Sgd)Juan dela Cruz
_____
[year]
issued]
[Chapter]
______________
Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____:
Book No. _____;
Series of 2010.
JUAN DELA CRUZ

Petitioner
-versus-
Civil Case No. ________

(Description of the Pleading)
PEDRO CRUZ
Respondent
X------------------------------X
PETITION
Petitioner, by counsel states that:
1. Petitioner, Juan dela Cruz,
123 SBC St. Pasay, City;
legal age and an officer
certificate, where he may
Registry office.
is Filipino, single, of legal age and a resident of

Respondent, Pedro Cruz, is Filipino, single, of
of the City of Pasay issuing community tax
be served legal processes at the City of Pasay
2. The respondent is an office of the City of Pasay Registry Office, issuing

community tax certificate. After complying with the procedure laid down by
the office and paying the required fees the latter refused to issue the
community tax certificate.
3. There is no appeal for such decision and any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after due notice and hearing, a
writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent to: issue the
community tax certificate, with cost against them.
Pasay City; October 10, 2010.
(Sgd) Att. L
Counsel for the Petitioner
65 GHJ St. Pasay, City

)
City of Manila
) SS.
2010.
(Sgd)Juan dela Cruz
_____
[year]
issued]
[Chapter]
______________
Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____:
Book No. _____;
Series of 2010.
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT- BRANCH XII MANILA
Dao Ming Sy
Plaintiff
versus
Hwa Tse Lei
Respondent
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Case No. 13456

For: Unlawful Detainer
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, Dao Ming Sy, Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident of #345 Sampaloc,
Manila, after being sworn to in accordance with the law, depose and state that:
I am the owner of the house and lot at #345 Sampaloc, Manila and I have entered
into a contract of lease with respondent Hwa Tse Lei, Filipino, of legal age and
presently occupying half of the property establishing a photography studio.
The said lessee was not able to pay a total amount of P70,000 for the past 7 months
which urged me to rescind the contract of lease and asked such lessee to vacate the
premise but to my surprise Hwa Tse Lei does not want to vacate my property and
instead continue with his business without paying any rentals.
Wherefore, I am executing this complaint affidavit together with the contract of
lease attached as Exhibit A to support my cause of action for ejectment against
Hwa Tse Lei that may be served with subpoena and other processes of this
Honorable Office at #345, Sampaloc, Manila, Philippines;.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 5 th day Of October

2010 at Batangas City, Philippines.
Dao Ming Sy
COMPLAINANT
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5th day of October 2010 at Manila,
Philippines. I hereby certify that I have examined the Affiant and that I am fully
satisfied that she has voluntarily executed and understood the contents of her
Complaint-Affidavit.
Atty. Jose Intal

Administering Officer
COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER
CITY OF PASIG
BRANCH XX
John Cruz,
plaintiff
vs.
Detainer
Louie Lim,
defendant
x-----------------------------------x
Civil Case # ____

Complaint for Unlawful
COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Plaintiff, thru counsel, respectfully avers that:
1.
2. The plaintiff is of age and a resident of 975 Regalado St. Pasig City while the
defendant is also of age, with residence at 864 Kundiman St. Pasig City, where
he may be served with summons and other court processes;
3. The plaintiff is the absolute owner and lessor of a certain house and lot located
at 864 Kundiman St. Pasig, currently being leased and occupied by the
defendant;
4. The defendant leases and occupies the said house and lot under the express
obligation of paying a monthly rent of 50,000.00 pesos. Payable within the first
five (5) days of each month;
5. The defendant has failed to pay the rents for the months of March and April,
which now amounts to 100,000.00 pesos;
6. Without any legal justification, defendant continuously refuses to pay said
amount despite repeated oral and written demands. A final demand letter was
sent and received personally by defendant on May 30, 2010, or more than five
(5) days before the filing of this complaint. A copy of the final demand letter to
pay the arrears and to vacate the premises is here attached as Annex "A."
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that aft due hearing, judgment be
rendered in favor of the plaintiff:
a. For restitution of the abovementioned premises; and
b. For the payment of 100,000.00 pesos representing the arrears of rent now
overdue, with legal interest from the filing of this complaint, and costs of suit.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
PASIG CITY, June 3, 2010
(Sgd) Atty. D
Counsel form
Plaintiff
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

