JOINT COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
OF THE COMPLAINANTS
Xxx AND xxx
THE UNDERSIGNED COMPLAINANTS-AFFIANTS
xxx and xxx, both of legal age and residing at xxx Subdivision, xxx, xxx, xxx
City, under oath, respectfully state:
1.
RESPONDENT.
– The Respondent in this criminal complaint is xxx, of legal age, married, Filipino, and resident of Block xxx, Lot xxx, xxx
St., xxx Homes, xxx, xxx, xxx, where summons/subpoenas may be served by
this Honorable Office for purposes of preliminary
2.
CRIME
CHARGED. – The herein Complainants hereby charge the abovenamed Respondent
for violation of the TRUTH IN LENDING
ACT, or R.A. No. 3765.
3.
ULTIMATE
FACTS. – On 14 December 2015, the Respondent executed a Sworn Statement before Asst. City Pros. xxx of the Office of the
City Prosecutor of xxx City. A copy of the said sworn statement, together with
the related documents thereto (e.g.,
Police Referral, dated 14 December 2015; Barangay Kasunduan, dated 7 October
2015; Final Demand Letter, dated 12 November 2015; and Special Power of
Attorney, dated 14 December 2015) are attached hereto as Annex “A”, with sub-markings. In the
said sworn statement, the Respondent charged the herein Complainant xxx for the
alleged crime of Estafa. It was docketed as xxx, entitled xxx. It is undergoing preliminary investigation before Asst. City Prosecutor xxx.
3.1.
In Question
and Answer Nos. 4, 6, and 7 of the said Sworn Statement of the Respondent,
he perjuriously alleged the following under oath:
“x x x.
O4. T – Bakit mo e-reklamo
(sic) yung taong iyong nabanggit? (i.e., herein Complainant Xxx).
S -
Dahil po sa hindi pag bayad sa akin ng perang hiniram nya na nagkakahalagang
PhP326,000.00.
O5. T - Kailan, saan, at
anong oras naganap ang sinasabi mong pangyayari?
S - Ganito
po yun noong petsang nabanggit at nagkasundo po kami ni XXX XXX na magnenegosyo
kung saan magpapahiram po kami sa kasamahan niyang hapon (sic) at may tubo poi
to, kaya sinimulan po namin ito sa akin po siya kumukuha ng pera at siya ang
nagpapalabas, noong unang buwan at maganda pa ang negosyo namin at bumabalik
and puhunan ngunit dumaan na ang ilang buwan kumukuha siya ng pera sa akin
ngunit hindi na ito bumabalik kasama na ang tubo at umabot na poi to ng
halagang PhP326,000.00 at noong kinausap ko na po siya ay puro kanalang PANGAKO
NG PANGAKO (sic).”
X x x.”
3.2.
The aforecited statements of the Respondent XXX under
oath were false and perjurious. The truth of the matter is that the Estafa complaint
filed by the Respondent (as Complainant therein) against the herein Complainant
XXX (as Respondent therein) was a perjurious, malicious, felonious, baseless,
unfounded and unjust FABRICATION intended by the Respondent XXX: (a) To
collect a loan that the herein
Complainants had already paid in
full; and (b) To earn unjust, huge and usuri0us interests and/or penalties/surcharges
on the said fully paid loan, without any legal and contractual basis, for the selfish financial benefit of
the Respondent SAMPAMNG and his anonymous Financier.
3.3.
The truth of the matter is that: The Complainant XXX does not owe any amount whatsoever
to the Respondent XXX ; and The act of the Respondent XXX of initiating the aforementioned
Estafa case against the herein Complainant XXX, without any legal and factual
basis, has caused him to suffer mental
anguish, extreme anxieties, sleepless nights, and besmirched reputation on the
part of the herein Complainants.
3.4.
The CHRONOLOGY
OF RELEVANT FACTS AND EVENTS in support of this Complaint for Perjury as discussed
hereinbelow.
3.5.
