This complaint was filed by Tong Zongquan, represented by his lawyer Atty. Philip John L. Pojas, against Arnold Ansaldo for collection of an unpaid balance of $6,935.50 for sportswear delivered between January and May 2012. Tong Zongquan, a businessman in China, had a business relationship with Ansaldo in the Philippines where he would deliver sportswear ordered online. While Ansaldo paid $7,802 initially, he failed to pay the remaining balance despite demands. The complaint alleges breach of contract and seeks payment of the unpaid balance, interest, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs.

1. Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
11th
Judicial Region
Branch _____
Davao City
TONG ZONGQUAN alias BILL CHEN
Represented by
ATTY. PHILIP JOHN L. POJAS, FOR: Collection of Sum of
Plaintiff, Money, Interest,
Damages, and Attorney’s
-versus- Fees
ARNOLD ANSALDO
Doing business under the name and style of
RAPIDE` CUSTOM WEAR,
Defendant.
x----------------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, plaintiff TONG ZONGQUAN alias BILL CHEN represented by ATTY.
PHILIP JOHN L. POJAS and who is likewise plaintiff’s legal counsel in this case, and
before this Honorable Court, most respectfully states THAT:
1. Plaintiff TONG ZONGQUAN alias BILL CHEN is of legal age, married, a citizen of
China, and with residence at Shanghai, Republic of China and who may be served
with orders, resolutions and other processes of the Honorable Court at the office of
his counsel Atty. Philip John Pojas at VCPC Law Firm, Suites 204-206 Carlos
Villa-Abrille Building, E. Jacinto corner C.M. Recto Sts., Davao City. Attached
hereto is a true and faithful reproduction of the Passport of Tong Zongquan as
Annex “A”;
2. Plaintiff, being a non-resident alien is represented in this case by Atty. Philip John L.
Pojas by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney executed by plaintiff and attached
hereto as Annex “B”;
3. Defendant on the other hand is ARNOLD ANSALDO, of legal age, Filipino, married
and a resident of # 4 Coral St., Marfori Heights Subdivision, Davao City where he
may be served with summons, orders, resolutions and other processes of the
Honorable Court. Defendant Arnold Ansaldo is doing business here in Davao City
under the name and style of RAPIDE` CUSTOM WEAR;
1

2. 4. Both plaintiff and defendant have the capacity to sue and be sued;
5. Plaintiff is a businessman in the Republic in China under SHANGHAI RUIJI
TRADING CO. LTD. (Rigi Sports) and engaged in the retail and wholesale of
sporting wear and equipment. Plaintiff holds out his business to international clients
through the internet or the worldwide web. Among the business sites in the internet,
plaintiff uses ALIBABA.COM where plaintiff and defendant got acquainted;
6. From the postings made by plaintiff on alibaba.com, defendant sent him an e-mail
inquiring the prices of the sporting wear and goods. Defendant likewise inquired
whether or not he could use his own business name “Rapide Customwear” to be
placed on the sporting wear themselves;
7. From then on, plaintiff and defendant had a good business relationship. Several
transactions were made. Orders were placed by the defendant online, and plaintiff
delivers the goods to defendant through private couriers EMS and FedEx. On the
other hand, before a delivery was made, defendant would initially make a
downpayment through money wire transfer via Alibaba or Paypal. Communication
between plaintiff and defendant were all made online through Skype, Gtalk, Viber,
and through exchange of e-mails;
8. The business was good between plaintiff and defendant that defendant even went to
China on January 10, 2012 for 3 days to visit the plaintiff as well as his factory.
Because of that, plaintiff slowly reposed trust and confidence upon the defendant.
Eventually, plaintiff no longer required any downpayment before plaintiff delivers the
orders placed by defendant;
9. However, things turned to sour between plaintiff and defendant. Defendant began to
be delayed in his payments to plaintiff. At first, plaintiff tolerated the same as he had
given his trust and confidence to defendant;
10. From the period covering January 6, 2012 up to May 8, 2012, defendant placed
orders and plaintiff delivered sporting wear in the amount of FOURTEEN
THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTY SEVEN AND 50/100 US DOLLARS
(US$14,737.50). Attached hereto are the Proforma Invoices covering the orders
2

3. during the said period as well as the summary statement of the orders and
deliveries made by plaintiff as Annexes “C” to “C-18” and Annex “D” respectively;
11. From the said obligation, defendant was able to pay defendant the amount of
SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWO US DOLLARS (US$7,802.00)
only leaving a balance of SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE AND
50/100 US DOLLARS ($6,935.50);
12. Demands were made by plaintiff to defendant through Skype and e-mails to pay the
balance of SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE AND 50/100 US
DOLLARS ($6,935.50). However, defendant has made himself inconveniently
unavailable to plaintiff. Defendant deactivated his Skype account. Defendant also
no longer answered the e-mails of plaintiff. Attached hereto are the series of Skype
and e-mail conversations between plaintiff and defendant with the latter issuing
promises of payment which he never complied as Annex “E” to “E-___”;
13. In an effort to collect the balance, plaintiff was constrained to seek the help of
defendant’s wife, Cecille Duyongco. Even with the help of the wife of defendant, the
latter still refused to pay plaintiff the balance of his orders in the amount of SIX
THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE AND 50/100 US DOLLARS
($6,935.50);
14. Left with no other recourse, plaintiff was forced to retain the services of undersigned
counsel in order to send formal written demand to defendant. Several times,
undersigned counsel attempted to personally serve demand letters to the defendant
but he refused to receive the same. Undersigned counsel then sent written demand
letters through registered mail which were duly received by defendant. Attached
hereto are copies of the demand letters sent as well as the Registry Return Cards
as Annexes’ “F” to “F-3”;
15. Despite the receipt of the formal demand letters, defendant still refused with his
obligation to pay plaintiff the amount of SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED
THIRTY FIVE AND 50/200 US DOLLARS (US$6,935.00).
COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
3