COMPLAINT FOR EXPROPRIATION
CITY OF PASIG
BRANCH XX
City of Pasig,
plaintiff
vs.
Civil Case # ____

Complaint for
Expropriation
Jojo Dy,
defendant
x-----------------------------------x
COMPLAINT FOR EXPROPRIATION
PLAINTIFF, thru counsel respectfully avers that:
7.
8. Plaintiff is a public corporation created by the laws of the, Philippines, duly
vested with the power to condemn and expropriate private property for public
use; and defendant Jojo Dy, single, of legal age, Filipino and resides at 121 Hill
Crest St. Pasig City;
9. The City Council of Pasig passed a resolution, to wit: Resolution # 98-76,
providing for the construction of a public high school for the purpose of
promoting the physical, moral, spiritual well being of the youth in the city;
10.For that purpose, it is necessary for the plaintiff corporation to acquire that
certain parcel of land of the defendant, describes as follows: 800 sqm. located at
121 Hill Crest St. Pasig City;
11.Plaintiff tenders and offers to deposit the amount of 1,500,00.00 pesos, which is
equivalent to the assessed value of the property, so that pending these
proceedings, the plaintiff may immediately be placed in possession of the
property involved.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed:
12.That after due notice and hearing, an order of condemnation be entered,
declaring that the plaintiff has lawful right to take e several properties herein
sought to be condemned for public use, upon payment of just compensation to
be determined as of the date of the filing of this Complaint;
13.That upon entry of the order of condemnation, three competent and
disinterested persons be appointed as commissioners to ascertain and report to
the court the just compensation for the property condemned;
14.That, pending these proceedings, the plaintiff be placed in possession of the
property upon deposit with the National Treasurer of such sum as may be
provisionally be ascertained and fixed by this Court, subject to the orders and
final disposition of the same.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
PASIG CITY, October 3, 2010
(Sgd) Atty. M
City Legal Officer
COMPLAINT FOR FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE
CITY OF PASIG
BRANCH XX
Michael Paningbatan,
plaintiff
vs.
Civil Case # ____

Complaint for Foreclosure of
Mortgage
Al Usman Patta,
defendant
x-----------------------------------x
COMPLAINT FOR FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE
Plaintiff, thru the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court,
respectfully states that:
15.
16.Plaintiff Michael Paningbatan is single, of legal age, Filipino and resides at 987
Don Asterio St. Pasig City; while Al Usman Patta is single, of legal age,
Filipino and resides at 654 Don Pio St. Pasig City;
17.On February 14, 2009, defendant obtained a loan in the sum of 500,000.00
pesos, evidenced by a promissory note on the same date, promising to pay t he
plaintiff the said amount with legal interest, on or before November 1, 2009.
Copy of the promissory note is here attached as Annex "A" of this complaint;
18.The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage executed by the defendant in
favor of the plaintiff, on a parcel of land located at 321 Don Enrique St. Pasig
City;
19.The real estate mortgage was duly registered with the Registry of Deeds of
Pasig on February 15, 2009. Copy of the said mortgage is attached as Annex
"B" and made an integral part of this complaint;
20.Defendant has not paid the mortgage debt of 500,000.00 pesos, in spite of the
lapse of the stipulated period;
21.Defendant failed to pay the plaintiff any amount despite repeated oral and
written demands to satisfy the same. A copy of the final written demand letter
personally received by the defendant is here attached as Annex "C;" and
22.There are no other persons having or claiming an interest in the mortgaged
property
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the judgment be rendered

against the defendant:
23.To pay within a period of not less than ninety (90) days but not more than one
hundred twenty (120) days from entry of judgment, the sum of 500,000.00
pesos together with the stipulated interest, plus cost of suit and attorney's fees;
and
24.In default of such payment, the abovementioned property be ordered sold at
public auction to pay off the mortgage debt and its accumulated interest, plus
attorney's fees and cost of suit.
Other reliefs just and equitable a re likewise prayed for.
PASIG CITY, December 1, 2009
(Sgd) Atty. V
Counsel form
Plaintiff
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
CITY OF MANILA, BRANCH ____
AEROSPACE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
- versus MANUEL ENTERPRISES, INC.,
,
Defendants.
x-----------------------------------x
CIVIL CASE NO. __________