It
appears that the Respondent and his anonymous Financier are regularly
engaged in the business of lending money to individuals/borrowers at
usurious and unconscionable interest rates. There is no showing that their
lending business is single proprietorship or a partnership or a corporation.
There is no showing that they are licensed,
registered or authorized to engage in the business of money lending.
3.6.
On 20
September 2014 or thereabout, the Complainant XXX was in need of P15, 000.00 for the tuition fees of his child enrolled at the xxx.
He sought the assistance of the Respondent. The Respondent said he could lend the
herein Complainant XXX the amount that he needed. It later appeared that the Respondent was acting as an agent of an anonymous
Financier, who provided the Respondent with regular funds to lend out to his clients/borrowers
for a huge and usurious interest rates.
On 30
September 2014, when the herein Complainant XXX was ready to pay in full his said P15, 000.00 loan,
the Respondent demanded an additional amount of P6, 000.00 as interest on the P15, 000.00 principal loan for the
period of ten (10) days. The Respondent
alleged that the said amount was being required by his anonymous Financier.
The herein Complainant XXX was surprised by such a statement of the Respondent because
the latter had earlier said that the amount of P15, 000.00 was the
Complainant’s own personal savings. The
Complainants started to suspect the honesty of the Complainant.
The P6, 000.00 interest on the
P15, 000.00 principal loan for a very short period of ten (10) days was usurious, unacceptable, unconscionable,
iniquitous, and immoral. Nonetheless, to avoid unnecessary interpersonal problems
with the Respondent, the Complainants paid, via a deposit to the bank account of the Respondent, to the Respondent
the principal loan of P15,000.00 and the interest of P6, 000.00 that the Respondent
and his anonymous Financier were demanding.
3.7.
As earlier stated, the Complainants paid the Respondent
on 30 September 2014 the total amount of
P21, 000.00, broken down as follows: (a) P15, 000.00 as principal loan; and
(b) P6, 000.00 as interest. Please
note that the said P6, 000.00 interest amounted to an incredible, usurious, iniquitous,
unconscionable and immoral forty percent
(40%) interest rate for the very short period of ten (10) days (i.e., 20
September 2014 to 30 September 2014).
3.8.
The abovementioned verbal loan transaction involving
a principal amount of P15, 000.00 that took place on 20 September 2014 was not evidenced by any promissory note,
contract of loan, voucher, official receipt, or similar financial or
contractual document. It was a verbal
loan transaction. There was
no oral or written stipulation whatsoever as to the interest, penalties, or
surcharges of the said verbal loan.
Please note, too, that the Respondent
did not attach to his Estafa Complaint any
promissory note, contract of loan, voucher, official receipt, or similar financial
or contractual document to prove his claim against the herein Complainants.
What were attached to the Respondent’s
Estafa Complainant were only the following documents: (a) Barangay “Kasunduan”
dated 7 October 2015 between the Complainant and the Respondent; (b) Final
Demand Letter, dated 12 November 2015, which was based solely on the
Barangay “Kasunduan”; and (c) Special Power of Attorney (SPA), dated 14 December 2015, executed by
the Respondent in favor of xxx XXX (his daughter) and xxx (his sister) on the
pretext that he would be going abroad soon.
3.9.
Two (2) weeks after 30 September 2014 (the date
when the herein Complainants paid to the Respondent the said amount of
P21,000.00) -- or sometime in the middle
of October 2014, -- the Respondent called up the Respondent alleging: (a)
That his anonymous Financier (whom the Complainant did not identify) had
allegedly rejected the payment of P21, 000.00 earlier made by the Respondent; and
(b) That the unidentified Financier of
the Complainant was allegedly demanding double
the said amount of P21, 000.00, that is, a total of P42, 000.00. The Respondent rejected such an unfair,
unjust, iniquitous, unconscionable, immoral, usurious, and unacceptable demand
for P42, 000.00.
3.10.
