ANALYSIS OF 3/19/2015 MOTION TO DISMISS

Here we have another Motion to Dismiss, based on two arguments

1) Motor Image claims that since this is a lawsuit for a small amount of money, it should be filed in Municipal court and not the Regional Trial court. While that argument might sound logical, the law is quite clear on why it is not the case. Our claim is for breach of contract. The amount of 148,000 pesos is our damages as a result of that breach, and not the basis for this lawsuit. Basically, we have to prove in court that the contract is broken, and if the court agrees, damages will then be ascertained. Municipal courts are not designed to determine a breach of contract, just amounts owed. So for example, if someone damaged my car in accident and my damages are small, I can go to Municipal court. However, if a contract is involved, I need to go to the regional courts. I am not saying that this makes sense, but it is the law. We must also understand that Small Claims Court falls under the jurisdiction of the Municipal courts. If the amount of my claim was very small (under 100,000) I could go to small claims court even if it involved a breach of contract. The amount that could be claimed in Small Claims court was raised to 200,000 pesos in February 2016, but at this point we are still in 2015 so Small Claims Court is not an option.

2) The argument here is truly pathetic. They again return to their game of multiple defendants. A year and a half after the filing of the case they stated that another defendant was liable, Autosales and Aftersales Company (AAC). We then had to file another amended complaint that named them as a defendant. However, in the body of the amended complaint, we refer to “defendants” and not “Autosales and Aftersales Company”. They are stating that we are not accusing AAC of anything in the complaint because in the original complaint, the defendants did not include AAC. This is truly a ridiculous argument. It appears that Subaru really wants its corporate strategy of hide the defendants/transfer liability to work in a court of law. It wont. , '

REPUBLIC OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGI REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 160, CITY {SAN JUAN CITY STATION)

JULIAN COHEN, Plaintiff,

- versus CIVIL CASE NO. 73836

MOTOR IMAGE PILIPINAS, ET AL., Defendants. x------x

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant Autosales & Aftersales Company, Inc. {11AACI" for brevity), by counsel, respectfully moves to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on the following grounds:

The Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim.

' ' 1. In the body of his Second Amended Complaint, c- plaintiff alleges:

"20. Because defendants refused to honor their warranty, plaintiff was forced to have his car towed, analyzed and repaired. The total cost amounted to Php 148,200.00.

XXX

25. Plaintiff manifest (sic) that he only wants to be paid actual damages. xxx."

2. In his prayer, he asks for the following: ,. " 1. That defendant pay plaintiff actual \; C damages in the amount Php 148,200.00

XXX."

3. From the foregoing, it is clear that the subject matter of the instant action, being primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, is one that is capable of pecuniary estimation, and since the principal amount sought to be recovered is P 148,200.00 only, it is the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities, and not the Regional Trial Court, which has jurisdiction over the same.

4. In the case of De Ungria vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165777, July 25, 2011, the Supreme Court, citing its previous ruling in Singson vs. lsabela Sawmill, 177 Phil. 575 (1979), held:

"In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation, this Court has adopted the criterion of firstascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether iurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subiect of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts)." (Underscoring supplied.}

5. In the case at bar, the principal action or remedy sought is the payment of actual damages in the amount of (;-: P 148,200.00. This is clear, not only from the prayer of the �' Second Amended Complaint, but also from Paragraph 25 thereof, where plaintiff himself categorically declares:

Page 2 of 5 "Plaintiff manifest (sic) that he only wants to be 0 paid actual damages."

6. In other words, there is no non-monetary principal relief sought to which the money claim is merely incidental, such as specific performance or rescission. The principal relief sought is the money claim itself. Hence, this Honorable Court has nb jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case.

7. Needless to say, the caption "Breach of Contract and Damages" is not controlling, since it is the allegations in the body of the complaint that determine jurisdiction. ,., ......

The Second Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action against defendant AACI.

8. A cause of action is "the delict or wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff" (lniego vs. Purganan, G.R. No. 166876, March 24, 2006).

9. In this case, a cursory perusal of the Second Amended Complaint would reveal that there is no allegation whatsoever of any delict or wrongful act or omission committed by defendant AACI against the primary rights of plaintiff. In fact, there is not a single mention of AACI in the body of the complaint. AACI is mentioned only in the title of the case. and nowhere else. So. the relevant question is: what did AACI do or not do in violation of plaintiff's right? The complaint does not say. Hence. it falls to state a cause of action against AACI.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, defendant AACI respectfully prays that the Second Amended Complaint be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim, and for failure to state a cause of action against AACI.

Page 3 of 5 City of San Fernando, for San Juan City, Metro 0 , March 19, 2015.

ALIG · Counsel for Defendant ACI IBP No. 961977/01.06.2015/Pampanga PTR No. 2459428/01.13.2015/City of SFP ROLL NO. 40279 MCLE Compliance No. IV--0013240/03.11.2013/Pasig City LausGroup Corporate Center Jose Abad Santos Avenue City of San Fernando, Pampanga

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Registry Receipt No. 42Q Regional Trial Court - Branch 160 Plaza Cristina Ext. PO 2000 Pasig City City of San Fernando (P) (San Juan City Station) March 23, 201 5 The Arena Parking Bldg., Santolan Road corner P. Guevarra St., San Juan City,

ATTY. SIDDHARTA JP S. PENAREDONDO, Ill Counsel for Plaintiff ,,..,..., Registry Receipt No.� { l Paras & Manlapaz Plaza Cristina Ext. PO 2000 Unit 1402 BOO Equitable Tower City of San Fernando (P) 8751 Paseo De Roxas, Makoti City March 23, 2015

ARCINAS & ARCINAS Counsel for Defendants Motor Image Pilipinas and Benedicto G. Arcinas 2K Edificio Enriqueta Registry Receipt No. C/23 422 N.S. Amoranto St. cor. Plaza Cristina Ext. PO 2000 D. Tuason Ave., City 1114 City of San Fernando (P) March 23, 201 5

Page4 of 5 GREETINGS:

Please take notice that the foregoing motion will be submitted for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on April 10, 2015 at 2:00pm. C.:. EXPLANATION

Service and filing of this pleading by registered mail was resorted to due, to distance and lack of manpower to effect personal service .

NEVERBUYASUBARU.COM •• R.A.R.M.

Page5of5