For Sum of Money
COMPLAINT
(With Application for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Attachment)
Plaintiff AEROSPACE CORPORATION, through counsel, respectfully states:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Canada, with
principal place of business at Ontario, Canada. Plaintiff is not doing business in the Philippines.
Plaintiff may be served with orders, notices and processes of the Honorable Court in connection
with this case through undersigned counsel.
1.1. Plaintiff is a leading global supplier of technologically advanced aerospace

systems and components.
It designs, engineers and manufactures a wide range of
aeroengine and aerostructure components for aerospace markets, and provides repair and
overhaul, test, and aftermarket support services for a variety of aircraft engines, and
engine structural components.
2. Defendant Manuel Enterprises, Inc. (Manuel ) is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the Philippines, with principal place of business at Malate, Manila. It
may be served with summons, notices, orders and other processes of the Honorable Court
through its officers, among them: (a) its Managing Director and/or Proprietor, Mr. Elvi T.Sosa,
with office address at, Mandaluyong City; or (b) its Treasurer, Ms. Rhodora L.Sosa, with office
address at Vergara, Mandaluyong City.
2.1.
Defendant Manuel is engaged in the business of buying, selling,
distributing, marketing at wholesale and retail insofar as may be permitted by law, all
kinds of goods, commodities, wares and merchandise of every kind and description. A
copy of its Articles of Incorporation is attached hereto as Annex A.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON
TO
ALL CAUSES
OF
ACTION
5. On or about 18 September 2008, defendant PAF contracted defendant Manuel for the
overhaul of two (2) T76 aircraft engines, with serial numbers GE-00307 and GE-00039,
respectively.
Manuel did not and does not have the capacity, technical skilled personnel or tools to directly
perform the overhaul of aircraft engines. In order to perform the overhaul services, defendant
Manuel and its Managing Director / Proprietor, defendant Sosing, acting for and on behalf or for the
benefit of defendant PAF, commissioned plaintiff to perform the services and to overhaul the subject
aircraft engines for the price of US$ __________..
6.1. On 30 October 2008, defendants Manuel and Sosing accepted the Engine
Overhaul Quote sent to them by plaintiff for the overhaul of a T76-418 and T-76-419
engine.
A copy of plaintiffs Engine Overhaul Quote dated 27 October 2008 with
defendants Manuels and Sosings acceptance thereof on 30 October 2008, is attached hereto
as Annex B.
6.2. Under date 30 October 2008, defendants Manuel and Sosing sent Purchase
Order No. 99620 for plaintiffs performance of the overhaul and repair services. A copy of
Purchase Order No. 99620 dated 30 October 2008 is attached hereto as Annex C.
7. In turn, plaintiffs Aerotech Division entered into a subcontractor arrangement with

