Legal and Judicial Forms

Demand
Letters
Advance Legal Writing | Page | 1
FRIENDLY DEMAND LETTER
February 4, 2013
Jenny Aguilar
1059 Samar St.
Sampaloc, Metro Manila
Dear Leah,
It feels like such a long time since the last time I saw you.
I know it's only been several weeks since I saw you. So far my
summer has been great!
I spend my all my weekends at the beach. I am getting a
nice tan and you can no longer say I am paler than you. I have
been playing lots of basketball, surfing and building a nice
collection of sea shells. Just this past weekend I took second
place in a sandcastle building contest!
On the weekdays I work. I am an accounting officer in a
bank. It is good. It is a combination of the two things I love
most, numbers and money. The pay is great and I love the job
so much.
I hope the summers been going well for you too. Theres
only a month and a half left for me to transfer to United
States. Would you like to meet up some time before school
starts?
Your Friend,
Peter Paul O. Calusa
INQUIRY LETTER
The Virtual Community Group, Inc.
17 Park Road
Rural Town, NH
February 4, 2013
Anna Smith
Executive Director
Xavier Foundation
555 S. Smith St. Washington, TDO. 22222
Dear Ms. Smith,
I am writing to inquire whether the Xavier Foundation
would invite a proposal from the Virtual Community Group,
Inc., requesting an investment of P50,000 per year over two
years to support our Enterprise 2000 initiative. This grant
would provide part of the funds needed for us to train at least
1200 low-income entrepreneurs in rural New Hampshire in the
computer skills they need to create sustainable businesses as
we enter the twenty-first century. Your literature indicates that
the Xavier Foundation is searching for innovative ideas to
improve the lives of the rural poor; we believe Enterprise 2000
falls well within your area of interest.
Information technologies are a promising solution to one
of the primary obstacles facing the small rural enterprise: the
geographic distances which inhibit networking with other

businesses, and which segregate them from a larger
marketplace. The Internet and other networks are now making
it possible for entrepreneurs even in the most remote locations
to communicate and do business on a region-wide, national,
or even international basis. Working in conjunction with other
organizations, Enterprise 2000 gives program participants
technical skills training adapted to individual need; and, in
collaboration with organizations which recondition and
redistribute used computers, we also assure that they obtain
the necessary computer hardware, at low or no cost.
We believe that broadly-implemented technical skills
programs such as Enterprise 2000 have the potential to
transform the lives of many struggling entrepreneurs, and
change the economic landscape of impoverished rural
communities. Unlike many poverty alleviation initiatives, all of
the Virtual Community Group programs are predicated on the
assumption that these entrepreneurs already have 90% of
what it takes to compete in the marketplace -- intelligence,
ambition, initiative, and talent. After two years of
experimentation and program development, the Virtual
Community Group has fashioned a superb, easily replicable
model in Enterprise 2000, and established a high degree of
credibility among community groups, policy makers, and
funders. With your support, we can make that 10% difference
in the lives of these hard-working people and the future of our
rural communities.
Please feel free to call me with any questions. I look
forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,

Executive Director
DEMAND LETTER
(B.P. 22)
February 4, 2013
Jenny Aguilar
1059 Samar St.
Dear Ms. Jenny Aguilar,
Your check made payable to Security Bank Corporation
in the amount of Php. 1,000,000.00 has been returned to us
for insufficient funds. The bank will not allow us to redeposit
the check since it has already been presented on two
occasions.
Would you please bring the amount of the check, plus

the P5,000.00 fee for our service charge for returned checks, to
the manager's office at:
Security Bank Corporation
6776 Ayala Avenue, Makati City
We must ask that this amount of P 1,000,000.00 be paid
by 7 of August, 2012 in cash, certified check, or money order.
th
If you have any questions, you can contact me at the

above telephone number during office hours. Thank you.
Sincerely,

Executive Director
DEMAND LETTER
(Collection of a Sum of Money)
February 4, 2013
Jenny Aguilar
1059 Samar St.
Dear Jenny Aguilar,
How can we try to persuade you to pay your delinquent
account?
We have tried many suggestions for extending the

payment period, for making the monthly payments smaller, for
getting help from lenders, and for at least discussing this
matter with us. Now we have exhausted our own resources.
We have to seek help from outside our own company. We
have consulted with our collection agency and they told us
that we have several avenues available to us for collecting our
money. We are very uncomfortable with the thought of going to
court and, therefore, hope you resolve this outstanding
balance today.
To avoid legal action, we must have your check for P
1,000,000.00 on or before August 28, 2012.
Sincerely,

Executive Director
DEMAND LETTER
(Ejectment)
Blk. 1 Lot 29, The Legian,

Carsadang Bago,
Imus Cavite City
Cell no. 0919-5716784
February 4, 2013
Marie Anne Real
666 Hell Drive
Sampaloc, Manila
Tel. No. 888-0000
Dear Madam Marie Anne,
You are hereby informed to vacate the premises that you
are currently residing in and which is the legal property of Mr.
Peter Paul O. Calusa. You have been living in his house in the
past 32 years with causing any unrest or discomfort for the
property owner.
The property, subject matter is the residential house and
lot located at 666 Hell Drive, Sampaloc, Manila, with an area
of 150 sq. m. and covered by TCT No. 123456789 registered in
the name of Mr. Peter Paul O. Calusa in the instant ejectment
case. Attached as Annex A hereof is a certified true copy of
the said TCT No. T-87545 to prove the ownership in fee simple
by plaintiff A of the subject property.
It was solely out of the compassion and tolerance of Mr.
Peter Paul O. Calusa which enabled all of the defendants to
temporarily reside at his paraphernal property. As members of
the same family, complainant willingly allowed the defendants
to briefly reside therein together with her minor child.
Now Mr. Peter Paul O. Calusa, the true and legal owner of
the said property wants to recover the full possession of the
property that he inherits to his father Mr. Romualdo Calusa
which is depriving him of his right by the other heirs. To
remedy the above situation are, you must do the following:
1. To make the necessary renovation or maintenance to

bring the property in its original condition (List what
tenant must do to remedy the breach);
2. To settle any unpaid accountabilities with the owner of
the property;
3. If you fail to meet the terms, the undersigned may initiate
eviction proceedings against you and/or exercise other
available rights and remedies under the law.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
DEMAND LETTER
(Estafa)
February 4, 2013
Ron Ron R. Siervo
3rd F, Security Bank Bldg.
Ayala Ave., Makati City
Cell no: 0923-9700123
Dear Mr. Siervo,
This is in Re: Insufficient Check #1556 dated June 30,
2012 drawn on Metropolitan Bank & Trust co.
Amount of Check: P 1,000,000.00
Finance Charge and Service Fee: P 10,000.00
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE: P 1,010,000.00
Demand is hereby made upon you for the immediate
payment of the sum owing. As a final courtesy to you, we
demand payment within 30 days from receipt of this letter,
affording you this final opportunity to pay these insufficient
funds check.
Should you fail to settle this matter within thirty (30)

days from receipt of this letter, we will, at our option, bring
legal action against you for the full amount allowed under the
Revised Penal Code, under the Republic of the Philippines.
I have not yet contacted the City Prosecutors office. If we
can resolve this matter, this can be avoided. Also, your
business credit rating will not be affected by this if resolved
within 30 days.
Sincerely,

DEMAND LETTER
(Support [R.A. 9262])
4 February 2013
Ron Ron R. Siervo
666 Hell Drive
Diliman, Quezon City
Tel. No. 888-3500
Dear Mr. Siervo:
My Client Anne Real experienced and has been
traumatized by your actions in your work place at U.L.O.L.
Company in Makati City.
Such actions may be considered acts of lasciviousness
and violation of Republic Act 9262 AN ACT DEFINING
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN,
PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS,
PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
My client is demanding for the amount of Five Hundred

Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for damages and settlement, if
you do not pay, my client will be inclined to take legal action in
the matter.
Very truly yours,
Atty. Peter Paul O. Calusa

Attorney-at-law
Criminal
Proceedings
PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER (R.A. 9262)

(Complaint Affidavit)
Republic of the Philippines)

Makati City
) s.s.
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, Regina Dela Cruz, Filipino, of legal age, married to
Pedro Santos, and a resident of #1 Ayala Avenue Makati City,
Philippines, after being sworn to in accordance with law,
depose and state:
1 That I am lawfully married to Pedro Santos supported
by marriage contract hereby attached as Annex A;
2 That Pedro Santos currently resides at our conjugal

house at #1 1 Ayala Avenue Makati City;
3 That sometime in the evening of February 1,2, and 3,
2012, Pedro Santos wound, beat, assaulted and
physically abused herein undersigned with threatening
words to repeat such acts if undersigned wont comply
with his request of transferring the lot owned by
Regina Cruz located at #3 Ayala Avenue Makati City,
which I inherited from my deceased parents, to be his
exclusive property;
4 That testimonials from our neighbors and police
blotter confirmed that on such dates such incident
occurred attached Annex F;
5 That Dr. John Doe, the shift doctor at St Lukes
Hospital described such physical abuse to be serious
physical injury and as a consequence of the heaving
beating I lost my eyesight permanently. A medical
certificate was issued by said hospital signed by the
shift doctor, hereby attached as Annex B;
6 That because of the injury suffered I was dismissed
from my work at BPI as a teller, letter attached
Annexed C;
7 That a Complaint was filed under RTC Branch 06
Eight Judicial Regional on February 13, 2012 for
crime against Art 263 of RPC or Serious Physical
Injury, filed Complaint attached Annex D;
8 I am therefore executing this Complaint-Affidavit to
request the court to prohibit the respondent from
threatening to commit or committing, personally or
through another, any of the acts mentioned in Sec. 5
of R.A. 9262;
TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have hereunto
set my hand this 15th day of February, 2012 at Makati City,
Philippines.
REGINA DELA CRUZ

Affiant-Complainant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 15th day of
February 2012, affiant exhibiting to me herDrivers License no.
987654321 issued on January 5, 2012, at Makati City.
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that I have personally examined the
affiant and I am satisfied that he understood this complaintaffidavit and that he voluntarily executed the same.
ALFREDO DE
OCAMPO
Assistant City Prosecutor

(Counter-Affidavit)

Makati City
) s.s.
COUNTERAFFIDAVIT
I, Pedro Santos, of legal age, married, Filipino and with

residence address at #1 Ayala Avenue Makati City, Philippines,
after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, do
hereby depose and state, that:
1. I was charged with Serious Physical Injury under Art
263 of R.P.C. and Violation of Violence against women
and children attached Annex E;
2. That on February 15, 2012, a complaint-affidavit for
permanent protection order was filed by herein
petitioner;
3. I deny such allegations of the petitioner that I forced
her to transfer the lot mentioned in complaintaffidavit;
4. That on the said nights, Regina Dela Cruz was
suffering from traumatic depression on the death of
her parents on February 1, 2012;
5. That the physical injuries inflicted by respondent
where defensive acts against the aggression of
petitioner for unknown reason;
6. That petitioner was seen wandering the streets of our
village nights before the three incidents by security
guard, Pedro Penduko, to be wearing only pajamas and
seem to be lost in a village she lived for almost twenty
(20) years;
7. That on last evening of the trilogy, my defensive stance

turned into an accident when the muriatic acid she
was holding poured to her face;
8. That the police officer arrested me on that same night;
9. That I filed for bail a day after the incident;
10. That physical violence inflicted on the petitioner was
more of defensive act;
11. That there is no need for any protection order to be
issued because I do not intend to hurt or cause in
harm to the petitioner in whatever form;
TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have hereunto
set my hand this 18th day of February, 2012 at Makati City,
Philippines.
PEDRO SANTOS
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN, to before me in Makati City,
this 18th day of February 2012, affiant with Residence
Certificate No. 0011281984 issued at Makati City, on January
5, 2012.
ATTY. JAIME I. CORDEZ JR.

Notary Public
Until December 31, 2012
PTR No. 1234567 1/12/12
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2012.

(Reply)
Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the City Prosecutor
Makati City
Regina Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
I.S. No. B-456 789
For: Protection Order
(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
- versus -
Pedro Santos
Respondent.
x------------------------x
REPLY
COMES NOW, Regina Dela Cruz, unto the Honorable
Prosecutor, most respectfully aver and state:
1. That in view of the reply the counter-affidavit
submitted by the respondent in I. S. No. B-456-789
I hereby reiterate and incorporate herein my
allegations in my earlier complaints-affidavit filed
against the answering respondent;
2. That the argument raised by the respondent in the

counter affidavit is that his actions are not criminal
in nature but are defensive in nature;
3. That there can be no conclusion other than the fact
that the respondent willfully, unlawfully, feloniously
committed serious physical injuries against the
petitioner;
4. That the rest of the allegations in respondents
counter affidavit are irrelevant and immaterial and
are evidently designed to release the accused from
any criminal liability;
5. That the allegations of the accused that the
petitioner have lost sanity thru the statement of the
security guard was unsubstantiated as there were
no statement from the proper authority to validate
that indeed the petitioner is insane during the time
of the incident;
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby prayed
that the corresponding information for a violation of R.A. 9262
be promptly filed with the proper court.
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this 25th day of February, 2012 at Makati City, Philippines.
REGINA DELA CRUZ

Complainant

February, 2012, at the City of Makati, Philippines, and I
hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and
that I am satisfied that she voluntarily executed and
understood her affidavit.

Notary Public
PTR No. 234567 1/12/12
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2012.

(Rejoinder)

Makati City
Regina Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. B-456 789

(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
Pedro Santos
Respondent.
x------------------------x
REJOINDER
COMES NOW, Pedro Santos, unto the Honorable
Prosecutor, and by way of a Rejoinder, most respectfully aver
that:
1. This Rejoinder is being filed with the Office of the City
Prosecutor considering that Reply filed by the
complainant disregards the fact that the acts
committed by respondent are defensive in nature;
2. Such points to no other conclusion that what
transpired is a self-defense and respondent is not
criminally liable;
3. There appears neither a valid nor a cogent reason to
proceed with the filing of the information as there is
clearly a lack of merit on the case of the complainant.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby prayed
that the instant complaint for a violation of R.A. 9262 be
promptly dismissed.

this 25th day of February, 2012 at Makati City, Philippines.
Pedro Santos
Respondent


Notary Public
PTR No. 234567 1/12/12
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2012.

(Sur-Rejoinder)

Makati City
Regina Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
I.S. No. B-456 789
(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
- versus -
Pedro Santos
Respondent.
x------------------------x
SUR-REJOINDER
COMES NOW the complainant, Regina Dela Cruz,
through counsel, unto the Honorable Prosecutor, and by way
of a Sur rejoinder, respectfully aver and state that:
1. This Sur rejoinder is being filed with the Office of the
City Prosecutor considering that Rejoinder filed by the
respondent disregards the fact that his actions are
criminal in nature and not in any way defensive in
nature.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed that
the Office of the City Prosecutor files the information against
the herein respondent.
Makati City, March 5, 2012.
Respectfully submitted,
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Counsel for Complainant
Roll No. 22344556
PTR No. 22345/01-07-11/Makati City
IBP No. 223456/02-01-11/Makati City
MCLE No. 223456/02-01-11/Makati City
Copy furnished:
Pedro Santos Makati City
#1 Ayala Avenue, Makati City, Philippines

(Motion for Clarificatory Questions)

Makati City
Regina Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. B-456 789

(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
Pedro Santos
Respondent.
x------------------------x
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATORY QUESTIONS
Accused Pedro Santos, through the undersigned counsel
and unto the Honorable Prosecutor, most respectfully avers:
1 That he is the accused in the above-entitled case of the

crime of violation of RA 9262 committed against
Regina Dela Cruz;
2 That the Complaint-Affidavit contains several matters
that are vague and may jeopardize the Constitutional
rights of the accused.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the
respondent be allowed to ask clarificatory questions upon the
complainant and the complainants counsel.
April 10, 2012. Makati City
ALEXES JOSEPH R. BEDIJO

Counsel for the Respondent
Roll No. 12344556
NOTICE OF HEARING
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Makati City
Dear Maam,
Greetings!
Please take notice that on Friday, April 10,

Makati City Regional Trial Court Branch 07 at 9
or as soon thereafter as counsel can be
undersigned will submit the foregoing motion for
of the court.
2012, at the
oclock a.m.,
heard, the
the approval
Makati, Philippines. April 5, 2012

Roll No. 12344556

(Resolution)

Makati City
Regina Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. B-456 789

(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
Pedro Santos
Respondent.
x------------------------x
RESOLUTION
SUBMITTED for resolution is a complaint for violation of
R.A. 9262 or the allegedly committed during February 1, 2,
and 3,2012, at Makati City, supported by the sworn statement
of the complainant and her witness and photocopies of the
police report of the incident.
In his sworn statement, the complainant alleges that,
during the afore-stated period of time and place, the
respondent, motivated by greed, anger and evil motives against
the said complainant by means of grabbing her and punching
her in the face, in the stomach and in the thigh without any
means from the complainant to defend herself.
However, the respondents claim that, the filing of the
complaint does not carry any criminal liability since the act
was performed as a defensive act.
In the evaluation of the complainants evidence, it is clear
that the physical abuse done by respondent are unlawful and
felonious. Respondent without any clear proof that
complainant is the aggressor doesnt give him any defense for
his liability.
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the undersigned finds
sufficient cause to hold the respondent PEDRO SANTOS to
stand for trial for VIOLATION OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMAN AND CHILDREN as defined and punished under RA
9262.
Makati City, March 20, 2012.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
Approved:
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor

(Information)

Makati City
Regina Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. B-456 789

(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
Pedro Santos
Respondent.
x------------------------x
INFORMATION
The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor of Makati
City, upon prior written authority of the City Prosecutor,
accuses PEDRO SANTOS, of violation of RA 9262, committed
as follows:
That on February 1,2, and 3, 2012, in Makati City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously forced the complainant to sign a Deed of
Conveyance to transfer ownership of the land she
inherited from her parents into the name of her husband
Pedro Santos, upon denial, respondent physically abused
complainant who is his wife, that happened thrice in a
span of three (3) days. Complainant apparently suffered
significant amount of injury which resulted to her

permanent blindness.
Contrary to law.
Makati City, March 30, 2012
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
Witnesses:
1 Pedro Santos, Jr.
No. 1 Ayala Avenue,
Makati City,
Philippines
BAIL RECOMMENDED: P 50,000.00.

(Affidavit of Desistance Mistaken Identity)

Makati City
) s.s.
AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE
depose and state:
1
I am the Private Complainant in Criminal Case No.

123-456 for VIOLATION OF RA 9262, entitled People
of the Philippines vs. PEDRO SANTOS, which is now
pending before the Regional Trial Court, Makati City,
Branch 07;
2 After a careful evaluation of the facts and

circumstances surrounding the case, I personally and
honestly believe that, due to severe depression and

intoxication for the three night incident, I mistaken my
husband to be another person who apparently in my
mind caused physical abuse to me;
3
I am no longer interested in further prosecuting the

case against the accused;
4 I am not paid, threatened, nor coerce in executing this

affidavit of desistance;
5 I am voluntarily executing this affidavit to attest the
veracity of the foregoing and to move for the dismissal
of the said case against the accused.
this 10th day of April 2012, in the City of Makati.
REGINA DELA CRUZ

Affiant

Notary Public
PTR No. 234567 1/12/12
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2012.

(Affidavit of Desistance Misapprehension of Facts)

Makati City
) s.s.

depose and state:
1. I am the Private Complainant in Criminal Case No.
123-456 for VIOLATION OF RA 9262, entitled
People of the Philippines vs. PEDRO SANTOS, which
is now pending before the Regional Trial Court,
Makati City, Branch 07;
2. After a careful evaluation of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the case, I personally
and honestly believed of my own knowledge that the
respondent attacked me but instead it was a his
defensive act because of my own aggression because
of hallucination which I suffered on those three
separate nights;
3. I am no longer interested in further prosecuting the
4. I am not paid, threatened, nor coerce in executing
this affidavit of desistance;
5. I am voluntarily executing this affidavit to attest the
REGINA DELA CRUZ

Affiant

April 2012, affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax
Certificate No. 987654321 issued on January 5, 2012, at
Makati City.

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567 1/12/12
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2012.

(Motion for the Allowance to Post Bail)

National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Makati City, Branch VII
The People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff,
- versus -
Criminal Case No. 12345

(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
Pedro Santos,
Accused.
x------------------------x
MOTION TO ALLOW ACCUSED TO POST BAIL
COMES NOW accused PEDRO SANTOS, through the
undersigned counsel, and respectfully alleges:
1. That the defendant is in custody for the alleged
violation of RA 9262;
2. That no bail has been recommended for his temporary
release, on the assumption that the evidence of guilt is
strong;
3. That the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is

strong is on the prosecution, and unless this fact is
satisfactorily shown, the defendant may be bailed at
the courts discretion;
4. That the prosecution has not presented substantial
evidence to prove that the guilt is strong but presented
only mere statements from relatives.
WHEREFORE, upon prior notice and hearing, it is
respectfully prayed that the defendant be admitted to bail in
such amount as this Honorable Court may fix.

Counsel for the Accused
Roll No. 12344556
NOTICE OF HEARING
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Dear Prosecutor Fortuno,
Greetings!
Please take notice that on Friday, April 10,

of the court.
2012, at the
oclock a.m.,
heard, the
the approval

Roll No. 12344556
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL
I, Emily Papin, of legal age and having been duly sworn
depose and say:
1. That I am the messenger of Atty. Alexes Joseph R.
Bendijo, counsel for the accused Pedro Santos in the
case
entitled People of the Philippines vs. Pedro
Santos, and that such messenger I served upon the
counsel of adverse party and other parties, the
pleading in said case, as follows:
a. Atty. Alexes Joseph R. Bendijo, served the other
party thru registered mail by depositing the copy in
the post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed
to the party or counsel at his office, with postage
fully prepaid, and with instruction to the
postmaster to return the mail to the sender after
ten days if undelivered, this 5th day of April 2012,
as shown by Registry No. 17 dated April 5, 2012 of
the post office of Makati City
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this

April 5, 2012 at Makati City, Philippines.
Emily Papin
Affiant
April 2012 at Makati City, Philippines, affiant appearing before
me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on January 2, 2012 at
Makati City, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on
April 12, 1995.

Notary Public
PTR No. 234567 1/12/12
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2012.
Copy furnished:
Lourena A. Bundac
Counsel for Regina Dela Cruz
Prosecutor Marienell Fortuno
Makati City Prosecutor

(Motion for the Reduction of Bail)

Plaintiff,

(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
- versus -
Pedro Santos,
Accused.
x------------------------x
MOTION TO REDUCE BAIL
Accused PEDRO SANTOS, through the undersigned
counsel, and respectfully alleges:
1. That the bail for his provisional release has been set at
Php 50,000.00
2. That said defendant is a person whose wage he earns
from ABC Corp amounting to a net of Php 10,000.00 a
month is barely enough to meet even his personal
needs.
WHEREFORE, the accused PEDRO SANTOS respectfully
prays that the court grants this motion to reduce bail to Php
15,000.00 or such amount as the court sees just in
accordance with the circumstances thus presented.

