Angelina Reyes vs. Cavite Credit investment Co., Inc., et al.

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 2656. October 30, 1990.] ANGELINA REYES , plaintiff, vs . CAVITE CREDIT INVESTMENT CO., INC., ET AL. , defendants . D E C I S I O N In her action for recovery of investment, with a prayer for preliminary attachment, plaintiff alleged, among others, that on March 31, 1977 by virtue of a prior application to form a Credit and Investment Corporation, defendant company was given a permit by this Commission to operate as such and through its President, defendant Bernardo J. Pulido, Jr. and all the other defendants as directors, have solicited investors to deposit and/or invest money with the defendant company and one of said investors was plaintiff Angelina Reyes: that subsequently, prior to November 4, 1982 and thereafter, thru the use of insidious words and machination, fraud and misrepresentation, defendants were able to convince the herein plaintiff to invest money with their company in the amount of One Hundred Seventy Thousand (P170,000.00) Pesos and as security for the payment of such investment, defendants issued several promissory notes and one (1) postdated check, to wit: 1. Promissory Note No. 3991 in the amount of P30,000.00 with interest at 18% per annum payable on November 4, 1983; 2. Promissory Note No. 4266 in the amount of P30,000.00 with interest at 19% per annum payable on January 5, 1984; 3. Promissory Note No. 4779 in the amount of P50,000.00 with interest at 20% per annum payable on March 24, 1984; 4. Promissory Note No. 5007 in the amount of P30,000.00 with interest at 21 % per annum payable on May 3, 1984; 5. Promissory Note No. 5008 in the amount of P10,000.00 with interest at 21 % per annum payable on May 3, 1984; 6. Promissory Note No. 29144393 dated October 13, 1983 in the amount of P20,000.00. When the dates of maturity of the said promissory notes, including the check became due, they were presented at the office of the defendants for the purpose of demanding payment of the corresponding value thereof, in the total amount of (P150,000.00) and the check in the amount of P20,000.00 which was deposited in plaintiff's account, but the same were not paid by the herein defendants because there were no available funds to pay them, and the check bounded for insufficiency of funds that the said promissory notes were issued by the herein defendants knowing fully well that upon the due dates of maturity, they do not have funds to pay them and in the same manner that the check was issued by defendant Bernardo J. Pulido, Jr. knowing fully well that he does not have sufficient funds in and/or credit with the drawee bank on the check. Further, plaintiff averred that despite repeated demands, both orally and in writing, defendants failed and refused and continuously fails and refuses to pay the plaintiff the sum of P170,000.00 plus interest from due date up to the actual and full payment to the prejudice and damage to the plaintiff; that defendants were continuously disposing of their properties in fraud of the creditors as evidenced by the fact that several documents were already executed by defendants to divest themselves of assets; that the actuations of the said defendants shall be construed as an act of fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought or in concealing or disposing of the property pursuant to Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. Notwithstanding service of the Order for them to answer, the defendants failed to file any responsive pleading to the instant complaint. Hence, upon motion of counsel for the plaintiff the defendants were declared in default and the plaintiff was allowed to present her evidence ex-parte. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff Angelina Reyes, consisting of her testimony and documents marked and formally offered, clearly established that 1) she was induced to make the investments with the promise of sure profits; 2) respondents issued promissory notes and a check; 3) that when the promissory notes became due, respondents failed to pay and the check which was issued bounced and dishonored by the depository bank for insufficiency of funds. On the other hand, since the defendants have been declared in default, the evidence for the plaintiff remained unrebutted. On February 13, 1990, plaintiff filed a motion to consider the case submitted for decision, which motion was, in the Order dated February 26, 1990, granted. It is the considered opinion of this Hearing Officer and so holds that with the filing of the motion to consider the case submitted for decision, she is abandoning her application for a writ of preliminary attachment. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: 1. Ordering the defendants jointly and severally to pay complainant the amount of P170,000.00 corresponding to the total value of five (5) promissory notes and one (1) check plus interest from due date up to actual dates of payment. 2. Ordering the defendants to pay the amount equal to 25% of the total amount as Attorney's fees. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) JUANITO B. ALMOSA Hearing Officer