National Flight Services, Inc., a company with overhaul and maintenance facilities located at 10971
E. Airport Service Road, Toledo Express Airport, Swanton, Ohio 53558, U.S.A. A copy of
plaintiffs Purchase Order No. 4091 sent to National Flight Services, Inc. and covering the
subcontracted overhaul services for the subject aircraft engines, is attached hereto as Annex D.
7.1. Defendants knew and were well aware that the overhaul and repair services
were to be subcontracted by plaintiff to National Flight Services, Inc.
7.2. As early as May 2008, when the overhaul contract between defendants PAF and
Manuel was still being negotiated, it was already determined that the overhaul services
would be performed by plaintiff through a subcontractor, National Flight Services, Inc.
7.3. Thus, in an email dated 13 May 2008, defendant Sosing advised plaintiffs Mr.
Joe Braz that (a) the PAFs bidding committee conducted a post qualification inspection in
my company and was successfully complied with eligibility requirement; and (b) on 19
May 2008, the PAF will go to USA to conduct post qualification inspection with National
Flight Services, Inc. and will inspect their repair facility.
In the said email, defendant Sosing also informed plaintiffs Mr. Joe Braz that [he]
will let [Mr. Joe Braz] know once inspection is completed and passed with the Air Force so
that [plaintiff / Mr. Joe Braz] can start negotiating with the price aspects.
A copy of defendant Sosings email dated 13 May 2008 to plaintiffs Mr. Joe Braz is
attached hereto as Annex E.
7.4. In a letter faxed to Ms. Evelyn Rothery, Trade Commissioner of the Embassy of
Canada, on 15 February 2010, defendant PAF (through Rear Admiral Mario A. Catacutan,
AFP) confirmed the participation of National Flight Services, Inc. in the subject transaction
as early as 6 March 2008.
A copy of the 15 February 2010 letter is attached hereto as Annex F.
8. Subsequently, plaintiff (through its subcontractor National Flight Services, Inc.) fully
rendered the overhaul and repair services on the two (2) subject aircraft engines. Plaintiff delivered
the two (2) aircraft engines to the complete satisfaction of defendant PAF, as evidenced by the
PAFs subsequent acceptance of the two (2) aircraft engines on or about 13 January 2009.
9. Plaintiff sent Invoice Nos. 12998 and 12999, both dated 15 December 2008, to defendant
Chervin, for the total amount of Two Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven
US Dollars (US$264,577.00), which were due and payable in 30 days.
Copies of Invoice Nos. 12998 and 12999 are attached hereto as Annexes G and H,
respectively.
9.1. Invoice No. 12998 covers the overhaul of the T76 aircraft engine with serial
number GE-00307, for a price of One Hundred Ninety Six Thousand One Hundred Sixty
US Dollars (US$196,160.00), less the amount of One Hundred Thousand US Dollars
(US$100,000.00) earlier paid by defendant Chervin and Sosing, leaving a balance of Ninety
Six Thousand One Hundred Sixty US Dollars (US$96,160.00).
9.2. Invoice No. 12999 covers the overhaul of the T76 aircraft engine with serial
number GE-00039, for a price of One Hundred Sixty Eight Thousand Four Hundred
Seventeen US Dollars (US$168,417.00).
10. Meanwhile, on or about 7 November 2008, defendant PAF released the amount of
Twenty Three Million Seven Hundred Sixty Thousand Pesos (P23,760,000.00) to its agents,
defendants Chervin and Sosing, as payment of 90% of the total price of the overhaul services.
Defendant PAF retained a 10% retention fund in the amount of Two Million Three Hundred Seventy
Six Thousand Pesos (P2,376,000.00). A copy of defendant PAFs letter dated 21 December 2009 to
Trade Commissioner of the Canadian Embassy, affirming the PAFs release and retention of the
aforestated sums of money, is attached hereto as Annex I.
11. However, notwithstanding defendant PAFs release of funds covering 90% payment for
the repair of the subject aircraft engines, defendant PAFs agents defendants Chervin and Sosing
did not pay plaintiff for the services rendered, leaving an indebtedness to plaintiff in the amount of
Two Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven US Dollars (US$264,577.00).
12. Following a letter dated 5 February 2009 from plaintiffs auditor, defendant Sosing, as
defendant Chervins Proprietor, acknowledged and confirmed their indebtedness to plaintiff in the
amount of Two Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven US Dollars
(US$264,577.00). A copy of the letter dated 5 February 2009 from plaintiffs auditor, showing
defendants Chervins and Sosings confirmation and acknowledgment on 2 March 2009 of their
indebtedness to plaintiff, is attached hereto as Annex J.
FIRST CAUSE
OF
ACTION
13. Plaintiff hereby repleads the allegations in the preceding paragraphs to the extent that
they are applicable.
14. Plaintiff has made several demands to defendants to pay their obligations. However,
defendants Chervin and Sosing have refused and failed to pay their indebtedness in the amount of
Two Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven US Dollars (US$264,577.00).
14.1. When plaintiffs several attempts to contact defendants Chervin and Sosing by
phone and email correspondence proved futile, plaintiff sent a demand letter dated 10
September 2009 to defendants Chervin and Sosing, demanding the immediate full payment
of their overdue account. A copy of the said demand letter is attached hereto as Annex K.
14.2. On 26 January 2010, in view of defendants Chervins and Sosings refusal