Please note that the Respondent’s demand for P42, 000.00 as of 15 October 2014 or
thereabout, in relation to the original verbal loan of P15, 000.00 contracted by the herein Complainant XXX on 20 September
2014, would amount to a huge and unjust interest of thirty-five percent (35%) for very short period of twenty-five (25)
days (i.e., 20 September 2014 to 15
October 2014). This was clearly usurious, immoral, unacceptable,
iniquitous, unconscionable, and unjustified, considering that no interest was formally agreed upon or stipulated
when the verbal loan for P15, 000.00
was consummated between the Complainant XXX and the Respondent on 20 September 2014.
The Respondent did not
present to the herein Complainants at that time and up to the present time any
credible documentary proof identifying his anonymous Financier. Neither did the
Respondent present to the herein
Complainants at that time and up to the present time any documentary proof of demand/collection, statement of account, billing,
letter, or any written request or instruction from his anonymous Financier to
prove the allegation of the Respondent that his anonymous Financier was indeed demanding
P42, 000.00 at that time.
3.11.
The Complainants at that time demanded that
the Respondent the name, address and
contact details of the anonymous Financier so that the herein Complainants could
personally discuss and explain his position to the Financier. But the Respondent
refused and continues to refuse to this very day to give to the herein Complainants
the name, address and contact details of the anonymous Financier.
3.12.
After the said telephone call of the Respondent to
the herein Complainant XXX made on 15 October 2014 or thereabout, the Respondent
kept quiet for two (2) months. Then sometime in December 2014 or
thereabout the Respondent again called up the herein Complainant XXX alleging
that the past-due interest of the latter on the original principal loan of P15,000.00
made on 20 September 2014 had already escalated to P100,000.00 as of the date
of his call in December 2014. The Respondent alleged that he had mortgaged his house to his anonymous Financier
to pay for the said unpaid interest of the herein Complainant XXX.
The herein Complainants,
doubting the sincerity and truthfulness of the allegation of the Respondent,
demanded the name, address and contact details of the Financier so that the herein
Complainants could forthwith talk and discuss the issue with the said Financier.
They also demanded copies of any documentary proof justifying the claim of P100, 000.00 interest as of that time (December 2014). But the Respondent failed and refused and
continues to fail and refuse to this very day to provide the herein
Complainants such information and documentary proof/s.
3.13.
On 7
October 2015 or thereabout the Respondent again called up the herein
Complainant XXX, saying that the former was at that time waiting inside Xxx Subdivision
near the home of the herein Complainants, inside his van, and that the Respondent
to talk with the herein Complainant XXX for a while about his loan. The herein
Complainant XXX agreed to meet with the Respondent outside his home. When they
met, the Respondent asked the herein Complainant XXX to go inside his van for a
more private discussion. When the herein
Complainant XXX the van of the Respondent, he was surprised to see a man who
identified himself as XXX XXX, who showed the Respondent a government ID. XXX
threatened the Respondent with the following words:
“HOY, IKAW, LOKO KA HA! MAY UTANG KA PALA NANG GANITO
KALAKI KAY ANNIVER. HINDI MO BA AKO KILALA? VICE PRESIDENT AKO NG ASSOCIATION
NG XXX. SUMAMA KA SA AKIN SA BARANGAY. PAG HINDI KA SUMAMA, PAPALABASIN KO KAYO
SA XXX AT HINDI NA KAYO PWEDE TUMIRA DITO.”
3.14.
Although the herein Complainant XXX, being a xxx
national, has no perfect mastery of the
Tagalog language, he understood the context of the threatening words of XXX
based on his facial expressions and hand movements and based on the harassing presence
of the Respondent. Despite the fact that there was no pending formal Barangay
complaint against the herein Complainant XXX and despite the fact that there
was no official Barangay summons issued to him at that time, he was forced by XXX
and the Respondent to go with them to the Barangay Hall of Barangay xxx, xxx
City right that very moment.
3.15.
At the Barangay Hall, the herein Complainant XXX
told the Barangay officer, by the name of “Deputy
R. XXX”, (a) That he had not
received any formal Barangay complaint or formal Barangay summons; and (b) That
the claim of the Respondent for P366, 000.00 was baseless, unfounded, untrue,
false, and fabricated.
