small claims/RESPONSE form

 

FORM 3-SCC

 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


 

 

 

 

                                                                ,

Plaintiff,

vs.                                                        Civil Case No.                                       For:          

 

                                                                ,

Defendant.

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

 

RESPONSE

(SAGOT)

 

Defendant/s state/s:

 

(Ang Hinahabla ay nagsasaad:)

 

1.        Defendant denies the Statement of Claim for any of the following reasons: (Put a check in any of the following)

(Tinatanggihan ng Hinahabla ang Habla ng Pagsingil sa alinmang sumusunod na dahilan): [Pumili sa mga sumusunod at lagyan ng tsek]

 

(a)           

Defendant does not owe plaintiff any money.

 

(Ang Hinahabla ay walang pagkakautang na salapi sa

 

Naghahabla.)

         

Defendant owes plaintiff only a portion of the amount claimed.

 

(Ang utang ng Hinahabla ay bahagi lamang ng halagang

 

sinisingil ng Naghahabla.)

           It is the plaintiff who owes defendant money.

(Ang Naghahabla ang siyang may utang na salapi sa Hinahabla.)

(b)       If defendant owes plaintiff only a portion of the amount claimed, how much is this?

(Kung ang utang ng Hinahabla ay bahagi lamang ng halagang sinisingil ng Naghahabla, magkano ito?)

                                                                                                             .

                                                                                                             .

 

(c)       If it is the plaintiff who owes defendant money, how much and when did this happen?

(Kung ang Naghahabla ang siyang may utang na salapi sa Hinahabla, magkano at kailan ito nangyari?)

                                                                                                             .

                                                                                                             .   If no specific date, estimate the time period:

(Kung walang tiyak na petsa, ibigay ang tantiyang panahon)

Date started                                  

(Petsa nagsimula)

Through                                        

(Hanggang)

 

(d)       How did you compute the money owed you? (Do not include court costs or fees for service.)

(Paano mo kinuwenta ang salaping pagkakautang sa iyo?) (Huwag

isama ang filing fees at bayad sa serbisyo.)

                                                                                                             .

                                                                                                             .

 

2.        If plaintiff owes you money, did you ask plaintiff to pay you?

(Kung ang Naghahabla ay siyang may pagkakautang sa iyo, siningil mo ba siya?)

 

            Yes                                        No

(Oo)                                       (Hindi)

 

If yes, how?

(Kung oo, paano?)

 

 

         

In person

          Others (specify)                            

 

(Sa kanya mismo)

(Iba pa) [ano ito?]

         

In writing

 

 

(Sa sulat)

 

         

By phone

 

 

(Sa telepono)

 

 

3.  Do you have any proof?

           Yes

           No

(Meron ka bang anumang katibayan?)

(Oo)

(Hindi)

What is this proof?

           

Receipt

 

(Anong katibayan ito?)

 

Resibo)

 

 

           

Other document

 

 

(Iba pang dokumento)

 

           

Witness

 

 

 

(Saksi/testigo)

 

4.     As  the  Statement  of  Claim  is  baseless,  defendant  is  entitled  to  the following counterclaims:

(Sa dahilang walang basehan ang Habla ng Pagsingil, ang Hinahabla ay may karapatan sa mga ganting-habol na sumusunod)

 

              Actual Damages for the value of the loss suffered by the filing of the case P            .

(Bayad para sa aktwal na pinsalang idinulot ng pagsampa ng

kaso)

 

             Costs of suit for the money defendant spent in filing a countercharge against plaintiff P        . (Kabayaran/Gastos sa kasong isinampa)

 

 


DEFENDANT

(Hinahabla)

 

 

 

 

 

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST NON-FORUM SHOPPING, SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION AND MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS

(if with permissive counterclaim)

 

(PAGPAPATOTOO O PAGPAPATUNAY NA WALANG IBANG KASONG

NAKASAMPA/NAKABINBIN SA IBANG HUKUMAN) (kapag may ganting habol na pinahihintulutan)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

[ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Before this Court is a direct recourse from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) via petition [1]  for review on the question of whether Section 5 [2]  of the  Judicial   Affidavit   Rule  (JAR) applies to hostile or adverse witnesses.  The petition seeks to annul and set aside the May 28, 2014 [3]  and August 27, 2014 [4]  Orders of the RTC, Branch 139, Makati City in Civil Case No. 08-1028. This case stemmed from a collection suit filed by China Banking Corporation (China Bank) against Ever Electrical Manufacturing Company Inc. (Ever), the heirs of Go Tong, Vicente Go, George Go and petitioner Ng Meng Tam sometime in December 2008.  China Bank alleged that it granted Ever a loan amounting to P5,532,331.63.  The loan was allegedly backed by two surety agreements executed by Vic...
Read more

DIGEST/ACOPIADO/ LARA GIFTS V. PNB 2018

Lara Gifts and Decors, Inc. vs. PNB GR. Nos. 230429-30| January 24, 2018 Digest by: A. Acopiado FACTS: Petitioner company insured a building with respondent bank. Sometime later, the subject of the insurance was gutted by fire. Respondent engaged services of independent appraisers for the fire loss, but the latter were unable to ascertain the damage due to petitioner’s failure to supply documents. Respondent thus denied the insurance claim.  Petitioner sued in the RTC. In the pre-trial the parties agreed to the facts and issues in dispute and the judge issued an order which stipulated that the parties agree to the presentation of additional evidence. None of the parties objected to the stipulation.  Sometime later, petitioner introduced an affidavit and documents which were not submitted in the pre-trial. Respondent objected stating that the same is violative of the judicial affidavit rule and the court memo governing pre-trial procedures and modes of discovery (A....
Read more

G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC., Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondents

 t HIRD DIVISION January 24, 2018 G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC.,  Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. , Respondents D E C I S I O N VELASCO,JR.,  J.: Nature of the Case Before this Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the March 6, 2017 Amended Decision 1  of the Court of Appeals (CA), Special Former Fifth Division, in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 138321 and 138774. The Amended Decision granted respondents' motions for the reconsideration of the December 21, 2015 Decision 2  of the CA's Former Fifth Division annulling and setting aside the Omnibus Orders dated October 1, 2014 and November 26, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 14 7, in Civil Case No. 11-238. Factual Antecedents Petitioner Lara's Gifts and Decors, Inc. (LGDI) is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and exporting various handicraft items and decor...
Read more