and failure to pay their outstanding obligations, plaintiffs counsel sent a final demand
letter dated 22 January 2010 to defendants Chervin and Sosing, demanding the payment
of Two Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven US Dollars
(US$264,577.00), plus 12% legal interest thereon from 15 January 2009 until full payment
is received, within ten (10) days from receipt of the demand letter. A copy of the final
demand letter is attached hereto as Annex L.
15. Defendants Chervin and Sosing merely ignored and never responded to the foregoing
demand letters. To date, they have continued to refuse and fail to pay their indebtedness to
plaintiff.
16. Based on the foregoing, defendants Chervin and Sosing must be solidarily directed to
pay plaintiff the amount of Two Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven US
Dollars (US$264,577.00), plus 12% legal interest thereon from 15 January 2009 until full payment
is received.
SECOND CAUSE
OF
ACTION
18. Meanwhile, plaintiff also sent to defendant PAF as the principal of defendants
Chervin and Sosing, and the beneficiary of plaintiffs overhaul and repair services which were
commissioned by defendants Chervin and Sosing for and on its behalf a demand letter dated 26
January 2010, demanding the release of the 10% retention amount of Two Million Three
Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Pesos (P2,376,000.00) directly to plaintiff, as partial payment of
the amount owed to it. A copy of plaintiffs demand letter to defendant PAF is attached hereto as
Annex M.
19. However, in a reply letter dated 3 March 2010, defendant PAF rejected plaintiffs
demand, alleging that the amount of retention money (P2,376.000.00) withheld by the PAF is
kept in trust for Chervin Enterprises who is the owner thereof. A copy of defendant PAFs reply
letter dated 3 March 2010 is attached hereto as Annex N.
20. As defendants Chervins and Sosings principal, defendant PAF must comply with all
the obligations which its agents, defendants Chervin and Sosing, may have contracted within the
scope of their authority (Article 1910, Civil Code of the Philippines). These obligations include
paying plaintiff in full for the overhaul and repair services performed on defendant PAFs aircraft
engines, which services were commissioned by defendants Chervin and Sosing for and on behalf
of defendant PAF.
21. Hence, as the principal of defendants Chervin and Sosing, and the beneficiary of
plaintiffs overhaul and repair services, defendant PAF must be made answerable for defendants
Chervins and Sosings failure to pay plaintiff. Therefore, as an alternative cause of action in the
event that the First Cause of Action is not and/or cannot be fully satisfied by defendants Chervin
and Sosing, defendant PAF must be held liable for the outstanding amount of Two Hundred Sixty
Four Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven US Dollars (US$264,577.00), plus 12% legal interest
thereon from 15 January 2009 until full payment is received.
22. In the meantime, having retained 10% of the total price of the overhaul services in
the amount of Two Million Three Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Pesos (P2,376,000.00),
defendant PAF must be ordered to release the said amount directly to plaintiff, as partial payment
of the amount owed to the latter.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
24. In view of the unjustified refusal of defendants to satisfy plaintiffs plainly valid,
just, and demandable claims, plaintiff has been compelled to file the present action and to engage
the services of undersigned counsel to protect its rights and interests.
25. Defendants should therefore be held solidarily liable to pay plaintiff attorneys fees
and expenses of litigation of not less than Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF
APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
26. Plaintiff hereby repleads the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.
27. Plaintiff respectfully and urgently applies for the immediate issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment under Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, against the assets of
defendants to secure the payment of a future judgment awarding plaintiffs claims against them.
27.1. Since the early part of 2009, defendants Chervin and Sosing have become
scarce, not responding to any of plaintiffs correspondence and obviously evading plaintiff.
More, even as plaintiff sought the assistance of the Trade Commissioner of the Canadian
Embassy to facilitate the payment of the unpaid account, defendants Chervin and Sosing
refused to show any sign of cooperation.
27.2.
Based on information and belief, defendants Chervin and Sosing have
removed or disposed of their properties, or are about to do so, with intent to defraud
creditors, including plaintiff. Also, based on information, defendant Sosing intends to depart
from the Philippines to evade his and his companys creditors.
27.3. Defendants Chervin and Sosing were clearly guilty of fraud in incurring the
obligations upon which this action is brought. It is obvious that they never had any
intention of paying plaintiff, even after receiving full payment from defendant PAF.
Notably, defendant PAFs payment was substantially more than what defendants Chervin
and Sosing owed to plaintiff, meaning that there was a substantial profit margin built in
for defendants Chervin and Sosing.
But the substantial profit was not enough for
defendant Chervin and Sosing, who obviously planned to pocket the entire amount paid
and to be paid by defendant PAF.
27.4. On the other hand, defendant PAF continues to feign ignorance of the
failure of its agents, defendants Chervin and Sosing, to pay plaintiff for the overhaul and
repair services commissioned for and on behalf of defendant PAF. It continues to
unreasonably deny plaintiffs request that the 10% retention amount of Two Million
Three Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Pesos (P2,376,000.00) be released directly to
plaintiff, as partial payment of the amount owed to the latter, asserting that such amount
belongs to defendant Chervin.
Meanwhile, based on information, defendants Chervin and Sosing are about to

