Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
CITIFINANCIAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee
- versus LETICIA L. JORMAN
Defendant-Appellant
CA G.R. NO. CV-96837
(Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 143)
(RTC Civil Case No. 06-094)
APPELLEES BRIEF
PICAZO BUYCO TAN FIDER & SANTOS
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee Citifinancial Corporation
18th, 19th, 10th & 17th Floors, Liberty Center
104 H.V. dela Costa Street, Salcedo Village
1227 Makati City, Metro Manila
Tel. No. (+632) 888-0999
Fax No. (+632) 844-6169
Email Address: main@picazolaw.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
I.
Prefatory Statement
III. Counter-Arguments
17
First Argument
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 was caused by
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial considering that the
improvements removed therefrom were undisputedly owned
by plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial and, in fact, were never
claimed by defendant-appellant Jorman. Likewise, the Court
a quo correctly affirmed the Decision through the Order on
the grounds that the Motion for Reconsideration of
defendant-appellant Jorman was merely a pro forma motion
for failing to raise any new ground or persuasive reason to
warrant the reversal of the Decision and for violating the
three (3)-day notice rule. Thus, the Motion for
Reconsideration of defendant-appellant Jorman did not toll
the period to appeal the Decision and consequently, her
appeal to the Honorable Court of Appeals was filed out of
time.
19
Second Argument
The Court a quo correctly held that defendant-appellant
Jorman did not comply with the provisions of the Lease
Contract on deductions against the Security Deposit, thereby
enjoining her from claiming any such deductions assuming
solely for the sake of argument that she has proven that
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial caused damage to the Leased
Premises.
44
Third Argument
49
52
IV. Relief
55
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
CITIFINANCIAL CORPORATION,
PlaintiffAppellee,
- versus -
LETICIA L. JORMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
x ---------------------------------------------- x
APPELLEES BRIEF
Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial Corporation (Citifinancial), by counsel,
respectfully states:
I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
1.01 It is a fundamental rule that contracts, once perfected, bind both
contracting parties, and obligations arising therefrom have the force of law
between the parties and should be complied with in good faith.1
Philippine National Construction Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 272 SCRA 183, 191
(1997) citing Articles 1159, 1308, 1315 and 1356 of the Civil Code.
1
Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Exhibit B (Rollo, pp. 13-23, 93-103, 217-227). See also
defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 6 (Rollo, pp. 376-A- 386).
2
1.05 In any event, as found by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
Branch 143 (the Court a quo) in its Decision dated 30 April 2010 (Decision)3
and affirmed in its Order dated 9 December 2010 (Order),4 defendant-appellant
Jorman failed to establish any amount that should be deducted from the Security
Deposit.
II.
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS
3
4
2.04 In its letter dated 15 March 2004,6 which was received by defendantappellant Jorman on the same date, plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial, conformably
with Section XVI of the Lease Contract, informed defendant-appellant Jorman of
6
its decision to pre-terminate the lease effective 15 May 2004. In the same letter,
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial likewise informed defendant-appellant Jorman that
it was expecting a refund in full of the Security Deposit, given that it would be
turning over the Leased Premises in a properly maintained condition, with all
utility bills fully paid.
xxx
However, at any time during August 01, 2002 up to July 31, 2006 of the
term of this Contract, should LESSEE decide to preterminate or cancel
this lease, the LESSEE shall give the LESSOR not less than two (2)
months prior written notice before the pretermination date. In which case,
the LESSOR shall neither hold nor claim any amount fines and penalties,
nor file suit against LESSEE, nor shall any amount such as the Security
Deposit be forfeited to the LESSOR.
xxx.
2.05 Although plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial initially decided to preterminate the lease on 15 May 2004, plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial vacated the
Leased Premises only on 31 July 2004 without any objection from defendantappellant Jorman7 considering that plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial fully paid the
rent for its stay in the Leased Premises until 31 July 2004.8
Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) of the hearing held on 2 August 2007, pp.14-15;
Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Exhibit F (Rollo, pp. 152 and 235).
8
TSN of the hearing held on 2 August 2007, pp. 7-8.
