REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila


Third DIVISION


EDDIE OLALIA,
Accused-Appellant,



- versus CA-GR. No. 131086
For: Payment of Debt



BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,
Plaintiff-Appellee.
x-------------------------------------x



BRIEF FOR APPELLANT



Accused-Appellant, by counsel, and to this
Honorable Court respectfully files his brief for the
appellant.



THE PARTIES

Eddie Olalia is the appellant as represented by Sparta
and Associates where process and notice from this
court may be served at room 301, San Carlos Building,
Sanciangko Street corner Pelaez Street,Cebu City,
while The Bank of the Philippine Islands is the appelle
as represented by the Juan dela Cruz Private
Prosecutors Extraordinaire.




TIMELINESS OF THE APPEAL
Accused-appellant received on April 22, 1995 the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated April
20,1995. A Notice of Appeal was timely filed on April
28, 1995. Accused received on June 9, 1995 the Order
from the Court of Appeals directing him to file his
Appeal Brief within fifteen (15) days from receipt.
Hence, this timely compliance.

I
STATEMENT OF FACTS

l.1 Eddie Olalia is the holder of credit card no.
020100-3-00-0281667. The complainant is the credit
card company that issued the said credit card to the
accused.

1.2 Complainant alleged that Olalia is liable for the
expenses incurred by him at an amount of Php
13,883.27. Complainant also demanded from accused
payment of the exprenses allegedly incurred by his
former wife in the amount of Php 101,844.54, from
March to April 1991 at Bacolod and Ilo-Ilo.

1.3 Respondent Olalia applied for and was granted a
membership and credit accommodation with BPI
Express Credit Corporation (BECC).A credit card was
issued in his name with a credit limit of Php 5,000.

1.4 Olalias card expired on January 1991 and a
renewal was issued. BECC also issued an extension
card to his former wife at the same time without him
applying for or receiving the said card.

1.5 It was stipulated in the agreement that, only upon
payment of the necessary fee thereof, and the
submission of an application for the purpose shall an
extension/supplementary card be granted, to which
the defendant did not comply.

1.6 Olalia and his wife have been divorced and she left
for the U.S. in 1986.





1.7 Neither Olalia nor Christina, his former wife, was
at Ilo-Ilo or Bacolod at the time the purchases were
made.





II
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS



The trial court committed the following errors:

1. The prosecution failed to prove that the
accused complied with the requirements
necessary to acquire the
extension/supplementary card.

2. The Trial court erred on the ordering of the
defendant to pay the full amount that is not
supported by law, the contract the parties
entered into, and the facts presented.


III
ARGUMENTS


1. The prosecution failed to prove
that the accused complied with the
requirements necessary to acquire
the extension/supplementary card.

A contract of adhesion is a contract in which
one of the parties imposes a ready-made form of
contract, which the other party may accept or reject,
but which the latter cannot modify (Tolentino, Civil
Code of the Phil., Vol. IV). This kind of contract was
entered into by the accused with the plaintiff.
Contracts of adhesion are to be construed strictly
against the party which prepared it as cited in the
case of Limcay vs. CA, G.R. No. 78161. Therefore, it is
the burden of the prosecution to prove that the
accused signed the documents needed to acquire the
extension card, of which, they failed.





The Sufficiency of Facts Test may be well applied in
this circumstance, as elicited in the case of Navoa vs.
CA, 251 SCRA 545,

The test of sufficiency of the facts found in a
complaint as constituting a cause of action is whether
or not admitting the facts alleged the court can render
a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with
the prayer thereof if the allegations in the complaint
furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint can be
maintained, the same should not be dismissed
regardless of the defense that may be assessed by the
defendants.


a. Signed documents that may bind the accused the
terms of the extension card were not procured.

The plaintiff claimed that Olalia was also liable for the
expenses allegedly incurred by his former wife, but
the former has not procured evidence binding the
accused to the terms of the extension card.

b.Divorce.
Eddie Olalia and Christina were divorced. She left for
the States in 1986, years before the purchase was
done, and has resided there since then.

c. Absence of both Olalia and his former wife from
the place where the expenses were incurred.
Ilo-Ilo and Bacolod City are far from Makati City that
one cannot go there at a moments notice. The
prosecution only showed charge slips of the
purchases, not enough to grasp the notion that either
Olalia or his former wife was at Ilo-Ilo or Bacolod City.
Moreover, Christina has long been residing in the
States since 1986, making her more unlikely to make
the purchase.

2. The Trial court erred on the
ordering of the defendant to pay
the full amount that is not
supported by law, the contract the
parties entered into, and the facts
presented.

The trial court failed to consider the following articles:





a. Article 1308 of the Civil Code states that, A contract
is a meeting of the minds whereby one binds himself,
with respect to the other, to give something or to
render service.
Olalia is not bound to the terms of the agreement
concerning the extension card since he has not signed
any document contesting his consent thereto.
b. Article 1318 of the Civil Code states that there will be
no contract if essential requisites are absent, one of
which is consent.
c. Article 1319 of the Civil Code conveys the
manifestation of consent as 1) meeting of the offer
and 2) acceptance upon the thing and the 3) cause
which are to constitute the contract.
There would have been a manifest acceptance of the
offer if the accused signed the document, but he did
not.
d. The stipulation of the agreement concerning the
acquisition of an extension card states that in order to
get one, 1) a necessary fee must be paid and 2) an
application for the purpose must be submitted. The
preceding requirements were not met by the client.

In the light of the facts present, the evidence
produced by the plaintiffs are insufficient to compel
the accused to pay the whole amount of Php 136,
290.97.





P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, the accused-appellant respectfully
prays that Decisions of the trial court be reversed, set
aside and nullified, and the judgment be rendered in
favor of the accused-appellant as prayed for in his
answer; to dismiss the liability of paying the expenses
allegedly made by his former wife for his guilt has not
been proved.

Accused-appellant further prays for such other
relief as may be just and equitable in the premises.

June 18, 1995.





Blanche Althea D. Hamoy
Counsel for Accused-Appellant
IBP Lifetime NO. 88888
Roll No. 12345
MCLE II Compliance No. 0000143
Sparta and Associates
Rm 301 San Carlos Building
Sanciangko Street corner Pelaez Street
Cebu City















VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, EDDIE OLALIA, of legal age, Filipino and a
resident of Barangay Road, Makati City after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with
law, do hereby depose and say:

l. I am the accused-appellant in the foregoing
Brief;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing
pleading;

3. I have read the same and the allegations
therein are true and correct of my personal
knowledge or based on authentic records.

4. I have not commenced any other action
involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court or different divisions thereof or any other
tribunal or agency.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my
signature this 16
th
day of December 2001
at Makati City.








EDDIE OLALIA

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 16th
day of December 2001 at Makati City, Philippines.
Affiant exhibited to me his Community Tax Certificate
No. CC 123456 issued at Makati City on January 04,
2010.



Atty. Augustus
Ceasar
Notary
Public
Notarial Commission until Dec
30,1995
PTR NO.
023456/01/05/95/Makati

Doc. No.: 39
Page no.:8
Book no.:I
Series of 1995

Copy Furnished:
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Makati City

EXPLANATION

Pursuant to Section II, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules
of Court, the foregoing Brief is sent by registered mail




due to lack of messengerial personnel and time
constraint in the filling thereof.


BLANCHE ALTHEA D. HAMOY