Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

9th Judicial Region
Branch 30
Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur
7020

AURORA INTEGRATED MULTI-

PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, CIVIL CASE NO. AZ-20,
Plaintiff, 741

-versus-
FOR: COLLECTION OF
RUTCHILA Z. DELA PEŇA, SUM OF MONEY WITH
Defendant. DAMAGES
X------------------------------------/

ANSWER WITH
SPECIAL/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defendant, through the undersigned counsel, unto the

Honorable Court, most respectfully states, to wit:

1. That on March 8, 2018, the defendant of the above-entitled

case has received Summons from the Honorable Clerk of
Court of Regional Trial Court of Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur,
Branch 20, requiring her to file, within 15 days, an Answer
to the Complaint of the above-named Plaintiff. Hence, this
Answer;

2. The allegations stated in the Complaint in Paragraphs 1, 2,

and 3 are hereby admitted except as to the Board Resolution
No. 09, Series of 2017 for the defendant has no knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the material averments;

3. The allegation in paragraph 4 is partly denied. The truth of

the matter is that the defendant was asked by the plaintiff to
sign the loan application and promissory note amounting
Php 863,000 to apply the proceeds of the same to the
defendant’s previous loan with the Coop. The defendant did
comply with the request of the manager and officers for
their benefit because the transaction was made in order to
protect the performance of the branch (AIM Coop Alubijid-

Page 1 of 9
 Branch) by reducing or removing the past due accounts and
ultimately they could earn branch/individual performance
incentives;

4. Moreover, the defendant was compelled to sign the Cash

Voucher where in truth and in fact the cash referred therein
has never been received by the defendant but instead was
applied to the Php 700,000.00 original loan. Again, this is to
protect the performance of the branch and its employees;

5. The allegation in Paragraph 5 is partly denied as to the fact

that she was invited for a mediation or conciliation
proceedings. The truth is when the defendant received the
Demand Letter dated October 15, 2017 (attached in the
Complaint as Annex H), she immediately look for money to
pay the dues;

6. However, on December 27, 2017 the defendant went to

AIMCoop-Alubijid Branch to make a partial payment of Php
70,000.00 for her loan but the plaintiff refused to accept the
said amount for reasons that the amount was allegedly not
enough to update the loan account of the former. To the
surprise of the defendant, the defendant would later learn
that there was already a civil case filed against her dated
November 20, 2017;

7. That just recently, after the defendant received the

Summons, she asked for the Account Statement of her loan
with the AIMCoop-Alubijid Branch wherein it reveals that
there have been payments made by the defendant, to wit:

Amount Paid Date of Payment

Php 1,350.00 February 16, 2016

2,000.00 October 22, 2016
1,000.00 November 28, 2016
Php 4,350.00

8. Moreover, on May 27, 2014 the Php 107,200.00 Share

Capital (another account which is designated as Account No.
035-27-0003569) of the defendant was applied by the Coop
in the former’s loan account. However the Coop, without any
legal basis, incorrectly applied the entire amount as

Page 2 of 9
 payment for the interest notwithstanding the interest due at
that time was only Php 25,890.00. To illustrate:

Interest for the entire period:

Php 863,000 x 30% = Php 258,900

Interest for every payment date (semi-annual):

Php 258,900 ÷ 20 instalments = Php 12,945 semi-annually

Interest due as of May 27, 2014:

June 21, 2013 (1st payment date) = Php 12,945.00

December 31, 2013 (2nd payment date) = 12,945.00

Total = Php 25,890.00

9. To support that there have been payments made by the

defendant, copy of the Statement of Account and Share
Capital Passbook are herein attached and marked as Annex
“1” and Annex “2”, respectively;

10. Article 1253 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines

provides for the application of payment of debt, thus:

“Art. 1253. If the debt produces interest,

payment of the principal shall not be deemed to
have been made until the interests have been
covered.”

11. Otherwise stated, the payment shall be applied first to the

interest, due at the time of payment, and the excess of
which, if any, shall be applied to the principal amount. In the
instant case, the Coop treated the entire amount of Php
107,200.00 as payment of interest without allocating a
portion for the principal amount. This is improper;

12. Finally, the defendant is grateful and has no objection for

the waiver of the interest and penalties made by the
plaintiff. However, if the plaintiff is true for its intent, it
should have deducted the Php 107,200.00 from the loan
amount of the defendant.

Page 3 of 9
 SPECIAL/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The case should be dismissed for

failure to state cause of action.

13. The plaintiff herein is not a real-party-in-interest who

would stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment in
the suit, or entitled to the avails of the suit. Allegedly,
plaintiff Merlyn C. Filipino is a duly authorized representative
of AIM Coop. However, a scrutiny of the Board Resolution
attached in complaint which supposedly authorized Merlyn C.
Filipino to represent the Coop would reveal that it is not
signed by the Board or no certification to that effect is made
by the Board’s Secretary;

The case should be dismissed for

failure to comply with condition
precedent.

12. AIMCoop is duly registered with the Cooperative

Development Authority, hence, they are bound by the
provisions of the Cooperative Code of the Philippines of 2008
(R.A. 9520).

13. Under Article 137 of R.A. 9520, a conciliation or mediation

is necessary in this dispute, thus:

“Art. 137. Settlement of Disputes,

Conciliation, and Mediation Proceedings. - Disputes
among members, officers, directors, and committee
members, and intra-cooperative, inter-cooperative,
intra-federation or intra-federation disputes shall,
as far as practicable, be settled amicably in
accordance with the conciliation or mediation
mechanism embodied in the bylaws of
cooperatives and in such other applicable
laws.

xxx.