3.16.
The herein Complainant XXX, without the aid of an interpreter,
was forced by Barangay Deputy XXX, XXX, and the Respondent to sign a page of
the Barangay logbook, which turned out later to be a “KASUNDUAN”.
3.17.
The herein Complainant XXX was misled by
Barangay Deputy XXX, XXX, and the Respondent that the document was only a harmless record or minutes of the Barangay meeting. The contents and the legal effects of the said
document were not explained and
interpreted to the herein Complainant XXX by Barangay Deputy XXX or any
Barangay Kagawad or by the Barangay Secretary or by any Lupon Officer or
Member.
3.18.
The herein Complainant XXX signed the Kasunduan UNDER DURESS. He was MISLED by
Barangay Deputy XXX to sign it. He was threatened/intimidated by XXX and the Respondent
to sign it. He did not understand its contents, consequences, and legal effects
because, as a Japanese national, he has no mastery of English and Tagalog,
although he could understand and speak some simple English and Tagalog words
and phrases. He was not assisted by an
Interpreter or by a lawyer of his choice. All he knew was that the said document
was a harmless minutes of meeting,
as represented to him by Barangay Deputy XXX, XXX and the Respondent.
3.19.
Later, in his criminal complaint for Estafa
against the herein Complainant XXX, the Respondent would capitalize on the said
KASUNDUAN as the sole basis of his FINAL DEMAND LETTER to prove the
alleged financial liability of the Respondent. The Kasunduan was an entrapment document used by the Respondent to document a verbal loan agreement and to evade the degree
of evidence required by the Statutes of
Frauds of the Civil Code.
3.20. Aside
from the suspicious Kasunduan, the Respondent
has not presented any credible document, such as, but not necessarily
limited to, a CONTRACT OF LOAN, a
PROMISSORY NOTE, a VOUCHER, a STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, or a BILL executed or signed
by the Lender and the Borrower: To prove the financial claim of the Respondent
and his anonymous Financier; To prove
the veracity of the computation/s of the usurious past-due interests of the
herein Complainant XXX; and To prove
compliance by the Respondent and his anonymous Financier with the mandatory
provisions of the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT in
re: the formal issuance by the Lender
to the Borrower of a FULL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, containing the amount of the
principal loan, the stipulated interest rate, the stimulated penalties and
surcharges, if any and other covenants related to the agreed loan.
3.21.
After a few days from 7 October 2015, the Respondent
made a series of calls to the herein Complainant XXX, pestering the latter to
pay his alleged obligation. The Respondent alleged and stated: That the payment
should be made by the herein Complainant AXXX at the home of XXX, xxx of the homeowners association of Xxx Subdivision
(who was not a party to the oral loan
transaction); That the Respondent would soon leave for abroad; That his
wife would soon return from abroad; and That it would be a great problem on his
part if his wife would discover that he
had allegedly mortgaged his house (and, this time, allegedly including his van)
to his anonymous Financier to secure the alleged obligation of the herein
Complainant XXX.
3.22.
Sometime in the latter part of October 2015 or thereabout the Respondent visited
the home of the herein Complainants, accompanied by an unidentified man whose
appearance appeared to be suspicious. The
Respondent repeated his demand to be paid, this time, in the total amount of P366, 000.00. The herein Complainants insisted that they
had already settled in full his original verbal loan of P15, 000.00 with P6,
000.00 interest. They demanded that the Respondent show proofs of the
alleged liability of the herein Complainant XXX and the computations of the alleged
past-due interests, either in the form of a voucher or an official receipt or a statement of account or a billing
or a promissory note or a contract of loan or any other credible document.
Ignoring the foregoing demand of the herein Complainants, the Respondent insisted
that the herein Complainants pay the total amount he was claiming and that the
same be paid by them at the home of XXX. The Complainants were thus constrained
to tell the Respondent that it would be better for him to file a court case to
prove his claim so that the truth would come out.