Roll No. 12344556
NOTICE OF HEARING
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings!
Please take notice that on Wednesday, April 15, 2012, at
the Makati City Regional Trial Court Branch 07 at 9 oclock
a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, the
undersigned will submit the foregoing motion for the approval
of the court.

Roll No. 12344556

depose and say:
case
a. Atty. Alexes Joseph R. Bendijo, served the other
postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten
days if undelivered, this10th day of April 2012, as
shown by Registry No. 17 dated April 5, 2012 of the
post office of Makati City
Emily Papin
Affiant
April 12, 1995.

Notary Public
PTR No. 234567 1/12/12
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2012.
Copy furnished:
Lourena A. Bundac

(Motion to Quash Information)

Plaintiff,
- versus -

(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
Pedro Santos,
Accused.
x------------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH
counsel, and respectfully alleges:
1. That he is the accused in the above-entitled case of the

crime of Violation of RA 9262 committed against
Regina Dela Cruz;
2. That the act held as criminal is a defensive act of the
respondent thus doesnt hold liable whatsoever;
3. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense as
previously expounded in the other pleadings related to
this case.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the complaint
and information filed in this case be quashed, with costs de
oficio.

Roll No. 12344556
NOTICE OF HEARING
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings!
of the court.

Roll No. 12344556

depose and say:
case
b. Atty. Alexes Joseph R. Bendijo, served the other

days if undelivered, this 10th day of April 2012, as
Emily Papin
Affiant
April 12, 1995.

Notary Public
PTR No. 234567 1/12/12
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2012.
Copy furnished:
Lourena A. Bundac

(Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and
to Hold in Abeyance the Arraignment of the Accused)

Plaintiff,
- versus -

(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
Pedro Santos,
Accused.
x------------------------x
MOTION FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF
PROBABLE CAUSE AND TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE
THE ARRAIGNMENT OF THE ACCUSED
counsel, and respectfully alleges that:
1. He is the accused in the above-entitled case of the for
Violation OF RA 9262 committed against Regina Dela
Cruz;
2. The facts charged do not constitute an offense as
this case;
3. The act was on an act of self-defense apparently
against the aggression by the complainant;
4. The City Prosecutor made a grave abuse of discretion

when she approved the filing of the Information when
there is evidently no probable cause to hold the herein
accused for the crime she allegedly committed.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this
Honorable Court conduct a determination of probable cause,
pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution and
for the time being, hold in abeyance the arraignment of the
herein accused.

Roll No. 12344556
NOTICE OF HEARING
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings!

of the court.

Roll No. 12344556
depose and say:
case
c. Atty. Alexes Joseph R. Bendijo, served the other

Emily Papin
Affiant
April 12, 1995.

Notary Public
PTR No. 234567 1/12/12
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2012.
Copy furnished:
Lourena A. Bundac

(Motion for Reconsideration of Prosecutors Resolution)

Makati City
Regina Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. B-456 789

(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
Pedro Santos
Respondent.
x------------------------x
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(PROSECUTORS RESOLUTION)
1. He is the accused in the above-entitled case of the
crime of Violation of RA 9262 committed against
Regina Dela Cruz;
2. The evidence presented is not sufficient to justify the
findings of probably cause.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the City
Prosecutor reconsiders his finding of probable cause in the
above titled complaint.

Roll No. 12344556
NOTICE OF HEARING
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings!
of the court.

Roll No. 12344556

depose and say:

case
d. Atty. Alexes Joseph R. Bendijo, served the other
Emily Papin
Affiant
April 12, 1995.

Notary Public
PTR No. 234567 1/12/12
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2012.
Copy furnished:
Lourena A. Bundac

(Appeal to the Office of the President)
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Malacanan, Manila
Pedro Santos,
Appellant,
I.S. No. B-456 789
(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
- versus -
Prosecutor Marienell Fortuno,

Appellee.
x---------------------------------------x
APPEAL
COMES NOW the appellant, through the undersigned
counsel, and hereby allege the following:
I
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The Department of Justice erred when it found probable

cause in the complaint filed by the appellee-complainant when
the evidence produced by the said appellee-complainant is
insufficient to support the findings of the prosecutor.
II
FACTS OF THE CASE
The herein appellant is the respondent for the alleged

violation of RA 9262 which defines violence against women
and children with corresponding criminal penalties. A Motion
for Reconsideration was filed with the City Prosecutor of
Makati City but apparently was denied by the City Prosecutor
without any legal basis provided in their resolution. Thus this
appeal.
III
ARGUMENT
Appellant-respondent argues that the there cannot be

any criminal liability on the part of the respondent as his acts
committed against the complainant were defensive in nature.
IV
ISSUE
Whether or not appellant-respondent should be held for

trial for the commission of the above stated crime.
V
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, appellant-respondent humbly prays that

this Honorable Office reverse the decision of the Department
of Justice and thereby also reversing the finding of the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Tacloban City finding probable cause
against the herein appellant-respondent.

Roll No. 12344556

(Motion for the Issuance of an Alias Warrant of Arrest)

Plaintiff,
- versus -

(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
Pedro Santos,
Accused.
x------------------------x
MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN
ALIAS WARRANT OF ARREST
The undersigned City Prosecutor of Makati respectfully
alleges that:
1. This honorable court issued a warrant of arrest to the
accused, PEDRO SANTOS, dated April 10, 2012.
Attached herewith the copy of warrant of arrest;
2. After the due execution by the PNP Manila West Police
Station the warrant of arrest was not served to the
accused because he cannot be located in the given
address. Attached herewith the return slip and proof of
service made by the Police Officer,PO2 Santiago
Munez, dated April 14,2012;
3. Thus, there is a necessity of placing the respondent
under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the
ends of justice;
4. WHEREFORE, undersigned and prays that after
hearing and examination of this motion, alias warrant
of arrest be issued to bring the accused under custody,
pending completion of preliminary investigation;
5. The undersigned City Prosecutor finds probable cause
to hold the accused for trial to answer for the crime for
which he is herein accused;
6. The herein accused is imminently leaving the territory
and jurisdiction of the Republic of the Philippines
heading to Afghanistan where the Philippines have no

diplomatic ties much more any extradition treaty;
7. The defendant therefore is viewed as a flight risk which
might jeopardize the proper course of the proceedings
of this course and ultimately thwart the ends of
justice;
8. The continued ability of the accused to roam free
poses a danger to the society within his locality.
WHEREFORE, the prosecution respectfully prays that
this court issue an ALIAS Warrant of Arrest against the herein
accused.
April 16, 2012. Makati City.
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City
NOTICE OF HEARING
ALEXES JOSEPH R. BENDIJO
COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED
Dear Atty. Bendijo,
Greetings!
Please take notice that on Friday April 22,
of the court.
2012, at the
oclock a.m.,
heard, the
the approval
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor, Makati
Received by
Atty. Alexes R. Bendijo
Counsel for Accused

(Motion for Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of Court)

Plaintiff,
- versus -

(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
Pedro Santos,
Accused.
x------------------------x
MOTION FOR DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
WITH LEAVE OF COURT
1. That he is the accused in the above-entitled case for
the crime of Violation of RA 9262 against Regina Dela
Cruz;
this case;
3. That the evidence presented where not

validated or certified by proper officials;
properly
4. That the evidence submitted are less substantial to

convict the herein accused of the crime charged against
him.
Honorable Court grants leave to file a demurrer to evidence by
the herein accused.

Roll No. 12344556
NOTICE OF HEARING
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings!

of the court.

Roll No. 12344556

depose and say:
case
e. Atty. Alexes Joseph R. Bendijo, served the other

Emily Papin
Affiant
April 12, 1995.

Notary Public
PTR No. 234567 1/12/12
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2012.
Copy furnished:
Lourena A. Bundac

(Pre-Trial Brief)


Plaintiff,
- versus -

(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
Pedro Santos,
Accused.
x------------------------x
TRIAL BRIEF
PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully submits his Trial
Brief, as follows:
I.
WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN AMICABLE
SETTLEMENT AND POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY SUCH
SETTLEMENT
1.1. Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and
reasonable and a reciprocal manifestation of openness from
defendant, plaintiff is open to the possibility of amicably
settling this dispute.
II.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
2.1. Enjoining the respondent from threatening to

commit or committing further acts of violence against herein
petitioners;
2.2 Ordering the respondent to stay away at a distance of

One Hundred Kilometers (100 Km.) from the petitioners, their
family and household members permanently;
2.3 Ordering respondent to shoulder the medical expense
incurred by petitioner because of the damaged inflicted to be
at P45,000.00;
2.4 Ordering respondent to pay P50,000.00 as
moral damages suffered by petitioner;
2.5 Ordering respondent to provide at least P20,000 for
the basic daily expenses of herein petitioners as a consequence
of the damaged done to her because of the physical harm
inflicted upon her for three weeks.
III.
FACTS AND OTHER MATTERS ADMITTED BY THE

PARTIES
3.1. Plaintiff and defendants admits to Paragraphs 1 and 2 in

so far as it states their personal circumstances
IV.
ISSUES TO BE TRIED
Plaintiff submits that the following issues be put forward:

4.1. Whether or not petitioner will be granted with
protection order under RA 9262;
4.2. Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to damages.
V.
EVIDENCE
Plaintiff intends to present the following witnesses:
5.1 Plaintiff herself, who will testify on the true

circumstances leading to the filing of this suit;
5.2. PEDRO
DELA
CRUZ,
Jr.
who
witnessed
the
incidents.
VI.
RESORT TO DISCOVERY
In order to have a speedy disposition of the case,

plaintiff intends to use the following modes of
discovery:
6.1. Deposition of witnesses;
6.2
Interrogatories to parties.
Makati, April 15, 2012.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
Copy furnished by personal delivery:

Counsel for Accused, Makati City

(Pre-Trial Brief)

Plaintiff,
- versus -

(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
Pedro Santos,
Accused.
x------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
UNDERSIGNED Assistant City Prosecutor hereby
respectfully submits, for purposes of the Pre-Trial hereon,
conformably with Rule 118 of the (2000) Revised Rules on

Criminal Procedure, and sub-paragraph number 1 of
paragraph B of the chapter on Pre-Trial of Administrative
Matter No. 03-1-09-SC, the following Manifestations, Proposals
for Stipulation of Facts and Issues, and Identification of
Evidence for the Prosecution, to wit:
THEORY OF THE PROSECUTION
The theory of the prosecution is premised on the
application of the provisions of the Republic Act 9262 Sec. 5,
on the following circumstances, to wit:
That on February 1,2, and 3, 2012, in Makati City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
forced the complainant to sign a Deed of Conveyance to
transfer ownership of the land she inherited from her parents
into the name of her husband PEDRO SANTOS, upon denial,
respondent physically abused complainant and caused
physical harm to his wife, that happened thrice in a span of
three (3) days. Complainant apparently suffered significant
amount of injury which resulted to her permanent blindness.
PLEA BARGAINING
The Prosecution shall not enter into any plea bargaining
agreement.
PROPOSALS FOR STIPULATION OF FACTS
I. JURISDICTION:
The Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter and the issue of the present case, and on the person of
the accused.
II. IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED:

The accused named in the Information and in the
affidavits of prosecution witnesses is the same accused earlier
arraigned in court.
III. FACTS OF THE CASE:
III-A. That sometime on the night of February 1. 2, and 3,
2012 accused forced his wife to execute a Deed of Conveyance,
to transfer her inherited land in #3 Ayala Avenue, Makati City,
into the name of herein respondent;
III-B. That the complainant thrice refused to execute the
deed despite the physical violence done to her;
III-C. That she was physically abused causing her to lose
her eyesight permanently;
III-D. That because of such incapacity, her employer was
forced to dismiss her therefore losing her source of income;
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION
I. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
EXHIBIT A --- Marriage Contract of Pedro and Regina
Dela Cruz
EXHIBIT B --- Medical Certificate issued by Dr. John Doe
of St Lukes Hospital.
EXHIBIT C --- Dismissal from Employment
EXHIBIT F --- Police report and testimonies from

witnesses.
II. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE:
1. Regina Dela Cruz, the private offended party;
2. Ariben Tan and Hector Lim, neighbors of complainant;
3. Vic Sotto and Joey De Leon, police officers.
4. Pedro Santos, Jr., son of Spouses Cruz
The prosecution hereby reserves the right to present
additional evidence as the need therefore may arise.
ISSUES
WHETHER OR NOT, on said date, time, and place, the
accused, performing the above-mentioned acts, constitute
acts in violation of Sec. 5 par. A of RA 9262.
Makati City, April 25, 2012.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO


(Formal Offer of Evidence)

Plaintiff,
(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
- versus -
Pedro Santos,
Accused.
x------------------------x
FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE
UNDERSIGNED Assistant City Prosecutor respectfully
offers in evidence for the prosecution the following
documentary, physical, and testimonial evidence, to wit:
Dela Cruz
EXHIBIT B --- Medical Certificate issued by Dr. John
Doe of St Lukes Hospital.
witnesses.
THE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE(EXHIBIT F) consists of the
testimonies of witnesses of neighbor (Ariben Tan and Hector
Lim) who apparently saw the incident and police officers (Vic
Sotto and Joey De Leon) who reported to incident.
EXHIBIT A,B, and C are supporting documents that will
prove that they are married, that complainant suffered
tremendous injury and that complainant lost her source of
living.
Exhibit A,B,C,F with all its respective sub-markings,
together with the testimony of said witnesses, are offered for the
identical purpose of showing that on November 1,3 and 10
respondent unlawfully, feloniously and intentionally caused
physical harm to respondent who is his wife.
Furthermore, the prosecution respectfully manifests that
all of the afore-described exhibits/evidence for the prosecution
have been submitted to custody of the Honorable Court.
Makati City, Philippines, April 28, 2012.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO


(Proffer of Evidence)

Plaintiff,
- versus -

(Sec.8, R.A.9262)
Pedro Santos,
Accused.
x------------------------x
PROFFER OF EVIDENCE
UNDERSIGNED Assistant City Prosecutor respectfully files
this proffer of evidence concerning the excluded evidence stated
below, in accordance with Section 40, Rule 133 of the Rules of

Court , to wit:
Dela Cruz
EXHIBIT B --- Medical Certificate issued by Dr. John
Doe of St Lukes Hospital.
witnesses.
THE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE (EXHIBIT F) consists of
the testimonies of witnesses of neighbor (Ariben Tan and Hector
Lim) who apparently saw the incident and police officers (Vic
Sotto and Joey De Leon) who reported to incident.
EXHIBIT A,B, and C are supporting documents that will
prove that they are married, that complainant suffered
tremendous injury and that complainant lost her source of
living.
Exhibit A,B,C,F with all its respective sub-markings,
identical purpose of showing that on November 1,3 and 10
respondent unlawfully, feloniously and intentionally caused
physical harm to respondent who is his wife.
Makati City, Philippines, April 28, 2012.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO

VIOLATION OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22

(Complaint-Affidavit)

Makati City
) s.s.
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, May Perez, Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident
of #2 Mayaman St., Naisahan Village, Makati City, Philippines,
after being sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state:
1. That I know the person of Bal A. Subas, who is a

resident of No. 1 1st Street, Tago Subdivision, Makati
City, Philippines;
2. That sometime in the morning of August 5, 2011, at
Jollibee Ayala Avenue, Makati City, Philippines, the
said Bal A. Subas issued in my favor a Bank of the
Philippine Islands Check No. 123, dated August 5,
2011 in the amount of Php 500,000 as supposed
payment for the loan accommodation, which I have
extended to her;
3. That the said check is drawn against the account of
the said Bal A. Subas at BPI with Account No. 12345678-90;
4. That at the time the said Bal A. Subas issued and
delivered the said check to me, he made the
assurance and representation that the said check is a
good check and would be covered by sufficient funds
when presented for payment;
5. However, when the above-mentioned check was
deposited, the same was dishonored and returned by
the bank on the ground that the same was drawn
against a "CLOSED ACCOUNT". A true and faithful
machine reproduction of the said check is hereto
attached as Annex A;
6. As such, I immediately notified said Bal A. Subas of
the dishonor and return of the said check and
demanded from him that he make good the said check
within five days (5) days from receipt thereof. A true
and faithful machine reproduction of my notice of
dishonor to him is hereto attached as Annex "B";
7. When said Bal A. Subas failed to heed my demands, I
endorsed the said check to my legal counsel who
immediately sent a formal demand letter through

registered mail with return card on September 20,
2011, which was received by the said Bal A. Subas on
September 28, 2011. As of date however, Bal A. Subas
has unjustifiably ignored all these demands to pay the
said account and/or to redeem the said returned
check. A true and faithful machine reproduction of my
demand letter to him is hereto attached as Annex C";
8. I am therefore executing this Complaint-Affidavit in
support of the charges for Violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 against the said Bal A. Subas,
who may be served with subpoena and other
processes of this Honorable Office at his last known
address at No. 1 1 st Street, Tago Subdivision, Makati
City, Philippines;
this 27th day of October, 2011 at Makati City.
May Perez
Affiant-Complainant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on October 27,
2011 affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate
No. 123456 issued in Manila on January 25, 2011.
Witness my hand and Seal.
Alfredo De Ocampo

(Counter-Affidavit)

Makati City
) s.s.
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, Bal A. Subas, of legal age, single, Filipino and with
residence address at. No.1 1st Street, Tago Subdivision,
Makati City, Philippines, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and state, that:
1. I am respondent in the above-captioned case;
2. I
am
not
aware
of
the
presentment
for
clearing/collection with Bank of the Philippine Islands
Makati by the plaintiff; much more, I was not aware
that the check issued was dishonored by the said bank
upon presentment;
3. It is not enough that the issued check was
subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds. It
must be shown that I knew of the insufficiency of
funds at the time the check was issued. Hence the law
provides that the issuer must be notified of the
dishonor;
4. While it is true that I was asked by herein plaintiff to
pay the amount I borrowed, such kind of notice is not
the one required by B.P 22, which must be in writing
as held by the Supreme Court in several of its cases;
5. Considering that I did not receive a written notice of
dishonor of the checks, clearly there is no way of
determining when the 5-day period prescribed in
Section 2 of B.P. 22 would start and end. Thus, the
required knowledge of the insufficiency of funds or
credit at the time I issued the checks did not arise;
6. Finally, therefore, it cannot be said that I violated B.P

22.
I am executing this counter-affidavit, to attest to the
truth of the foregoing and for whatever legal purpose it may
serve.
Makati City, 30 October 2011.
Mr. Bal A. Subas

Respondent-Affiant
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN, to before me in the City of
Makati, this 30th day of October 2011 by Ms. Bal A. Subas
with Residence Certificate No. 0012345 issued at Makati City,
on July 4, 2011.
Alfredo De Ocampo
Copy Furnished:
MAY PEREZ
(Private-Complainant)
#2 Mayaman St., Naisahan Village,
Makati City, Philippines

(Reply)

Makati City
May Perez,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Violation of BP 22
versus Bal A. Subas

Respondent.
x------------------------x
REPLY
COMES NOW, May Perez,

Prosecutor, most respectfully state:
unto
the
Honorable
1. That I am reiterating my allegation in my affidavit that

BAL A. SUBAS borrowed Php 500,000 from me,
obliging himself to pay that loan by August 5, 2011. A
copy of the promissory note which he made and issued
for that loan is hereto attached as Annex A.
2. Last August 5, 2011, in the City of Makati, the

respondent purportedly in payment for that loan, drew
and issued to me a check drawn on the Bank of the
Philippine Islands particularly check no. 123 dated
August 5, 2011. A copy of the check is hereto attached
as Annex B.
3. Upon presentment for clearing and collection, that
check was dishonored by the drawee bank for the
reason Drawn Against Insufficient Funds and
Account Closed. The Bank debit advice to that effect
sis hereto attached as Annex C.
4. That contrary to his claim, he was informed by the
bank teller of the said bank and was asked to deposit
the amount needed for the clearing of the check. Not
only that, Notice of Dishonor was sent to him.
5. Notice of Dishonor and demand for payment were
made upon the respondent. However, the latter simply
ignored them.
6. That I am willing and ready to present Notice of
Dishonor and proof receipt from bank records.
7. That is without doubt, the best evidence to prove the
veracity of my allegation that the respondent violated
B.P. 22 and that I have no other motives initiating this
action but to make him liable for such.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my
signature this 11th day of November 2011, in Makati City.
May Perez
Affiant-Complainant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on November

11, 2011 affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax
Certificate No. 123456 issued in Manila on January 25, 2011.
Witness my hand and Seal.
Alfredo De Ocampo
Copy Furnished:
Bal A. Subas
(Respondent)
1st Street, Tago Subdivision,
Makati City, Philippines

(Rejoinder)

Makati City
May Perez,
Complainant,
versus -
I.S. No. 123456

Bal A. Subas
Respondent.
x------------------------x
REJOINDER
COMES NOW the respondent, Bal A. Subas, through
counsel, and, by way of a Rejoinder to the complainants Reply,
respectfully alleges that:
1. The Reply filed by the complainant disregards the fact
that respondent was not informed or was made aware
of the presentment, much more the dishonor by the
bank as alleged in the Complaint and Reply of herein
complainant;
2. The allegation of the Complainant that she sent a
written notice of dishonor supporting her claim and
the consequent act of ignoring the said notice is
denied. How can someone ignore something he was
not aware of, in the first place.
3. It is not enough that the issued check was
subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds. It
must be shown that respondent knew of the
insufficiency of funds at the time the check was
issued. Hence, the law provides that the issuer must
be notified of the dishonor;
4. While it is true that respondent was asked by herein
plaintiff to pay the amount borrowed, such kind of
notice is not the one required by B.P. 22, which must
be in writing as held by the Supreme Court in several
of its cases;
5. To reiterate, considering that respondent did not
receive a written notice of dishonor of the checks,
clearly, there is no way of determining when the 5-day

period prescribed in Section 2 of B.P 22 would start
and end. Thus, the required knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds or credit at the time respondent
issued the checks did not arise.
Applying the foregoing arguments, therefore, it cannot be
said that respondent violated B.P. 22.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, there appears no valid nor
cogent reason to proceed with the filing of the information as
there is clearly a lack of merit on the case of the complainant.
Makati City, November 21, 2011.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll No.12344556
PTR No. 12345/01-07 11/Makati City
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 21 th day of
November, 2011 at Makati. I further certify that I have
examined the affiant and I am satisfied that he understood
and voluntarily executed the foregoing counter-affidavit.
Alfredo De Ocampo
(Sur-Rejoinder)

Makati City
May Perez,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
versus Bal A. Subas

Respondent.
x------------------------x
SUR-REJOINDER
COMES NOW the complainant, MAY PEREZ, through
counsel, and, by way of a Sur rejoinder, respectfully alleges
that:
This Sur rejoinder is being filed with the Office of the City
Prosecutor considering that Rejoinder filed by the respondent
disregards the fact that Notice of Dishonor and demand for
payment were made upon the respondent. However, the latter
simply ignored them.