7
9
10
2.07.1
violating
Section X of the Lease Contract when it removed the acoustic ceiling boards, toilet
bowls, bathroom fixtures, exhaust fans, telephone wires, doors, wall papers and
circuit breakers/box. Aside from the fact that this letter was sent to plaintiffappellee Citifinancial beyond the stipulated period in the Lease Contract, it is,
more importantly, not true that plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial removed the
electrical/telephone wires, the marble flooring and the wall paper.12
2.09 However, aside from the fact that the above-mentioned letter of
defendant-appellant Jorman did not comply with the required ten (10)-day prior
Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Exhibit D (Rollo, pp. 25-26, 105-106, 229-230). See also
defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 2 (Rollo, pp. 58-59, 372, 373).
12
Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Exhibit F, (Rollo, pp. 150-157, 233-240) and Exhibit G,
(Rollo, pp. 174-177, 241-244).
11
written notice for deduction from the Security Deposit under Section II of the
Lease Contract, defendant-appellant Jorman conveniently disregarded the fact that
the assets removed from the Lease Premises were actually owned by plaintiffappellee Citifinancial, having been supplied and installed by plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial at the beginning of the lease.
Accordingly, plaintiff-appellee
13
14
2.10 Due to the continued unjustifiable failure and refusal of defendantappellant Jorman to refund the Security Deposit to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial
in accordance with the Lease Contract, plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial, through the
1 September 2005 letter15 of its lawyer, demanded from defendant-appellant
Jorman the return of the Security Deposit and advised defendant-appellant Jorman
that it will coordinate with her the ocular inspection of the Leased Premises to
determine if the alleged damage [to the Leased Premises indeed] qualifies as a
15
deduction from the Security Deposit, in accordance with Section II of the Lease
Contract. Unfortunately, defendant-appellant Jorman failed and refused to
coordinate with plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial.16
2.12 Through her letter dated 7 April 2006 18 or more than two (2) months
after the Complaint of plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial was filed and after
defendant-appellant Jorman had filed three (3) motions for extensions of time as
follows: [i] Motion for Extension of Time (To File Answer) dated 10 March 2006
asking for a period of fifteen (15) days or until 25 March 2006 within which to file
the answer;19 [ii] Motion for Extension of Time (To File Answer) dated 27 March
2006 asking for a period of fifteen (15) days or until 11 April 2006 within which to
Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancials Exhibit F (Rollo, pp.154 and 237).
Rollo, pp. 1-28.
18
Defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 4 (Rollo, page 61).
19
Rollo, pp. 34-37.
16
17
12
file the answer;20 and [iii] Final Motion for Extension of Time (To File Answer)
dated 11 April 2006 again asking for a period of fifteen (15) days or until 25
March 2006 within which to file the answer, 21 defendant-appellant Jorman
belatedly informed plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial of her decision to forfeit the
Security Deposit purportedly on the account of the damage caused to the Leased
Premises which allegedly amounted to Nine Hundred Sixty Thousand Pesos
(Php960,000.00) more or less.
2.13 After several days from the belated issuance of the aforesaid letter
dated 7 April 2006 by defendant-appellant Jorman, she finally filed her Answer
dated 20 April 2006 on 26 April 2006.22
2.14 On 30 April 2010, the Court a quo rendered the Decision in favor of
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial. The dispositive portion of the Decision states:
The sum of Eight Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (Php 825,000.00)
representing the plaintiffs Security Deposit;
b.
The amount of One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php
115,500.00) as the Lease Contract stipulated one percent (1%) interest,
13
from 15 August 2004 until the full refund of the Security Deposit by
defendant Leticia Jorman to plaintiff Citifinancial, or;
c.
d.
e.
SO ORDERED.
23
24
2.18 On 9 December 2010, the Court a quo issued the Order granting the
Motion for Partial Reconsideration and the Motion to Expunge of plaintiffappellee Citifinancial and denying the Motion for Reconsideration of defendantappellant Jorman for being a mere scrap of paper and for having no persuasive
reason to reverse the Decision as no new argument was raised in the Motion for
Reconsideration to warrant such action. Thus, the dispositive portion of the Order
states:
25
The sum of Eight Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (Php 825,000.00)
representing the plaintiffs Security Deposit;
b.
One percent (1%) interest per month on the Security Deposit of Eight
Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (Php825,000.00) from 15 August
2004 and until the full refund of the Security Deposit by defendant Leticia
Jorman to plaintiff Citifinancial;
c.
d.
e.