Should such conciliation or mediation

proceeding fail, the matter shall be settled through

Page 4 of 9
 voluntary arbitration: Provided, however, That
before any party can validly file a complaint with
the Authority for voluntary arbitration, it must
first secure a certification from its conciliation
and mediation committee and from its
conciliation and mediation committee and from the
cooperative union or federation to which it belongs
that despite all efforts to settle the issues, the
same have failed.”

14. Here, the plaintiff did not present any certification from its
conciliation and mediation committee that it exerted efforts
to settle the issue. This is because, no conciliation or
mediation actually occurred; nor any invitation for that
purpose is made.

The case should be dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction over the subject
matter.

15. With all due respect, the exclusive and original jurisdiction
over the subject matter belongs to the Cooperative
Development Authority, hence, under the same Section
stated above, R.A. 9520 provides.

“Art. 137. Settlement of Disputes, Conciliation,

and Mediation Proceedings. xxx

Should such conciliation or mediation

proceeding fail, the matter shall be settled through
voluntary arbitration: Provided, however, That
before any party can validly file a complaint
with the Authority for voluntary arbitration, it
must first secure a certification from its conciliation
and mediation committee and from its conciliation
and mediation committee and from the cooperative
union or federation to which it belongs that despite
all efforts to settle the issues, the same have
failed.”

The jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitration

shall be exclusive and original and their decisions
shall be appealable to the Office of the President.
The Authority shall issue and adopt the proper rules

Page 5 of 9
 of procedure governing arbitration as the primary
and exclusive mode for dispute resolution in
accordance with the Alternative Dispute Resolution
Act of 2004.

The case should be dismissed on the

ground of improper venue.

16. In civil cases, particularly in actions in personam, venue of

the action should be filed with the court having jurisdiction
over the residence or address of the plaintiff or the
defendant at the choice of the plaintiff;

17. Here, the case is filed before this Honorable Court wherein
neither of the plaintiffs nor defendant resides. Although,
venue of an action may be filed in other courts, other than
those falls within the jurisdiction the residences of the
parties may be stipulated, but it must be made in a clear
and unequivocal terms. Here, no clear and unequivocal
stipulation is made;

The case should be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the defendant.

18. The case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over

the person of the defendant by reason of improper service of
summons. In order to acquire jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant, a valid summons must be made onto him by
personal or valid substituted service of summons.

19. Hence, under the Rules, whenever practicable, the

summons shall be served by handling a copy thereof to the
defendant in person, or, if he refuses to receive and sign for
it, by tendering to him. If, for justifiable causes, the
defendant cannot be served within a reasonable time,
service may be effected a.) by leaving copies of the
summons at the defendant’s residence with some person of
suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or b.) by
leaving the copies at defendant’s office or regular place of
business with some competent person in charge thereof.

Page 6 of 9
 20. Here, the summons is sent through LBC by the Office of
Clerk of Court of RTC Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur to the
Office of Clerk of Court of RTC Initao, Misamis Oriental. A
procedure not sanctioned by the Rules. It must be noted,
however, that this answer should not be construed as
voluntary appearance on the part of the defendant.

COUNTERCLAIM

21. Because of the baseless filing of the complaint, defendant

has to hire the services of counsel to defend his right and
agreed to pay the amount of 30,000.00 as acceptance fee
and Php 5,000 as appearance fee to which the plaintiff be
made liable for reimbursement of the expenses.

WHEREFORE, premises considered it is most respectfully

prayed unto the Honorable Court that the case be dismissed for
failure to state cause of action, failure to comply condition
precedent, improper venue and lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant. It is likewise prayed unto the Honorable
Court to adjudge the plaintiff to pay Php 30,000.00 as attorney’s
fees and Php 5,000.00 for every appearance of the undersigned
counsel.

Other just and equitable reliefs and remedies are likewise

prayed for.

Cagayan de Oro City (for Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur).

March 23, 2018.

MERLIN P. CAIŇA & ASSOCIATES

Counsel for the Defendant
2/F Consortium Building
Corrales Extension, Cagayan de Oro City
Landline Phone No. (088) 880-2822
E-mail Address: mpc_lawoffice@yahoo.com

By:

ATTY. DAN PATRICK S. GARCIA

IBP CDO (O.R. NO.) 1080230: JANUARY 3, 2018
PTR CDO (O.R. NO.) 8638462, DECEMBER 11, 2017 (FOR 2018)
TIN 934-402-974; ROLL NO. 66957

Page 7 of 9
Mobile No. 0915-7635-699

Page 8 of 9
 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, RUTCHILA Z. DELA PENA, of legal age, married and a

resident of Siare, Baybay, Alubijid, Misamis Oriental, after having
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1. I am the Defendant in the instant case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer

Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims;

3. That I have read the same and all allegations therein are
true to my personal knowledge and based on authentic
documents/records;

4. That, further, I hereby certify and oath that I have not

caused any action or proceeding involving the same parties
and issues at bar before the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals or any division thereof or any other tribunal or
agency, and to the best of my knowledge no such action is
pending therein, and should I learn of any, I undertake to
inform this Court within five (5) days from knowledge
thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this

___th day of ___________ , 2018 at Cagayan de Oro City.

RITCHILA Z. DELA PENA

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____TH day of

_______________________, in the City of Cagayan de Oro.

Page 9 of 9