Roll No. 22344556
Copy furnished:
BAL A. SUBAS Makati City

No.1 1st Street, Tago Subdivision, Makati City, Philippines


Makati City
May Perez,
Complainant,
versus -
I.S. No. 123456

Bal A. Subas
Respondent.
x------------------------x
Accused BAL A. SUBAS, through the undersigned
counsel, respectfully alleges:
1 That he is the accused in the above-entitled case of the

crime of violation of BP 22 committed against MAY
PEREZ;
2 That the Complaint-Affidavit contains several matters
December 16, 2011. Makati City
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
PTR OR NO. 12345/01-07 11/Makati City
IBP OR NO. 123456/02-01-11/Makati City
MCLE NO. 123456/02-01-11/Makati City
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings!
Please take notice that on Friday, December 16, 2011, at

the Makati City Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 07 at 9
oclock a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard,
the undersigned will submit the foregoing motion for the
approval of the court.
Makati, Philippines. December 12, 2011
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556

(Resolution)

Makati City
Mary Perez,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456

versus Bal A. Subas,

Respondent.
x---------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 allegedly committed during the
month of August 2011, at Makati City, supported by the sworn
statement of the complainant, photocopies of the dishonored
checks, demand letters, and proof of receipt of the same by the
respondents.
After careful perusal of the complaint, it is shown that
BAL A. SUBAS has willfully, unlawfully and feloniously made
or drew and issued to MAY PEREZ Check no. 123 dated
August 5, 2011, drawn against Bank of the Philippine Islands
in the amount of Php 500,000; that said accused well knowing
that at the time of issue, he did not have sufficient in or credit
with the drawee bank for the payment in full of the face
amount of said check upon its presentment, which check,
when presented for payment within ninety (90) days from its
date, was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason
Drawn Against Insufficient Funds and Account Closed, and
despite receipt of notice of such dishonor, he failed to pay said
payee the face amount thereof or to make arrangements for its
full payment within five (5) banking days after receiving notice.
sufficient cause to hold the respondent BAL A. SUBAS for
VIOLATION OF B.P. 22, as defined and punished under the
said law.
Makati City, December 5, 2011.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
APPROVED:
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor

(Information)

Metropolitan Trial Court
Makati City
People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
INFORMATION
The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses BAL
A. SUBAS of the crime of violation of B.P. 22, committed as
follows;
That sometime in the month of August 2011, in the
city of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make
or draw and issue to MAY PEREZ, to apply on account or
for value the check describe below:
CHECK No.
Drawn Against :
:
123
Bank of the Philippine Islands
In the Amount of
Dated/ Postdated
:
:
Php 500,000
August 5, 2011
Said accused well knowing that at the time of issue,

he did not have sufficient in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment in full of the face amount of said
check upon its presentment, which check, when
presented for payment within ninety (90) days from its
date, was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason
DRAWN
AGAINST
INSUFFICIENT FUNDS
and
ACCOUNT CLOSED, and despite receipt of notice of
such dishonor, he failed to pay said payee the face
amount thereof or to make arrangements for its full
payment within five (5) banking days after receiving
notice.
Contrary to law.
Makati, December 10, 2011.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
Witnesses:
1. Draymond M. Green - No. 1 Second Street, Makati
City, Philippines
BAIL RECOMMENDED: P200,000.00.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO

(Affidavit of Desistance Mis-accounting)

Makati City
) s.s.
after having been sworn to in accordance with law, depose and
says that:
12345 for VIOLATION OF BP 22, entitled People of
the Philippines vs. BAL A. SUBAS, which is now
pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court, National
Capital Judicial Region, Makati City, Branch 07;
honestly believe that I have committed a misaccounting of the debt of the accused and having seen
the corrected record, I now clear the accused of the
debt amounting to Php 500,000.00 and thereby
negating the need for the payment of the check in
question;
4. I am not paid, threatened, nor coerce in executing this
this 13th day of December 2011, in the City of Makati.
MAY PEREZ
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on December

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567 1/12/11
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2011.


Makati City
) s.s.

says that:
honestly believe that, due to severe intoxication and
the non-use of my glasses, without which I am
practically blind, I am not in the position to properly
identify whether or not it is the accused who actually
signed and issued the said check;
MAY PEREZ
Affiant

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567 1/12/11
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2011.


Makati City
) s.s.
says that:
honestly believed of my own knowledge that the
incident which led to the filing of the above-captioned
case was just a misunderstanding between the
complainant and the aforementioned accused;
5. I am voluntarily executing this affidavit to attest to the

MAY PEREZ
Affiant

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567 1/12/11
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2011.


Makati City
Plaintiff,
versus -

Bal A. Subas,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x

COMES NOW Accused BAL A. SUBAS, through the
1. That the accused is in custody for the alleged
commission of the crime of violation of B.P. 22;
strong;
satisfactorily shown, the accused may be bailed at the
courts discretion.
respectfully prayed that the accused be admitted to bail in
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City

Greetings!
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:


Makati City

Plaintiff,

Defendant.
x---------------------------------x

Php 200,000.00
2. That said defendant has other current obligations which
are due and demandable, proof of such are attached here
as Annex A.
WHEREFORE, the accused BAL A. SUBAS respectfully
December 16, 2011. Makati City.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings!
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:

(Motion for the Release of the Accused on Recognizance)

Makati City
Plaintiff,
versus -

Bal A. Subas,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
MOTION TO RELEASE ACCUSED ON RECOGNIZANCE

commission of the crime of violation of B.P. 22;
2. That being unable to post the required cash or bail bond,
hereby binds himself, pending final decision of the aboveentitled case, to appear before the court when so ordered;
3. That the undersigned hereby further binds himself to

accept the authority of KA T. WALA whose custody he
was placed by the Court.
respectfully
prayed
that
the
accused
be
released
on
recognizance.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings!
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:

(Motion to Quash the Information)

Makati City
Plaintiff,

Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH
Defendant BAL A. SUBAS, through the undersigned

crime of Violation of BP 22 committed against MAY
PEREZ.
this case.
oficio.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings!
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:


Makati City

Plaintiff,
versus -

Bal A. Subas,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
PROBABLE CAUSE AND HOLD IN ABEYANCE THE
ARRAIGNMENT OF THE ACCUSED
Accused BAL A. SUBAS, through the undersigned
crime of Violation of BP 22 committed against MAY
PEREZ.
this case.
3. That the City Prosecutor made a grave abuse of
discretion when she approved the filing of the
Information when there is evidently no probable cause
to hold the herein accused for the crime he allegedly
committed.

herein accused.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings!
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:



Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Makati City
Mary Perez,
Complainant,
versus -
I.S. No. 123456

Bal A. Subas,
Respondent.
x------------------------x
Respondent BAL A. SUBAS, through the undersigned
1. That he is the respondent in the above-entitled

complaint of the crime of violation of BP 22 committed
against MAY PEREZ.
2. That the evidence presented is not sufficient to justify
the findings of probably cause.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings!
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:


Malacanan, Manila
Bal A. Subas,
Appelant,
versus -
I.S. No. 123456

Prosecutor Marienell Fortuno,

Appellee.
x---------------------------------------x
APPEAL
COMES NOW the appellant-accused, through
undersigned counsel, and hereby allege the following
I.
the
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

II.
FACTS OF THE CASE

commission of the crime of Violation of BP 22 as defined and
punished under the Revised Penal Code allegedly done against
the herein appellee-complainant. The City Prosecutor, in her
Resolution, finds probable cause in the case. A Motion for
Reconsideration was filed but was also denied. The Resolution
was appealed to the Department of Justice but the latter also
finds probable cause. Thus this appeal.
III.
ARGUMENT OF THE RESPONDENT
Appellant-respondent argues that there cannot be any

probable cause where the evidence produced is insufficient to
support such finding of probable cause.
IV.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE

V.
RELIEF

of the City Prosecutor of Makati finding probable cause against
the herein appellant-respondent.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556


Makati City
Plaintiff,
versus -

Bal A. Subas,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
MOTION FOR THE ISSUNCE OF AN
alleges that:
accused, BAL A. SUBAS, dated December 16, 2011.
Attached herewith the copy of warrant of arrest.
service made by the Police Officer,PO1 Santiago
Munez, dated December 18,2011.

ends of justice.

of arrest be issued to bring the accused under custody.

justice;
accused.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556

NOTICE
OF
HEARING
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings!
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:



Makati City
Plaintiff,
versus -

Bal A. Subas,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x

WITH LEAVE OF COURT
Accused BALA A. SUBAS, through the undersigned
crime of Violation of BP 22 committed against May
Perez;
this case;
3. That the evidence submitted is insufficient to convict
the herein accused of the crime charged against him.
the herein accused.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings!
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:

(Trial Brief)

Makati City
Plaintiff,

Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
TRIAL BRIEF
PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully submits his Trial Brief,
as follows:
I.

SETTLEMENT AND POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY
SUCH SETTLEMENT
1.1.Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable

and a reciprocal manifestation of openness from
II.
2.1 Accused is liable for violation of BP 22, failing to pay said

plaintiff the face amount thereof or to make arrangements
for its full payment within five (5) banking days after
receiving notice of dishonor by the bank.
2.2. Accused alleged that he was neither informed nor was

made aware of the presentment, much more the dishonor
by the bank.
III.

PARTIES
3.1. Plaintiff and defendants admits to Paragraphs A, B, and

C, in so far as it states their personal circumstances
IV.
ISSUES TO BE TRIED
4.1. Whether or not accused violated BP 22.

V.
EVIDENCE

5.1Plaintiff herself, who will testify on the true circumstances
leading to the filing of this suit;
5.2
Draymond M. Green, business partner of the herein

private offended party who was present during the issuance
of the check and the failed encashment thereof.
VI.
RESORT TO DISCOVERY
In order to have a speedy disposition of the case, plaintiff

intends to use the following modes of discovery:
6.2
Makati City, December 18, 2011
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:


(Pre-Trial Brief)

Makati City
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
UNDERSIGNED
Assistant
City
Prosecutor
hereby


Criminal
Procedure,
and
sub-paragraph
number
of

application of the provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, on
the following circumstances, to wit:
That on or about the month of August,
2011, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the said accused willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously make, draw and issue in favor of
Juan dela Cruz, to apply on account of, or for
value, Bank of Philippine Islands, Check No.
123, dated August 5, 2011, in the amount of
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00),
said accused knowing at the time of issue that

he did not have sufficient funds in, or credit
with, said drawee bank, and/or said accused
having failed to keep sufficient funds in, or to
maintain credit with, said drawee bank within
a period of ninety (90) days from the date of
issue thereof, consequently, the check, when
presented for payment, was dishonored by said
drawee bank for having been drawn against a
closed account, and despite notice of such
dishonor, said accused failed to pay said payee
the
amount
of
said
check,
or
to
make
arrangement for the full payment of the same,

to the damage and prejudice to the complainant
in the sum of P500,000.00, Philippine Currency.
PLEA BARGAINING
agreement.
I. JURISDICTION:
matter and the issue of the present case, and on the
person of the accused.
affidavits of prosecution witnesses is the same
accused earlier arraigned in court.
III. FACTS OF THE CASE.
III-A. That sometime in the morning of October 5, 2009, at
Jollibee Ayala Avenue, Makati City, Philippines, the said BAL
A. SUBAS
issued in my favor a BPI Check No. 123, dated
August 5, 2011 in the amount of P 500,000 as supposed

payment for the loan accommodation, which I have extended
to her;
III-B. That the said check is drawn against the account of the
said BAL A. SUBAS at BPI with Account No. 0012-3456-78;
III-C. That at the time the said BAL A. SUBAS issued and
delivered the said check to me, he made the assurance and
representation that the said check is a good check and would
be covered by sufficient funds when presented for payment;
III-D. However, when the above-mentioned check was
deposited, the same was dishonored and returned by the bank
on the ground that the same was drawn against a "CLOSED
ACCOUNT".
III-E. As such, I immediately notified said BAL A. SUBAS of the
dishonor and return of the said check and demanded from
him that he make good the said check within five days (5) days
from receipt thereof.
III-F. When said BAL A. SUBAS failed to heed my demands, I
endorsed the said check to my legal counsel who immediately
sent a formal demand letter through registered mail with
return card on September 20, 2009, which was received by the
said BAL A. SUBAS on September 28, 2009. As of date
however, BAL A. SUBAS has unjustifiably ignored all these
demands to pay the said account and/or to redeem the said
returned check.
EXHIBIT A -- A true and faithful reproduction of
the Check in question.
EXHIBIT B A true and faithful machine
reproduction of the formal conference with the
Assistant City Prosecutor;
EXHIBIT C A true and faithful machine

reproduction of the demand letter sent to BAL A.
SUBAS.
1. May Perez, the private offended party;
2. Draymond M. Green, business partner of the herein private
offended party who was present during the issuance of the
check and the failed encashment thereof.
The prosecution hereby reserves the right to
present additional evidence as the need therefore may
arise.
ISSUES
accused:
1. Performing the above-mentioned acts, constitute
a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
Respectfully submitted:
Alfredo De Ocampo

LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Counsel for the accused

Makati City.


Makati City
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
EXHIBIT A --- A true and faithful machine
reproduction of the dishonored check.
EXHIBIT B --- A true and faithful machine
reproduction of the notice of dishonor sent by
the complainant to the accused;

reproduction of the demand letter sent by the
complainant to the accused.
THE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE consists of the
testimonies given by witnesses May Perez, the private offended
party; and Draymond M. Green, business partner of the herein
private offended party who was present during the issuance of
the check and the failed encashment thereof.
Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E, with all its respective submarkings, together with the testimony of said witnesses, are
offered for the identical purpose of showing that on 5 th day of
August, 2011, at Jollibee Ayala Avenue, Makati City,
Philippines, the accused issued a check knowing fully well that
it is not funded or that he was not able to maintain the fund
sufficient to pay for his obligation with the herein private
offended party.
Alfredo De Ocampo

LOURENA A. BUNDAC

Makati City.


Makati City
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
PROFFER OF EVIDENCE
Court , to wit:
EXHIBIT A ---
A true and faithful
machine
reproduction of the dishonored check.

reproduction of the notice of dishonor sent by the
complainant to the accused;
reproduction of the demand letter sent by the
complainant to the accused.

testimonies given by witnesses May Perez, the private offended
party; and Draymond M. Green, business partner of the herein
private offended party who was present during the issuance of
the check and the failed encashment thereof.
Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E, with all its respective submarkings, together with the testimony of said witnesses, are
offered for the identical purpose of showing that on 5 th day of
August, 2011, at Jollibee Ayala Avenue, Makati City,
Philippines, the accused issued a check knowing fully well that
it is not funded or that he was not able to maintain the fund
sufficient to pay for his obligation with the herein private
offended party.
The prosecution respectfully submit these evidence on
record in the event of an appeal.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
Copy furnished by personal delivery in open court:

LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Makati City
ESTAFA

Makati City
) s.s.
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, NILO LOCCO, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single, a
resident of Makati City, and with business postal address #1
Ayala Avenue, Makati City, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, freely and voluntarily depose and state
that:
1. I am the proprietor of D Gold Shop, located at #1 Ayala
Avenue, Makati City, which is engaged in the trading of
gold bars;
2. I and ESTEE NAFA, the latters address being #2
Buendia Ave, Makati City, Philippines, entered into a
contract dated March 5, 2010, whereby I entrusted to the
latter ten (10) 14K gold bars amounting to Php
10,000,000.00 whereby said ESTEE NAFA shall sell it as
my agent. The contract is hereby included here as Annex
A.
3. Pursuant to said contract, said ESTEE NAFA was
entrusted with such merchandise.
4. However, notwithstanding repeated verbal and written
demands made upon said agent, and even as I availed of
the relief for a formal conference (Annex B) before an
assistant city prosecutor, at Makati City, in the hope of
finding a remedy for the injustice done to me, said
ESTEE NAFA failed and refused to remit the proceeds of
the sale of the merchandise received by her in accordance
with the contract agreements, and, likewise, he, as my
Agent, failed and refused to return the same goods to me

as her Principal.
5. On October 1, 2010 ESTEE NAFA misappropriated the
said gold bars by having it cut processed to fit some of
her jewelries.
6. In view of the foregoing, I hereby respectfully institute my
complaint against said ESTEE NAFA for Estafa, as
defined and punished under Presidential Decree No. 115,
in relation to Article 315, par. 1(b), of the Revised Penal
Code.
IN TRUTH WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
5th day of October, 2010, in the City of Makati, Philippines.
NILO LOCCO
(Affiant)
October 2010, affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax
Makati City.
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
CERTIFICATION
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
ESTAFA
(Counter-Affidavit)

Makati City
) s.s.
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, ESTEE NAFA, of legal age, Filipino, single, and a
resident #2 Buendia Ave, Makati City, Philippines, after having
been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and
states that:
1 I am the respondent in the Complaint-Affidavit
instituted by complainant NILO LOCCO;
2 Hence, this Counter-Affidavit;
3 I vehemently deny the accusations and allegations
made by complainant NILO LOCCO. The allegations
are uncalled for and outright unjust;
4 The truth of the matter being: that the ten (10) gold
bars that were entrusted to me were in fact sold to me
by means of a Deed of Conveyance;
5 That being the owner of the said gold bars, I have the
power under law to dispose of it as I see fit;
6 This is in fact a civil matter and not a criminal one;
7 That as part of my documentary evidence, I am

herewith attaching a copy of the Deed of Conveyance
as Annex A, clearly indicating therein that
complainant NILO LOCCO, sold to me the said gold
bars;
8 I am executing this counter-affidavit to deny the
accusations of the complainant and for the
DISMISSAL of this complaint.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here unto set my hand
this 10th day of October 2010, at Makati City.
ESTEE NAFA
Affiant
Certificate No. 123456 issued on January 5, 2010, at Makati
City.
CERTIFICATION
affiant and I am satisfied that he understood this counteraffidavit and that he voluntarily executed the same.
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
ESTAFA
(Reply)
Makati
Nilo Locco,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. 3456

For: Estafa
Estee Nafa,
Respondent.
x------------------------x
REPLY
that:
a I am executing this affidavit in reply jointly to the
counter-affidavit submitted by the respondent in
I. S. No. A-123-456 and, at this outset, I hereby
reiterate and incorporate herein my allegations in
my earlier complaints-affidavit filed against the
answering respondent;
b The argument raised by the respondent in the
counter affidavit is that the Deed of Conveyance
is actually a Deed of Sale;
c A careful reading of the Deed of Conveyance

would show that the said instruments purpose is
only to transfer possession of the gold bars to the
respondent for the purpose of her selling the
same as my agent;
d This affidavit is made in utmost good faith for the
sole purpose of attesting to the truth of the
foregoing statements of fact in furtherance of my
efforts to prosecute the respondent in conformity
with my complaint filed against her
20 day of October, 2010, at the City of Makati, Philippines.
th
NILO LOCCO
(Affiant)

October, 2010, at the City of Makati, Philippines, and I hereby
certify that I have personally examined the affiant and that I
am satisfied that she voluntarily executed and understood her
affidavit.
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
ESTAFA
(Rejoinder)
Makati
Nilo Locco,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. 3456

For: Estafa
Estee Nafa,
Respondent.
x------------------------x
REJOINDER
COMES NOW the respondent, ESTEE NAFA, through
counsel, and, by way of a Rejoinder to the complainants Reply,
1. This Rejoinder is being filed with the Office of the City

Prosecutor considering that Reply filed by the
complainant disregards the fact that the language of
the Deed of Conveyance points to no other
conclusion that what transpired is an actual sale.
Makati City, October 25, 2010.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
Copy furnished:
NILO LOCCO
#1 Ayala Avenue, Makati City
ESTAFA
(Sur-Rejoinder)
Makati
Nilo Locco,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. 3456

For: Estafa
Estee Nafa,
Respondent.
x------------------------x
SUR REJOINDER
COMES NOW the complainant, NILO LOCCO, through
counsel, and, by way of a Sur rejoinder, respectfully alleges
that:
respondent disregards the fact that the mere
conversion of property entrusted to the agent without
the principals consent constitute estafa under the
Revised Penal Code.
RAMONCHITO L. DE LUMEN
COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT
ROLL NO. 22344556
PTR OR NO. 22345/01-07-10/Makati City
Copy furnished:
ESTEE NAFA Makati City
Respondent
ESTAFA
Makati
Nilo Locco,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. 3456

For: Estafa
Estee Nafa,
Respondent.
x------------------------x
Accused
ESTEE
NAFA,
through
the
undersigned

1. That she is the accused in the above-entitled case of the
crime of violation of ESTAFA committed against NILO
LOCCO.
2. That the Complaint-Affidavit contains several matters
WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
the

November 10, 2010. Makati City
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
Please take notice that on Friday, November 10, 2010, at
of the court.
Makati, Philippines. November 4, 2010
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
ESTAFA
(Resolution)
Makati
Nilo Locco,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. 3456

For: Estafa
Estee Nafa,
Respondent.
x------------------------x
RESOLUTION
SUBMITTED for resolution is a complaint for Estafa
allegedly committed during the month of October 2005, at
Makati City, supported by the sworn statement of the
complainant, photocopies of the Contract of Agency and the
Deed of Conveyance.

complainant and respondent entered into an agreement
whereby the respondent is to sell ten (10) gold bars for the
complainant.
Each of the said gold bar costs Php 1,000,000.00 each,
totaling to Php 10,000,000.00. However, after demand for
return and accounting of the said gold bars, the respondent
failed and refused to return the gold bars and/or failed and
refused to do a proper accounting for the same.
Moreso,
on
October
1,
2030,
ESTEE
NAFA
misappropriated the said gold bars by having them cut and to

fit her own personal jewelry collection.
complaint is without legal and factual basis since, according to
her, the wordings of the Deed of Conveyance is one of sale
and not of agency to sell.
In
the
evaluation
of
the
complainants
evidence,
especially the Deed of Conveyance, it is clear that the

purpose of the said instrument is only to convey possession of
the gold bars for purpose selling the same.
The findings of the mediator where both parties sought
assistance also points to the conclusion that no sale took
place. The respondents refusal to make even a proper
accounting of the said gold bars constitute a reasonable
ground to believe that said respondent intends on defrauding
the complainant.
sufficient cause to hold the respondent ESTEE NAFA for
ESTAFA, as defined and punished under Presidential Decree
No. 115, in relation to Article 315, par. 1(b), of the Revised

