Every document below is a reason to NEVER BUY A SUBARU!
Introduction and Cast of Characters
This file contains court filings, related documents and commentary regarding a case where Subaru
refused to honour a warranty on a Subaru Forester. The purpose is to provide proof that Subaru
warranties are worthless, that Subaru is a dishonourable company, and most importantly, potential
purchasers of cars or SUV’s should avoid the brand if a warranty is required.
The structure will be the analysis, followed by the respective document. The documents are arranged
CAST OF CHARACTERS
As you read the various documents related to this lawsuit, you will notice several individuals and
companies. I will outline some of them here for your reference
Julian Cohen – First, he foolishly purchased a Subaru, and then like an idiot, he thought the warranty
was real. He then filed this lawsuit, which also appears to be a bad decision as Subaru uses proxy
companies to avoid liability. They also go to great lengths to ensure that cases never make it trial
where the criminality of Subaru could be exposed. While these bad decisions have resulted in great
expense and a huge amount of wasted time, he hopes that the effort can at least prevent others from
making the same mistakes.
Subaru – A subsidiary of Fuji Heavy Industries based out of Tokyo, Japan. They produce inexpensive
cars of mediocre quality, many with high performance specifications due to their use of
turbochargers. However, their turbochargers are of poor quality and fail at an alarming rate. By
using a complex structure of proxy companies issuing worthless warranties, they avoid liability.
Motor Image – A multinational company based in Singapore. They handle sales and service of
Subaru cars in many Asian countries. It is unknown if their warranties are designed to be worthless due
to their own initiative, or by direct instruction from Subaru. Either way, Subaru has stated in no
uncertain terms that Motor Image operates with complete authority for selling and servicing Subaru
cars, so it really doesn’t matter. For this reason, I will often refer to Motor Image as Subaru. While
Subaru may have succeeded in keeping their brand out of this legal fight, they will have no such luxury
Glen Tan – The chief executive of Motor Image. He is the head of the company responsible for refusing
to honor the warranty (maybe not from a legal standpoint, but by all appearances, from a
practical standpoint.) He appeared to be the person to contact to get this issue resolved. However,
based on subsequent revelations by the parties involved, it appears much more likely that Subaru
in Japan is responsible for these worthless warranties. But at this point, without a trial to get to
the bottom of it, this remains unresolved.
Motor Image Filipinas – The Philippines subsidiary of Motor Image. For the purposes here, the same as
Benedicto Arcinas – A retired lawyer, and also a past president of Motor Image Pilipinas. He was sued in
his apparent official capacity at Motor Image. Basically, he was sued as a matter of how lawsuits work,
not because of any personal dispute with him. In fact, he appears to be a very well respected
lawyer and executive, and if anything, is guilty of only being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Laus Marketing Corporation – They operated the Subaru dealership in Pampanga. Note that operating a
dealership is not the same as being a dealer (that would be Motor Image Filipinas). They were sued
as a legal procedure because the car was serviced and the warranty was denied at Subaru Pampanga.
I have no issue with them at all, and in fact, feel that they are a fine company. However, like me,
they were quite foolish in ever getting involved with a company like Subaru.
Autosales and Aftersales Company – Even after several years in court, I’m still not really sure what role
they play here. Due to some issues raised by Motor Image at one of the court hearings, it became
apparent that they needed to be added as a defendant. Since they apparently did not create
Subaru’s fraudulent warranty and may not have directly denied my warranty claim, my issue with
them relates to complex legal rules of responsibility.
Letter to Glen Tan, head of Motor Image Corporation 4/2/2012
was a Gentleman named Glen Tan) to see if the denial of my valid warranty claim was company
policy, and not just the mistake of one employee. I wanted to make it very clear that there would
be consequences if the denial was not reversed. I handed the letter to the Branch Manager in
person, and made sure that another employee was there to avoid confusion about my intent. I gave a
rather long and impassioned speech about how this was unacceptable, the consequences of their
actions, and I received a “guarantee” that Glen Tan would receive this letter before Wednesday (when
I stated I was going to meet with my lawyer). I had no intention of driving 3 hours to Manila to meet
with my attorney, as I assumed that before Wednesday I would receive a reversal of the denial, or at
least an invitation to talk and work out some type of solution to this dispute. Instead, Wednesday came
and went without as much as a text message. Therefore, I had no option but to retain my attorney,
with a retainer of 200,000 pesos.
It should be noted that Glen Tan later claimed that he was out of town and did not receive this letter
before Wednesday. I have no reason to doubt his claim, but it has little relevance for the following
- The Manager personally guaranteed that he would receive the letter before my deadline
- The deadline was not arbitrary. I had only one car at the time, and needed it fixed.
- The Manager knew very well how important it was for me to hear from SOMEONE before Wednesday.
- At the end of the day, the manager of the dealership is the highest ranking person I can properly
communicate with. If he ignores me, then it follows that the company is also ignoring me, and
going to Subaru in Japan is the next logical step.
Letter to Mitsuru Takada, EVP of Fuji Heavy Industries (Subaru) 4/5/2012
Image did not honour warranty claims for their cars, they would fix this ASAP. Boy, was I wrong!
I included a Japanese translation of this letter, a copy of my letter to Glen Tan, and even a
Japanese translation of that letter. I wanted to make sure that Subaru had all the facts.
Courtesy letter to Glen Tan, head of Motor Image 4/9/2012
This letter really wasn’t unnecessary, but it served as a formal end to my attempt to get this resolved by
the head of Motor Image.
Our final demand to Motor Image 4/10/2012
the last chance for a potential defendant to avoid a lawsuit. At this point, things could be settled if
Motor Image merely reimbursed me for the cost of a new turbo charger, towing fee, and oil change fee.
Unfortunately for all parties concerned, Motor Image refused.
Letter from Masayuki Ohashi, Overseas Administrative Section, Subaru 4/16/2012
was understanding it correctly. Following is what I determined.
- My treatment by Motor Image did not bother Subaru at all.
- The fact that Motor Image denies valid warranty claims does not bother Subaru.
- Most disturbingly, they were ok with the fact that Motor Image requires a 1,000 km, 3,000
km, and 10 km oil change for them to honour their warranties. This contradicts their own
owner’s manual that states that the first oil change is required at 12,000 km.
Clearly, Subaru is well aware of the fact that Motor Image has no intention of honouring
their warranties, and they are fine with this. Most importantly, Subaru states:
“we have given them complete authority to make all decisions regarding service,
sales and parts supply”.
For all intents and purposes, Motor Image is nothing more than a proxy for Subaru. Clearly, there
are several advantages to this type of scheme for Subaru.
- It allows the owner’s manual and Subaru advertising to claim their cars require reasonable
maintenance, but also require these same cars to have numerous additional and
unnecessary maintenance procedures for the warranty to be valid. Knowing full well
that very few people will have an oil change at 1,000km, they are able to essentially
absolve themselves of their warranty responsibilities very soon after the car is sold.
- When contacted about a denied warranty claim, they just say “this has nothing to do with
us, just contact xyz company.”
