Republic of the Philippines
National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 113, Pasay City
Sarah Oh and Gerald Oh,
Sarah Oh and Gerald Oh
Plaintiff, Civil Case No.19-12345-CC
For: Breach of Obligation of
-versus- Contract with Damages
Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Co.,
RCBC,Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
(FOR THE DEFENDANT)
Defendant, through counsel, and unto this Honorable Court
most respectfully submits this Pre-Trial Brief, to wit:
I. POSSIBILITY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT
The Defendant manifest that is willing to explore possibilities
for an amicable settlement that is fair and reasonable under the
circumstances.
II. SUMMARY OF ADMITTED AND PROPOSED
STIPULATION OF FACTS
A. SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS
1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint are admitted;
2. Paragraph 3 and 4 are denied for lack of information or
knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable belief thereof. The
said paragraphs are denied insofar as they allege that the
Plaintiffs have opened a joint account amounting to
P2,515,693.52, in the year 2002, and another account was
opened in 2003, but the Plaintiffs did not state the Bank
Account Numbers nor are the Annexes in the Complaint
specify such Bank Account Numbers for the Defendant to use
as bases for its defense.
3. Paragraph 5 is admitted, however, a detailed explanation shall
be discussed in the immediately succeeding paragraph;
4. Paragraph 6 is denied for lack of information or knowledge
sufficient to form a reasonable belief thereof. The said
paragraph is denied insofar as it alleges that the Plaintiffs were
not given any explanation as why their withdrawals were
denied. There is no proof that the Plaintiffs inquired for an
explanation why their attempt to withdraw was denied.
The Hold-out order stemmed from an Order of Garnishment
coming from this same Honorable Court as a consequence of
an estafa case filed by a certain Liu Tiu Fang. The Plaintiffs
cannot thus feign ignorance of their Bank Accounts with the
Defendant being held-out.
5. Paragraph 7 is denied. The Defendant did not deny the
Plaintiffs right to withdraw their deposit as it is just complying
with a judicial order to hold such deposits as mentioned in the
preceding paragraph.
B. PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS
1. The Hold-out order was issued in 2003 and thus it has been
fifteen (15) years since the since the Defendant issued such
order. Article 1144 and Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines is clear that the Plaintiffs action have already
prescribed.
2. The Defendant would like to repose to the Plaintiffs the burden
of proving lack of knowledge on the matter of Garnishment
when the former is in an ongoing case where the order of
Garnishment was derived;
3. Plaintiffs account was, however, put on hold because of the
Court’s Order of Garnishment, which is to date has not yet been
lifted. Attached is the Order of the Court for Garnishment
marked as “Exhibit I”;
4. Defendant’s tellers and the Branch Manager informed the
Plaintiffs of the Order of Garnishment as the reason of the hold
out of the Plaintiffs existing accounts;
5. The Branch Manager also sent a letter to the Plaintiffs that their
account is ordered on hold, as a formality in informing the
Plaintiffs of the hold-out, as discussed personally with them by
the said Branch Manager;
III. EVIDENCE FOR MARKING
EXHIBIT I – Order of Garnishment
o The Purpose is to prove that the Defendant have legal basis
in ordering a Hold-Out order with regards to the accounts of
the Plaintiffs.
IV. PROPOSED WITNESSES
Rodolfo Tamayo – Branch Manager.
Glaiza De Castriona Grey – Teller
Both witnesses can be informed with the same address of the
Defendant.
V. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Whether or not the Plaintiffs has cause of action against the
Defendant.
Whether or not the Defendant has authority or legal ground
to order the Plaintiffs account on hold.
VI. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE
The defendant’s grounds its claim on the provision of the
New Civil Code and 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure
VII. AVAILMENT OF THE MODES OF DISCOVERY
Defendant reserves the right to avail of the modes of
discovery in addition to the aforementioned request for
stipulation.
VIII. RESERVATION
Defendant respectfully reserve the right to present additional
oral and documentary evidence as may become necessary in
the course of the trial.
IX. SPECIFIC TRIAL DATES
It is respectfully requested that the trial dates be set during
the pre-trial conference to dates most convenient to this
Honorable Court and to all parties.
Respectfully submitted.
November 18, 2019, City of Manila
GAGED LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Defendant
Suite 258 The Tower
Malate, 1004 Manila
Email add: gagedlaw@gmail.com
Tel No. (02) 7576-4567
By:
Dexter D. Del Rosario
IBP No. 1060289 Jan 9,
2020/Manila
PTR No. MCF-2426612 Jan. 9,
2020/Manila
Roll No. 29722
MCLE Compliance No. V-0007333
Issued on Dec 01, 2018
-and-
Emmanuel Dumayas
IBP No. 1052347 May 26,
2019/Manila
PTR No. MCF-2426612 May 26,
2019/Manila
Roll No. 68281
MCLE Compliance No. V-0007879
Issued on October 23, 2019
-and-
Gee A. Pastor
IBP No. 017174 April 17,
2019/Manila
PTR No. MCF-2626777 June 22,
2019
Roll No. 67882
MCLE Compliance No. V-0008008
Issued on Jan 26, 2020
-and-
Gigi J. Morales
IBP No. 1037238 Dec. 15,
2018/Manila
PTR No. MCF-2388746 Jan 4,
2019/Manila
Roll No. 41775
MCLE Compliance No. V-0007230
Issued on Nov 17, 2019
-and-
Aaron Cananua
IBP No. 10372928Dec. 15,
2019/Manila
PTR No. MCF-2388321 Jan 4,
2020/Manila
Roll No. 41797
MCLE Compliance No. V-0007256
Issued on Nov 17, 2019
Copy Furnished:
BRANCH OF CLERK
RTC BRANCH 113,
Pasay City
BMCM LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Plaintiff
Tel. No. 123456789
Email: dodoin.mo@gmail.com
1234 Menlo St., Pasay City,
Metro Manila, Philippines.
By: Atty. JM MANEZ
Roll No. 123456
MCLE No. 123456/2020
PTR No. 1234567
EXPLANATION
Copies of the foregoing Brief were served to plaintiff’s
counsel through registered special mail considering the distance
between the address of the plaintiff’s counsel and the
undersigned counsel. Moreover, the office of the undersigned
has no personnel to effect personal service to the plaintiff.
Emmanuel C. Dumayas