4. 16. The plaintiff has already complied with the requirement of demand to constitute
defendant in delay of payment as demand letters were sent to defendant through
registered mail and duly received by him as evidenced by the Registry Return Card
attached to this Complaint;
17. Plaintiff is also not required to resort to Katarungang Pambarangay Proceedings as
well as the requirements under the Local Government Code of the Philippines as he
is not a resident of the same City or Municipality with defendant, the former being a
non-resident alien and is a resident of Shanghai, China;
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18. There is clearly a contract of sale between plaintiff and defendant. On one hand,
plaintiff has complied with his obligation to deliver the sportswear ordered by
defendant. However, defendant is remiss in his obligation of paying for the
sportswear delivered by plaintiff.
A contract of sale is defined in Article 1458 of the Civil Code, thus:
Art. 1458. By the contract of sale, one of the contracting parties
obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a
determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in
money or its equivalent.
In the case at bar, after the deliveries made by plaintiff of the orders of defendant to
the latter, the defendant has the co-relative obligation of paying the purchase price
for the good already delivered.
Hence, defendant has the statutory obligation of paying the value of the unpaid
deliveries in the amount of SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE
AND 50/100 US DOLLARS ($6,935.50);
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
4

5. 19. Because of the unjustified refusal of defendant to pay his dues to plaintiff, the latter
lost potential income for the unpaid and unreceived money which entitles the plaintiff
to legal interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum of the unpaid balance of SIX
THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE AND 50/100 US DOLLARS
($6,935.50) starting from date of formal written demand on December 9, 2013 for a
total of FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE AND 48/100 US DOLLARS
(US$485.48);
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
20. Because of the unjustified refusal of defendant to pay the plaintiff the latter suffered
MORAL DAMAGES as a consequence of the illegal and fraudulent act of defendant
the plaintiff suffered serious anxiety and sleepless nights. By reason of the undue
and evident bad faith of the Defendant, they should be held liable for the sum of
TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00);
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21. Given the fact that Defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent and malevolent manner
and in order to deter others who are similarly inclined to do the same acts, they
ought to be held liable for the sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P200,000.00) as EXEMPLARY DAMAGES;
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22. To add to the accountability of Defendant, he shall also be liable to pay the
acceptance fees of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) as well as
contingent fees of 25% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED as ATTORNEY’S
FEES premised upon the fact that Defendant’s act or omission has compelled the
Plaintiff to litigate/to incur expenses to protect his interest as well as the
APPEARANCE FEES OF TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) per court
hearing and the COSTS OF THIS SUIT.
5

6. P R A Y E R
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court after notice and hearing, to render judgment:
After trial on the merits-
1. Ordering the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the entire unpaid amount of SIX
THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE AND 50/100 US DOLLARS
($6,935.50), plus interest of one percent (1%) per month starting from December 9,
2013;
2. Ordering the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the sum of TWO HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00) to serve as MORAL DAMAGES as a
consequence of the illegal and fraudulent acts of Defendant;
3. Ordering the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff the sum of TWO HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00) as EXEMPLARY DAMAGES in order to set a
good example and for the purpose of deterring other people from committing similar
illegal and unwarranted acts;
4. Ordering the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P30,000.00) as ACCEPTANCE FEES and CONTINGENT FEES equivalent to
25% of the total amount claimed as ATTORNEY’S FEES and TWO THOUSAND
PESOS (P2,000.00) as APPEARANCE FEE per court hearing;
5. Ordering the Defendant to pay the costs of this suit.
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted this ____ day of ____________ 2014, at Davao City,
Philippines.
TONG ZONGQUAN
Plaintiff
Represented by:
6

7. ATTY. PHILIP JOHN L. POJAS
Assisted By:
THE LAW FIRM OF VILLARICA+,
CORONEL, POJAS & CAHARIAN
Counsel for Plaintiff
Suites 204-206, CVA Bldg., C.M. Recto
cor. Jacinto Sts., Davao City
By:
ATTY. PHILIP JOHN L. POJAS
Roll of Attorneys No. 54869
PTR NO. 3860247 – 01/02/14 – DAVAO CITY
Lifetime Member IBP NO. 011260 – 09/26/13 – MANILA
TIN 260-643-928
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0012560
January 18, 2013
Tel No. (082)2277323
Mobile No. (0908)9078957
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
C I T Y O F D A V A O)ss
x---------------------------------------------x
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
I, ATTY. PHILIP JOHN L. POJAS, of legal age, Filipino, married, and a resident of
#37, 2nd
Street, Lougemmar Village, Old Airport Road, Sasa, Davao City, Philippines,
after being duly sworn, depose and state I am the representative of TONG ZONGQUAN
and I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Complaint for and in his
behalf; that I have read and understood the contents thereof, the allegations of which are
true and correct of my own personal knowledge.
And, in compliance with Administrative Circular No. 04-94 of the Supreme Court, I
certify that plaintiff has not commenced any other similar action involving the same issues
between the same parties before any court or tribunal in the Philippines;
7

8. Further, to the best of my personal knowledge, there is no such similar proceeding
or action which is pending in any court and should I learn that a similar action has been filed
or pending before any other tribunal, I shall undertake to report such fact within a period of
five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.
Davao City, Philippines, _____________ 2014.
ATTY. PHILIP JOHN L. POJAS
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of _______________
2014 at Davao City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me his ________________, issued
on _______________ at _______________________.
Doc. No. ______;
Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2014.
8