- When someone is foolish enough to file a lawsuit hoping for justice, they can keep the
SUBARU name out of the proceedings. In addition, when their proxies use shameful
tactics in court, they can also protect their reputation from the consequences of such
This is generally known as plausible deniability, and here we have a text book case. Please
note that I refuse to play this game. Therefore, I will often use Motor Image and
Response to my letter from the attorney of Glen Tan 4/17/2012
like it. I was just trying to get my warranty honoured, and this letter was so nasty and mean. Clearly, this
was war. A couple of points:
- He states
“your motives are indeed malicious rather than noble”.
I just want my car fixed under warranty, but if he feels it is malicious, so be it. Yes, I can be
quite assertive when I am right, but after receiving this letter, it is clear that I have to step this
up a notch. It was now that I first decided that I would pursue this until the very end.
Unfortunately, at this point I did not fully grasp what that meant.
- He states:
“instead of considering the same to be a legitimate customer complaint of a vehicle we
can conclude from the contents thereof that you meant to spread untruthful and
inaccurate statements, intending to insult and maliciously impute fraud and dishonesty
on a respectable business person and his companies”.
Seriously? This guy thinks that this has nothing to do with my car and I just have nothing better
to do with my time than initiating an expensive dispute with a multinational company. HOW
ABOUT YOU FIX MY F…….ING CAR, INSTEAD OF PICKING A FIGHT THAT YOU WILL LOSE.
- He wants me to apologize or he will initiate a criminal complaint. If am sure of only one thing in
this dispute, it is this; if there is ever an apology given, it will be given TO ME by either Glen
Tan, Motor Image, Subaru, or all three.
Reply to letter from attorney of Glen Tan 4/19/2012
certainly liked to insult Mr. Tan the way he insulted me, that is not my style (although it should be
noted that I am quite capable of insults, and if they keep this up, then maybe that is what they
Complaint - Cohen vs. Motor Image, et al 3/19/2013
are several pages of legal verbiage, which is here for the reader to peruse. In lieu of an analysis of this
legal filing, I will just give an outline of the conduct by Subaru that lead to this filing.
First, let me note that while I will be referring to my dispute with Motor Image, my real dispute is with
Subaru. Motor Image is a proxy that Subaru uses to protect their liability, reputation, etc. from lawsuits
like this. When you buy a Subaru, you might think that the warranty is also issued by Subaru (at least I
did). But in reality, they use a company based out of Singapore called Motor Image. While I will
criticize Motor Image on numerous times in this and other analysis, this criticism is, at its heart, criticism
of Subaru. Motor Image just does what it does. I have no idea of their agreement with Subaru, their
motivation, their finances, etc. All I do know is that they fight tooth and nail to avoid paying valid
warranty claims, with clear approval from Subaru.
Anyway, to be brief, I took my car in due to symptoms that turned out to be a failed turbo charger. As I
first sat down with the service manager, he asked to see my warranty card. I showed it to him, and he
stated (and I’ll paraphrase), “you do not have either the 1,600km, 5,000 km, or 10,000 km stamp, so you
have no warranty. I was quite shocked, as this is not 1980. Modern engines do not need the 1000 mile
or so oil change after they have been “run in”. I checked the owner’s manual, and sure enough, the first
oil change per the owner’s manual requires the first oil change at 12,500 km. How can the warranty
require 3 oil changes before the owner’s manual even recommends the first? Well, if you are motor
image, you can require anything you want – technically, they are not Subaru. Nice little scam they have
going on here! Imagine all those unnecessary oil changes and the resulting toxic and potentially polluting
used motor oil. How about the millions and millions of pesos wasted on unnecessary oil changes. And
of course, let’s not forget all the wasted money on repairs that should be performed under warranty.
Now to be honest, the only thing I was really thinking at the time was that I was being scammed and
would have nothing of it, but those other issues are important and should be considered.
Of course, I and the service manager had a rather heated argument. We also discussed why, for my last
oil change, I purchased my oil filter from the dealer, but the oil from somewhere else. I was particularly
perturbed when I found out this “service manager” had no idea of the differences between different
motor oil weights (viscosity). No clue what multi weight vs straight oil was. He truly did not know why
sometimes you would use 10w-40 and sometimes 10w-30. And this was the guy managing the service of
my car? The way I see it, this is MY car. I get to follow the recommendations in the owner’s
manual regarding service intervals and oil weight. I also believe this to be the law.
To be fair, the actual mechanic was very knowledgeable and quite competent, but I certainly had no
time to discuss warranties or anything else with the service manager.
Anyway, what followed is, well, a large part of the last 5 years of my life. I think the legal documents
that were filed over the years will paint a very clear picture of what type of company Subaru is, as well as
their proxies. If you have even the SLIGHTEST interest in purchasing a Subaru, I would
strongly recommend reading about how they handled their day (years) in court.
Finally, please note paragraph 25 of the lawsuit. Motor Image, from the very beginning, tried to paint
me as a stereotyped American, trying to extort money from a company. Over the objections of my
attorney, I therefore insisted that I only receive the cost of my new turbocharger, the towing charge, the
cost of an oil change (not needed), and the cost of the suit.
Article that appeared in the Philippine Inquirer newspaper 3/20/2013
A letter to the the head of Subaru customer care 3/20/2013
Letter from Atsushi Nemoto, Subaru overseas service dept. 3/27/2013
Well, Subaru, I hope that EVERY potential Subaru customer on the planet will also hear my story, LOUD
AND CLEAR. I will do my very best, now and in the future, to make sure that happens.
Subaru – what a disgusting excuse for a company.
Letter from the court ordering additional defendants to the case 4/1/2013
was standard procedure to list all parties to the case so that the judge could assign responsibility and
damages as he or she saw fit. This would mean that each defendant would need to be served, and have
legal counsel. This did not appear to be a proper course of action, as my complaint was solely with Motor
Image as they as they were the ones that had denied my warranty claim. My attorney acquiesced, but
stated that the judge might order the listing of additional defendants.
Clearly, I should have headed to my attorney’s advice, and after this, I let my attorney handle the case as
he saw fit (and let me just add, what a fine job he did!)
This complaint lists the additional defendants, as ordered by the judge 4/20/2013
complaint” in other document analyses, it will be in reference to this complaint, as opposed to
the original complaint that was filed.
Answer and counter claim by Motor Image 10/30/2013
significant paragraphs. Please note that I am not an attorney, and this (and all subsequent analysis of
legal documents) is based on my opinion, with the limited legal knowledge I possess. Also note that
my attorney has had no input on any analysis as the Regional Trial Court case has been dismissed, and
his involvement in this continuing dispute has ended.
PARAGRAPH 1-6, and others
Mostly technical legal details. However, it sets the stage for the numerous legal challenges
and counterclaims that will follow in this and subsequent filings, and begins a multi-year process where
Subaru attempts to avoid legal responsibility for the warranty.
Falsely claims that the car was not well maintained.
Claims the warranty had expired, based on the purchase date as opposed to the delivery date.
Falsely claims that the vehicle underwent unauthorized modifications (unless you consider replacing the
shock absorbers as un-authorized modification that can result in a turbo charger failing).