3.23.
Please note that in the Barangay KASUNDUAN, dated 7
October 2015, the alleged financial obligation of the herein Complainant XXX,
according to the Respondent, was P366,
000.00. It contradicts the Final
Demand Letter, dated 12 November 2015, of the Respondent, which claimed the
total amount of P326, 000.00 - or a huge and unexplained difference of P40,
000.00.
3.24.
On 26 November 2015 the herein Complainant XXX confronted
XXX at his home in Xxx Subdivision. She brought along with her, as her
mediators/witnesses, the Spouses XXX. Alex Xxx was a past president of the homeowners association of the subdivision.
During the said confrontation, the Respondent was mysteriously present inside
the home of XXX. In that confrontation, herein Complainant XXX told XXX: That
the herein Complainants have been residents/tenants of the subdivision for
seven (7) years; That as the vice president of the homeowners association with
the legal duty to serve the common good of the homeowners/tenants of the
subdivision, XXX should have taken steps to protect the herein Complainants as
residents/tenants of the subdivision (i.e., as his constituents in the subdivision) against the baseless and unfounded
claim of the Respondent; That at the very
least XXX should have first consulted and heard the side of the herein
Complainants when the Respondent first sought his assistance to collect from
the herein Complainant XXX; and that he should not have believed outright, hook
line and sinker, the said claim of the Respondent without first giving the herein
Complainants an opportunity to be heard; That the act of XXX of coercively
bringing the herein Complainant XXX to the Barangay Hall on 7 October 2015, without
the assistance of the herein Complainant XXX and based solely on the personal request
of the Respondent -- and without the prior filing a formal Barangay complaint
and without the prior issuance of a formal Barangay summons to the herein
Complainant XXX -- was an unjust, unfair, improper, irregular, anomalous and illegal
act of harassment, intimidation, and unjust vexation.
3.25.
To put an end to abusive and pestering
collection behavior of the Respondent -- and solely to buy peace, without
admitting any liability on the part of the herein Complainants and without
admitting the validity of the claim of the Respondent in the amount of P366,
000.00 -- the herein Complainants paid
the Respondent an additional amount of P47, 000.00 on October 15, 2015,
via a deposit to the bank account of the Respondent, hoping that such an amount
would finally end the baseless claim and collection pestering/harassment of the
Respondent. But it was not so. The Respondent
continues to insist on his claim of P366,
000.00 by filing a harassment case for Estafa.
3.26.
The Respondent
is using the Criminal Justice System as his own coercive COLLECTION AGENCY.
It is the hope and prayer of the herein
Complainants that this Honorable Office would resist the malicious move of
the Complainant to use, mislead, and exploit it as his pro
bono personal COLLECTION AGENCY.
3.27.
On 26 November 2015, the herein Complainant XXX filed
a complaint with Barangay xxx against the Complainant and XXX. During the Barangay conciliation XXX apologized to her for his behavior. The herein affiant accepted his apology, with
the hope that XXX would be more discerning as a community leader in the future.
3.28.
On January 18, 2016 at 7:00 PM, the Subpoena of
this Honorable Office in re: the Estafa case filed by the Respondent was delivered
by the process server of this Honorable Office at the new home address of the Respondent at Xxx Subdivision. (It was originally
addressed to the old home address of
the herein Complainants in the same subdivision).
The herein Complainants were
constrained to retain the legal services of the LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER LAW OFFICES, Xxx City, to defend their legal
and constitutional rights in the litigation of the instant case, in the
interest of truth and justice; to disprove the false, fabricated, baseless,
unfounded, and malicious claim of the Complainant; and to file the necessary
criminal and/or civil counter-charges against the Respondent.
4.
CONTRADICTIONS
AND INCONSISTENCIES IN THE DOCUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT. - Please note the internal contradictions and inadequacies
among the documents submitted by the Respondent in the Estafa case.
