Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

Metropolitan Trial Court

CaloocanCity

Branch 52PROMETHIUM MARKETING CO.,,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE NO. 12-30519-versus -

-for-

SUSAN CUSTODIO,

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, SUMOF

Defendant.

MONEY with prayer for Preliminary

Attachmentx-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.