2.19 In view of the denial of her Motion for Reconsideration, defendantappellant Jorman appealed to the Honorable Court of Appeals.
III.
ARGUMENTS
3.01 In her appeal, defendant-appellant Jorman raises the following
assignment of errors:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE DEFENDANTAPPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THAT DAMAGE WAS CAUSED TO
16
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS
4.01 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 WAS CAUSED BY
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CITIFINANCIAL CONSIDERING
THAT
THE
IMPROVEMENTS
REMOVED
WERE
UNDISPUTEDLY OWNED BY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
CITIFINANCIAL AND, IN FACT, WERE NEVER CLAIMED
BY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JORMAN. LIKEWISE, THE
COURT A QUO CORRECTLY AFFIRMED THE DECISION
THROUGH THE ORDER ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANTAPPELLANT JORMAN WAS MERELY A PRO FORMA
MOTION FOR FAILING TO RAISE ANY NEW GROUND OR
PERSUASIVE REASON TO WARRANT THE REVERSAL OF
THE DECISION AND FOR VIOLATING THE THREE (3)-DAY
NOTICE
RULE.
THUS,
THE
MOTION
FOR
RECONSIDERATION
OF
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JORMAN DID NOT TOLL THE PERIOD TO APPEAL THE
DECISION AND CONSEQUENTLY, HER APPEAL TO THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS WAS FILED OUT OF
TIME.
17
5.01 In the Decision of the Court a quo, it was correctly held in the
following manner that defendant-appellant Jorman failed to discharge her burden
of proving her affirmative defense that plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial caused
destruction of the Leased Premises:
Has the defendant been able to discharge her burden of proving her
affirmative defense that the plaintiff caused destruction to the leased premises
when it (plaintiff) detached certain items therefrom thus warranting the forfeiture
of the Security Deposit?
The answer is, no.
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence to establish his
claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law, which is
preponderance of evidence in civil cases. The party, whether plaintiff or
defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof to
obtain a favorable judgment. For the defendant, the plaintiffs alleged act of
defacing the leased premises by removing or detaching things therefrom
constitute her cause of action which she must prove by preponderance of
evidence. However, the Court notes that the items allegedly detached by the
plaintiff have been expressly referred to by the latter as its belongings. This
has been the emphatic submission of the plaintiff in its Complaint and during
the reception of the parties evidence at the trial stage. Curiously, these
items, which consist of acoustic ceiling boards, toilet bowls, bathroom
fixtures, exhaust fans, telephone wires, doors, wall papers and circuit
19
breakers were never claimed by defendant as hers or items that have been
affixed to the leased premises prior to plaintiffs occupancy thereof.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
6.02 Moreover, under the terms of the Lease Contract, [a]ny improvements
made or introduced by [plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial] may be removed by [plaintiffappellee Citifinancial] without defacing the Leased Premises. What plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial cannot remove are only those fixtures which were present in the Leased
Premises upon the commencement of this lease. The fact that it was plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial which introduced the improvements it removed from the Leased Premises,
and that they own the same, is uncontroverted. It must be emphasized that when defendantappellant Jorman leased the property to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial, it was bare that
21
Atty. Catindig:
Witness:
Yeah.
xxx
Atty. Catindig:
Can you enumerate these items which you saw installed in the
premises?
Witness:
Atty. Catindig:
And you also claim to have installed the bathroom fixture, Mr.
Witness?
Witness:
Yes, maam. 28
28
6.04 Considering that under Section X of the Lease Contract plaintiffappellee Citifinancial had the right to remove any improvement made or
introduced by it without defacing the Leased Premises, what defendant-appellant
Jorman can only demand, which plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial more than
complied with, is that after the termination of the Lease Contract, plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial was to return the Leased Premises in the same condition as it was at
the commencement of the lease with reasonable wear and tear. Since the Leased
Premises was bare at the commencement of the lease, plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial cannot be faulted for removing the improvements it introduced
especially if it has done so without defacing the Leased Premises.