withdraw the 10% retention amount being held by defendant PAF, to the prejudice of
plaintiff.
27.6. As shown above, plaintiff has sufficient causes of action against defendants.
27.7. There is no other sufficient security for the claims sought to be enforced by
plaintiff in this action.
27.8. Unless the assets and properties of defendants Chervin and Sosing - which
according to defendant PAF, include the 10% retention amount of Two Million Three
Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Pesos (P2,376,000.00) are attached and garnished,
defendants may very well succeed in rendering empty and useless any judgment that may
be rendered in favor of plaintiff.
Thus, it is respectfully submitted that a writ of
preliminary attachment must be issued in plaintiffs favor.
27.9. The amount due to plaintiff is as much as the sum for which the order of
preliminary attachment will be granted, above all legal counterclaims.
28. Attached hereto as Annex O is an Affidavit of plaintiffs witness with personal

knowledge of the facts. The Affidavit supports and proves all the foregoing allegations and the
existence of all the requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.
29. Plaintiff is willing to post a bond in an amount to be fixed by the Honorable Court in
accordance with Rule 57 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff respectfully prays that:
1. Immediately after the filing of this Complaint, a writ of preliminary attachment be

issued against the funds, assets and properties of defendants Chervin and Sosing, including the
10% retention amount of Two Million Three Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Pesos
(P2,376,000.00) being held by defendant PAF, as security for the satisfaction of any judgment
that may be granted in favor of plaintiff in this case.
2. After trial, judgment be rendered against defendants as follows:
(a) On the First Cause of Action, directing defendants Chervin and Sosing to pay
plaintiff the amount of Two Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven
US Dollars (US$264,577.00), plus 12% legal interest thereon from 15 January 2009 until
full payment is received;
(b) On the alternative Second Cause of Action, in the event that the First Cause of
Action is not and/or cannot be fully satisfied by defendants Chervin and Sosing,
(i) Directing defendant PAF to pay plaintiff the outstanding amount of