Attempts to paint this as some type of extortion scheme, when I have made it very clear from
the beginning that I just want my warranty honored.
While I cannot categorically deny this, there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case, and Rafael M.
Cruz has presented evidence that he was the original and only owner of this vehicle. Without a trial (that
MIPI has avoided for several years) this can never been ascertained one way or the other. But it is not
relevant anyway, as the warranty is transferable to all new owners.
Here it is claimed that the vehicle was abused (it was NOT). However, this paragraph does contain the
heart of the matter at hand. Are you required to follow ridiculous maintenance requirements that are in
complete contradiction to the owner’s manual? It is my contention that according to the law as well as
common sense, you are not. However, Motor Image will attempt to avoided a trial that would decide this
one way or the other. No doubt, they are concerned that a ruling that their maintenance requirements
are illegal would significantly affect their bottom line.
Here they throw every unfounded argument they can think up to support their denial of the
warranty. Clearly, these are professionals when it comes to denying warranty claims.
This is just complete nonsense. The Nissan case in question has to do with a warranty claim filed long
after the warranty expired.
Believe it or not, here they are claiming that the lawsuit has to be filed WITHIN the warranty period. So,
my turbo charger failed 2 days before the warranty expired, so I had two days file a lawsuit? A truly wild
They try to get this thrown out on a minor technicality that has nothing to do with the case at hand.
Benedicto G. Arcinas, based on available records, was sued as the president of Motor Image, as is standard
procedure for this type of lawsuit. Apparently, he had recently ceased to be the president.
There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Arcinas is anything but an honorable and upstanding retired
lawyer, and nothing in this lawsuit has suggested otherwise. As a retired lawyer and previous president
of a large corporation, however, it appears quite unusual that he would suffer the following from a lawsuit
against a corporation for which he was recently the president of, including:
- Mental anguish
- Wounded feelings
- Sleepless nights
- Moral shock
For the above, damages in the amount of 1,000,000 each (total 2,000,000 pesos) are claimed. Maybe
there is another reason for these claimed damages? Perhaps to scare me in to dropping this lawsuit?
Maybe to scare away other potential lawsuits? A reasonable strategy, I guess, if you do not honor
Again, Motor Image tries to paint me as committing extortion for just attempting to get my car fixed
Here they add another 500,000 pesos each, so they are claiming damages for a total 3,000,000 pesos.
I wonder how many lawsuits they have scared away using this tactic?
And of course, they want attorney’s fees of 600,000(++). Note that these attorneys fees do not include
the huge amount of subsequent legal filings over the next 4 years (almost every one initiated by Motor
Image, not by me), so we are talking about a massive legal bill here. In comparison, my attorney is
one of the best in the country, and charged me 200,000(++). And we won EVERY motion, EVERY
appeal, and EVERY request for reconsideration (and wow, there were a lot, as this case went
through 3 judges and a Supreme Court resolution). And they claim that I am the one committing
extortion! Either my attorney was much better at a third the price, or I just had a really, really
solid case. I think it was both (not to suggest in any way that Motor Image did not have very good
Motion to set for preliminary hearing defendants' special and affirmative defenses 11/25/2013
their special and affirmative defences. Keep in mind that each motion results in appearance and other
Motion by Motor Image for summons to be served at Laus Marketing 12/2/2013
November, 29, Motor Image argued that Laus Marketing Corp. had not been served. Now considering
that Laus Marketing was an active participant in the filing of the Answer 2 months earlier and the
lawsuit was filed 9 months earlier, there is no reasonable reason that the lack of documented service
should be an issue at this point. I think it is fair to say that they know about this lawsuit. However,
this technicality gave Motor Image an opening to delay things by forcing us to file a second motion to
issue and serve summons.
Reply by plaintiff to the answer of Motor Image 12/2/2013
PARAGRAPH 2 and 3
This has to with how Laus Marketing fits into this. My attorney is concerned that they might try to shift
blame and liability to Laus Marketing. My position, however, is quite clear. Motor Image denied
the warranty, and they are liable. I have no issue with Laus Marketing. On this note, I am still quite
disturbed by the fact that Subaru stays out of this legal fight by using their proxies. While it appears
that Motor Image is acting on its own accord, I have no idea if it is really Subaru instructing them.
I do not want to participate in this “shift the blame” game, which is why I use Subaru to refer to
Motor Image when appropriate. If Subaru has an issue with this, I would like nothing more than to meet
them in court and find out EXACTLY what role they play in these legal maneuvers.
This is self-explanatory. Just restating facts and putting them in perspective.
Also note that the exemplary and compensatory damages listed here, as per the complaint, are not to
be paid to me but to whatever entity or foundation that is appropriate per court rules. I just want to be
compensated for the replacement of my turbo charger and legal fees.
Comment and manifestation - preliminary hearing 12/5/2013
and Affirmative defenses. For the reasons outlined in this Comment and Manifestation, this hearing
should not take place. Although I believe that the reason Motor Image has requested this hearing is
to delay things and perhaps increase legal fees, that is not a valid legal argument, so my attorney attacks
the motion on in its merits.
PARAGRAPH 3 and 4
Even if we have this hearing, the defendant might request that we have the hearing again once Laus
Marketing is served. While we do not want this hearing, we certainly don’t want to have it twice.
Legal reasons that this hearing should not be held.
A reply by Subaru to our reply to their answer to our complaint 12/13/2013
Anyway, nothing really new here. Just Subaru reiterating that this case should be dismissed on a
technicality. And even their technicalities are either just wrong or irrelevant.
Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim by Laus Marketing Corporation 12/23/2013
While my claim is, and always has been against Motor Image/Subaru, Laus Marketing was sued as a
procedure so that the court could assign blame to them if required.
It should be noted that in Paragraph 4, Laus claims that as the amount sought was P138,000, this case
should be handled by the Metropolitan Trial court (MTC). But since this case involves a claim of Breach
of Contract, it must be heard by the Regional Trial court and most likely would be rejected by the
Municipal courts on those grounds. Also note that the limit at this time for small claims cases is 100,000
pesos (not raised to 200,000 until February 1, 2016), so that is also not option here.
I will also state here that while their Answer is quite combative, during the many court proceedings that I
was able to meet with the attorneys for Laus Marketing they were particularly accommodating and
always willing to get this settled. They even offered a significant amount of money to settle this
case even though they were right in claiming that they were not liable here (the amount was less
than my actual costs, but I was willing to accept it at the time). However, Motor Image was
always quick to shoot down any potential settlement.
So, for the record, I am personally of the opinion that Laus Marketing is a quality company. Although I did
have issues with one of their employees when I first brought my car in for service, I have no
idea if it was due to procedures given by Motor Image, training by Laus, or just a bad employee.
Manifestation by Subaru 1/9/2014
Marketing, although it was filed by the attorney for Motor Image.
The motion by Subaru for a preliminary hearing was denied 2/25/2014
motion lacks merit”. The judge goes on to say that the issues should be resolved in the main (trial).