29
7.01 In her desperate attempt to keep for herself the Security Deposit
which properly belongs to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial, defendant-appellant
Jorman made a sweeping allegation that the Leased Premises was in a terrible
condition.30 However, she miserably failed to substantiate such sweeping
allegation with evidence. Aside from her self-serving and unreliable testimony,
defendant-appellant Jorman presented photographs,31 a letter dated 12 August 2004
allegedly from a certain Jochen Grasshoff,32 and an undated Certification33 from
Engr. Jonathan R. Bantug (Bantug) of the alleged cost of the damages she claims
her property suffered. Nevertheless, all of them are inadmissible in evidence for
being immaterial and irrelevant. They were not even duly authenticated. Thus, they
cannot be admitted in evidence or relied upon.
24
the instant proceeding. While photographs are admissible in evidence when they
appear to have been accurately taken and are proved to be a faithful and clear
representation of the subject, its accuracy or correctness must be proved, and it
must be authenticated or verified first.35 On this note the Supreme Court has held that:
The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented in
evidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its production and testified
as to the circumstances under which they were produced. The value of this kind of
evidence lies in its being a correct representation or reproduction of the original,
and its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the
time of the crime. The photographer, however, is not the only witness who can
identify the pictures he has taken. The correctness of the photograph as a faithful
representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the
testimony of the person who made it or by other competent witnesses, after which
the court can admit it subject to impeachment as to its accuracy. Photographs,
therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by any other competent
witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy.36
7.03 In the proceedings before the Court a quo, it must be emphasized that
no one testified on the circumstances under which these pictures were taken (e.g.,
who took these pictures, when these pictures were taken, what the pictures
represent, how accurate is the camera that was used to take the pictures, how
reliable was the processing or printing of the pictures.)
Marcelo Macalinao vs. Eddie Medecielo Ong, et. al., 477 SCRA 740 (2005).
Romeo Sison, et. al. vs. People of the Philippines, 250 SCRA 58, 75-76 (1995).
25
2009,37 Engr. Bantug mentioned that his group took pictures of the property,
which pictures were turned over to the Defendant. He did not, however, indicate
the name of the person who actually took the pictures so that the latter can
authenticate the same. He also did not state where, in particular, those pictures
were taken. In addition, he did not also indicate when these pictures were taken.
Absent these omitted facts, those pictures do not and could not prove [i] that the
property being depicted is the one that was leased out to plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial, [ii] the condition of the subject property immediately after the same
was vacated by plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial, and [iii] that the subject property
was damaged by plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial.
37
Q:
Madam witness, how can you prove that the leased premises were in fact
in a terrible condition after Citifinancial vacated the said premises?
A:
I have several pictures of the leased premises right after the lessee vacated
the premises, showing the condition of the premises.
Q:
A:
Witness:
Yes, sir.
Atty. Ong:
I will show you some documents, please tell the Honorable Court
if you are familiar with the same.
Court:
Witness:
Atty. Ong:
The set of pictures was previously marked as Exhibits 1 to 1B. May we ask that the same pictures be also marked as such.
Court:
Defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 7-A and 7-B (Rollo, pp. 261-262, 388-389).
TSN of the hearing held on 15 January 2009, pp. 26-28.
27
appellant Jormans own witness, in his Judicial Affidavit dated 19 March 200940
that the pictures which were taken by his group were turned over to defendantappellant Jorman. If Engr. Bantug indeed turned over the pictures they took to
defendant-appellant Jorman, why did defendant-appellant Jorman testify that she
has no pictures in her possession. Moreover, since Engr. Bantug has already turned
over the pictures they took to defendant-appellant Jorman, hence, was no longer in
possession of the same, and defendant-appellant Jorman likewise testified under
oath that (t)here are no pictures in her possession, then where did defendantappellant Jormans Exhibits 1 to 1-E come from? Again, defendant-appellant
Jorman failed to explain this irregularity with regard to the pictures, therefore,
these pictures must not be considered by the Honorable Court.
the identity and authenticity of her Exhibit 3, in blatant disregard of the rules on
evidence, is reason enough for the Honorable Court not to consider the same.
7.10 Lastly, the undated Certification42 issued by Engr. Bantug indicating that the
cost of repair on the Leased Premises amounted to Nine Hundred Sixty Thousand Pesos
(Php960,000.00), more or less, is also inadmissible under the Best Evidence Rule.
Considering that defendant-appellant Jorman is intending to prove the expenses of
the repair allegedly made on the subject property, originals of the receipts issued
with respect to the materials purchased and the cost of labor paid must be
presented in evidence.