Penal Code.
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
APPROVED:
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
ESTAFA
(Information)
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Makati, Brach VII
People of the Philippines
Plaintiff,
For: Violation of Art. 315 (b)
of the RPC (Estafa)
- versus -
Estee Nafa,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
INFORMATION
The undersigned City Prosecutor of the City of Makati,

accuses ESTEE NAFA of the crime of Estafa, defined and
punished under Article 315, paragraph 1(b), of the Revised
Penal Code, committed as follows:
That on or about the 1st day of October, 2010, in the City
of Makati, , and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused ESTEE NAFA, after having
received from complainant NILO LOCCO ten (10) pieces
of gold bars each costing Php 1,000,000.00 totaling Php
10,000,000.00, with the express obligation on the part of
the accused to remit the same to the complainant if she
failed to sell the same or otherwise remit to the
complainant the proceeds of the sale of the same, , with
intent to gain and to defraud said complainant through
unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, did then and
there
willfully,
unlawfully,
and
feloniously
misappropriate, misapply, and convert to her own
personal use and benefit, the aforesaid gold bars, to the
damage and prejudice of said complainant in the amount
of P10,000,000.00, Philippine currency.
Contrary to law.
Makati City, November 3, 2010
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Information is being filed in
accordance with the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure; that
upon examination of the affidavit of the complainant and other
evidence submitted, there is reasonable ground to believe that
the crime charged has been committed and that the accused is
probably guilty thereof, and that the accused was given the
opportunity to submit her controverting evidence.
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of
November, 2010, at Makati City.
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Witnesses:
Chiz Moso #3 La Gawa, St. Makati City
BAIL RECOMMENDED:
Php 100,000.00
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
ESTAFA
(Affidavit of Desistance Mis-accounting)

Makati City
) s.s.

that:
1. I am the Private Complainant in Criminal Case No. A123-456 for ESTAFA, entitled People of the Philippines
vs. ESTEE NAFA, which is now pending before the
Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region,
2. After a careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the case, I personally and honestly believe
that I have committed a mis-accounting regarding the
remittance of the proceeds of sale and after having seen
the corrected records, I now clear the accused of the debt
amounting to Php 10,000,000.00;
3. I am no longer interested in further prosecuting the case
against the accused;
veracity of the foregoing and to move for the dismissal of
the said case against the accused.

this 4th day of November 2010, in the City of Makati.
NILO LOCCO
(Affiant)

November 2010, affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax
Makati City.
ANTHONY M. LAUREANO
Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567 1/12/10
IBP No. 6789 1/2/110
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2010.
ESTAFA

Makati City
) s.s.
that:
that I have no convincing proof or testimony to show that
it was actually the accused who misappropriated the gold
bars or caused the misappropriation of the same;

NILO LOCCO
(Affiant)
Makati City.
ANTHONY M. LAUREANO
Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567 1/12/10
IBP No. 6789 1/2/110
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2010.
ESTAFA

Makati City
) s.s.
that:
that the transaction that actually took place is one of
sale, as alleged by the accused;

NILO LOCCO
(Affiant)
Makati City.
ANTHONY M. LAUREANO
Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567 1/12/10
IBP No. 6789 1/2/110
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2010.
ESTAFA
(Motion for Allowance to Post Bail)
Makati, Brach VII
Plaintiff,
- versus -

of the RPC (Estafa)
Estee Nafa,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
COMES NOW accused ESTEE NAFA, through the
commission of the crime of Estafa;
strong;
satisfactorily shown, the defendant may be bailed at the

courts discretion.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA

ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
ESTAFA
Makati, Brach VII
Plaintiff,
of the RPC (Estafa)
- versus -
Estee Nafa,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
Php 100,000.00
2. That said defendant has exhausted all her real and
personal assets, saved those necessary for daily existence
of the accused, to pay for the gold bars sold to said
respondent by the complainant.
WHEREFORE, the accused ESTEE NAFA respectfully

JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
ESTAFA
(Motion to Release Accused on Recognizance)
Makati, Brach VII
Plaintiff,
- versus -

of the RPC (Estafa)
Estee Nafa,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
commission of the crime of Estafa;
hereby binds himself, pending final decision of the aboveentitled case, to appear before the court when so ordered;
accept the authority of Kako Sa in whose custody he was
placed by the Court.

respectfully
prayed
that
the
defendant
be
released
on
recognizance.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA

ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
ESTAFA
Makati, Brach VII
Plaintiff,
of the RPC (Estafa)
- versus -
Estee Nafa,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH
crime of estafa committed against NILO LOCCO.
this case.
oficio.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556

Received by:
ESTAFA
Makati, Brach VII
Plaintiff,
- versus -

of the RPC (Estafa)
Estee Nafa,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
PROBABLE CAUSE AND TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE THE
1. That she is the accused in the above-entitled
case of the crime of estafa committed against
NILO LOCCO.
2. That the facts charged do not constitute an
offense as previously expounded in the other
pleadings related to this case.
3. That the City Prosecutor made a grave abuse

of discretion when she approved the filing of
the Information when there is evidently no
probable cause to hold the herein accused for
the crime she allegedly committed.
WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
this

herein accused.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:

of the court.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
ESTAFA
Makati
Nilo Locco,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. 3456

For: Estafa
Estee Nafa,
Respondent.
x------------------------x
1. That she is the accused in the above-entitled case of
the crime of estafa committed against NILO LOCCO.
the findings of probable cause.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
ESTAFA
Malacanan, Manila
Estee Nafa,
Appelant,
I.S. No. 12-3456
For: Estafa
versus Prosecutor Ronald C. Gonzales,

Appellee.
x---------------------------------------x
APPEAL

counsel, and hereby allege the following
I.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

II.
FACTS OF THE CASE

commission of the crime of Estafa as defined and punished
under the Revised Penal Code allegedly done against the
herein appellee-complainant. The City Prosecutor, in his

III.

any
probable
cause
where
the
evidence
produced
is
insufficient to support such finding of probable cause.

IV.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE

V.
RELIEF

JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
ESTAFA
Makati, Brach VII
Plaintiff,
- versus -

of the RPC (Estafa)
Estee Nafa,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
alleges that:
1. The undersigned City Prosecutor finds probable cause to
hold the accused for trial to answer for the crime for
accused because she cannot be located in the given
service made by the Police Officer,PO1 Santiago Munez,

dated December 18,2011.
ends of justice.
4. WHEREFORE, undersigned and prays that after hearing
and examination of this motion, alias warrant of arrest
be issued to bring the accused under custody.
might jeopardize the proper course of the proceedings of
this course and ultimately thwart the ends of justice;
8. The continued ability of the accused to roam free poses a
danger to the society within his locality.
accused.
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
Greetings:
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor, Makati
Received by
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
Counsel for Accused
ESTAFA
Makati, Brach VII
Plaintiff,
- versus -

of the RPC (Estafa)
Estee Nafa,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
MOTION FOR DEMURRER TO
EVIDENCE WITH LEAVE OF COURT
1. That she is the accused in the above-entitled case of
the crime of estafa committed against NILO LOCCO.
this case;
WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
this

the herein accused.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA

ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
ESTAFA
(Trial Brief)
Makati, Brach VII
Plaintiff,
of the RPC (Estafa)
- versus -
Estee Nafa,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
TRIAL BRIEF
application of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Article
315, par. 1(b) ), on the following circumstances, to wit:
That on or about the 1st day of October, 2010,

in the City of
Makati, , and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused ESTEE NAFA, after having received
from complainant NILO LOCCO ten (10) pieces of
gold bars each costing Php 1,000,000.00
totaling Php 10,000,000.00, with the express
obligation on the part of the accused to remit
the same to the complainant if she failed to sell
the same or otherwise remit to the complainant
the proceeds of the sale of the same, , with
intent to gain and to defraud said complainant
through
unfaithfulness
and
abuse
of
confidence, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously misappropriate,
misapply, and convert to her own personal use
and benefit, the aforesaid gold bars, to the
damage and prejudice of said complainant in
the amount of P10,000,000.00, Philippine
currency.
PLEA BARGAINING
agreement.
I.
JURISDICTION:

matter and the issue of the present case, and on the person
of the accused.
II.
IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED:
The accused named in the Information and in the affidavits

of prosecution witnesses is the same accused earlier
arraigned in court.
III.
FACTS OF THE CASE.
III-A. That the complainant and ESTEE NAFA, the

latters address being #2 Buendia Ave, Makati City,
Philippines, entered into a contract dated March 1 2010,
whereby I entrusted to the latter ten (10) pieces gold bars
amounting to Php 10,000,000.00 whereby said ESTEE NAFA
shall sell the said gold bars as the complainants agent.;
III-B. Pursuant to said contract, said ESTEE NAFA was
III-C. However, notwithstanding repeated verbal and
written demands made upon said agent, and even as the
complainant availed of the relief for a formal conference (Annex
B) before an assistant city prosecutor, at Makati City, in the
hope of finding a remedy for the injustice done to said
complainant, said ESTEE NAFA failed and refused to remit the
proceeds of the sale of the merchandise received by her in
accordance with the contract agreements, and, likewise, she,
as the complainants Agent, failed and refused to return the
same goods to the complainant as her Principal.
III-D. On October 1, 2005 AMNDA RAYA misappropriated
the said gold bars by having it cut further to fit some of her
jewelries.
EXHIBIT A --- A true and faithful reproduction of
the Contract of Agency.
EXHIBIT
--- A true and faithful machine

reproduction of the formal conference
with the Assistant City Prosecutor;
EXHIBIT
C A true
reproduction
Conveyance.
and
of
faithful machine
the
Deed
of

1 NILO LOCCO, the private offended party;
2 LARI FUTOL, the person who cut the said gold bars in
to smaller pieces.
The prosecution hereby reserves the right to present additional
evidence as the need therefore may arise.
ISSUES:
accused in performing the above-mentioned acts, constitute a
violation of the provisions of Revised Penal Code (Article 315,
par. 1(b) ).
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
Counsel for the Accused,
Makati City.
ESTAFA
(Pre-Trial Brief)
Makati, Brach VII
Plaintiff,
of the RPC (Estafa)
- versus -
Estee Nafa,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
UNDERSIGNED
Assistant
City
Prosecutor
hereby

Criminal
Procedure,
and
sub-paragraph
number
of


315, par. 1(b) ), on the following circumstances, to wit:
That on or about the 1st day of October, 2010,
in the City of
Makati, , and within the
accused ESTEE NAFA, after having received
from complainant NILO LOCCO ten (10) pieces of
gold bars each costing Php 1,000,000.00
totaling Php 10,000,000.00, with the express
obligation on the part of the accused to remit
the same to the complainant if she failed to sell
the same or otherwise remit to the complainant
the proceeds of the sale of the same, , with
intent to gain and to defraud said complainant
through
unfaithfulness
and
abuse
of
confidence, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously misappropriate,
misapply, and convert to her own personal use
and benefit, the aforesaid gold bars, to the
damage and prejudice of said complainant in
the amount of P10,000,000.00, Philippine
currency.
PLEA BARGAINING
agreement.
I. JURISDICTION:
matter and the issue of the present case, and on the person
of the accused.

The accused named in the Information and in the affidavits
of prosecution witnesses is the same accused earlier
arraigned in court.
III-A. That the complainant and ESTEE NAFA, the latters
address being #2 Buendia Ave, Makati City, Philippines,
entered into a contract dated March 1, 2010, whereby I
entrusted to the latter ten (10) pieces gold bars amounting to
Php 10,000,000.00 whereby said ESTEE NAFA shall sell the
said gold bars as the complainants agent.;
III-B. Pursuant to said contract, said ESTEE NAFA was
III-C. However, notwithstanding repeated verbal and written
demands made upon said agent, and even as the complainant
availed of the relief for a formal conference (Annex B) before
an assistant city prosecutor, at Makati City, in the hope of
finding a remedy for the injustice done to said complainant,
said ESTEE NAFA failed and refused to remit the proceeds of
the sale of the merchandise received by her in accordance with
the contract agreements, and, likewise, she, as the
complainants Agent, failed and refused to return the same
goods to the complainant as her Principal.
III-D. On October 1, 2010 ESTEE NAFA misappropriated the
said gold bars by having it cut further to fit some of her
jewelries.
I.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
EXHIBIT
---
true
and
faithful
reproduction of the Contract

of Agency.
EXHIBIT
B --- A true and faithful

machine reproduction of the
formal conference with the
reproduction of the Deed of
Conveyance.
1. NILO LOCCO, the private offended party;
2. LARI FUTOL, the person who cut the said gold bars in
to smaller pieces.
ISSUES
accused in performing the above-mentioned acts, constitute a
violation of the provisions of Revised Penal Code (Article 315,
par. 1(b) ).
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
Makati City.
ESTAFA
Makati, Brach VII
Plaintiff,
of the RPC (Estafa)
- versus -
Estee Nafa,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
EXHIBIT
---
true
reproduction
and
faithful
of
the
Contract of Agency.
EXHIBIT
---
machine
true
and
faithful
reproduction
of
the formal conference with

the
Assistant
City
Prosecutor;

reproduction of the Deed of
Conveyance.
THE TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE consists of the testimonies
given by witnesses NILO LOCCO (private offended party), LARI
FUTOL the person who cut the said gold bars in to smaller
pieces.
Exhibits A, B, and C, with all its respective sub-markings,
identical purpose of showing that on 1st day of October, 2010,
the herein accused misappropriated the gold bars which were
supposed to be sold by the latter as agent of the complainant.
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
Copy furnished:
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
Makati City.
ESTAFA
Makati, Brach VII
Plaintiff,
of the RPC (Estafa)
- versus -
Estee Nafa,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
PROFFER OF EVIDENCE
Court , to wit:
EXHIBIT A --- A true and faithful reproduction of the
Contract of Agency.
reproduction of the formal conference with the
reproduction of the Deed of Conveyance.

given by witnesses NILO LOCCO (private offended party), LARI
FUTOL the person who cut the said gold bars in to smaller
pieces.
Exhibits A, B, and C, with all its respective sub-markings,
identical purpose of showing that on 1st day of October, 2005,
the herein accused misappropriated the gold bars which were
supposed to be sold by the latter as agent of the complainant.
The prosecution respectfully submits these evidence on
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
Copy furnished:
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
Counsel for the Accused, Makati City.
ADULTERY
Makati City
) s.s.
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, CONTI BUGLEE, of legal age, married and a resident of
No. 1 Ayala Avenue, Makati City after having been sworn to
law hereby depose and state:
1. That I am the legal husband of LESLIE BUGLEE. We
were married at Manila Cathedral on March 6, 2009.
2. That we were living as husband and wife at No. 3 Ayala
Avenue, Makati.
3. That on or about October 31, 2010 , at about 11pm, in
our home in the City of Makati and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused
did then and there voluntarily, unlawfully, and
feloniously had sexual intercourse with her co-accused
PABLO HILIG, who is not her husband, and the latter
knowing her to be married to CONTI BUGLEE,
voluntarily, unlawfully, and feloniously had carnal
knowledge with her.
CONTI BUGLEE
Affiant

November, 2010.
I hereby certify that I have personally
examined the Affiant and I am satisfied that he voluntarily

executed and understood her Complaint Affidavit.
ATTY. ANTHONY M. LAUREANO

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567 1/12/10
IBP No. 6789 1/2/10
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2010.
ADULTERY
(Counter-Affidavit)
Makati City
) s.s.
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, PABLO HILIG, of legal age, single and a resident of 4
Pasay Road, Makati City after having been sworn to law hereby
depose and state:
1. That I met LESLIE BUGLEE sometime in January,
2010 in Makati City while working as a branch
manager in a bank.
2. That LESLIE BUGLEE represented herself as a single
and unmarried woman.
3. That I have no knowledge that LESLIE BUGLEE was
lawfully married to a certain CONTI BUGLEE.
4. That I gained knowledge of the marriage between
LESLIE BUGLEE and CONTI BUGLEE only upon the
confrontation that occurred at No. 3 Ayala Avenue,
Makati when CONTI BUGLEE confronted LESLIE
BUGLEE.
signature this 8th day of December 2010, in Paraaque City.
PABLO HILIG
Affiant

December, 2010.

ATTY. CHRISTIAN VALEN

Notary Public
PTR No. 234567 1/12/10
IBP No. 6789 1/2/10
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2010.
ADULTERY
(Reply)

Makati City
Contee Buglee,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Adultery
- versus Pablo Hilig and Leslee Buglee

Respondents.
x--------------------------------------x
REPLY
COMES NOW, CONTI BUGLEE, after having been sworn

to law hereby depose and state:
1. That on or about October 31, 2010 , at about 11pm, in
our home in the City of Makati and within the
knowledge with her.
2. That PABLO HILIG has full and actual knowledge of

the fact that LESLIE BUGLEE is legally a married
woman;
3. That contrary to his claim, I and my wife were actually
introduced to him sometime on March 2010 in the
2010 Golf Show at the SM Mall of Asia SMX
Convention Center;
4. That in support of my allegation, I am willing and
ready to present photographic evidence/pictures taken
during the convention.
signature this 13th day of December 2010, in Makati City.
CONTI BUGLEE
Affiant
December, 2010.

executed and understood her Reply-Affidavit.

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567 1/12/10
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2010.
ADULTERY
(Rejoinder)

Makati City
Contee Buglee,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Adultery

Respondents.
x--------------------------------------x
REJOINDER
Comes Now, RESPONDENT PABLO HILIG unto this
Honorable Office, respectfully state that:
1) Respondent specifically, vehemently and consistently
denies the material allegations in the reply affidavit of the
complainant, dated December 23, 2010, for being
unfounded, baseless and malicious and must be
dismissed out rightly for failing to establish the requisite
elements of the crime ascribed;
2) Respondent reiterates her defense that while it is true
that he had sexual intercourse with LESLIE BUGLEE
there is no truth to the averment that it is done so
unlawfully, willfully, feloniously and with knowledge that
LESLIE BUGLEE is a legally married woman since the
latter represented herself as a single and unmarried

woman;
3) That contrary to allegations of the complainant,
respondent, although present at the 2010 Golf Show held
at the SM Mall of Asia SMX Convention Center was never
introduced to both CONTI BUGLEE and
LESLIE
BUGLEE and that she gained knowledge of the marriage
between CONTI BUGLEE and LESLIE BUGLEE only
upon confrontation that occurred at No. 3 Ayala Avenue,
Makati when CONTI BUGLEE confronted LESLIE
BUGLEE and that therefore, the allegations are clearly
unfounded and malicious and should therefore be
dismissed.
4) I attest to the truth of the foregoing statements.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affix my
signature this 15th day of December, 2010 in Makati City,
Philippines.
PABLO HILIG
Respondent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 15th day

of December, 2010 in Makati. I hereby certify that I have
personally examined the affiant and I am convinced that she
personally and voluntarily verified the foregoing Rejoinder and
she understood the contents thereof.
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
ADULTERY
(Sur-Rejoinder)

Makati City
Contee Buglee,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Adultery

Respondents.
x--------------------------------------x
SUR-REJOINDER
I, CONTI BUGLEE, of legal age, married and a resident
of No. 1 Ayala Avenue, Makati City after having been sworn to
1. That as the complainant, I am still reiterating the
allegation in my affidavit that my wife, LESLIE BUGLEE
feloniously had sexual intercourse with PABLO HILIG,
who is not her husband, and the latter knowing her to be
married to CONTI BUGLEE, voluntarily, unlawfully, and
feloniously had carnal knowledge with her at No. 3 Ayala
Avenue, Makati;
2. That PABLO HILIG has full and actual knowledge of the

fact that LESLIE BUGLEE is legally a married woman;
3. That contrary to her claim, I and my wife were actually
introduced to him sometime on March 2010 at the 2010
Golf Show held at the SM Mall of Asia SMX Convention
Center;
4. That in support of my allegation, I am willing and ready
to present photographic evidence/pictures taken during
the convention.
signature this 19th day of December 2010 in Makati City,
Philippines.
CONTI
BUGLEE
Complainant
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
ADULTERY

Makati City
Contee Buglee,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. 123456

For: Adultery
Pablo Hilig and Leslee Buglee

Respondents.
x--------------------------------------x
Accused PABLO HILIG through the undersigned counsel,
respectfully alleges:
1. That he is the co-accused in the above-entitled case of
the crime of ADULTERY committed against CONTI
BUGLEE.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the accused
be allowed to ask clarificatory questions upon the complainant
and the complainants counsel.
January 16, 2011. Makati City
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
Please take notice that on Friday, January 16, 2011, at
Makati, Philippines. January 12, 2011
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA

ROLL NO.12344556
ADULTERY
(Resolution)

Makati City
Contee Buglee,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Adultery

Respondents.
x--------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
Submitted for resolution is the case described hereunder.
This is a case of Adultery filed by CONTI BUGLEE against
PABLO HILIG of 4 Pasay Road, Makati City and LESLIE
BUGLEE of #3 Buendia, Makati City.
LESLIE BUGLEE did then and there voluntarily, unlawfully,
and feloniously had sexual intercourse with her co-accused
PABLO HILIG, who is not her husband, and the latter knowing
her to be married to CONTI BUGLEE , voluntarily, unlawfully,
and feloniously had carnal knowledge with her.
With these, the undersigned finds probable cause to

indict that PABLO HILIG and LESLIE BUGLEE for Adultery
under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code.
Makati City, Philippines, 28th of December 2010.
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
APPROVED:
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
ADULTERY
(Information)

Makati City, Branch VIII
Plaintiff,
For: Adultery

Defendants.
x--------------------------------------x
INFORMATION
The undersigned, Prosecutor accuses PABLO HILIG and
LESLIE BUGLEE of the crime of ADULTERY, committed as
follows, to wit:
That on or about October 31, 2010 , at about 11pm, in
the City of Makati and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused LESLIE BUGLEE did then
and there voluntarily, unlawfully, and feloniously had sexual
intercourse with her co-accused PABLO HILIG, who is not her
husband, and the latter knowing her to be married to CONTI
BUGLEE, voluntarily, unlawfully, and feloniously had carnal
knowledge with her.
City of Makati, Philippines, January 10, 2011
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
ADULTERY
Makati City
) s.s.
1. I am the Private Complainant in Criminal Case No. 35
for the crime of Adultery entitled People of the Philippines
vs. PABLO HILIG and LESLIE BUGLEE, which is now
that, I mistook accused PABLO HILIG as the person
introduced to me and my wife sometime on March 2010
at the 2010 Golf Show held at the SM Mall of Asia SMX
Convention Center;

CONTI BUGLEE
Affiant
Makati City.

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567 1/12/11
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2011.
ADULTERY
Makati City
) s.s.
for the crime of Adultery in violation of Article 333 of
the under the Revised Penal Code entitled People of
the Philippines vs. PABLO HILIG and LESLIE
BUGLEE, which is now pending before the
Metropolitan Trial Court, National Capital Judicial
Region, Makati City, Branch 07;

CONTI BUGLEE
Affiant
Makati City.