Of course, Subaru knows this but just wanted to waste time and increase my legal costs with this
motion. And there will be many, many more motions that Subaru will file and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF
THEM will also be denied.
Motion for reconsideration of the denial of their request for a preliminary hearing 3/25/2014
Hearing. Basically, Subaru has asked the court to reconsider their ruling (or in other words, “you were
wrong, judge, please issue a reversal”).
Motions for reconsideration are very rarely approved, for obvious reasons. They are used (abused)
by Subaru to delay and increase the costs of this lawsuit.
Attorney for plaintiff files opposition for motion for reconsideration 4/22/2014
legalese here, and self-explanatory (if you are a lawyer).
Reply to Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration by Subaru 5/20/2014
see another link in that chain. Each link becomes more technical so at this point these filings are mostly
obscure legal jargon.
Denial of motion for reconsideration 8/29/2014
motion for reconsideration after the motion was denied. On August 29, 2014 that motion was
denied. Nine expensive months of wasted time due to a frivolous motion filed by Subaru.
Their tactic of trying to motion this lawsuit to death is off to a very successful start.
Plaintiff files ex-parte motion to set case for pre-trial 9/10/2014
delay tactics orchestrated by Motor Image. Here we file a motion to start pre-trial, and that motion
is approved by the judge.
Subaru files a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under rule 65 9/22/2014
Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65. Basically, Subaru is saying that the judge is committing a grave
abuse of discretion by not approving their baseless motions. It is something you would typically see in a
case during or after trial, that involves a large amount of money, and where the judge has acted in such
an abhorrent way that you are almost sure to win the petition. Or to put it another way, if you are going
to insult the judge you would need to have a very strong case, with a lot at stake, and the case is near
the end. Here we have a case over a small amount of money, a baseless petition, and the case is at the
early stages. Why then would such a petition be filed? Obviously for no other reason than to delay the
case, and increase costs, and scare away other potential lawsuits. This is a nasty tactic that we have
seen before, and will continue to see as this case moves along. Yes, you will keep seeing me say the
same thing over and over every time Subaru files a motion, but I want to make sure that by the end of
my analysis of these documents, there can be no dispute as to the motives of Subaru. And in one of
their letters, they claimed that I was the one without honour!
This is a complex petition and there is nothing new here as it is basically just restating previous
arguments to the appellate court. If you are into reading 10 pages of arcane legal arguments that have
no basis in fact, and that have been previously made and rejected, it is here for you to enjoy. However, I
certainly will not spend the time analyzing this nonsense.
Plaintiff files Pre-trial Brief 10/29/2014
The brief outlines the facts of the case, issues requiring resolution, evidence to be submitted and
witnesses to be called.
Note that one of our witnesses is hostile and would need to be subpoenaed. This is because testifying
against Subaru would not be a good business decision. Very few in the car business would
willingly submit testimony against an automobile company as it would inhibit future interaction
with that company.
For example, Ferman Lao is considered one of the foremost experts in the country on cars, performance
components, and service requirements. As a technical editor for automotive magazines as well as being
an engineer specializing in automotive high performance upgrades, testifying against Motor Image would
not be a wise move. However, he did analyze the turbo charger and issued a detailed report on its
failure. There are very few such experts in the country, so his testimony would be required.
Resolution regarding the Petition for Certiorari from the Court of Appeals 10/29/2014
For technical reasons, the motion was neither approved nor denied. Rather, this resolution lays out
what Subaru needs to do.
Professional Analysis of the turbo charger 10/29/2014
the various automobile circles in the country.
Based on his analysis, the turbo charger failed due the failure of the compressor blade retaining nut. Our
intention was to prove at trial that this type of failure would not have anything to do with the oil
change schedule, even if, as Motor Image maintains, unauthorized oil was used and it was not changed
on the correct schedule.
But of course, for the record, the correct oil was used and it was changed appropriately.
Order and motion to file amended complaint 11/3/2014
there was a lot of back and forth about who is liable in this lawsuit, and it became clear that the actual
corporate defendants were more convoluted than initially known. Motor Image stated that a company
by the name of Autosales & Aftersales Company (AAC) was actually liable, and Motor Image Enterprises
Pte Ltd. (MI) was not.
Note that prior to this, with all the arguments that Subaru has made, it had NEVER previously mentioned
that AAC was liable and MI was not. Perhaps they just figured it out, but the evidence would suggest
that they knew this all along, but did not disclose it until this point in an attempt to get the case thrown
out on a technicality. As you can see, when you buy a Subaru it is really quite a puzzle to figure out who
is responsible for the warranty. Basically, figure a year and a half of legal wrangling to get that very
basic fact ironed out.
Anyway, at this meeting the judge granted the plaintiff 10 days to file an amended complaint, and two
days later we file a motion to admit the Second Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff files second amended complaint against Motor Image 11/5/2014
as a defendant, based on the order issued by the judge at a hearing a few days earlier.
Plaintiff files comment on Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 11/25/2014
time in explaining to the appellate court why. I believe the attorney makes a very strong case not only
to the lack of merits in the petition, but also explains why this petition has so little basis in fact
and established case law that it should never have been filed in the first place.
Motion in opposition to second amended complaint 12/1/2014
scrap of paper”. I think it is clear that, to the contrary, this Opposition is the scrap of paper. Here is
At a hearing, a year and a half after the initial filing, it was Subaru that mentioned that Autosales and
Aftersales Company would be liable in the event that we won. At that time it was agreed by all
parties that an amended complaint was appropriate. The judge then issued the order on the same day
(right at the end of the hearing, if I remember correctly).
What possible legitimate reason could they have for spending 18 months defending themselves, and then
mentioning this fact unless they had an ulterior motive? Here we have their motive – to get this case
thrown out on a technicality.
The reasons given in this Opposition are all arcane legal arguments. As we have seen, and will
continue to see, Subaru is extremely aggressive when it comes to digging deep to find some obscure
legal reason for getting this case dismissed without a trial. While I doubt many non-lawyers would
understand the arguments given here, I believe anyone reading this document would understand that
this opposition has nothing to do with the facts of the case but everything to do with:
- Getting this case thrown out of court on a technicality
- Delaying the case
- Increasing legal fees to get me to back out, or to scare other victims from getting their day in court.
For those of you that are still not convinced that the above motives are real, just keep reading the court
filings. You’ve seen nothing yet!
Plaintiff files reply in response to opposition to second amended complaint 12/12/2014
opposition was mostly rambling nonsense, there is no need to address most of the points.
Why is Motor Image filing the opposition to adding Autosales and Aftersales company as a defendant?
Autosales and Aftersales should file it, and they have not yet even been served. First Motor Image state
that they are a separate company that needs to be added to the complaint. But they oppose that
addition, and then they act as if they are same company by filing an opposition for them before they are
You don’t need to be a lawyer to see through the games that Motor Image plays.
Plaintiff files a Reply to Motor Image's Comment 12/19/2014
Pleadings tend to become more complicated, and when dealing with Motor Image, more convoluted by
this point. You may read it and not understand most if because you believe it to be too technical.
However, in this filing the arguments just make no sense.