7.11 Further, during the hearing held on 14 May 2009, Engr. Bantug failed
to testify on the circumstances that would excuse his or defendant-appellant
42
7.12 In addition, the said Certification did not even explain the basis of the
amount stated therein. It simply said that it is for the repair, including materials, labor
and other costs. It is important to enumerate what repairs were done, what materials were
purchased and what other costs have been incurred so that plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial
could verify the truth and the accuracy thereof. In failing to indicate with particularity the
basis of the amount indicated in the Certification, defendant-appellant Jorman, in effect,
deprived plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial the opportunity to cross-examine such
Certification. Hence, the same must not be considered by the Honorable Court.
7.13 The inaccuracy and falsehood of the Certification becomes more apparent if
we consider defendant-appellant Jormans Exhibit 12 which states that the estimated
additional cost incurred because of the extent of the damage to [d]efendants property
only amounted to Six Hundred Two Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Nine Pesos and
Fifty Centavos (Php602,399.50). Engr. Bantug did not even care to enlighten the
30
Is this a building?
Witness:
Atty. Lomibao:
Witness:
Atty. Lomibao:
Witness:
Corner.
Atty. Lomibao:
Witness:
Atty. Lomibao:
Witness:
Atty. Lomibao:
Witness:
Yes, sir.
Atty. Lomibao:
Witness:
Atty. Lomibao:
Witness:
Covered mostly outside of the building and some repairs due to...
xxx
xxx
xxx
Atty. Lomibao:
Witness:
xxx
xxx
Witness:
Atty. Lomibao:
Witness:
Atty. Lomibao:
Witness:
Yes, sir.
Atty. Lomibao:
Witness:
xxx
xxx
Atty. Lomibao:
Witness:
xxx.43
xxx
2009, he did not even state when he first saw the Leased Premises after plaintiff
Citifinancial vacated the same, viz:
Q:
Were you able to see the Property after Plaintiff Citifinancial Corporation
vacated it?
A:
8.04 Perhaps to counter the clear absence of any evidence to prove that the
alleged damage caused to the Leased Premises is attributable to plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial, defendant-appellant Jorman claims in Paragraph 25 of the
Appellants Brief that [p]laintiff-[a]ppellee [Citifinancial] surreptitiously caused
the removal of the improvements and/or articles within the leased premises on 31
July 2004 contrary to the previous agreement between the parties to the effect that
the same shall be done on 01 August 2004 to enable herein [d]efendant[a]ppellant [Jorman] to supervise the same. However, this was disproved during
the cross-examination of Mr. Lising wherein, upon questioning by the counsel of
defendant-appellant Jorman, he categorically answered that he informed defendantappellant Jorman that plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial would vacate the Leased
Premises on 31 July 2004 as follows:
ATTY. CATINDIG:
35
Did you inform Mrs. Jorman that you will vacate the premises on July 31, 2004?
WITNESS:
Yeah.44
9.02 In the Affidavit of Mr. Lising dated 23 April 2007, he expressly stated
in the following manner that only the improvements introduced by plaintiff-
44
appellee Citifinancial which can be removed without defacing the Leased Premises
were taken:
Q:
A:
xxx
xxx
Q:
A:
Just the acoustic boards, ceiling panels, toilet doors, bathroom fixtures,
circuit breakers (except the main circuit breakers), the air-conditioning
units, lighting fixtures and glass panels. All these were not part of the
original condition of the Leased Premises.
Q:
I have with me right now the Answer dated 20 April 2006 of Jorman to the
Complaint of Citifinancial. In Paragraph 14 thereof, it is alleged that the
acoustic boards and the telephone wires and electrical wiring were all
forcibly removed, and that Citifinancial likewise removed the flooring and
wallpaper. What can you say about this?
A:
That is not true. While we did removed (sic) the acoustic boards since
these were actually installed by Citifinancial at the beginning of the lease
and you do not need to exert force to remove them, we never removed the
wallpaper, marble flooring and electrical/telephone wires. In fact, the
electrical wiring was embedded in the walls of the Leased Premises, and
when Citifinancial vacated the Leased Premises, the same was in
tenantable condition, sir.