AS TO THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLEGED CLAIM:
(a)
In his Sworn
Statement, dated 14 December 2015, given before the Xxx City Police
Station, the Respondent claims P326,000.00;
(b)
In the Barangay
Kasunduan, 7 October 2015, he claims P366,000.00;
(c)
In the Final
Demand Letter, dated 12 November 2015,
he claims P326,000.00;
(d)
In the Special
Power of Attorney (SPA), dated 14 December 2015, he claims P326,000.00;
(e)
Please note that in all of the foregoing allegations
no VOUCHERS, OFFICIAL RECEIPTS, STATEMENTS OF ACCOUINTS, BILLS, PROMISSORY
NOTES, CONTRACTS OF LOAN, and/or DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS were presented by the Respondent
to prove his claim.
AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ALLEGED LOAN OF THE HEREIN COMPLAINANT XXX.
(a)
In his Sworn
Statement, dated 14 December 2015, given before the Xxx Xxx City Police
Station, the Respondent alleged that he and the Complainant XXX had agreed to go into the business of money
lending. (Q and A No. 6).
(b)
In his Special
Power of Attorney (SPA), dated 14 December 2015, he alleged that his claim
was based on alleged “Ticket
Purchase”. (Par. 1, SPA).
(c)
Please note that the Respondent has not
presented any proof of his alleged partnership
agreement or business
agreement with the herein Complainant XXX to establish a money lending business referred to in Q and A No. 6 of his Sworn Statement, dated
14 December 2015, e.g., AGREEMENT/CONTRACT,
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, ARTICLES OF PARTNERSHIP, AFFIDAVIT, UNDERTAKING,
DEED, LETTERS AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS, and the like.
(d)
Please note, too, that the Respondent has not
presented any proof of the alleged “Ticket
Purchase” of the herein Complainant XXX, referred to in Par. 1 of his SPA, dated 14 December 2015, e.g., VOUCHERS,
PLANE TICKETS, BILLS, STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT, UNDERTAKINGS, DEEDS, LETTERS AND
OTHER COMMUNICATIONS, and the like.
5.
The herein Complainants hereby submit to this
Honorable Office the following documents to support their instant complaint for
Perjury:
(a)
Annex “B”
- XXX Cash Deposit Slip #xxx, dated 30
September 2014, in the amount of P21,
000.00 paid to the bank account of the Respondent - to prove the full payment by the Complainant of
the oral loan dated 20 September 2014, broken down as follows: The agreed
principal loan of P15, 000.00; and The unstipulated
interest of P6, 000.oo demanded by the Respondent.
(b)
Annex “C”
and “C-1” – Barangay Blotter, dated 26 November 2015, re: the Barangay complaint
of the herein Complainant XXX against the unjust and coercive acts of
harassment of the Respondent and XXX XXX.
Note:
Due to lack of material time,
the herein Complainants cannot submit as an annex of this pleading at this time
a copy of the XXX Cash Deposit Slip,
dated 15 October 2015, in the amount of P47, 000.00 to prove that the herein Complainants had deposited the
said amount to the bank account of the Respondent to buy peace, without admitting any liability on the part of the herein
Complainant XXX and without admitting the validity of the claim of the
Respondent. The herein Complainants will
attempt this
week to secure from the Bank a
formal Certification of its Branch Manager to corroborate the foregoing fact. The
herein Complainants reserve the right to present the said bank certification as an annex to their future Reply-Affidavit. The said Cash Deposit Slip was misplaced or
thrown away by the housemaid of the herein Complainants, together
with other personal papers, when their family recently moved to their new home address in the same subdivision. The housemaid mistakenly thought that those
papers were trash and unnecessary.
At any rate, please note
that the Complaint admits in Q and A No. 7 of his Sworn Statement, dated 14 December
2015, that he indeed RECEIVED from
the Respondent the said amount of P47,000.00.
6.