There is no need to explain why because in 2016 they will make these same arguments to the
Supreme Court. Since a filing with the Supreme court is a rather significant event, my analysis of that
pleading will explain in detail why these arguments are not only baseless, but the referenced case law
that has nothing to do with the issues raised.
Order to admit the second amended complaint 1/6/2015
ones at that) from derailing this case.
Motor Image files a Supplemental Petition 2/25/2015
additional defendant, Autosales and Aftersales, was added after the Second Amended complaint was
filed, the case should be dismissed on the grounds that the said complaint did not mention Autosales
Even someone with no knowledge of the law should have two reasons that this makes no sense. First,
how could the complaint have mentioned Autosales and Aftersales if we did not know about them
until recently. And second, and most importantly, the reason we did not know about them is because
Subaru did not tell us about them so that they could file this motion now and attempt to get the case
thrown out on a technicality.
Just when think they can go no lower, they pull this. Pathetic.
Motion to Dismiss 3/10/2015
Dismiss. It is mostly the same silly arguments that have been rejected by the judge before, with a couple
of new ones. For example, Subaru is very focused on getting this dismissed due to various date issues,
all of which were rejected before. Clearly, the judge sees that the turbo charger in the Subaru Forester
failed within the warranty period, so this needs to go to trial.
A new issue raised here relates to the demand letters, but it is really just a twist on the issue that Subaru
has been continuously raising – the defendants. This defendant is wrong………that defendant was not
served……..this defendant is not liable, and now……………these defendants did not receive demand letters.
The argument here is that we were sending letters back and forth to the head of the company based
in Singapore – Motor Image. These letters were responded to with clear wording that the warranty
would not be honoured due to reasons that are well worn at this point. However, now Subaru is
saying that “Motor Image” is not the same as “Autosales and Aftersales”, therefore we never
really asked for the warranty to be honoured and this lawsuit is invalid. What complete and utter
nonsense. Just take a look at all the letters that were sent, and the replies that were received by
numerous entities relating to this case.
So, if you buy a Subaru and want it fixed under warranty, you had better know who to contact. If you
send the demand to the authorized dealer per the Subaru Philippines website, you are out of luck. Motor
Image Philippines, nope. Motor Image Singapore, that won’t work. Subaru Corporation in Japan, forget
about it! You had better send it to Autosales and Aftersales. And we were not even informed about them
until 18 months after we filed the lawsuit. Let’s be very clear here. Subaru creates a complicated network
of companies to avoid honouring their warranties. Subaru is truly one sinister company.
In short, what we have here is more rubbish to cause additional delays and expense with the ultimate
objective of preventing this case from ever going to trial.
Memorandum in support of Petition of Certiorari 3/16/2015
be a Memorandum. After filing a request for an extension, here is the Memorandum.
We had filed our comments to their petition several months earlier, so they are now able to refile with
full knowledge of our rebuttal (I do not know if that was their plan, but based on the prior conduct of
Motor Image, I assume it to be the case).
It is 17 pages of the same half-baked arguments, but with some new rationales. They have references to
some new technicalities that they claim applies here, but it is just the same nonsense.
I recommend keeping this Memorandum it by your bed. If you ever find yourself unable to sleep, just
start reading and you will be in dreamland in no time at all.
Motor Image files another Motion to Dismiss 3/19/2015
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, in most cases where a contract is involved, it should be filed in a regional court. I am
not saying that this makes sense, but it is the law.
We must also understand that Small Claims courts fall under the jurisdiction of 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.
Manifestation and comment to motion to dismiss 3/29/2015
are not supported by the facts. You can read the details or just go the final paragraph, #16
“For knowingly asserting arguments that are totally erroneous and inapplicable, defendants and
their counsel should be sanctioned for filing frivolous pleadings that betrays their lack of respect
to and comprehension of the rules”
Memorandum against petition of certiorari 3/29/2015
stating that the judge committed a grave abuse of discretion). Here we outline our arguments against
I will just out restate part of our Prefatory Statement:
“Petitioner’s blind and ignorant insistence hampers the smooth administration of justice and
unnecessarily clogs the docket of the Honorable Court of Appeals. They should be
penalized for filing frivolous pleadings that runs afoul with the lawyer’s oath”.
Strong language to be sure, but clearly supported by the number of their pleadings, the weakness
of their arguments, and the continued view by the courts that their “motions lack merit.”
Motor Image files a reply to our memorandum against the petition of certiorari 4/24/2015
a Memorandum filed against the Petition, and then the “reply” that we have here. As you can
see, the strategy utilized by Subaru here greatly slows down proceedings and increases costs.
This is the case no matter how frivolous the petitions are, making this the strategy of choice for a
dishonorable company such as Subaru. And remember, the trial is still a long way off (assuming we ever
To the layperson, this pleading may at first glance appear to have some real arguments. But don’t
be fooled. It is mostly just nonsense made to look like sound legal claims.
Reply to the manifestation and comment against the motion to dismiss 5/4/2015
new here, just a rehash of old arguments previously dismissed by the courts.
If you have been reading these pleadings, you have likely noticed that Subaru likes to continuously
reference the Isidro vs. Nissan case as a reason that the warranty is not valid. The argument they make is
that because we did not file our lawsuit during the 3 year warranty period, our warranty is not
enforceable. According to them, since the warranty expired in two days, we only had two days to file a
lawsuit for the warranty to be valid. Clearly this is a ridiculous claim. Also, in the Nissan case, the
customer brought the car to the dealer for a warranty claim LONG AFTER the warranty expired
– a completely different set of circumstances then what we have here. In our case, the warranty
had not yet expired when the car was brought to the dealer due to the failure of the turbo charger.
As you can see, even a patently false argument can be made in a lawsuit, resulting in long delays and
The judge issues an order regarding the defendants two motions to dismiss 5/29/2015
motions were denied for lack of merit.
Also note that the court is very clear that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction here, and the court
“Clearly, plaintiff’s action for breach of contract and damages is cognizable by this court”
Answer to second amendeded complaint with counter claim filed by defendants 6/24/2015
another proxy company for Subaru) as a defendant, the defendants have to file another answer to our
Nothing new here besides the additional defendant.
Subaru files a motion for reconsideration 6/29/2015
NO OTHER PURPOSE but to delay proceedings and increase costs. It is a motion that asks the judge to
reconsider her order that the Motion to Dismiss that was filed “lacked merit”.
Common sense dictates that once a court has issued a ruling, asking the court to change its mind has
about a zero chance of succeeding. And when you consider that this is not the first one, you realize
Subaru must know that this motion will surely fail on its merits. However, since the mere filing of the
motion makes the likelihood of a trial this decade look more and more unlikely, Subaru will consider it
a win even when it is denied. But for the administration of justice, it is clearly a loss.
The defendants file a manifestation and the court issues an order to said manifestation 8/25/2015
It is unknown why the defendants would file such a manifestation, as there is no point to it. The court also appears confused and in their order states that there is “no basis to consider the manifestation”.