9.03
37
damage was caused to the Leased Premises and the same was vacated by plaintiffappellee Citifinancial in good condition:
Q:
In Mrs. Jormans Answer, dated 20 April 2006, which she filed in this
case, she said that the electrical/telephone wiring, flooring, and wall paper
were all removed, what, if any, can you say about this?
A:
Q:
A:
Q:
How is that you say that the electrical/telephone wiring and flooring were
not removed?
A:
I say this because when the items removed from the old leased premises
were delivered under my watch on the third and last day of move-out to
the new leased premises of Citifinancial, there was already electricity and
telephone services as well as new flooring in the new leased premises. So
there was no need for Citifinancial to remove the wiring and flooring
when it moved out of Mrs. Jormans premises. Also, during the third and
last day of move-out, I recall that the marble flooring, electrical/telephone
wiring, were all still intact at the old leased premises of Mrs. Jorman,
Maam.
Q:
Based on your observations during the second and third day of move-out
of Citifinancial from Mrs. Jormans premises, in what condition did (sic)
Citifinancial leave it?
38
A:
From what I recall, Citifinancial left Mrs. Jormans premises still in good
condition, Maam, except for the absence of the furniture, fixtures and the
items removed for use in the new premises.45
9.04 The testimony of Mr. Terrado that the Leased Premises was still in
good condition when plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial vacated the same except for
the absence of some items belonging to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial which were
carefully removed since they had to be used again in the new leased premises is
fully consistent with ordinary human experience. After all, if one intends to re-use
an item, one shall be careful in preserving the same while removing or moving it
from its current location, and one cannot be careful in removing or moving that
item without being careful in its treatment of the location from where that item has
to be moved from or removed.
Anent the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, the Court
observes that indeed there was a blatant disregard of the three-day notice rule.
While this Court in an apparent oversight ordered on 25 June 2010 the granting of
a period for the plaintiff to submit its comment thereto thus ordinarily curing
whatever defect the Motions status as a mere scrap of paper which should have
not merited any attention from this Court. In any event, even if technical
considerations will have to be ignored, still there exists no persuasive reason
for this Court to reverse its prior position as no new argument has been
raised in the Motion for Reconsideration to warrant such an action. 46
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
46
47
passed upon have been raised.48 In the case of Llantero vs. Court of Appeals, the
Supreme Court held that:
10.04 For failing to raise any new, compelling and/or meritorious reason
before the Court a quo for it to reconsider and reverse the Decision, the Motion for
Reconsideration of defendant-appellant Jorman did not toll the running of the
period to file an appeal to the Honorable Court of Appeals.
XXX A pro-forma motion will not toll the running of the period for appeal. And
once a decision becomes final, the court can no longer amend or modify the same,
much less set aside, as was erroneously done by the respondent Judge in the case.
For to allow courts to mean final judgments will result in endless litigations.50
41
51
52
XXX The law explicitly requires that notice of a motion shall be served by the
appellant to all parties concerned at least three (3) days before the hearing thereof,
together with a copy of the motion, and of any affidavits and other papers
accompanying it; and that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned,
stating the time and place for the hearing of the motion. The uniform holding of
this Court has been that a failure to comply with the requirement is a fatal
flaw. Such notice is required to avoid surprises upon the opposite party and give
the latter time to study and meet the arguments of the motion, as well as to
determine or make determinable the time of submission of the motion for
resolution. (Underscoring supplied.)
11.01 In the Decision, the Court a quo wisely held in the following manner
that defendant-appellant Jorman did not comply with any of the mandatory
43
requirements for the refund of the deposit and therefore, her continued refusal to
refund the same is unjustified:
11.02 A reading of the Appellants Brief indubitably shows that defendantappellant Jorman does not claim that she strictly complied with the aforesaid
mandatory provisions of the Lease Contract because, in fact, she did not.
Defendant-appellant Jorman can only submit that she has substantially complied
with the said provisions although the Court a quo twice ruled against her claims.
