Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Iloilo City MARIO A. BRAZAS, Plaintiff, Civil Case No.

_______________ versus

ABC Transportation Company, Defendant, X-----------------------------------X

A N S W E R
WITH

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW, the Defendant, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:
1. That Defendant ADMITS the averments in paragraph 1 of the complaint with

regard to the personal circumstances of both parties.

2. That Defendant ADMITS only that on December 1, 2012, at around 8:30 a.m.,

along General Luna St., Plaintiff rode in one of the taxis operated by Defendant, as cited in paragraph 2 of the complaint. Defendant specifically DENIES the rest of the allegations in paragraph 2 of the complaint.
3. That Julio Gomez, the driver of said taxi and employee of Defendant, instructed

Plaintiff to fasten his seatbelt as Plaintiff was sitting at the front seat with the driver. However, Plaintiff did not heed the drivers instruction despite a second and third reminder which otherwise could have surely prevented Plaintiffs injury had he followed such instructions.
4. That prior to having hit the electric post, the driver was compelled by Plaintiff to

drive at breakneck speed, in spite of drivers apprehension, because Plaintiff was in a hurry to catch his flight at the airport.
5. That due to aforesaid compulsion by Plaintiff, the driver, who was at a fast

speed at the instance of the Plaintiff, was greatly disturbed and troubled of the Plaintiffs continuing insistence to drive faster although the taxi was already running at a fast speed. Owing to the Plaintiffs insistencies, which troubled and disturbed the driver, the untoward incident happened.

6. That Omnis consensus tollit errorrem is an age old maxim or legal principle

that means Every consent removes error. It also means Consent always removes the effect of error. In the instant case, Plaintiff did not just give his consent. Plaintiff was insisting which insisting, caused the bumping of a post. Volenti non fit injuria is also an old-age legal principle that means He who consents cannot receive an injury. In other words, granting that the Plaintiff suffered damages, said damages were through his own fault. He who suffers damage through his own fault is not considered as suffering damage or He who suffers a damage by his own fault, has no right to complain(Quod quis ex culpa sua damnum sentit non intelligitur damnum sentire).
7. That there was not a single bystander in sight and, in fact, nobody helped

during the accident.

8. That the prayer for reimbursement for all hospital expenses and to Plaintiffs

salary for one week cannot, by any stretch of ones imagination, be more than the amount of 300,000.00, which amount is under the original exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC).
9. That Defendant, through counsel, moves for the dismissal of the complaint on

the ground that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action which is capable of pecuniary estimation.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that the complaint be dismissed with costs against the Plaintiff.

Other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

City of Iloilo, Philippines, February 25, 2012.

By:

Counsel for the Defense 12 Washington Street, Jaro, Iloilo City