The herein Complainant XXX has REVOKED the
dubious, unfair, invalid, and misleading BARANGAY KASUNDUAN, dated 7 October
2015 (written in Tagalog, which is not
the mother language of the Complainant xxx), the reason being that he was
forced to sign the same UNDER DURESS, UNDER THE MISLEADING AND FALSE
REPRESENTATION of Barangay Deputy Xxx, in cahoots with XXX and the Respondent,
that the document was merely a harmless
record/minutes of the their Barangay meeting, and WITHOUT A FULL, INTELLIGENT,
AND VOLUNTARY KNOWLEDGE, CONSENT AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL EFFECTS AND
CONSEQUENCES THEREOF on his part.
7.
It will be
noted that REPUBLIC ACT No. 3765, AN ACT TO REQUIRE THE DISCLOSURE OF
FINANCE CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT and otherwise known as
the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT, “declares it to be the policy of the State to protect its
citizens from a lack of awareness of the true cost of credit to the user by assuring
a full disclosure of such cost with a view of preventing the uninformed use of
credit to the detriment of the national economy”. (Sec. 2, RA 3765).
Under the said Act, "Credit" means “any loan, mortgage, deed of trust,
advance, or discount; any conditional sales contract; any contract to sell, or
sale or contract of sale of property or services, either for present or future
delivery, under which part or all of the price is payable subsequent to the
making of such sale or contract; any rental-purchase contract; any contract or
arrangement for the hire, bailment, or leasing of property; any option, demand,
lien, pledge, or other claim against, or for the delivery of, property or
money; any purchase, or other acquisition of, or any credit upon the security
of, any obligation
of claim arising out of any of the foregoing;
and any transaction or series of transactions having a similar purpose or
effect.” (Sec. 3, Id.).
It defines "Finance charge" as “interest, fees, service charges,
discounts, and such other charges incident to the extension of credit as the
Board may be regulation prescribe.” (Id.).
It defines "Creditor" as “any person engaged in the business of extending credit (including
any person who as a regular business practice make loans or sells or rents
property or services on a time, credit, or installment basis, either as
principal or as agent) who requires as an incident to the extension of credit,
the payment of a finance charge.” (Id.).
Section 4 of
the said Act provides that “any creditor shall furnish to
each person to whom credit is extended, prior to the consummation of the
transaction, a clear statement in
writing setting forth, to the extent applicable and in accordance with
rules and regulations prescribed by the Board, the following information:
(1) the cash price or delivered
price of the property or service to be acquired;
(2) the amounts, if any, to be
credited as down payment and/or trade-in;
(3) the difference between the
amounts set forth under clauses (1) and (2);
(4) the charges, individually
itemized, which are paid or to be paid by such person in connection with the
transaction but which are not incident to the extension of credit;
(5) the total amount to be
financed;
(6) the finance charge
expressed in terms of pesos and centavos; and
(7) the percentage that the
finance bears to the total amount to be financed expressed as a simple annual
rate on the outstanding unpaid balance of the obligation.”
The said clear statement in
writing is commonly called the FULL
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.
Section
6 of the said Act provides “any person who willfully violates any
provision of this Act or any regulation issued thereunder shall be fined by not less than P1,00 or more than P5,000 or
imprisonment for not less than 6 months, nor more than one year or both”. The same section also provides that “a final
judgment hereafter rendered in any criminal proceeding under this Act to the
effect that a defendant has willfully violated this Act shall be prima facie
evidence against such defendant in an action or proceeding brought by any other
party against such defendant under this Act as to all matters respecting which
said judgment would be an estoppel as between the parties thereto”.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed
that the Respondent be indicted for violation of the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT (R.A. 3765).
FURTHER, the
herein Complainants pray for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and
equitable in the premises.
Xxx Xxx City,
27 January 2016.
XXX XXX
Complainant
xxx St.
Xxx Homes , xxx
Xxx, Xxx City
XXX XXX
Complainant
No. xxx St.
Xxx Homes , xxx
xxx, Xxx City
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me in Xxx
Xxx City on ___ January 2016.
Administering
Assistant City Prosecutor