Thus, assuming solely for the sake of argument that defendant-appellant Jorman
has proven that plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial caused damage to the Leased
Premises, she cannot claim deductions from the Security Deposit because she
miserably failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Lease Contract on
deductions/forfeiture of the Security Deposit.
letter demanding the return of the Security Deposit and advising defendantappellant Jorman that it will coordinate with her for the ocular inspection of the
Leased Premises. Unfortunately, defendant-appellant Jorman failed or refused to
coordinate with plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial. Moreover, there was nothing that
prevented defendant-appellant Jorman from presenting the said receipts during the
trial before the Court a quo. The complete reliance of defendant-appellant Jorman
with the undated Certification of Engr. Bantug in the face of serious objections
raised by plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial proves that she simply could not provide
such official receipts because there was none.
the same was not caused by plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial. In either case, plaintiffappellee Citifinancial cannot be held liable therefor and defendant-appellant
Jorman had no basis to refuse to return the Security Deposit owned by plaintiffappellee Citifinancial.
12.01 In the Decision, the Court a quo made the astute observation that the
belated claim of defendant-appellant Jorman contained in her 7 April 2006 letter to
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial was only a mere ruse to avoid the inevitable refund
of the Security Deposit. Thus, the Court a quo held that:
Another thing. It does not escape the attention of this Court that defendant
wrote plaintiff herein on 10 August 2004 expressing her displeasure as she was
stunned that the premises was already empty and would like to discuss the
damages caused to her property. The same letter bears the defendants warning
that she may have to discuss the matter with her lawyer to find out if she can
remedy the prejudices she suffered from the destruction of the leased premises.
However, she found it proper to formally inform the plaintiff herein of her resolve
to forfeit the Security Deposit only on April 7, 2006, or almost two (2) years from
her discovery of the plaintiffs supposed act of destruction or defacement of the
premises. Notably, defendant sent this letter almost a year after plaintiffs counsel
sent her (defendant) a letter demanding the return of the same deposit. The Court
finds the delay unexplained given the clear provision under Section II of the
48
Contract of Lease that cost of repairs to the leased premises for damages caused
by negligence xxx maybe (sic) deducted from the Security Deposit xxx. In light
of this observation, the belated claim for justified deduction or forfeiture of
the Security Deposit is viewed by this Court as simply a ruse to avoid its
inevitable refund. (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be
complied with in good faith.55 Assuming that defendant-appellant Jormans
interpretation of Section XVII of the Lease Contract is correct, then contracts
would have no obligatory force between the contracting parties considering that the
party at fault can easily waive its own default.
12.05 Furthermore, the facts of the case support the observation of the Court
a quo that the decision of defendant-appellant Jorman to forfeit the Security
Deposit contained in the 7 April 2006 letter to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial was
only a mere ruse to avoid the inevitable refund of the Security Deposit. It must be
emphasized that the said letter was sent to plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial after
Complaint had been filed on 2 February 2005 and after defendant-appellant Jorman
filed three (3) motions for extension of time to file her answer or a total of at least
55
forty-five (45) days. It was only after the 7 April 2006 was sent that defendantappellant Jorman filed her Answer perhaps on the belief that she had finally built a
defense against the valid claims of plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial.
13.01 Since the Court a quo held in the Decision, which was affirmed by the
Order, that defendant-appellant Jorman failed to prove her affirmative defense that
plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial caused damage to the Leased Premises and that
defendant-appellant Jorman did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the
Lease Contract on claiming deductions against the Security Deposit, then the
refusal of defendant-appellant Jorman to return the Security Deposit is without any
legal and factual basis and therefore, renders her liable for damages.
13.03.1
52
53
RELIEF
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered,
plaintiff-appellee
Citifinancial
Corporation respectfully prays that the Honorable Court of Appeals deny the
instant appeal of defendant-appellant Leticia L. Jorman for any of the reasons
stated above and affirm the Decision dated 30 April 2010 and the Order dated 9
December 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 143.
Plaintiff-appellee Citifinancial likewise prays for such other reliefs that may
be just or equitable in the premises.
54
ROBEL C. LOMIBAO
IBP No. 874152/01-02-2012/Quezon City
PTR No. 3184883/01-10-2012/Makati City
Roll of Attorneys No. 51281
MCLE Compliance Cert. No. III-00017189/06-09-2010
KRISTOFFER N. BUENAVENTURA
IBP No. 874174/01-02-2012/Makati City
PTR No. 3184905/01-10-2012/Makati City
Roll of Attorneys No. 59100
Exempt Pursuant to MCLE Governing Board Order No.1 s. 2008
55
KRISTOFFER N. BUENAVENTURA
56