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567 1/12/11
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2011.
ADULTERY
(Motion for Allowance to Post Bail)

Plaintiff,
For: Adultery

Defendants.
x--------------------------------------x

Comes
now
accused
PABLO
HILIG,
through
the
undersigned counsel, respectfully alleges:

the crime Adultery, in violation of Article 333 of the
under the Revised Penal Code, committed against CONTI
BUGLEE.
strong;

courts discretion
WHEREFORE,
upon
prior
notice
and
hearing,
it
is

JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
ADULTERY

Plaintiff,
For: Adultery

Defendants.
x--------------------------------------x

Comes
now
accused
PABLO
HILIG,
through
the

BUGLEE.
Php 200,000.00
3. That said defendant has other current obligations which
are due and demandable, proof of such are attached here
as Annex A.
WHEREFORE, the accused PABLO HILIG respectfully

JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
ADULTERY

Plaintiff,
For: Adultery

Defendants.
x--------------------------------------x

Comes
now
accused
PABLO
HILIG,
through
the

BUGLEE.
2. That being unable to post the required cash or bail
bond, hereby binds himself, pending final decision of the
above-entitled case, to appear before the court when so
ordered;

WHEREFORE,
respectfully
upon
prayed
prior
that
notice
the
and
accused
hearing,
be
it
released
is
on
recognizance.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
ADULTERY

Plaintiff,
For: Adultery

Defendants.
x--------------------------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH
Comes now accused PABLO HILIG,
through
the

BUGLEE.
this case.
oficio.
January 16, 2011. Makati City.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA

ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
ADULTERY

Plaintiff,
For: Adultery

Defendants.
x--------------------------------------x

Comes
now
accused
PABLO
HILIG,
through
the

BUGLEE.
this case.
3. That the City Prosecutor made a grave abuse of discretion

accused for the crime he allegedly committed.
herein accused.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
ADULTERY

Makati City
Contee Buglee,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. 123456

For: Adultery

Respondents.
x--------------------------------------x
Respondent PABLO HILIG, through the undersigned
1. That he is the respondent in the above-entitled case of

the crime of Adultery, in violation of Article 333 of the
BUGLEE.
2. That the evidence presented is not sufficient to justify the
findings of probable cause.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:

JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
ADULTERY

Malacanan, Manila
Pablo Hilig and Leslee Buglee,
Appelant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Adultery
- versus Prosecutor Ronald C. Gonzales

Appelee.
x--------------------------------------x
APPEAL
COMES NOW the appellant-accused, PABLO HILIG

through the undersigned counsel, and hereby allege the
following
I.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

II.
FACTS OF THE CASE

commission of the crime of Adultery, in
violation of Article
333 of the under the Revised Penal Code, committed against

CONTI BUGLEE. The City Prosecutor, in his Resolution, finds
probable cause in the case. A Motion for Reconsideration was
filed but was also denied. The Resolution was appealed to the
Department of Justice but the latter also finds probable cause.
Thus this appeal.
III.

IV.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE

V.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, appellant-respondent humbly prays that this

Honorable Office reverse the decision of the Department of
Justice and thereby also reversing the finding of the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Makati finding probable cause against
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556

Copy Furnished:
ADULTERY

Plaintiff,
- versus -

For: Adultery

Defendants.
x--------------------------------------x
alleges that:
accused, PABLO HILIG dated January 16, 2011.
Attached is herewith the copy of warrant of arrest.
service made by the Police Officer,PO1 Santiago Munez,
dated January 18,2011.

ends of justice.
4. WHEREFORE, undersigned and prays that after hearing
and examination of this motion, alias warrant of arrest
be issued to bring the accused under custody.
accused.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556

ADULTERY

Plaintiff,
For: Adultery

Defendants.
x--------------------------------------x

WITH LEAVE OF COURT
Comes
now
accused
PABLO
HILIG,
through
the

BUGLEE.
this case;
3. That the evidence submitted is insufficient to convict the

herein accused of the crime charged against him.
WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
this

the herein accused.
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RONALD C. GONZALES
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA

ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
ADULTERY
(Trial Brief)

Plaintiff,
For: Adultery

Defendants.
x--------------------------------------x
TRIAL BRIEF
Private PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully submits his
Trial Brief, as follows:
I.

SETTLEMENT
1.1. Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and
reasonable and a reciprocal manifestation of openness
from defendant, plaintiff is open to the possibility of
amicably settling this dispute.
II.

2.1 Private Plaintiff claims that accused accused PABLO

HILIG has full and actual knowledge of the fact that
LESLIE BUGLEE is legally a married woman.
2.2 Accused PABLO HILIG asserts that co-accused
LESLIE BUGLEE represented herself as a single and
unmarried woman.
2.3 Contrary to allegations of the private plaintiff,
accused PABLO HILIG also asserts, that although he was
present at the 2010 Golf Show at the SM Mall of Asia
SMX Convention Center, he was never introduced to both
CONTI BUGLEE and LESLIE BUGLEE and that he gained
knowledge of the marriage between CONTI BUGLEE and
LESLIE BUGLEE only upon confrontation that occurred
at #3 Buendia, Makati City when NAIPOTAN confronted
LESLIE BUGLEE and that therefore, the allegations are
clearly unfounded and malicious and should therefore be
dismissed.
III.

PARTIES
3.1. Plaintiff and defendants admits to relevant paragraphs

in so far as it states their personal circumstances
IV.
ISSUES TO BE TRIED
4.1. Whether or not accused violated Art 333 of the

Revised Penal Code
V.
EVIDENCE
5.1
Plaintiff himself, CONTI BUGLEE, who will testify on
the true circumstances leading to the filing of this suit;

5.2. JAZZ GABUCAY, who has personal knowledge of
sexual intercourse between PABLO HILIG and LESLIE
BUGLEE and was present during the confrontation
between plaintiff CONTI BUGLEE and LESLIE BUGLEE
at No. 3 Ayala Avenue, Makati.
VI.
RESORT TO DISCOVERY

6.2
Makati City, January 18, 2011

Respectfully Submitted:
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF
ROLL NO. 22344556
Copy furnished:
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ADULTERY
(Pre-Trial Brief)

Plaintiff,
For: Adultery

Defendants.
x--------------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
UNDERSIGNED
Assistant
City
Prosecutor
hereby

Criminal
Procedure,
and
sub-paragraph
number
of

application of the provisions of Article 333 of the Revised Penal
Code, on the following circumstances, to wit:
That on or about October 31, 2010 , at about 11pm

in the City of Makati and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the accused LESLIE BUGLEE
feloniously had sexual intercourse with her coaccused PABLO HILIG, who is not her husband, and
the latter knowing her to be married to CONTI
BUGLEE, voluntarily, unlawfully, and feloniously
had carnal knowledge with her.
PLEA BARGAINING
agreement.
I. JURISDICTION:
the accused.
arraigned in court.
III-A.
Plaintiff CONTI BUGLEE is the legal
husband of LESLIE BUGLEE. They were married at
Manila Cathedral on March 6, 2009 and living as

husband and wife at No. 3 Ayala Avenue, Makati.
III-B.
On or about October 31, 2010 , at about
11pm, in our home in the City of Makati and within the
knowledge with her.

EXHIBIT A --- Marriage certificate between CONTI
BUGLEE and LESLIE BUGLEE
EXHIBIT B --- Picture of LESLIE BUGLEE to identify
accused LESLIE BUGLEE
EXHIBIT C --- Picture of PABLO HILIG to identify accused
PABLO HILIG
EXHIBIT D --- Picture of used condom, to prove that
there was unlawful copulation at the time CONTI BUGLEE
caught the accused in the act at the conjugal dwelling
EXHIBIT E --- Picture with LESLIE BUGLEE and PABLO
HILIG together showing proof of illicit relationship leading to
unlawful copulation
EXHIBIT F --- Affidavit of Atena Min, household help of
CONTI BUGLEE and LESLIE BUGLEE, attesting to presence of
PABLO HILIG during confrontation at No. 3 Ayala Avenue,

Makati City
1.
2.
CONTI BUGLEE, the private offended party;

JAZZ GABUCAY, who has personal knowledge of
sexual intercourse between PABLO HILIG and LESLIE
BUGLEE and was present during the confrontation between
plaintiff CONTI BUGLEE and LESLIE BUGLEE at No. 3 Ayala
Avenue, Makati.
ISSUES
accused in performing the above-mentioned acts, constituted
a violation of Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code
Makati City, January 21, 2011.
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
Counsel for the accused, Makati City.
ADULTERY

Plaintiff,
- versus -

For: Adultery

Defendants.
x--------------------------------------x
EXHIBIT A --- Marriage certificate between CONTI
BUGLEE and LESLIE BUGLEE
EXHIBIT B --- Picture of LESLIE BUGLEE to identify
accused LESLIE BUGLEE
EXHIBIT C --- Picture of PABLO HILIG to identify
accused PABLO HILIG
there was unlawful copulation at the time
CONTI BUGLEE caught the accused in the

act at the conjugal dwelling
EXHIBIT E --- Picture with LESLIE BUGLEE and
PABLO HILIG together showing proof of
illicit relationship leading to unlawful
copulation
CONTI BUGLEE and LESLIE BUGLEE, attesting to
presence of PABLO HILIG during confrontation at No.
3 Ayala Avenue, Makati City
testimonies given by witnesses CONTI BUGLEE, the private
offended party; and JAZZ GABUCAY,
who has personal
knowledge of sexual intercourse between PABLO HILIG and
LESLIE BUGLEE and was present during the confrontation
between plaintiff CONTI BUGLEE and LESLIE BUGLEE at No.
3 Ayala Avenue, Makati.
Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F, with all its respective submarkings, together with the testimony of said witnesses, are
offered for the identical purpose of showing that on or about
October 31, 2010 , at about 11pm, in the City of Makati, the
said accused LESLIE BUGLEE did then and there voluntarily,
unlawfully, and feloniously had sexual intercourse with her coaccused PABLO HILIG, who is not her husband, and the latter
knowing her to be married to CONTI BUGLEE, voluntarily,
unlawfully, and feloniously had carnal knowledge with her.
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
ADULTERY

Plaintiff,
- versus -

For: Adultery

Defendants.
x--------------------------------------x
PROFFER OF EVIDENCE
files this proffer of evidence concerning the excluded evidence
stated below, in accordance with Section 40, Rule 133 of the
Rules of Court , to wit:
there was unlawful copulation at the time
CONTI BUGLEE caught the accused in the
act at the conjugal dwelling
EXHIBIT E --- Picture with LESLIE BUGLEE and PABLO
HILIG together showing proof of illicit
relationship leading to unlawful copulation

CONTI BUGLEE and LESLIE BUGLEE,
attesting to presence of PABLO HILIG during
confrontation at No. 3 Ayala Avenue, Makati
City
given by witnesses CONTI BUGLEE, the private offended party;
and JAZZ GABUCAY, who has personal knowledge of sexual
intercourse between PABLO HILIG and LESLIE BUGLEE and
was present during the confrontation between plaintiff CONTI
BUGLEE and LESLIE BUGLEE at No. 3 Ayala Avenue, Makati.
Exhibits D, E, and F, with all its respective sub-markings,
identical purpose of showing that on or about October 31, 2010
, at about 11pm, in the City of Makati, the said accused
LESLIE BUGLEE did then and there voluntarily, unlawfully,
and feloniously had sexual intercourse with her co-accused
PABLO HILIG, who is not her husband, and the latter knowing
her to be married to CONTI BUGLEE, voluntarily, unlawfully,
and feloniously had carnal knowledge with her.
VICTOR C. SALVADOR
JEREMY B. BAUTISTA
CONCUBINAGE
Makati City
) s.s.
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I,
DENICA JAVIER , of legal age, married and a
resident of No. 1 Ayala Avenue, Makati City after having been

sworn to law hereby depose and state:
1. That I am the legal wife of JUSTIN JAVIER. We were
married at High End Church at Ayala Alabang, Makati,
City on March 6, 2009.
2. That we were living as husband and wife at No. 3 Ayala
Avenue, Makati.
3. That in or about the month of July, 2009 and on dates
subsequent thereto, JUSTIN JAVIER and SAMANTHA
CRUZ willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cohabited as
husband and wife at #3 Buendia, Makati City.
4. That SAMANTHA CRUZ has full and actual knowledge
of the fact that JUSTIN JAVIER is legally a married
man.
5. That as a result of the cohabitation of JUSTIN JAVIER
and SAMANTHA CRUZ, a child named PRINCESS
CRUZ was born in October 9, 2010.
DENICA JAVIER
Affiant

November, 2010.

Atty. Lesler J. Mallari

CONCUBINAGE
(Counter-Affidavit)
Makati City
) s.s.
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, SAMANTHA CRUZ, of legal age, single and a resident of
#4 Pasay Road, Makati City, after having been sworn to law
hereby depose and state:
1. That I met JUSTIN JAVIER sometime in February,
2009 in Alabang, Muntinlupa while working as a sales
clerk in a department store.
2. That JUSTIN JAVIER represented himself as a single
and unmarried man.
3. That we fell in love and decided to live as husband and
wife at #3
4. Buendia, Makati City. That our daughter PRINCESS
CRUZ was born in October 9, 2010.
5. That I have no knowledge that JUSTIN JAVIER was
lawfully married to a certain DENICA JAVIER .
6. That I gained knowledge of the marriage between
JUSTIN JAVIER and DENICA JAVIER only upon a
confrontation that occurred at #3 Buendia, Makati
City when DENICA JAVIER
confronted JUSTIN
JAVIER.
7. That after the said confrontation I left JUSTIN JAVIER

and lived with my parents at #4 Pasay Road, Makati
City together with my daughter, Baby.
signature this 8th 6th day of December 2008, in Makati City.
SAMANTHA CRUZ
Affiant
December, 2010. I hereby certify that I have personally
ATTY. FRANCISCO BARRAMEDA

Notary Public
PTR No. 234567 1/12/10
IBP No. 6789 1/2/10
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2010.
CONCUBINAGE
(Reply)
Makati City
Denica Javier,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Concubinage
- versus Justin Javier and Samantha Cruz

Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------x
REPLY
COMES NOW, DENICA JAVIER, after having been sworn

to law hereby depose and state:
1. That I am reiterating the allegation in my affidavit that
my husband, JUSTIN JAVIER and SAMANTHA CRUZ
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cohabiting as
husband and wife at #3 Buendia, Makati City .
man;
3. That contrary to her claim, I and my husband were
actually introduced to her sometime on March 2010 at
the Annual Convention of Filipino Entrepreneurs held

at the Cultural Center of the Philippines;
signature this 23rd day of December 2010, in Makati City.
DENICA JAVIER
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23 rd day of
December, 2010.

ATTY. GARY SAN GABRIEL

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567 1/12/10
IBP No. 6789 1/2/10
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2010.
CONCUBINAGE
(Rejoinder)
Makati City
Denica Javier,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Concubinage

Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------x
REJOINDER
Comes Now, RESPONDENT SAMANTHA CRUZ unto this
Honorable Office, respectfully state that:
1. Respondent specifically, vehemently and consistently
denies the material allegations in the reply affidavit of
the complainant, dated December 23, 2010, for being
unfounded, baseless and malicious and must be
dismissed out rightly for failing to establish the
requisite elements of the crime ascribed;
2. Respondent reiterates her defense that while it is true
that she cohabited with JUSTIN JAVIER as husband
and wife which resulted to the birth of PRINCESS
CRUZ on October 9, 2010, there is no truth to the
averment that it is done so unlawfully, willfully,
feloniously and with knowledge that JUSTIN JAVIER

is a legally married man since the latter represented
himself as a single and unmarried man;
3. That to the contrary to allegations of the complainant,
respondent, although present at the Annual
Convention of Filipino Entrepreneurs, was never
introduced to both JUSTIN JAVIER and SAMANTHA
CRUZ and that she gained knowledge of the marriage
between JUSTIN JAVIER and SAMANTHA CRUZ only
upon confrontation that occurred at #3 Buendia,
Makati City when
DENICA JAVIER confronted
JUSTIN JAVIER and that therefore, the allegations are
clearly unfounded and malicious and should therefore
be dismissed;
4. I attest to the truth of the foregoing statements.
Philippines.
SAMANTHA CRUZ
Affiant
December, 2010.

ATTY. FRANCISCO BARRAMEDA

Notary Public
PTR No. 234567 1/12/10
IBP No. 6789 1/2/10
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2010.
CONCUBINAGE
(Sur-Rejoinder)
Makati City
Denica Javier,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Concubinage

Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------x
SUR-REJOINDER
I,

sworn to law hereby depose and state:
1. That as a complainant, I am still reiterating the
allegation in my affidavit that my husband, JUSTIN
JAVIER and SAMANTHA CRUZ were willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously cohabiting as husband and
wife at #3 Buendia, Makati City.
man;
3. That contrary to her claim, I and my husband were

actually introduced to her sometime on March 2010 at
the Annual Convention of Filipino Entrepreneurs held
at the Cultural Center of the Philippines;
Philippines.
DENICA JAVIER
Complainant
Lester J. Mallari
CONCUBINAGE
(Resolution)

Makati City
Denica Javier,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Concubinage

Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
This is a case of Concubinage filed by DENICA JAVIER
against JUSTIN JAVIER of #3 Buendia, Makati City and
SAMANTHA CRUZ of#4 Pasay Road, Makati City.
JUSTIN JAVIER and SAMANTHA CRUZ has feloniously
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cohabiting as husband
and wife at #3 Buendia, Makati City; and that in spite of her
knowledge, SAMANTHA CRUZ cohabitated and even bore a
child with JUSTIN JAVIER.
With these, the undersigned finds probable cause to
indict JUSTIN JAVIER and SAMANTHA CRUZ for Concubinage
under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code.
Makati City, Philippines, 28th of December 2010.
LESTER J. MALLARI
APPROVED:
RUSSELL W. PITT
City Prosecutor
CONCUBINAGE
(Information)

Plaintiff,
For: Concubinage

Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x
INFORMATION
The undersigned, Prosecutor accuses JUSTIN JAVIER
and SAMANTHA CRUZ of the crime of CONCUBINAGE,
committed as follows, to wit:
That as provided for in Art 334 of the Revised Penal Code,
a person shall be charged of concubinage if under scandalous
circumstances and with sexual intercourse, keep up with a
mistress in a conjugal dwelling in which this case, unlawfully,
feloniously and without justifiable cause, JUSTIN JAVIER cohabited with SAMANTHA CRUZ, setting aside the fact that
JUSTIN JAVIER is married to DENICA JAVIER.
City of Makati, Philippines, January 10, 2011.
RUSSELL W. PITT
City Prosecutor
CONCUBINAGE

Makati City
Denica Javier,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. 123456

For: Concubinage
Justin Javier and Samantha Cruz

Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------x
Accused SAMANTHA CRUZ, through the undersigned
1. That she is the co-accused in the above-entitled case
of the crime of violation of Art 334 of the Revised Penal
Code committed against DENICA JAVIER .

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the accused
be allowed to ask clarificatory questions upon the complainant
and the complainants counsel.
ATTY. JEROME LASTIMOSA

ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
ATTY. MARJORIE A. SAN JUAN

Makati City
Greetings:

ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:

CONCUBINAGE
Makati City
) s.s.
I,
DENICA JAVIER , of legal age, married and a resident
of No. 1 Ayala Avenue, Makati City after having been sworn to

law hereby depose and state that:
1.
I am the Private Complainant in

Criminal Case No. 30 for VIOLATION OF Art 334 of
the Revised Penal Code entitled People of the
Philippines vs. JUSTIN JAVIER and SAMANTHA
CRUZ, which is now pending before the Metropolitan
Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Makati
City, Branch 07;
2.
After a careful evaluation of the facts and

honestly believe that, I mistook accused SAMANTHA
CRUZ as the person introduced to me and my
husband sometime on March 2010 at the Annual
Convention of Filipino Entrepreneurs held at the
Cultural Center of the Philippines;
3.
I am no longer interested in further

prosecuting the case against the accused;
4.
I am not paid, threatened, nor coerce in

executing this affidavit of desistance;
5.
I am voluntarily executing this affidavit to

attest the veracity of the foregoing and to move for the
dismissal of the said case against the accused.

DENICA JAVIER
Complainant
Makati City.

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567 1/12/11
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2011.
CONCUBINAGE
Makati City
) s.s.
I,

sworn to law hereby depose and state that:
for VIOLATION OF Art 334 of the Revised Penal Code
entitled People of the Philippines vs. JUSTIN JAVIER
and SAMANTHA CRUZ, which is now pending before
the Metropolitan Trial Court, National Capital Judicial
Region, Makati City, Branch 07;

DENICA JAVIER
Complainant
Makati City.

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234567 1/12/11
IBP No. 6789 1/2/11
ROA 91234
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2011.
CONCUBINAGE
(Motion for the Allowance of the Accused to Post Bail)

Plaintiff,
- versus -

For: Concubinage

Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x
Comes now accused SAMANTHA CRUZ, through the
strong;
courts discretion


ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RUSSELL W. PITT
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:

ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
RUSSELL W. PITT
City Prosecutor
CONCUBINAGE

Plaintiff,
- versus -

For: Concubinage

Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x
Accused SAMANTHA CRUZ, through the undersigned
1) That she is the co-accused in the above-entitled case

Code committed against DENICA JAVIER.
2) That the bail for his provisional release has been set at
Php 200,000.00
3) That said defendant has other current obligations
which are due and demandable, proof of such are
attached here as Annex A.
WHEREFORE,
the
accused
SAMANTHA
CRUZ
respectfully prays that the court grants this motion to reduce
bail to Php 50,000.00 or such amount as the court sees just in

ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RUSSELL W. PITT
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:


ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
RUSSELL W. PITT
City Prosecutor
CONCUBINAGE

Plaintiff,
- versus -
For: Concubinage

Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x
bond, hereby binds himself, pending final decision of
the above-entitled case, to appear before the court
when so ordered ;
respectfully prayed that the accused be released on
recognizance.

ROLL NO.12344556

NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RUSSELL W. PITT
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:

ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
RUSSELL W. PITT
City Prosecutor
CONCUBINAGE

Plaintiff,
For: Concubinage

Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH
this case.
officio.

ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RUSSELL W. PITT
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:

ROLL NO.12344556

Received by:
RUSSELL W. PITT
City Prosecutor
CONCUBINAGE
(Motion for the Judicial Determination of Probable Cause
and to Hold in Abeyance the Arraignment of the Accused)

Plaintiff,
- versus -

For: Concubinage

Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR THE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION
OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND TO HOLD THE ARRAIGNMENT
OF THE ACCUSED IN ABEYANCE
Code committed against DENICA JAVIER.
this case.
3. That the City Prosecutor made a grave abuse of

discretion when she approved the filing of the
Information when there is evidently no probable cause
to hold the herein accused for the crime he allegedly
committed.
WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
this

herein accused.
January 16, 2011. Makati City.

ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RUSSELL W. PITT
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:


ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
RUSSELL W. PITT
City Prosecutor
CONCUBINAGE

Makati City
Denica Javier,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. 123456

For: Concubinage

Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------x
Respondent SAMANTHA CRUZ, through the undersigned
1. That she is the respondent in the in the above-entitled
case of the crime of violation of Art 334 of the Revised
Penal Code committed against DENICA JAVIER.
the findings of probably cause.

ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING

Makati City
Greetings:

ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:

CONCUBINAGE

Malacanan, Manila
Justin Javier and Samantha Cruz,
Appellants,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Concubinage
- versus Prosecutor Russell W. Pitt

Appellee.
x-------------------------------------------x
APPEAL
COMES NOW the appellant-accused, SAMANTHA CRUZ

through the undersigned counsel, and hereby allege the
following
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
I.

II.
FACTS OF THE CASE

commission of the crime in violation of Art 334 of the Revised
Penal Code committed against DENICA JAVIER allegedly done
against the herein appellee-complainant DENICA JAVIER . The

City Prosecutor, in his Resolution, finds probable cause in the
case. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed but was also
denied. The Resolution was appealed to the Department of
Justice but the latter also finds probable cause. Thus, this
appeal.
III.

IV.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE

V.
RELIEF


ROLL NO.12344556

CONCUBINAGE
(Motion for Issuance of an Alias Warrant of Arrest)

Plaintiff,
- versus -

For: Concubinage

Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x
alleges that:
1. This honorable court issued a warrant of arrest
to the accused, SAMANTHA CRUZ dated January
16, 2011. Attached is herewith the copy of
warrant of arrest.
2. After the due execution by the PNP Manila West
Police Station the warrant of arrest was not
served to the accused because he cannot be
located in the given address. Attached herewith
the return slip and proof of service made by the
Police Officer, PO1

January 18,2011.
Santiago
Munez,
dated
3. Thus, there is a necessity of placing the

respondent under immediate custody in order not
to frustrate the ends of justice.
of arrest be issued to bring the accused under custody.
justice;
accused.
RUSSELL W. PITT
City Prosecutor
Makati City
CONCUBINAGE

Plaintiff,
- versus -

For: Concubinage

Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x
1. That she is the co-accused in the above-entitled case of
the crime of violation of Art 334 of the Revised Penal
this case;
WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
this

the herein accused.

ROLL NO.12344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
RUSSELL W. PITT
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:

ROLL NO.12344556
Received by:
RUSSELL W. PITT
City Prosecutor
CONCUBINAGE
(Trial Brief)

Plaintiff,
For: Concubinage

Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x
TRIAL BRIEF
Private PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully submits his
Trial Brief, as follows:
I.

SETTLEMENT
1.1. Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable
and
reciprocal
manifestation
of
openness
from

II.

2.1
That accused SAMANTHA CRUZ has full and actual

knowledge of the fact that JUSTIN JAVIER is legally a
married man.
2.2
That JUSTIN JAVIER represented himself as a single and

unmarried man
2.3
That to the contrary to allegations of the complainant,

respondent, although present at the Annual Convention
of Filipino Entrepreneurs, was never introduced to both
JUSTIN JAVIER and SAMANTHA CRUZ and that she
gained knowledge of the marriage between JUSTIN
JAVIER and SAMANTHA CRUZ only upon confrontation
that occurred at #3 Buendia, Makati City when DENICA
JAVIER confronted JUSTIN JAVIER and that therefore,
the allegations are clearly unfounded and malicious and
should therefore be dismissed.
III.

PARTIES
3.1. Plaintiff and defendants admits to relevant paragraphs

in so far as it states their personal circumstances
IV.
ISSUES TO BE TRIED
4.1. Whether or not accused violated Art 334 of the Revised

Penal Code
V.
EVIDENCE

5.1
Plaintiff herself, DENICA JAVIER, who will testify on the
true circumstances leading to the filing of this suit;

5.2. CHIZ MOSO, who has personal knowledge of sexual

intercourse between JUSTIN JAVIER and SAMANTHA CRUZ.
VI.
RESORT TO DISCOVERY

6.2
Makati City, January 18, 2011

Respectfully Submitted:

Counsel for Plaintiff
ROLL NO. 22344556
Copy furnished:

CONCUBINAGE
(Pre-Trial Brief)

Plaintiff,
For: Concubinage

Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
UNDERSIGNED
Assistant
City
Prosecutor
hereby

Criminal
Procedure,
and
sub-paragraph
number
of


application of the provisions of Article 334 of the Revised Penal
Code, on the following circumstances, to wit:
That in or about the month of July, 2009
and on dates subsequent thereto, JUSTIN
JAVIER and SAMANTHA CRUZ willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously cohabited as
husband and wife at #3 Buendia, Makati
City; That SAMANTHA CRUZ has full and
actual knowledge of the fact that JUSTIN
JAVIER is legally a married man.
PLEA BARGAINING
agreement.
I. JURISDICTION:
III-A. That DENICA JAVIER is the legal wife of
JUSTIN JAVIER. They were married at High
End Church at Ayala Alabang, Makati, City on

March 6, 2009
III-B.That SAMANTHA CRUZ met JUSTIN JAVIER
sometime in February, 2009 in Alabang,
Muntinlupa while working as a sales clerk in a
department store; and that JUSTIN JAVIER
represented himself as a single and unmarried
man.
III-C.That SAMANTHA CRUZ and JUSTIN JAVIER
fell in love and decided to live as husband and
wife at #3 Buendia, Makati City;
III-D. That in or about the month of July, 2009 and
on dates subsequent thereto, JUSTIN JAVIER
and SAMANTHA CRUZ willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously cohabited as husband and wife at
#3 Buendia, Makati City;
III-E.
That SAMANTHA CRUZ has full and

actual knowledge of the fact that JUSTIN
JAVIER is legally a married man.
III-F.
That as a result of the cohabitation of

JUSTIN JAVIER and SAMANTHA CRUZ, a child
named PRINCESS CRUZ was born in October
9, 2010.
EXHIBIT A
---
Marriage
DENICA
certificate
JAVIER
and
between
JUSTIN
JAVIER
EXHIBIT B
-- Affidavit of DENICA JAVIER

relating illicit relationship of JUSTIN
JAVIER and SAMANTHA CRUZ
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT H
--- Birth certificate of Princess Cruz

--- Affidavit of Atena Min, household
help of JUSTIN JAVIER and
SAMANTHA CRUZ
--- Picture of SAMANTHA CRUZ to
identify accused SAMANTHA CRUZ
--- Picture of JUSTIN JAVIER to
identify accused JUSTIN JAVIER
--- Picture of JUSTIN JAVIER,
SAMANTHA CRUZ and PRINCESS
CRUZ in a birthday celebration of
JUSTIN JAVIER at #3 Buendia,
Makati City
--- Affidavit of KA TAMBAY, #5
Buendia Ave., Makati City and
neighbor of JUSTIN JAVIER and
SAMANTHA CRUZ

1. DENICA JAVIER , the private offended party;
2. CHIZ MOSO, who has personal knowledge of cohabitation
between JUSTIN JAVIER and SAMANTHA CRUZ
ISSUES
accused in performing the above-mentioned acts, constituted a
violation of Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code
Lester J. Mallari

CONCUBINAGE

Plaintiff,
For: Concubinage

Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x

EXHIBIT A
---
Marriage
DENICA
certificate
JAVIER
and
between
JUSTIN
JAVIER
EXHIBIT B
-- Affidavit of DENICA JAVIER

EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
--- Birth certificate of Princess Cruz

--- Affidavit of Atena Min, household
help of JUSTIN JAVIER and
SAMANTHA CRUZ
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT H
--- Picture of SAMANTHA CRUZ to

--- Picture of JUSTIN JAVIER to
identify accused JUSTIN JAVIER
--- Picture of JUSTIN JAVIER,
SAMANTHA CRUZ and PRINCESS
CRUZ in a birthday celebration of
JUSTIN JAVIER at #3 Buendia,
Makati City
--- Affidavit of KA TAMBAY, #5
Buendia Ave., Makati City and
neighbor of JUSTIN JAVIER and
SAMANTHA CRUZ

testimonies given by witnesses DENICA JAVIER , the private
offended party and CHIZ MOSO, who has direct and personal
knowledge of cohabitation between JUSTIN JAVIER and
SAMANTHA CRUZ.
Exhibits A, B, C, D, F, G, and H, with all its respective
sub-markings, together with the testimony of said witnesses,
are offered for the identical purpose of showing that in or about
the month of July, 2009 and on dates subsequent thereto,
JUSTIN JAVIER and SAMANTHA CRUZ willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously cohabited as husband and wife at #3 Buendia,
Makati City.
Respectfully submitted.
Lester J. Mallari

CONCUBINAGE

Plaintiff,
- versus -

For: Concubinage

Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------x
PROFFER OF EVIDENCE
Court, to wit:
EXHIBIT B -- Affidavit of
DENICA
JAVIER

EXHIBIT C --- Birth certificate of Princess Cruz
EXHIBIT D --- Affidavit of Atena Min, household
help
of
JUSTIN
JAVIER
and
SAMANTHA CRUZ
EXHIBIT E --- Picture of SAMANTHA CRUZ to

testimonies given by witnesses DENICA JAVIER, the private
offended party and CHIZ MOSO, who has direct and personal
knowledge of cohabitation between JUSTIN JAVIER and
SAMANTHA CRUZ
Exhibits B, C, D, and E, with all its respective submarkings, together with the testimony of said witnesses, are
offered for the identical purpose of showing that in or about the
month of July, 2009 and on dates subsequent thereto, JUSTIN
JAVIER and SAMANTHA CRUZ willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously cohabited as husband and wife at #3 Buendia,
Makati City.
Lester J.
Mallari

RAPE
Quezon City
) s.s.
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, Jenalene S. Santos, Filipino, of legal age, single, and a
resident of Quezon City, Philippines, after being sworn to in
accordance with law, depose and state:
1. That I know the person of Sean T. Thompson, who is a
resident of No. 8 Respondent Street, Quezon City,
Philippines;
2. That sometime on the night of May 1, 2012, at #8
Accuser St.,, Quezon City, Philippines, the said Sean T.
Thompson through stealth and strategy entered in my
house;
3. That while he is in my house, he went into my bedroom
where I was getting ready to sleep;
4. That using force, threat and intimidation, and without
my consent, had carnal knowledge with me. A true and
faithful machine reproduction of the Medico-legal
findings is hereto attached as Annex A;
5. That despite resistance and lack of consent, he was able
to overpower me and made me fall asleep through the use
of some sleeping agent. A true and faithful machine
reproduction of the blood analysis by the Medico-Legal
for presence of the sleeping agent in my blood stream is
hereto attached, marked as Annex B;
6. That after being processed and referred to the MedicoLegal, the latter was able to collect semen sample from
the accused found within my genital area which is
enough to make proper DNA analysis, the result of the
latter being hereto attached as Annex C;
support of the charges of Rape against the said Sean T.
Thompson, who may be served with subpoena and other
processes of this Honorable Office at his address at #8
Respondent St, Quezon City, Philippines;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
10th day of May, 2012 at Quezon City, Philippines.
Jenalene S. Santos
Affiant-Complainant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1st day of
May2012, affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax
Quezon City.
CERTIFICATION
ELIZABETH REYES
ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR
RAPE
(Counter-Affidavit)
Quezon City
) s.s.
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, Sean T. Thompson, of legal age, single, Filipino and
with residence address at No. 8 Respondent Street, Quezon
City, Philippines, after having been duly sworn in accordance
with law, do hereby depose and state, that:
1. I was charged with Rape, by the private-complainant;
2. However, on the night in question, the fact of the matter
is that the both of us were having carnal knowledge with
mutual consent;
3. The lacerations sustained by the vaginal wall of the
complainant is nothing more than the natural cause of
the aggressiveness of the actions of both parties.
4. Some of the lacerations in the vaginal wall are
inconsistent with those produced during an actual rape.
serve.
Quezon City, 5 May 2012
Sean T. Thompson
Respondent-Affiant
Quezon, this 5th day of May2012 by Sean T. Thompson with
Residence Certificate No. 0012345 issued at Quezon City, on
July 4, 2012.
ELIZABETH REYES
Copy Furnished:
Jenalene S. Santos
No. 8 Accuser St.,
Quezon City, Philippines
RAPE
(Reply)
Quezon City
Jenalene S. Santos,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Rape
- versus Sean T. Thompson

Respondent.
x-------------------------------x
REPLY
I, Jenalene S. Santos, of legal age, single, Filipino, and a

resident of #8Sesame Street, Quezon City, Philippines, after
having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose
and say THAT;
(a) I am executing this affidavit in reply to the
counter-affidavit submitted by the respondent
in I. S. No. C-123-456 and, at this outset, I
hereby reiterate and incorporate herein my
allegations in my earlier complaints-affidavit
filed against the answering respondent;
(b)The argument raised by the respondent in the
counter affidavit is that there was mutual
consent for carnal knowledge between me and
the respondent as shown by the inconsistencies
of the lacerations in the findings of the MedicoLegal;

(c) The only reason for the said inconsistency is
that being under the influence of the sleeping
agent which the respondent administered upon
me, he was able to take full control of my body
without any resistance on my part;
(d)The rest of the allegations in respondents
counter affidavit are irrelevant and immaterial
and are evidently designed to build a collateral
defense against the plain and simple complaint
for Rape under 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code.
(e) This affidavit is made in utmost good faith for
the sole purpose of attesting to the truth of the
foregoing statements of fact in furtherance of
my efforts to prosecute the respondent in
conformity with my complaint filed against her
10 day of May, 2012, at the City of Quezon, Philippines.
th
JENALENE S. SANTOS
Complainant
May, 2012, at the City of Quezon, Philippines, and I hereby
certify that I have personally examined the affiant and that I
am satisfied that she voluntarily executed and understood her
affidavit.
ELIZABETH REYES
ASST. CITY
PROSECUTOR
RAPE
(Rejoinder)
Quezon City
Jenalene S. Santos,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Rape

Respondent.
x-------------------------------x
REJOINDER
COMES NOW the respondent, SEAN T. THOMPSON,
through counsel, and, by way of a Rejoinder to the
complainants Reply, respectfully alleges that:
This Rejoinder is being filed with the Office of the City
Prosecutor considering that Reply filed by the complainant
disregards the fact that there are contradictory factual
evidence in the statement and evidence of the complainant,
particularly in the lacerations on her vaginal wall.
Quezon City, May 15, 2012
JOSE D. MANUEL
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
ROLL NO. 82344556
PTR OR NO. 82345/01-07-08/Quezon City
IBP OR NO. 823456/02-01-08/Quezon City
MCLE NO. 823456/02-01-08/Quezon City
Copy Furnished:
Jenalene S. Santos
No. 8 Accuser St.,
RAPE
(Sur-Rejoinder)
Quezon City
Jenalene S. Santos,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Rape

Respondent.
x-------------------------------x
SUR-REJOINDER
COMES NOW the complainant, Jenalene S. Santos,
through counsel, and, by way of a Sur rejoinder, respectfully
alleges that:
respondent disregards the fact that there is no consent
to the rape done against the person of the
complainant.
Quezon City, February 10, 2010.
EDGARDO J. SORIANO
COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT
ROLL NO. 82344556
Copy furnished:
Sean T. Thompson
Respondent
RAPE
Quezon City
Jenalene S. Santos,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Rape

Respondent.
x-------------------------------x

Accused SEAN T. THOMPSON, through the undersigned
crime of Rape committed against Jenalene S. Santos.
WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
the

May 30, 2012. Quezon City
JOSE D. MANUEL
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT
ROLL NO. 82344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
EDGARDO J. SORIANO
Quezon City
Greetings:
Please take notice that on Friday, May 30, 2012, at the
Quezon City Prosecutors Office at 9 oclock a.m., or as soon
thereafter as counsel can be heard, the undersigned will
submit the foregoing motion for the approval of the court.
Quezon, Philippines. May 20, 2012
JOSE D. MANUEL
ROLL NO. 82344556
Received by:
EDGARDO J. SORIANO
RAPE
(Resolution)
Quezon City
Jenalene S. Santos,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Rape

Respondent.
x-------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
SUBMITTED for resolution is a complaint for Rape under
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code allegedly committed
during the May 1, 2012, at Quezon City, supported by the
sworn statement of the complainant and photocopies of the
various medical finding of the Medico-Legal.
respondent had carnal knowledge with the complainant
without the latters consent through the use of force, threat,
violence and intimidation.
complaint is without legal basis since the act was performed
with full consent of the complainant as proved by lacerations

inconsistent with the act of rape.
that the carnal act was performed against the complainant
without the latters consent. The presence of lacerations
inconsistent with rape is negated by the presence of sleeping
agent administered on the complainant. Because of this, the
respondent was able to take full control of the complainant
and thereby resulting in lacerations inconsistent with rape.
sufficient cause to hold the respondent SEAN T. THOMPSON
for RAPE, as defined and punished under Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code.
Quezon City, May 2, 2012.
ELIZABETH REYES
APPROVED:
ALI B. BALIG
City Prosecutor
RAPE
(Information)
Quezon City, Branch VI
Plaintiff,
For: Rape

Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
INFORMATION
The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor of the City of
Quezon, upon prior written authority of the City Prosecutor ,
ALI B. BALIG, accuses SEAN T. THOMPSON of Rape under
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:
That on or about the 1 st of May, 2012, in the City of
Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused actuated by lust, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, and by means of force, threat and
intimidation,
have carnal knowledge of one Jenalene S.
Santos without her consent and against her will;

ELIZABETH REYES
Witnesses:
1. Diana Navarro - Medico-Legal Medical Technician
BAIL RECOMMENDED: none.
ELIZABETH REYES
RAPE
Quezon City
) s.s.
I, JENALENE S. SANTOS, of legal age, single, Filipino,
and residing at 8 Sesame Street, Quezon City, Philippines,
says that:
1. I am the Private Complainant in Criminal Case No. D123-456 for RAPE, entitled People of the Philippines vs.
SEAN T. THOMPSON, which is now pending before the
Quezon City, Branch 07;
that, due to the administration of the drug in my body, I
was not able to see clearly who perpetrated the crime
against me and that it is not likely that the herein
accused is the perpetrator;

this 20th day of May2012, in the City of Quezon.
JENALENE S. SANTOS
Affiant
.
Quezon, this 20th day of May2012 by Jenalene S. Santos with
Residence Certificate No. 0987654321 issued at Quezon City,
on January 4, 2012.
ATTY. RAFAEL E. JIMENO

NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires on December 31, 2014
PTR NO. 2721387/01-07-08/Quezon City
IBP NO. 639868/02-01-08/Quezon City
Roll No. 49606
Doc No. 654321

Page No. 654321
Book No. 654321
Series of 2012.
RAPE
Quezon City
) s.s.
I, JENALENE S. SANTOS, of legal age, single, Filipino,
and residing at 8 Sesame Street, Quezon City, Philippines,
says that:
1. I am the Private Complainant in Criminal Case No. D123-456 for RAPE, entitled People of the Philippines vs.
SEAN T. THOMPSON, which is now pending before the
Quezon City, Branch 07;
that I have been swayed by my own changing emotions, I
was unable to comprehend properly the actions of the
accused and that at some time prior to the
consummation of the act, I gave consent to the same;

this 20th day of May2012, in the City of Quezon.
JENALENE S. SANTOS
Affiant
.
Quezon, this 20th day of May2012 by Jenalene S. Santos with
Residence Certificate No. 0987654321 issued at Quezon City,
on January 4, 2012.
ATTY. RAFAEL E. JIMENO

NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires on December 31, 2014
Roll No. 49606
Doc No. 654321

Page No. 654321
Book No. 654321
Series of 2012.
RAPE
Plaintiff,
- versus -

For: Rape
Sean T. Thompson
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
COMES NOW accused SEAN T. THOMPSON, through the
commission of the crime of Rape, punishable by
reclusion perpetual;
strong;
satisfactorily shown, the defendant may be bailed at
the courts discretion.

JOSE D. MANUEL
ROLL NO. 82344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
ALI B. LIBAG
City Prosecutor
Quezon City
Greetings:
Quezon City Regional Trial Court at 9 oclock a.m., or as soon
JOSE D. MANUEL

ROLL NO. 82344556
Received by:
ALI B. LIBAG
City Prosecutor
RAPE
Plaintiff,
- versus -

For: Rape
Sean T. Thompson
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
Php 100,000.00;
2. That said defendant is a person whose salary he earns
from Capsule Corp amounting to a net of Php 5,000.00 a
month is barely enough to meet even his personal needs.
WHEREFORE, the accused SEAN T. THOMPSON
JOSE D. MANUEL
ROLL NO. 82344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
ALI B. LIBAG
City Prosecutor
Quezon City
Greetings:
JOSE D. MANUEL
ROLL NO. 82344556

Received by:
ALI B. LIBAG
City Prosecutor
RAPE
Plaintiff,
For: Rape

Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x

COMES
NOW
accused
SEAN
T.
THOMPSON
and
commission of the crime of Rape;
hereby binds himself, pending final decision of the aboveentitled case, to appear before the court when so
ordered ;
accept the authority of Ban T. Ay in whose custody he

respectfully
prayed
that
the
defendant
be
released
on
recognizance.
JOSE D. MANUEL
ROLL NO. 82344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
ALI B. LIBAG
City Prosecutor
Quezon City
Greetings:
JOSE D. MANUEL
ROLL NO. 82344556

Received by:
ALI B. LIBAG
City Prosecutor
RAPE
Plaintiff,
For: Rape

Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH
crime of Rape committed against Jenalene S. Santos.
this case.
oficio.
JOSE D. MANUEL
ROLL NO. 82344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
ALI B. LIBAG
City Prosecutor
Quezon City
Greetings:
JOSE D. MANUEL
ROLL NO. 82344556
Received by:
ALI B. LIBAG
City Prosecutor
RAPE
and to Hold the Arraignment of the Accused in Abeyance)
Plaintiff,
- versus -

For: Rape
Sean T. Thompson
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
MOTION FOR THE JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF
PROBABLE CAUSE AND TO HOLD THE ARRAIGNMENT OF
THE ACCUSED IN ABEYANCE

crime of Rape committed against Jenalene S. Santos;
this case;
WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
this

herein accused.
May 30, 2012. Quezon City.
JOSE D. MANUEL
ROLL NO. 82344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
ALI B. LIBAG
City Prosecutor
Quezon City
Greetings:
JOSE D. MANUEL
ROLL NO. 82344556
Received by:
ALI B. LIBAG
City Prosecutor
RAPE
Quezon City
Jenalene S. Santos,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456

For: Rape

Respondent.
x-------------------------------x

Respondent
SEAN
T.
THOMPSON,
through
the

1. That he is the respondent in the above-entitled complaint
of the crime of Rape committed against Jenalene S.
Santos;
JOSE D. MANUEL
ROLL NO. 82344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
EDGARDO J. SORIANO
Quezon City
Greetings:
JOSE D. MANUEL
ROLL NO. 82344556
Received by:
EDGARDO J. SORIANO
RAPE
Malacanan, Manila
Sean Thompson,
Appellant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Rape
- versus Prosecutor Ali B. Libag

Appellant.
x-------------------------------x
APPEAL

counsel, and hereby allege the following
I.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

II.
FACTS OF THE CASE

commission of the crime of Rape as defined and punished
under the Revised Penal Code allegedly done against the
herein appellee-complainant. The City Prosecutor, in her

III.

any
probable
cause
where
the
evidence
produced
is
insufficient to support such finding of probable cause.