I am also confused as to why Arcinas & Arcinas states that they are “counsel for Plaintiff” on the last page. While I am sure they would rather switch sides and represent the party that has won every motion filed, I am more than happy with the attorney I have.
Order regarding the motion for reconsideration 10/16/2015
Motor Image files ex-parte motion to set case for pre-trial 11/5/2015
Also note that the previous judge has just retired and we have a new judge. Maybe it was her time, or just maybe she was a little tired of all the baseless motions that are sure to continue. We will never know. Anyway, the new judge approved of the motion and set the case for pre-trial.
Subaru files an answer ad cautelam with compulsory counterclaim 3/11/2016
answer, but is doing so Ad Cautelam (just to be on the safe side). Let’s take a look at the paragraphs here:
This has been ruled on by the court with a finding that this argument “has no merit”. It was then
submitted for reconsideration, with the same outcome. But Subaru just won’t give up. I usually
admire such resolve, but not when it wastes the time of an overburdened court system.
Subaru is saying that we are failing to state a cause of action. Hmmm. I would say we have said our
cause of action at least 20 times by this point. But to be clear –SUBARU, YOU HAVE BREACHED YOUR
WARRANTY COMMITMENTS AND NEED TO PAY ME WHAT IT COST TO REPLACE THE
TURBOCHARGER Of MY SUBARU FORESTER. I suspect that anyone reading this document knows
this by now, but apparently Subaru has yet to get the message.
Boy, this appears to be some type of sick joke. Subaru has been playing this disgusting charade where
we have to figure out who is responsible for the warranty on the car. Yes, it is true that we are playing
a game of “eeny meeny mini moe”, but only because Subaru has handled this lawsuit like a whodunit
game. Autosales and Aftersales (AACI) was recently added because based on everything that has
been determined at point in the lawsuit, they appear to be responsible. To be honest, we still do not
know for sure. Maybe if Subaru just stated in one of their numerous filings that ________ (fill in the
blank) company is responsible for warranty claims, we could end this game once at for all. But of
course, that is unlikely to happen.
What the F____? What our cause of action? How about FIX THE CAR! OK, too late for that. THEN
PAY WHAT IT COST ME TO GET IT FIXED WHEN YOU REFUSED TO HONOR THE WARRANTY. I’m quite
sure we’ve said that already, but I’ll say it again, Ad Cautelam.
It should not be construed that I am in way ridiculing the attorneys for Subaru. I have met them many times
and my opinion of them is that they are very knowledge, and in general, excellent attorneys. Their client, as
I am sure you can see by now, is quite a different story.
An attorney does what the client asks (within legal bounds obviously). While I do not know for sure
the instructions that Subaru gave this legal team, I would guess it was something to the effect of:
“Do whatever it takes, file whatever it takes, make whatever arguments you can, to drag this out
as long as possible, and make it so expensive that nobody will ever try this again”.
Since these lawyers are well above the shenanigans that we see in this and many other filings, one can only
conclude that were instructed to act this way. In fact, I would even go as far as to say that if I had the type
of sick mentality that the executives of Subaru had, and I was looking to make life as difficult as possible for
my adversary in a legal dispute, then this legal team would be my first choice. They may even be good at
winning lawsuits (ones that are winnable), but they clearly saw that winning this one was not possible given
the facts of the case. A trial would therefore be the outcome they would want to avoid at all costs.
Motor Image files their pre-trial brief 3/15/2016
Motor Image files a motion to suspend pre-trial 3/22/2016
based on technicalities which have no bearing at all on pre-trial. But this is well in line with their “delay
at all costs” strategy.
Plaintiff files amended pre-trial brief 3/29/2016
Subaru files a motion to resolve 4/1/2016
The tactic here is to keep filing motions, requests for reconsideration and appeals, and then say that the case cannot move forwarded until their filings are resolved. However, if the court allowed that then this case would go on forever without ever being resolved. Subaru would love that but it is scary to think what would happen to our court system if such a strategy ever succeeded.
Motor Image files their amended Pre-trial brief 4/5/2016
The court orders mediation 4/11/2016
courts hope to avoid a time consuming trial and have found that many cases such as these are resolved
Mediation is by its nature confidential. While there are no prohibitions on disclosing what was discussed
during the mediation sessions, nothing regarding mediation can be admitted into any proceeding.
I will not go into exactly what was discussed during the mediation sessions as I do not believe that would
be appropriate. I will however mention the “remarks” section on the mediators report as that
document is public record. Here, the mediator states:
“Defendant propose to pay actual damage but complainant rejected the same and claims
payment of actual damage plus 250,00O pesos attorney’s fee.”
This is an accurate summation of the mediation proceedings. We asked for the costs to replace the
turbocharger and towing fee, plus 250,000 pesos towards my attorney’s fees. The defendants offered
only to pay for the turbocharger and towing fee, but not any of my attorney’s fees. Of course, my
attorney’s fees are a lot more than 250,000 pesos, but I was ok with this to get the case resolved.
The big picture here is that if I only accepted actual damages, what would prevent Subaru from refusing
to honor their warranties in the future? If they only pay my actual damages, they have nothing to lose
and will surely do this again. And why would anyone in their right mind ever attempt to get their
warranty honored through the courts if the legal costs would far outweigh the actual damages. This is
why we are in court in the first place. Subaru knows this and figures that no normal person would go to
court over a warranty claim (sorry Subaru, this one particular customer that you so callously ripped
off is not exactly your version of “normal”.)
This is what the dispute is all about. Subaru makes a calculated case to deny warranty claims knowing
full well what the outcome will be if it goes to court (they will delay forever and make sure that a
trial never sees the light of day).
However, I am determined to not allow this disgusting strategy to work in my case. Maybe I will have
huge legal bills with nothing to show for it, but if I can at least expose the tactics of Subaru to
potential purchasers of their cars then this whole process would be a worthwhile endeavor.
The appeals court issues a decision 4/15/2016
much time was spent by the Appeals court in researching and writing this document.
Of course the court rejected each and every argument made by Subaru. All Appellate judges
concurred so the decision was unanimous.
What I find interesting about this decision was how detailed it was. Each and every argument
was meticulously torn apart. Aspiring lawyers may also find this interesting, although I am sure most
others will just go straight to the last page, which states:
“Wherefore, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby dismissed for lack of merit”.
Subaru files a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals 5/11/2016
My warranty claim was denied because even though the owners manual recommended the first oil
change at 12,500 km, according to the warranty, an oil change at 1,600, 5,000 and 10,000 km was
required. We mentioned this not only in our letters, but also in our complaint – the first legal
document filed in this case. Subaru, however, never addressed this in any document up until this point
(instead, only mentioning in vague terms that the car was not maintained). They knew that not only
were their policies laughable, but also likely illegal (which is one of the reasons why I consider Subaru a
criminal enterprise). So what they did instead is try their best to find another reason why the warranty
was denied. And since I never received a denial in writing, they could claim that the warranty was
denied for any reason that they could now think of. So, to get this case dismissed, what did Subaru try?
- There was a mysterious second owner of the car that took the car racing, with the proof being that the
shocks were changed.