Two Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven US Dollars
(US$264,577.00), plus 12% legal interest thereon from 15 January 2009 until full
payment is received; and
(ii) Directing defendant PAF to release the 10% retention fund in the
amount of Two Million Three Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Pesos
(P2,376,000.00) directly to plaintiff, as partial payment of the amount owed to the
latter;
(c) Ordering defendants to solidarily pay plaintiff P500,000.00 as attorney's fees and
litigation expenses; and
(d) Ordering defendants to pay the costs of suit.
Plaintiff respectfully prays for other relief just and equitable in the premises.
Taguig City for the City of Manila, 30 March 2010.
BONG NAVAL
Counsel for Plaintiff
By:
PAUL LOPEZ
Roll of Attorney No. 37177
IBP Lifetime No. 03312; Makati City
PTR No. 0940637-D; 1/08/2010 Taguig City
MCLE Compliance No. II-0004636; 7/07/08
And by:
SAM BITUIN
Roll of Attorney No. 43986
IBP Lifetime No. 03334; Rizal
PTR No. 0640046-C; 1/14/09; Taguig City
MCLE Compliance No. II-0002712; 7/06/07
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
I, _______________________, on behalf of plaintiff Magellan Aerospace Corporation (the

Company), after being sworn in accordance with law, depose and say that:
1. I have been duly authorized by plaintiff to file the instant Complaint on its behalf, as
shown by the Special Power of Attorney attached hereto.
2. I have caused the above Complaint to be prepared on behalf of plaintiff and have read the
contents thereof.
3. The allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based
on authentic records. I also attest to the authenticity of the annexes thereof.
4. I further certify that:
a. The Company has not heretofore commenced any action or filed any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency;
b. To the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;
and
c. If I or the Company should hereafter learn that a similar action or claim has been
filed or is pending, plaintiff shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
Honorable Court.
___________________________
[INSERT NOTARIZATION AND PHILIPPINE CONSULATE AUTHENTICATION]

Complaint For Interpleader

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint For Interpleader

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint For Interpleader

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

failed to specify in said document the heirs to whom plaintiff's mortgage

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM

(PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO)

6. That there exists no cause or reason whatsoever whereby the petitioner

IN RE: QUIETING OF TITLE OVER THE

Name: Atty. Magaling N. Abogado

Civil Case No. ________

CITY COUNCIL OF MANILA

JUAN DELA CRUZ

Civil Case No. ________

is Filipino, single, of legal age and a resident of

2. The respondent is an office of the City of Pasay Registry Office, issuing

Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping

Civil Case No. 13456

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 5 th day Of October

Atty. Jose Intal

Civil Case # ____

COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

Civil Case # ____

Civil Case # ____

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the judgment be rendered

CIVIL CASE NO. __________

Plaintiff AEROSPACE CORPORATION, through counsel, respectfully states:

1.1. Plaintiff is a leading global supplier of technologically advanced aerospace

It designs, engineers and manufactures a wide range of

2. Defendant Manuel Enterprises, Inc. (Manuel ) is a corporation organized and

Defendant Manuel is engaged in the business of buying, selling,

A copy of plaintiffs Engine Overhaul Quote dated 27 October 2008 with

7. In turn, plaintiffs Aerotech Division entered into a subcontractor arrangement with

A copy of the 15 February 2010 letter is attached hereto as Annex F.

14.2. On 26 January 2010, in view of defendants Chervins and Sosings refusal

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

26. Plaintiff hereby repleads the allegations in the preceding paragraphs.

Based on information and belief, defendants Chervin and Sosing have

But the substantial profit was not enough for

Meanwhile, based on information, defendants Chervin and Sosing are about to

Thus, it is respectfully submitted that a writ of

preliminary attachment must be issued in plaintiffs favor.

28. Attached hereto as Annex O is an Affidavit of plaintiffs witness with personal

WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiff respectfully prays that:

1. Immediately after the filing of this Complaint, a writ of preliminary attachment be

2. After trial, judgment be rendered against defendants as follows:

(i) Directing defendant PAF to pay plaintiff the outstanding amount of

(d) Ordering defendants to pay the costs of suit.

Taguig City for the City of Manila, 30 March 2010.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, _______________________, on behalf of plaintiff Magellan Aerospace Corporation (the

[INSERT NOTARIZATION AND PHILIPPINE CONSULATE AUTHENTICATION]

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.