IV.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE

V.
RELIEF
VI.
of the City Prosecutor of Quezon finding probable cause
against the herein appellant-respondent.
JOSE D. MANUEL
ROLL NO. 82344556

Copy furnished:
EDGARDO J. SORIANO
RAPE
Plaintiff,
- versus -

For: Rape
Sean T. Thompson
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
The undersigned City Prosecutor of Quezon respectfully

alleges that:
heading to Republic X where the Philippines have no
this court issue a Warrant of Arrest against the herein
accused.
Ali B. Balig
City Prosecutor
RAPE
Plaintiff,
- versus -

For: Rape
Sean T. Thompson
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
1. That he is the accused in the above-entitled case for the
crime of Rape committed against Jenalene S. Santos;
this case;
WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
this

the herein accused.
JOSE D. MANUEL
ROLL NO. 82344556
NOTICE
OF
HEARING
Ali B. Balig
City Prosecutor
Quezon City
Greetings:
Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 07 at 9 oclock a.m.,
or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, the
of the court.
JOSE D. MANUEL
ROLL NO. 82344556

Received by:
Ali B. Balig
City Prosecutor
RAPE
(Trial Brief)
Plaintiff,
For: Rape

Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
TRIAL BRIEF
UNDERSIGNED
Assistant
City
Prosecutor
hereby

Criminal
Procedure,
and
sub-paragraph
number
of

266-A), on the following circumstances, to wit:
That on or about the 1st of May, 2012, in the City
of Quezon, Philippines, and within the
accused actuated by lust, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, and by means of force, threat
and intimidation, have carnal knowledge of one
Jenalene S. Santos without her consent and
against her will.
PLEA BARGAINING
agreement.
I. JURISDICTION:
the accused.

arraigned in court.
III-A. That sometime on the night of May 1, 2012, at #8
Accuser St.,, Quezon City, Philippines, the said Sean T.
Thompson through stealth and strategy entered the
complainants house;
III-B. That while he is in the complainants house, he
went into her bedroom where she was getting ready to sleep
III-C. That using force, threat and intimidation, and
without
the complainants consent, the accused had carnal
knowledge with the complainant.;
III-D. That despite resistance and lack of consent, he was
able to overpower the complainant and made her fall asleep
through the use of some sleeping agent;
III-E. That after being processed and referred to the
Medico-Legal, the latter was able to collect semen sample from
the accused found within the complainants genital area which
is enough to make proper DNA analysis.
EXHIBIT
---
true
and
faithful
machine
reproduction of the Medico-legal findings;

for presence of the sleeping agent in the complainants
blood stream;
EXHIBIT C A true and faithful machine reproduction
of the DNA analysis conducted by the Medico-Legal.
1. Jenalene S. Santos, the private offended party;
2. Juan dela Cruz, the Medical Technician from
Medico-Legal who processed Jenalene S.
Santoss case.
arise.
ISSUES
accused:
Rape as defined by Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code.
ELIZABETH REYES
Mana N. Nanggol
Counsel for the accused, Quezon City.
RAPE
(Pre-Trial Brief)
Plaintiff,
For: Rape

Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
UNDERSIGNED
Assistant
City
Prosecutor
hereby

Criminal
Procedure,
and
sub-paragraph
number
of

266-A), on the following circumstances, to wit:
That on or about the 1 st of May, 2012, in the City of

Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused actuated by lust,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and by means of
force, threat and intimidation, have carnal knowledge of
one Jenalene S. Santos without her consent and against
her will.
PLEA BARGAINING
agreement.
I. JURISDICTION:
III-A. That sometime on the night of May 1, 2012, at
#8 Accuser St., Quezon City, Philippines, the said
Sean T. Thompson through stealth and strategy
entered the complainants house;
III-B. That while he is in the complainants house, he
went into her bedroom where she was getting ready to
sleep
III-C. That using force, threat and intimidation, and

without the complainants consent, the accused had
carnal knowledge with the complainant.;
III-D. That despite resistance and lack of consent, he
was able to overpower the complainant and made her
fall asleep through the use of some sleeping agent;
III-E. That after being processed and referred to the
Medico-Legal, the latter was able to collect semen
sample from the accused found within the
complainants genital area which is enough to make
proper DNA analysis.
reproduction of the Medico-legal findings;
blood stream;
1. Jenalene S. Santos, the private offended party;
2. Diana Navarro, the Medical Technician from

Medico-Legal who processed Jenalene S.
Santoss case.
arise.
ISSUES
accused:
1. Performing the above-mentioned acts,
constitute Rape as defined by Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code.
ELIZABETH REYES
Jose D. Manuel
Counsel for the accused, Quezon City.
RAPE
Plaintiff,
For: Rape

Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x

EXHIBIT
---
true
and
faithful
machine
reproduction of the Medico-legal findings.

blood stream;

given by witnesses Jenalene S. Santos (private offended party),
Diana Navarro, the Medico Legal Medical Technician who
processed Jenalene S. Santoss case.
Exhibits A, B, and C with all its respective sub-markings,
identical purpose of showing that on 1 st day of May, 2012, at 1
Sesame Street, Quezon City, Philippines, the accused had
carnal knowledge with said Jenalene S. Santos through force,
threat and intimidation and without the latters consent.
ELIZABETH REYES
Copy furnished:
(by personal delivery in open court):
Atty. Jose D. Manuel, counsel for the accused.
RAPE
Plaintiff,
For: Rape

Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
PROFFER OF EVIDENCE
Court , to wit:
EXHIBIT
---
true
and
faithful
machine
reproduction of the Medico-legal findings.

blood stream;

given by witnesses Jenalene S. Santos (private offended party),
Diana Navarro, the Medico Legal Medical Technician who
processed Jenalene S. Santoss case.
Exhibits A, B, and C with all its respective sub-markings,
identical purpose of showing that on 1 st day of May, 2012, at 1
Sesame Street, Quezon City, Philippines, the accused had
carnal knowledge with said Jenalene S. Santos through force,
threat and intimidation and without the latters consent.
ELIZABETH REYES
Copy furnished:
(by personal delivery in open court):
Atty. Jose D. Manuel, counsel for the accused.
VIOLATION OF R.A. 7610

Makati City
) s.s.
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, Alessandra T. Masangkay, Filipino, of legal age, married
to Rudito O. Masangkay, and a resident of #1 Kapitolo Street,
MAKATI City, Philippines, after being sworn to in accordance
with law, depose and state:
1. That I am the mother of Justin M. Santiago; the
offended party, being my first born child from my first
live-in partner, Reynald B. Santiago. and Rudito O.
Masangkay is my lawfully married husband; the
accused in this case.
2.
That Rudito O. Masangkay currently resides at our

conjugal house at #1 Kapitolo Street, Makati City;
3.
That at about 9 (nine) in the evening of September 5,

2012, the accused was having a drinking spree with his
friends namely Allan G. Castillo and Joe A. Clarin at the
balcony of our conjugal house when all of the sudden I heard
the accused called my son, Justin to buy him two more bottle
of Sanmig beer;
4.
That when my son, Justin didnt conform right away

because the latter was inside the comfort room, the accused
sturdily knocked the comfort rooms door instructing Justin to
come out right away while uttering demeaning words to the
latter, such as youre lazy, youre son of an idiot, youre better
than nothing, you dont have any value etc...;
5.
That when my son open the comfort rooms door the

accused immediately grabbed my sons body, tossed him on
the chair in front of the dining table, banged his head against
the table, boxed him repeatedly and kicked him on his waist
several times;
6.
That when I came to rescue my son the accused

hurriedly run towards the main door;
7.
I am therefore executing this Complaint-Affidavit in

support of the charges for Child Abuse penalized under Sec.
10, paragraph (a), in relation to Section 3 paragraph a & b (1
& 2) of Republic Act 7610 against the said Rudito O.
Masangkay.
this 6th day of September 2012 at MAKATI City, Philippines.
ALESSANDRA T. MASANGKAY
Affiant-Complainant
September 2012, affiant exhibiting to me her Community Tax
Makati City.
CERTIFICATION
BERNARDO SALVADOR

(Counter-Affidavit)
Makati City
) s.s.
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, Rudito O. Masangkay, of legal age, married, Filipino
and with residence address at No. 1 Kapitolo Street, MAKATI
City, Philippines, after having been duly sworn in accordance
with law, do hereby depose and state, that:
(1) I was charged with Child abuse under Sec. 10,
paragraph (a), in relation to Sec. 3, paragraph a & b
(1 & 2) of Republic Act 7610, for having allegedly
physically and verbally abused Justin M. Santiago
Jr.;
(2) The truth of the matter is that on that evening of
September 5, 2012 after our drinking session with
my friends Allan G. Castillo and Joe A. Clarin, I
called Justin to buy two more beer but when the boy
was still inside the comfort room despite of calling
him many times, I just ignored it and proceeded to
the third floor of the house and soundly slept there
when I heard the commotion on the second floor of
the house near the balcony;
(3) That Justin upon getting out of the comfort room
slipped on the floor near the stairs and fell thereon
that caused him serious physical injuries, but due to
the effect of alcohol I didnt clearly understand what
was going on so I just went back to sleep and my
intoxication deprived me to offered assistance to the

injured Justin, and the last thing I remember was
when the police arrested me in the morning of
September, 06, 2012 for alleged maltreatment of
Justin M. Santiago Jr.
truth of the foregoing and for whatever legal purpose it
September serve.
Makati City, September 6, 2012.
RUDITO O. MASANGKAY
Respondent-Affiant
MAKATI, this 6th day of September2012 by Mr. Rudito o.
Masangkay with Residence Certificate No. 0012345 issued at
MAKATI City, on July 4, 2012.

Notary Public
My commission expires on
December 31, 2012
Doc No. 654321
Page No. 654321
Book No. 654321
Series of 2012.
Copy Furnished:
Alessandra T. Masangkay
#1 Kapitolo St., Makati City, Philippines

(Reply)
Makati City
Alessandra T. Masangkay,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Violation of RA 7610
- versus Rudito O. Masangkay

Respondent.
x---------------------------------x
REPLY
COMES NOW, ALESSANDRA T. MASANGKAY, after

having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose
and say THAT;
(a) I am executing this affidavit in reply jointly to the
counter-affidavit submitted by the respondent in I. S.
No. 2012-08-05 and, at this outset, I hereby reiterate
and incorporate herein my allegations in my earlier
complaints-affidavit filed against the answering
respondent;
(b)The argument raised by the respondent in the
counter affidavit is that he was not the one who
inflicted those physical abuses to my son, since he
was already sleeping when the incident happened,
and that, those sustained physical injuries by my son
were self-inflicted since the latter fell from the stairs

of the second floor of the house;
(c) There can be no conclusion other than the fact that
the respondent is the one who inflicted those physical
and verbal abuses to my son, Justin C. Santiago;
(d)The rest of the allegations in respondents counter
affidavit are irrelevant and immaterial and are
evidently designed to build a collateral defense
against the plain and simple complaint for Child
Abuse under Sec. 10, paragraph a & b (1 & 2) of
Republic Act No. 7610;
(e) This affidavit is made in utmost good faith for the
sole purpose of attesting to the truth of the foregoing
statements of fact in furtherance of my efforts to
prosecute the respondent in conformity with my
complaint filed against him.
25 day of September, 2012, at the City of MAKATI,
Philippines.
th
Complainant
September, 2012, at the City of MAKATI, Philippines, and I

Notary Public
My commission expires
on December 31, 2012
Doc No. 654321

Page No. 654321
Book No. 654321
Series of 2012.

(Rejoinder)
Makati City
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456

Respondent.
x---------------------------------x
REJOINDER
COMES NOW the respondent, RUDITO O. MASANGKAY
through counsel, and, by way of a Rejoinder to the
complainants Reply, respectfully alleges that:
1.
This Rejoinder is being

filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor considering
that Reply filed by the complainant disregards the fact
the accused was not the one who inflicted cruel acts to
the victim and those sustained serious physical
injuries were self-inflicted when the boy by himself
slipped on the floor near the stairs and fell thereon,
the accused didnt able to rescue the boy because of
too much intoxication and such actions of the
respondent does not constitute child abuse as
punished by R.A. 7610;
2.
The simple issue of the

matter now is whether or not such action of the
accused constitutes a violation of the provision of
Republic Act 7610 on Child Abuse.

Makati City, September 10, 2012
ALEXES JOSEPH BENDEJO

Counsel for Respondent
Ayala Avenue, Makati City.
I B P 123456
P T R 123456
Roll No. 123456
Copy furnished:
Alessandra T. Masangkay
#1 Kapitolo Street, Makati City

(Sur-Rejoinder)
Makati City
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456

Respondent.
x---------------------------------x
SUR-REJOINDER
COMES NOW the complainant, ALESSANDRA T.
MASANGKAY, through counsel, and, by way of a Sur rejoinder,
1.
This Sur
rejoinder is being filed with the Office of the City
Prosecutor considering that Rejoinder filed by the
respondent disregards the fact that the acts of
respondent constitute child abuse penalized under
Sec. 10, (a), in relation to Sec. 3 (1 & 2) of Republic Act
7610.

MAKATI City, September 25, 2012.

LOURENA B. BUNDAC
Roces Avenue, Makati City.
I B P 123456
P T R 123456
Roll No. 123456
Copy furnished:
Rudito O. Masangkay
# 1 Halaya St., Makati City

(Resolution)
Makati City
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456

Respondent.
x---------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
SUBMITTED for resolution is a complaint for Violation of
the Child Abuse Law, or Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise
allegedly committed in the evening of September 05, 2012, at
No. 1 Kapitolo St. MAKATI City. In support of the complaint,
the complainant and the eight (8) year old victim submitted
and affirmed their respective sworn statements.
On October 03, when this case was called for the
continuation of the preliminary investigation, the respondent
appeared but the complainant failed to come. The respondent
called the attention of the undersigned to his counter affidavit
and its annexes and asked for an extension of time to submit
additional evidence. Finding the request to be in order, the
same is hereby granted and the respondent is given a period of
ten (10) days from today within which to submit his additional
evidence.
In the light of the foregoing, the respondent is hereby
directed to furnish the complainant with a copy of his counter
affidavit, together with its annexes, and of the additional
evidence which he submitted, and to submit proof of service of
the same to this Office.
Makati City, October 04 ,2012.
MARIENELL FORTUNO
Copy furnished:
1. Alessandra T. Masangkay No. 1 Kapitolo St , MAKATI
City;
2. Rudito O. Masangkay No. 2 Halaya St, MAKATI City.

(Resolution)
Complainant,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x
INFORMATION
The undersigned City Prosecutor of the City of MAKATI
accuses RUDITO O. MASANGKAY, of acts of cruelty
constituting Child Abuse, defined and punished under Section
10, paragraph (a), in relation to Section 3, paragraphs A and
B(1) of Republic Act No. 7610, committed as follows:
That on or about the 5th day of September, 2012, in the
City of MAKATI, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, actuated by hate and by
means of violence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commit acts of cruelty constituting Child Abuse on
the person of Justin C. Santiago Jr., an eight (8) year old
minor, by banging the latters head against a table, boxing him
repeatedly, and kicking him on his waist, thereby inflicting
upon the latter serious physical injuries, to wit: Serious Infra
- orbital Hematoma, left resolving, and Temporary Loss of

Speech due to shock and trauma which conditions required
medical attendance for a period not less than 30 days,
excluding complications,
which cruel acts are prejudicial to
the childs development.

SARAH M. CASIN
City Prosecutor
Makati City

Makati City
) s.s.
I, ALESSANDRA T. MASANGKAY , of legal age, single,
Filipino, and residing at 1 Kapitolo Street, MAKATI City,
Philippines, after having been sworn to in accordance with law,
depose and says that:
2012-08-05 for CHILD ABUSE, entitled People of the
Philippines vs. RUDITO O. MASANGKAY which is now
pending before the Regional Trial Court, National
Capital Judicial Region, MAKATI City, Branch 144;
honestly believe that, due to the darkness of the night
during which the incident happened, I was not able to
see the face of the perpetrator;
3. I cannot, in clean conscience, pursue this criminal
case against the accused where I cannot verify with
certainty the identity of the perpetrator;

this 29th day of November 2012, in the City of MAKATI.
Affiant
MAKATI, this 29TH day of September 2012 by Alessandra T.
Masangkay with Residence Certificate No. 0987654321 issued
at MAKATI City, on January 4, 2012.

Notary Public
My commission expires
on December 31, 2012
Roll: 123456
IBP: 123456
PTR: 123456
MCLE: 123456
Doc. No. 654321_______;
Page No. 654321_______;
Book No. 654321_______;
Series of 2012.

Makati City
) s.s.
I, ALESSANDRA T. MASANGKAY, of legal age, married,
Filipino,
and
residing
#1
Kapitolo
St.,
MAKATI
City,
Philippines, after having been sworn to in accordance with law,

depose and says that:
2012-08-05 for CHILD ABUSE under R.A. 7610,
entitled People of the Philippines vs. RUDITO O.
MASANGKAY which is now pending before the
case was just a misunderstanding between the victim
and the aforementioned accused;
3. Further interview with other witnesses affirms the
truthfulness of the statement of RUDITO O.
MASANGKAY that my son, Justin C. Santiago Jr. was
not intentionally beaten by the latter;

this 29th of September2012, in the City of MAKATI.
Affiant
MAKATI, this 25th day of November, 2012 by JAIME I. CORDEZ
JR. with Residence Certificate No. 0987654321 issued at
MAKATI City, on January 4, 2012.

Notary Public
December 31, 2012
Roll: 123456
IBP: 123456
PTR: 123456
MCLE: 123456
Doc. No. 654321
Page No. 654321
Book No. 654321
Series of 2012.

Complainant,
- versus -

Rudito O. Masangkay
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x
COMES NOW accused RUDITO O. MASANGKAY through
the undersigned counsel, and respectfully alleges:
commission of the crime of Violation of R.A. 7610
otherwise known as Special Protection of Children
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation And Discrimination
Act;
strong;
satisfactorily shown, the defendant September be bailed

at the courts discretion.
such amount as this Honorable Court may fixed.
September 8, 2012. Makati City
ALEXES JOSEPH BENDEJO

Counsel for Defendant
Ayala Avenue, Makati City.
I B P 123456
P T R 123456
Roll No. 123456
Notice of Hearing
LOURENA B. BUNDAC
Makati City
Greetings:
Please take notice that on September 18, 2012, at the
MAKATI City Regional Trial Court Branch 7 at 9 oclock a.m.,
of the court.
Makati, Philippines. September 12, 2012
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Makati City
Received by:

Complainant,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x

Accused
RUDITO
O.
MASANGKAY
through
the

Php 80,000.00;
2. That said defendant is a person whose salary he earns
from Proctor & Gamble Corp amounting to a net of Php
15,000.00 a month is barely enough to meet even his
personal needs and monthly obligations.
WHEREFORE, the accused RUDITO O. MASANGKAY
September 09, 2012. MAKATI City

Counsel for the Defendant
Roll: 123456
IBP O.R.12456
PTR O.R. 123456
MCLE: 123456
Notice of Hearing
LOURENA B. BUNDAC
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Makati City
Received by:

Complainant,
- versus -

Rudito O. Masangkay
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x
MOTION TO RELEASE THE ACCUSED ON RECOGNIZANCE
COMES NOW accused RUDITO O. MASANGKAY and
commission of the crime of Child Abuse;
hereby binds himself, pending final decision of the aboveentitled case, to appear before the court when so
ordered ;
accept the authority of Governor Ban T. Ay in whose
custody he was placed by the Court.

respectfully
prayed
that
the
defendant
be
released
on
recognizance.
RUDITO O. MASANGKAY
Accused
NOTICE OF HEARING
SARAH I. CASIN
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
Please take notice that on Friday, September 28, 2012, at
the MAKATI City Regional Trial Court Branch 144 at 9 oclock
of the court.
MAKATI, Philippines. September 15, 2012

Makati City
Received by:

Complainant,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

Accused
RUDITO
O.
MASANGKAY
through
the

crime of Child Abuse committed against Justin C.
Santiago Jr.;
2. That the case against him was dismissed without his
express consent.
officio.

Roll: 123456
IBP O.R.12456
PTR O.R. 123456
MCLE: 123456
Notice of Hearing
LOURENA B. BUNDAC
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Makati City
Received by:

Complainant,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x

Accused
RUDITO
O.
MASANGKAY
through
the

crime of Child Abuse committed against Justin C.
Santiago;
this case;

when he approved the filing of the Information when
accused for the crime he allegedly committed.
WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
this

herein accused.

Roll: 123456
IBP O.R.12456
PTR O.R. 123456
MCLE: 123456
Notice of Hearing
LOURENA B. BUNDAC
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Makati City
Received by:

Complainant,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x

Respondent
RUDITO
O.
MASANGKAY
through
the
1. That he is the respondent in the above-entitled complaint

of the crime of Child Abuse committed against Justin C.
Santiago;

Roll: 123456
IBP O.R.12456
PTR O.R. 123456
MCLE: 123456
Notice of Hearing
LOURENA B. BUNDAC
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Makati City
Received by:

Complainant,
- versus -

Rudito O. Masangkay
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x
alleges that:
heading to Republic of Mexico where the Philippines
have no diplomatic ties much more any extradition
treaty;

justice;
accused.
SARAH I. CASIN
City Prosecutor
Notice of Hearing
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Makati City
Greetings:
Please take notice that on Friday, September 28, 2012, at
the MAKATI City Regional Trial Court Branch 144 at 9 oclock
of the court.
Makati, Philippines. September 15, 2012.
SARAH I. CASIN
City Prosecutor
Received by:
Makati City

(Trial Brief)
Complainant,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x
TRIAL BRIEF
UNDERSIGNED
Assistant
City
Prosecutor
hereby

Criminal
Procedure,
and
sub-paragraph
number
of

application of the provisions of Republic Act 7610 specifically
Sec. 10, (a) in relation to Sec. 3 (1 & 2) , on the following
circumstances, to wit:
That on or about the 5 th day of

September, 2012, in the City of Makati,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused,
actuated by hate and by means of violence,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously
commit
acts
of
cruelty
constituting Child Abuse on the person of

Justin C. Santiago Jr., an eight (8) year old
minor, by banging the latters head against
a table, boxing him repeatedly, and kicking
him on his waist, thereby inflicting upon
the latter serious physical injuries, to wit:
Serious Infra - orbital
Hematoma,
left
resolving, and Temporary Loss of Speech

due to shock and trauma which conditions
required medical attendance for a period
not
less
than
complications,
30
which
days,
excluding
cruel
acts
are
prejudicial to the normal development of

the child.
PLEA BARGAINING
agreement.
I.
JURISDICTION:

II.