- The car had unauthorized modifications, also submitting as proof the fact that the shocks were
changed (I guess if the tires were changed, that would be a reason also).
- The lawsuit was not filed within two days of the car breaking down. They attempted to support this
wild requirement with case law that had nothing to do with the issue.
- The case had not been filed against the right companies. So who is the right company? They just told
us to continue to play eenie meey mynee mo (their exact words).
- Make counter claims against me for millions of pesos, hoping to scare me into dropping the case
(surprise surprise, that didn’t work.)
- That this was some type of extortion scheme. And their proof for this one? Well, because I wanted my
- So many different minor technicalities, I could not even begin to list them here.
So here we are. Nothing has worked. They made these claims to the trial judge. When denied, they
asked the judge to reconsider. When denied again, they appealed. And when the appeal was denied,
they filed the document we have here, which is asking the Court of Appeals to reconsider. But if this
does not work, they will only have the Supreme Court to avoid a trial.
So they take a risk. In Paragraph 4.2, they state that since I admitted that I did not change the oil at
1,600, 5,000, and 10,000 km, the warranty was not valid. Easy to miss, but up until this point
they had never admitted that these onerous oil changes were a warranty requirement. Wow, they
must be really desperate to avoid a trial. But will it work?
So there you have it. If you buy a Subaru, throw out the owners manual and you had better make
an appointed in about a month for your first 10,000 peso oil change.
Comment to Subaru's Motion for Reconsideration 7/25/16
Appeals. Considering this is about the 8th filing regarding the same issues, there should be no
surprise that there is nothing new here. I will just highlight two of the points made by my attorney:
- Upon perusal of the subject Motion for Reconsideration, it can be readily seen that the arguments
set forth in the same are merely rehashes of arguments that both the public respondent and this
Honorable Court, not to mention the private respondent, have negated at length on several
- Despite these attempts to educate petitioner on its ignorance of basic legal principles, petitioner
insists on wasting the time of this Honorable Court by stretching these proceedings beyond its
logical end, and to even suggest that this Honorable Court exceed its mandate under the law.
The attorney then goes on to tear apart the same unsupported and irrelevant arguments that Subaru
has made over and over again, always being rejected by the courts.
The Court of Appeals issues a resolution 10/5/2016
rare but it succeeds, like……….never. The court states that:
“….the arguments raised therein are a mere rehash of the arguments raised in the
Petition of Certiorari”
Subaru rehashing arguments? Filing motions they are sure to lose? By now there should be no need to
Anyway, the motion was denied for lack of merit and all three judges concurred.
Supreme Court Petition 10/25/16
Unlike the lower courts, continuously petitioning the Supreme court to delay things is not something
you do (assuming the attorney wants to stay an attorney). Also, making every argument you can
think of and hoping that something will stick is also not advisable when petitioning this court. You
petition once during pre-trial, pick the one or two best arguments you have, and go into great detail.
Hence, the seventeen page pleading we have here.
I could simply state that there is nothing new here (there isn’t) and leave it at that, but since this is a
petition to the Supreme court, I will analyze the two arguments that Subaru puts forth. Keep in mind
that these two arguments, taken from many arguments made up until this point, are what Subaru
considers to be their best. When you consider how weak they really are, it puts into perspective how
bad the other arguments must have been.
1) Here is where they think that they can get this case dismissed on a technicality. In any lawsuit there
are always technicalities in play. The smallest irregularity has the potential to get a lawsuit
dismissed. However, courts always look at the circumstances of the technicality otherwise no lawsuit
ever filed would make it to trial. In this case, they are saying that we failed to state a cause of action
against Subaru. In other words, we never told Subaru what they did wrong or what we wanted. At
first glance, this would seem ridiculous. Obviously we told them that they did not honour their
warranty and we wanted to be compensated for the cost of replacing the turbo charger. But the key
point here is the identity of “them”. It had always been difficult to determine responsibility for the
warranty, as I have mentioned several times before. I ask for my warranty to be honored by the
local authorized dealer but am denied. I complain to the manager of the dealership, but I’m just
ignored. I request assistance from the head of Subaru for all of South East Asia, and get a nasty
letter in response. I even write letters to multiple individuals at Subaru in
Japan, and receive a response to the effect of “don’t waste our time”.
Their point is that I never asked Motor Image Pilipinas or Benedicto Arcinas, two of the
respondents to this lawsuit, what I wanted. Keep in mind that according to Subaru neither of those
two entities are responsible for the warranty anyway (it appears to be Autosales and Aftersales).
Subaru also goes on and on regarding a lot of their silly claims that have nothing to with this key
argument, hoping to sway the Supreme Court. For example, they mention how the car was not
properly maintained. This is not only irrelevant to their argument, but is something that should be
resolved in a trial anyway.
In summation, they are hoping that their carefully crafted use of proxies, specifically designed to
result in this type of technicality, will work.
2) With their first argument, at least I can agree that maybe they got us on a technicality, even though
it is clearly a long shot that a case would be dismissed based on such a minor issue. But this second
argument is just pathetic, pure and simple. They claim that my turbocharger failed two days before
the warranty expired, and because this lawsuit was filed more than two days after that fact, the case
should be dismissed. You don’t need to be lawyer to know that it is not possible to prepare and file
a lawsuit in two days. And even if it was, it took more than two days for Subaru to deny my
warranty claim anyway. And this is the second best argument they can make to the Supreme Court?
To make this argument they reference established case law, specifically:
Isidro vs. Nissan Motors Philippines
Engineering & Machinery Cortp. vs. Court of Appeals
Jaime D. Ang vs. Court of Appeals
Carlos B. De Guzman vs. Toyota Cubao
Natividad Villostas vs. Court of Appeals
Moles v: IAC
Republic vs. Marsman
Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc., vs. S.R. Farms, Inc.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
Feliciano vs. Canoza
With such a long list of established case law, you may be forgiven for thinking they have something
here. Well they don’t. I researched all of the 10 cases referenced above, but I will focus here on just
the two cases that relate to car companies. Since Nissan and Toyota well known reputable companies
(as opposed to Subaru), I think you may find it interesting what they are all about.
With the Nissan case, the plaintiff had a car that developed a problem long after the warranty expired.
This has nothing to do with having to file a case before a warranty expires, but everything to do with
having a problem that occurred well after the warranty ended. Basically, Nissan was saying that the
warranty expired so why should they fix the car for free, while the plaintiff was saying they should.
Nissan was correct on this one.
The Toyota case is even more irrelevant. Did Toyota really deny a warranty claim here? Hardly. In
fact, this is a case that has to do with an implied warranty, not an express warranty that my Subaru
had. In case you do not know the difference between an implied and an express warranty, let me
explain. If you buy something and the seller gives you a warranty, that is an express warranty. If you
buy something and do not receive a warranty, then you still receive an implied warranty. For
example, if you buy a car that has the wrong torque converter installed, then you may have an implied
warranty. The implied warranty being that the car has a problem that the seller knew about, or
should have known about, and the seller is therefore responsible for any damages that arise from this
problem. In the Toyota case, Toyota sold a one year old (but new) car that did not have a warranty.
