Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Metropolitan Trial Court
CaloocanCity
Branch 52
PROMETHIUM MARKETING CO.,,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 12-30519
-versus -

-for-

SUSAN CUSTODIO,
SUMOF
Defendant.
Preliminary

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE,
MONEY

with

prayer

for

Attachment
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH OPPOSITION TO THE

APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
DEFENDANT, through counsel unto the Honorable Court,
most respectfully states that:
1)

Paragraph 2 of the first page of the Complaint is denied.

The Special Power of Attorney is not sufficient to
authorize Jennifer Mercado to appear in this case in
behalf of the plaintiff;

2)

Paragraph 1 of the Complaint is admitted;

3)

Paragraph 2 of the Complaint is admitted;

4)

Paragraph 3 of the Complaint is partially admitted. The

statement that defendant was at first diligent in paying
is admitted but with respect to the delayed payments
they were not intentional;

5)

Paragraph 4 of the Complaint is admitted;

6)

Paragraph 5 of the Complaint is denied. The truth of the

matter is that the remaining balance of defendant is
P244,000.00 not P359,354.67 as shown in the
Statement of Account dated July 13, 2012 (Annex C of
the Complaint and the attached Statement of Account
of the period January 1, 2000 up to July 13, 2012.
Attached herewith as Annex 1 is the Statement of
Account dated July 13, 2012 addressed to Susan
Custodio, as Annex 2 is the Statement of Account for
the period of January 1, 2000 up to July 13, 2012; as
Annex 3 is the Receipt of Cash Payment in the sum of
P100,000.00; and as Annex 4 is the Billing Statement
dated January 13, 2012 addressed to Susan Custodio;

7)

Paragraph 6 of the Complaint is denied. The reason for

non-payment is the wrong amount indicated in the
demand letters. Defendant was demanded to pay
P428,040.00 when her obligation is only P244,000.00;

ON THE OPPOSITION FOR PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT

8)

Paragraph 7 is denied. The defendant has intention to

pay the plaintiff her remaining obligation. She has been
a good payor and according to the plaintiff itself in the
Complaint, she was at first diligent in the payment of
her obligation to it. Besides, evidence would reveal that

defendants latest payment in the sum of P100,000.00

was made on January 13, 2012. The non-payment was
triggered by the demand of plaintiff to pay way above
the actual obligation of the defendant;
9)

There was no fraud or deceit employed by the

defendant in obtaining the obligation. The complaint did
not mention any circumstance of fraud in the complaint
except the sweeping allegation of the commission of
fraud. The defendant has paid more than half of her
obligation. Were it not for the demand of untrue and
unconscionable amount she would have fully paid her
remaining obligation of P244,000.00 even before the
filing of this case. There is therefore no sufficient
ground to issue the writ of preliminary attachment in
this case.