Two years later, the engine failed. The courts held that there was an implied warranty, but that
implied warranty was only for one year. Clearly, Toyota did not have any responsibility here. But
more importantly, this case has nothing to do with filing a lawsuit before a warranty expired, and
everything to do with a problem arising after an implied warranty expires.
As for the other 8 cases, not only do they not involve the issue at hand, but since they do not involve
car companies, I think they will just bore the reader (assuming you are not bored already). But if you
are interested, most of them are available for review online.
So why would Subaru make such weak arguments to the Supreme Court? It is clear. They may be
weak, but it is all they have. Not only do they not have a winning argument, but they don’t have any
strong arguments either.
Motor Image files yet another motion to dismiss 10/28/2016
Anyway, looking for any opening they can find, Subaru files another Motion to Dismiss. If we regularly missed hearings or had no reason for missing this one, there is a small possibility that a motion such as this could succeed. However, considering the circumstances, Subaru knows that there is no possible way they could win this motion. But if your strategy is to delay, delay, and delay, then filing this memo is a given.
While the motion was ultimately denied, it resulted in multiple court filings totaling 20 pages (not including notices of serving, minutes, certifications, etc) and a delay of the proceedings for 4 months. Such a pathetic waste of time, court resources and money, for no valid reason whatsoever. Subaru’s strategy is working, but at what cost?
The Supreme court of the Philippines issues a Resolution 12/07/2016
“After a judicious review of the records, the court resolved to DENY the instant petition”
“Petitioners failed to show why a petition for certiorari should be granted given that they still have another remedy, i.e., to present their Defenses during trial”
Exactly. Why won’t Subaru just present their case at trial? Because not only will they lose, but because when they do lose, the judgment becomes proof of their fraudulent warranty policies.
More delays. More expense. Maybe they just think that the Supreme Court has nothing better to do with their time.
The court orders the case dismissed 8/16/2017
or 5) met with the judge to discuss the case.
This was the third judge on the case, and she appeared quite mad. She brought the two case file binders
that at this point totaled about a 1000 pages. She made it very clear that the length of time and the
amount of resources spent on this case was unacceptable. Her exact words were, heard by everyone in
the room, was “I have very important cases including murders and rapes” and went on to detail how the
court system had a large backlog and attorneys should consider this before filing motions. She was very
careful to not pick out the attorneys for either the plaintiff or defendants, although in my opinion she
was clearly aiming her ire at the defendants as they were responsible for almost every one of the delays
She also explained to me that we were still in the very early stages of this case, and if the
attorneys continued their strategy it was possible that this could go on for many more years.
She then explained that since the amount that can be sought in small claims court has now been raised
to 200,000 pesos, this was perhaps the best option for the case. She went on to say that she
was considering dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, although she indicated (indirectly, just my
opinion) that she would not do so unless all parties supported such an order. She was clearly
cognizant that all litigants have a right to their day in court. My attorney then requested some time
alone to discuss this option in private, which we did.
My attorney explained to me that he was quite certain that such an order would not stand since the issue
of jurisdiction had already been ruled upon by a previous judge. In addition, this and many other grounds
for dismissal were all rejected by the appeals court, as well as the Supreme Court. However, if
neither party appeals the decision it would be final. Basically, all orders by the court, regardless of
merit, stand unless a party to the case appeals.
My attorney wanted to continue the case and even appeal if we had to. I was surprised by this because
he was aware that I was only able to pay a relative token amount towards the legal billings which
were very high at this point (just look the case history). However, he was not concerned. He felt he had
a duty to fight this case on my behalf, regardless of my ability to pay. He knew how important this case
was not only for me, but for the many other consumers in the Philippines being ripped off on a daily
basis by companies such as Subaru.
I certainly appreciated my attorney’s offer, but having him work for many years on this case with
minimal compensation would be a selfish act on my part. And how about all the important cases
that are backlogged? Murders and rapes? My lawsuit seemed a lot less righteous if it was
progressing at the expense of far more important cases.
If I decide to continue, the next stage in this case would be small claims court. With this option, I will
be out an amount of money greatly exceeding what I am seeking because legal bills cannot be
recovered in Small Claims Court. And my attorney will also not be fully compensated for all the work he
has done that I have been unable to pay for. I was quite conflicted.
While part of me wanted to continue the fight, at the same time I felt that after 5 years it was best to put
this behind me.
So I made a decision that we should tell the judge that we would support whatever order she felt was
best. None of the other attorneys present had an issue with this (obviously). She then wrote the order
to dismiss that same day.
I really tried, but even after 6 months, the feeling that these crooks were getting away with it just would
not go away. I felt I had taken the easy way out and that nothing good had come out of this. There was
even this nagging feeling that synchronicity was at play here, and continuing the fight just had to be done.
And what if Subaru had not learned anything and was still doing this to other unsuspecting customers.
Re-filing in small claims court is not something I wanted to do, but it needed to be done.
I figured I’ll re-file, share my story on-line, and hopefully potential purchasers of Subaru cars will be able
to make an informed decision before buying a car from such a dishonourable company. Unfortunately,
the reality is that many people will have little interest about how a large, faceless company such as
Subaru rips people off. Maybe I can’t make everyone care, but I can make sure everybody
knows. And I certainly will.
AND PLEASE REMEMBER. WHATEVER YOU DO, NEVER BUY A SUBARU!
Motor Image Municipal Court Filing 10/12/2018
analysis of the Order to Dismiss, this was the best solution to combat Subaru’s never ending barrage of
motions. There are no motions allowed using the small claims process, therefore, a speedy trial is all
but assured. There is no hope to recoup previous legal fees, but as long as it is possible to prove the
criminal activity of Subaru and Motor Image, it is a worthwhile endeavour. In addition, it would be
nice to get Motor Image to finally pay me for the cost to replace my turbocharger.
Municipal Court Order 10/24/2018
After 5 years pursuing this case in the Regional Trial Court it was resolved that they have no jurisdiction and that the Municipal court has jurisdiction. However, the Municipal has now stated that they have no jurisdiction and this case should be handled by the Regional Trial Court. Subaru has so perverted the Philippine court system that no court in the country has jurisdiction over the crimes they commit and they can continue issuing worthless warranties without worrying about their day in court.
Good job Subaru, you win! I think I will write one final letter where I tell them what I think of them, and then call it a day. I’ll make sure that the letter is posted as soon as I get it written and translated.
Letter to Fumiaki Hayata and Hiroki Kurihara 11/26/2018
With both the Regional and Municipal court cases are over, you might be thinking “what is the point of
yet another leter to Tokyo?’ While I certainly don’t expect any meaningful response, I just wanted to
make it clear who the two Subaru executives are that are most responsible for Subaru’s polcies and
conduct. And while there will no be any more legal filings (at least not initiated by me), my efforts to
convince people to ‘never buy a Subaru’ is certainly not over.
Japanese Translations of a couple of letters sent to Subaru in Tokyo
To ensure that Subaru knew exactly what was going on, I translated a couple a couple of key letters to Japanese before mailing them to Tokyo.