III-A. That private complainant (the mother of the victim)
is lawfully married to Rudito O. Masangkay;
III-B. That at about 9 (nine) in the evening of September 5,
balcony of the conjugal house when all of the sudden the
private complainant (Alessandra T. Masangkay) heard the
accused called the victim (Justin) to buy him two more bottle
of Sanmig beer;
III-C. That when Justin didnt conform right away because the
latter was inside the comfort room, the accused
sturdily
knocked the comfort rooms door instructing Justin to come

out right away while uttering demeaning words to the latter,
such as youre lazy, youre son of an idiot, youre better than
nothing, you dont have any value etch.
III-D. That when Justin open the comfort rooms door the
accused immediately
grabbed Justins body, tossed him on
several times; That when the private complainant
came to
rescue her son the accused hurriedly run towards the main
door.
III-E.
That
testimonials
from
their
neighbor
(UsySyra)
confirmed that Rudito Masangkay was the one who inflicted

physical abuse to Justin C. Santiago Jr. on that fateful evening
of September 5, 2012
I.
EXHIBIT A --- A Medical Certificate of the offended

party ( Justin C. Santiago Jr.) certified by a Medico
Legal Dr. Torres-Doc.
II.
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE:
1. Justin C. Santiago, the private offended party;

2. Alessandra
T.
Masangkay,
the
private
complainant and mother of the private offended
party;
3. Kong Bagatsing, neighbor of the accused and the
offended party, who witnessed the acts of the
accused.
additional evidence as the need therefore September
ISSUES
accused:

constitute a violation of the provisions of Republic
Act No.7610 specifically Sec. 10, paragraph (a), in
relation to Sec. 3, paragraph a & b (1 & 2)
Makati City, November 10,2012
SARAH I. CASIN
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Counsel for the accused,
Makati City.

(Pre-Trial Brief)
Complainant,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
UNDERSIGNED Assistant City Prosecutor hereby respectfully
submits, for purposes of the Pre-Trial hereon, conformably
with Rule 118 of the (2000) Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, and sub-paragraph number 1 of paragraph B of
the chapter on Pre-Trial of Administrative Matter No. 03-1-09SC, the following Manifestations, Proposals for Stipulation of
Facts and Issues, and Identification of Evidence for the
Prosecution, to wit:
application of the provisions of Republic Act 7610 specifically
Sec. 10, (a) in relation to Sec. 3 (1 & 2) , on the following
circumstances, to wit:
That on or about the 5 th day of

September, 2012, in the City of Makati,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused,
actuated by hate and by means of violence,
feloniously
commit
acts
of
cruelty
constituting Child Abuse on the person of

Justin C. Santiago Jr., an eight (8) year old
minor, by banging the latters head against
a table, boxing him repeatedly, and kicking
him on his waist, thereby inflicting upon
the latter serious physical injuries, to wit:
Serious Infra - orbital
Hematoma,
left
resolving, and Temporary Loss of Speech

due to shock and trauma which conditions
required medical attendance for a period
not
less
than
complications,
30
which
days,
excluding
cruel
acts
are
prejudicial to the normal development of

the child.
PLEA BARGAINING
agreement.
III.
JURISDICTION:

IV.

III-A. That private complainant (the mother of the victim)
is lawfully married to Rudito O. Masangkay;
III-B. That at about 9 (nine) in the evening of September 5,
balcony of the conjugal house when all of the sudden the
private complainant (Alessandra T. Masangkay) heard the
accused called the victim (Justin) to buy him two more bottle
of Sanmig beer;
III-C. That when Justin didnt conform right away because the
latter was inside the comfort room, the accused
sturdily
knocked the comfort rooms door instructing Justin to come

out right away while uttering demeaning words to the latter,
such as youre lazy, youre son of an idiot, youre better than
nothing, you dont have any value etch.
III-D. That when Justin open the comfort rooms door the
accused immediately
grabbed Justins body, tossed him on
several times; That when the private complainant
came to
rescue her son the accused hurriedly run towards the main
door.
III-E.
That
testimonials
from
their
neighbor
(UsySyra)
confirmed that Rudito Masangkay was the one who inflicted

physical abuse to Justin C. Santiago Jr. on that fateful evening
of September 5, 2012
III.
EXHIBIT A --- A Medical Certificate of the offended

party ( Justin C. Santiago Jr.) certified by a Medico
Legal Dr. Torres-Doc.
IV.
TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE:
4. Justin C. Santiago, the private offended party;

5. Alessandra
T.
Masangkay,
the
private
complainant and mother of the private offended
party;
6. Kong Bagatsing, neighbor of the accused and the
offended party, who witnessed the acts of the
accused.
additional evidence as the need therefore September
ISSUES
accused:

constitute a violation of the provisions of Republic
Act No.7610 specifically Sec. 10, paragraph (a), in
relation to Sec. 3, paragraph a & b (1 & 2)
Makati City, November 10,2012
SARAH I. CASIN
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Makati City.

Complainant,
- versus -

Rudito O. Masangkay
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x
EXHIBIT A --- A Medical Certificate of the
offended party certified by a Medico Legal Dr.
Torres-Doc.
given by witnesses Justin C. Santiago (the private offended
party), Alessandra T. Masangkay (mother of the offended party),
Kong Bagatsing neighbor of the private offended party and the
accused who witnessed the cruel acts of the latter towards the
offended party.
Exhibits A with all its respective sub-markings, together with

the testimony of said witnesses, are offered for the identical
purpose of showing that in the evening of the 5th day of
September, 2012, at 1 Kapitolo Street, MAKATI City,
Philippines, the accused physically and verbally abused Justin
C. Santiago Jr., in violation of the provision of Sec. 10,
paragraph (a), in relation to Sec. 3, paragraph a & b (1 & 2) of
R.A.7610, a law on Child Abuse.
Furthermore, the prosecution respectfully manifests that all of
the afore-described exhibits/evidence for the prosecution have
been submitted to custody of the Honorable Court.
SARAH I. CASIN
Copy furnished:
ATTY. ALEXES JOSEPH R. BENDIJO

counsel for the accused.

Complainant,
- versus -

Rudito O. Masangkay
Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x
PROFFER OF EVIDENCE
Court, to wit:
EXHIBIT A --- A Medical Certificate of the private
offended party (Justin C. Santiago Jr.) certified by a
Medico Legal Dr. Torres-Doc.
given by witnesses Alessandra T. Masangkay (private
complainant and mother of the victim), Kong Bagatsing,
neighbor of the private offended party and the accused, who
witnessed the cruel acts of the latter towards Justin C.
Santiago Jr. and the testimony of the victim himself (Justin C.

Santiago Jr.).
Exhibits A with all its respective sub-markings, together with
the testimony of said witnesses, are offered for the identical
purpose of showing that on or about the 5 th day of September,
2012, in the City of MAKATI, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, actuated
by hate and by means of violence ,did, then, there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of cruelty constituting
Child Abuse on the person of Justin C. Santiago Jr. in violation
of the provision of Sec. 10 (a), in relation to Sec. 3, par. a & b
(1& 2) of R.A.7610.
The prosecution respectfully submits these evidences on
SARAH I. CASIN
Copy furnished:
Atty. ALEXES JOSEPH R. BENDIJO

counsel for the accused.
VIOLATION OF ANTI-SEXUAL HARRASSMENT LAW

City of Manila
) s.s.
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, Juana Dela Cruz, Filipino, 21, female, single, and a
resident of City of Manila, Philippines, after being sworn to in
1. I am currently a student of San Carlos University of No.
100 P Campa Street, City of Manila, Philippines
2. That I know the person of Emilio Esteves, who is the
athletic moderator of San Carlos University of No. 100 P
Campa Street, City of Manila, Philippines;
3. That at around 4PM of October 1, 2011, after the practice
of the table tennis team, the said Emilio Esteves told me
to stay inside his office to have him sign my graduation
clearance;
4. That while inside his office, as we were talking, he
started rubbing my shoulders and asked me to take off
my t-shirt for physical inspection if not, he will not sign
my graduation clearance;
5. That, after reluctantly taking my shirt off, he was able to
grab hold of my breast and started kissing my neck and
shoulders;
6. Luckily another student, Trey Dizon knocked on the door
and Mr. Lopez was interrupted from what he was doing;
7. That, I left in a huff without even having properly worn

my clothes;
8. That me and my father immediately reported the said
incident to the nearest police station. A true and faithful
machine copy of the police report is hereby attached here
as Annex A;
support of the charges of violation of Republic Act No.
7877 Anti Sexual Violation Act against the said Emilio
Esteves, who may be served with subpoena and other
processes of this Honorable Office at his office inside the
school premises at San Carlos University of No. 100 P
Campa Street, City of Manila, Philippines;

this 10th day of October, 2010 at the City of Manila,
Philippines.
JUANA DELA CRUZ

Affiant-Plaintiff
CERTIFICATION
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO

(Counter-Affidavit)
City of Manila
) s.s.
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
I, Emilio Esteves, of legal age, single, Filipino and with
resident address at, 1234 Benavidez St. Manila, Philippines,
(1) I was charged with violation of Republic Act 7877 Anti
Sexual Harassment Act, by the private-Plaintiff;
(2)
However, on the date in question, the fact of the
matter is there is no such requirement on my part for any

physical examination for graduation clearance;
(3) That, She was accompanied by 2 other classmates
which I really dont remember the name but I readily signed
her clearance form;
(4) that, The private Plaintiff was forced to file this
complaint because of reasons only known to her.
serve.
Manila, 30th October 2010
Emilio Esteves
Accused-Affiant

Manila, this 30th day of October 2010 by Emilio Esteves with
Residence Certificate No. 00123457 issued at Manila, on
October 30, 2010.
Atty. Jaime I. Cordez Jr.
Notary Public
December 31, 2010
Doc No. __________;
Page No. _________;
Book No. _________;
Series of 2010.
Copy Furnished:
Juana Dela Cruz
400 Masagana St., Manila, Philippines

(Resolution)
City of Manila
Juana Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
- versus Emilio Estevez,

Defendant.
x---------------------------x
RESOLUTION
SUBMITTED for resolution is a complaint for violation
Republic Act No. 7877 allegedly committed during the October
1, 2010, at Manila, supported by the sworn statement of the
Plaintiff and photocopies of the police report of the incident.
In his sworn statement, the Plaintiff alleges that, during
the afore-stated period of time and place, the Accused in
exchange for his signature in Plaintiffs graduation clearance,
she was asked by the Accused to take off her top and allow
him to touch her breast and other parts although he was not
able to finished doing so.
However, the Accused claims that, the filing of the
complaint is without legal basis since the there was no such
act and the Plaintiff was merely asked to answer mere queries
about her background and that there was 2 other students at

the time of signing.
sufficient cause to hold the Accused EMILIO ESTEVES for
VIOLATION of Republic Act No. 7877.
Manila, October 30, 2010.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
APPROVED:
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor

(Information)
City of Manila, Branch VII
Complainant,

Defendant.
x--------------------------------x
INFORMATION
Manila, upon prior written authority of the City Prosecutor,
Marienell Fortuno,
accuses
EMILIO ESTEVES
of
crime
punishable under Republic Act 7877, committed as follows:

of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, actuated by lust, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit violation
of Republic Act 7877 on the person of Juana Dela Cruz, as her
schools athletic moderator, by requiring her to grab her breast
and allow him to touch and massage her back as a requisite
for her graduation clearance.
Contrary to law.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
City of Manila
) s.s.
I, JUANA DELA CRUZ, of legal age, single, Filipino, and
residing at 300 Masangkay St. Manila, Philippines, after
having been sworn to in accordance with law, depose and says
that:
1. I am the Private Plaintiff in Criminal Case No. E-456789 for VIOLATION OF
REPUBLIC ACT 7877,
entitled People of the Philippines vs. EMILIO
ESTEVES, which is now pending before the
Metropolitan Trial Court, National Capital Judicial
Region, Manila, Branch 001;
honestly believe that, due to the speed at which the
incident happened, I was not able to see the face of the
perpetrator;
3. I cannot, in clean conscience, pursue this criminal
case against the accused where I cannot verify with
certainty the identity of the perpetrator;


this 20th day of October 2010, in the City of Manila.
JUANA DELA CRUZ

Affiant
Manila, this 20th day of October 2010 by Juana Dela Cruz with
October 4, 2010.
ATTY. JAMES FRANCO

Notary Public
December 31, 2010
Roll : 3464747
IBP : 5768676
PTR : 464757645
MCLE : y46790
Doc. No. _________;

Page No. _________;
Book No. ________;
Series of 2010.

City of Manila
Juana Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
- versus -

Emilio Estevez,
Defendant.
x---------------------------x
COMES NOW accused EMILIO ESTEVES, through the
commission of the violation of Republic Act 7877;
strong;
courts discretion.

October 30, 2010. Manila
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll:T78979
IBP O.R.676H75
PTR O.R.575798
MCLE:575887
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Manila
Greetings:
Please take notice that on Friday, October 30, 2010, at
the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 001 at 9 oclock a.m.,
of the court.
Manila, Philippines. October 20, 2010
Lourena A. Bundac
Manila
Received by:

City of Manila
Juana Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
- versus -

Emilio Estevez,
Defendant.
x---------------------------x
Accused EMILIO ESTEVES, through the undersigned
Php 50,000.00
2. That said defendant is a partner from Berg and Co. she
therefore would be unable to serve her clients and the
general public if the bail is set at that amount
WHEREFORE,
the
accused
EMILIO
ESTEVES
respectfully prays that the court grants this motion to
reduce bail to Php 5,000.00 or such amount as the court
sees just in accordance with the circumstances thus
presented.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll:T78979
IBP O.R.676H75
PTR O.R.575798
MCLE:575887
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Manila
Greetings:
of the court.
Lourena A. Bundac
Manila
Received by:

City of Manila
Juana Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
- versus -

Emilio Estevez,
Defendant.
x---------------------------x
COMES NOW accused EMILIO ESTEVES and respectfully
alleges:
commission of the offense of violation of Anti Sexual
Harassment Act;
bond, hereby binds herself, pending final decision of
the above-entitled case, to appear before the court
when so ordered ;
accept the authority of Lourena A. Bundac in whose

respectfully
prayed
that
the
defendant
be
released
on
recognizance.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll:T78979
IBP O.R.676H75
PTR O.R.575798
MCLE:575887
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Manila
Greetings:
of the court.
Lourena A. Bundac
Manila
Received by:

City of Manila
Juana Dela Cruz,
Complainant,

Defendant.
x---------------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH
offense of violation of Anti Sexual Harassment Act
Republic Act 7877 committed against Juana Dela Cruz.
this case.
oficio.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll:T78979
IBP O.R.676H75
PTR O.R.575798
MCLE:575887
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Manila
Greetings:
of the court.
Lourena A. Bundac
Manila
Received by:

City of Manila
Juana Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
- versus -

Emilio Estevez,
Defendant.
x---------------------------x
PROBABLE CAUSE AND HOLD IN ABEYANCE THE
offense of violation of Republic Act 7877 committed
against Juana Dela Cruz.
this case.

WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
this

herein accused.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll:T78979
IBP O.R.676H75
PTR O.R.575798
MCLE:575887
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Manila
Greetings:
of the court.
Lourena A. Bundac
Manila
Received by:

City of Manila
Juana Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
- versus -

Emilio Estevez,
Defendant.
x---------------------------x
The undersigned City Prosecutor of Manila respectfully
alleges that:

accused.
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Notice of Hearing
Lourena A. Bundac
Manila
Greetings:
of the court.
Manila, Philippines. October 20, 2010.
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
City of Manila
Received by:

City of Manila
Juana Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
- versus -

Emilio Estevez,
Defendant.
x---------------------------x
crime of Violation of Anti Sexual Harassment Act
committed against Juana Dela Cruz;
this case;
WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
this

the herein accused.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll:T78979
IBP O.R.676H75
PTR O.R.575798
MCLE:575887
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Manila
Greetings:
of the court.
Lourena A. Bundac
Counsel for Accused
Manila
Received by:

(Trial Brief)
City of Manila
Juana Dela Cruz,
Complainant,

Defendant.
x---------------------------x
TRIAL BRIEF
respectfully submits, for purposes of the trial hereon,
application of the provisions of the Republic Act 7877, on the
following circumstances, to wit:
That on or about the October 1, 2010, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused did then and

there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit
violations of Anti Sexual Harassment Act on the
person of Juana Dela Cruz, as athletic moderator of
the school, in exchange for his signature on the
graduation clearance form, he was to touch and grab
her breasts and other body parts of her body.
PLEA BARGAINING
agreement.
I. JURISDICTION:
III-A. That sometime on the October 1, 2010, at San
Carlos University in P. Campa, Manila, Philippines,
the said Emilio Esteves, as athletic director was
approached by Ms. Juana Dela Cruz for the his
signature in her graduation clearance;
reproduction of the Police Report of the incident;
1. Juana Dela Cruz, the private offended party;
ISSUES
accused:
constitute violation of Republic Act No 7877 Anti
Sexual Harassment Act.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO

Lourena A. Bundac
Manila.

(Pre-Trial Brief)
City of Manila
Juana Dela Cruz,
Complainant,

Defendant.
x---------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
respectfully submits, for purposes of the trial hereon,
application of the provisions of the Republic Act 7877, on the
following circumstances, to wit:
That on or about the October 1, 2010, in the City of

violations of Anti Sexual Harassment Act on the
person of Juana Dela Cruz, as athletic moderator of
the school, in exchange for his signature on the
graduation clearance form, he was to touch and grab
her breasts and other body parts of her body.
PLEA BARGAINING
agreement.
I. JURISDICTION:
III-A. That sometime on the October 1, 2010, at San
Carlos University in P. Campa, Manila, Philippines,
the said Emilio Esteves, as athletic director was
approached by Ms. Juana Dela Cruz for the his
signature in her graduation clearance;
2. Juana Dela Cruz, the private offended party;
ISSUES
accused:
constitute violation of Republic Act No 7877 Anti
Sexual Harassment Act.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO

Lourena A. Bundac
Manila.

City of Manila
Juana Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
- versus -

Emilio Estevez,
Defendant.
x---------------------------x
EXHIBIT A --- A true and faithful machine reproduction
of the police report of the incident.
given by witness Juana Dela Cruz (private offended party).
Exhibit A with all its respective sub-markings, together
with the testimony of said witnesses, are offered for the
identical purpose of showing that on October 1, 2010, at San
Carlos University Athletics Offices in P. Campa, Manila,
Philippines, the accused performed acts complained of on the
person of the Plaintiff without the latters consent.

ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
Copy furnished:
Lourena A. Bundac
Counsel for the accused.

City of Manila
Juana Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
- versus -

Emilio Estevez,
Defendant.
x---------------------------x
PROFFER OF EVIDENCE
EXHIBIT A --- A true and faithful machine reproduction
of the police report of the incident.
given by witness Juana Dela Cruz (private offended party).
identical purpose of showing that on October 1, 2010, at San
Carlos University Athletics Offices in P. Campa, Manila,
person of the Plaintiff without the latters consent.

ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
Copy furnished:
Lourena A. Bundac
VIOLATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1997


City of Manila
) s.s.
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, Pedra Santos, Filipino, 21, female, single, and a
resident of City of Manila, Philippines, after being sworn to in
1. I was an employee of Federasyon Barber Shop of No. 100
Quiricada Street, City of Manila, Philippines as a hair
stylist;
2. That I know the person of Mark Reyes, who is the sole
proprietor of Federasyon Barber Shop of No. 100
Quiricada Street, City of Manila, Philippines;
3. That, from April 2009 up to July 2012, I have been
deducted by Federasyon, SSS employees contribution as
evidenced by my payslip attached here as Annex A;
4. That, I applied for employees loan, for my personal use,
with the Social Security System in May 2012, but was
rejected, as evidenced by a letter dated May 31, 2012, by
the SSS because there is no record of any contribution.
The said letter from the SSS is here attached as Annex
B;
5. That, coming to my employer for any clarification as to
the matter, he simply dismissed it as an empty complaint
and he has not even made any steps to remedy the
situation;
6. That, my request has fallen to deaf ears and I even wrote

him a letter which was received in June 5, 2012;
7. That, up until now, he continues to deduct SSS employee
contributions other employees, as evidenced by payslips
to other employees of Federasyon, Mr. David Encarnacion
and Ricky Serrano, attached as Annex C;
8. That I have filed a letter with the SSS for the resolution
and assistance regarding the matter. A true and faithful
machine copy of the letter is hereby attached here as
Annex D;
8282 Anti Sexual Violation Act against the said Mark
Reyes, who may be served with subpoena and other
processes of this Honorable Office at his office inside the
Barber Shop premises at Federasyon Barber Shop of No.
100 Quiricada Street, City of Manila, Philippines;
this 10th day of October, 2012 at the City of Manila,
Philippines.
PEDRA SANTOS
Affiant-Complainant
Certificate No. 987654321 issued on October 10 2012, at the
City of Manila.
CERTIFICATION

ALFREDO DE OCAMPO

(Counter-Affidavit)

City of Manila
) s.s.
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
I, Mark Reyes, of legal age, single, Filipino and with
resident address at, 2345 Soler St. Manila, Philippines, after
having been duly sworn in accordance with law, do hereby
depose and state, that:
(1) I was charged with violation of Republic Act No. 8282
Social
Security
Act
of
1997,
by
the
private-
complainant;
(2) However, I have faithfully remitted all the required
employees contribution to the SSS as evidenced by
official receipts I received from the SSS, attached
here as Annex 1;
(3) That, I do not know why the SSS has been rejecting
her repeated request for loan because of the said
reason;
(4) That, The private complainant was forced to file this
serve.
Manila, 30th October 2012

Mark Reyes
Respondent-Affiant
Manila, this 30th day of October 2012 by Mark Reyes with
October 30, 2012.
Notary Public
December 31, 2012
Doc No. __________;
Page No. _________;
Book No. _________;
Series of 2012.
Copy Furnished:
Pedra Santos
Private-Complainant
69 Mendiola St.,
Manila, Philippines

(Resolution)

City of Manila
Pedra Santos,
Complainant,
- versus -
I.S. No. 23456

Mark Reyes,
Respondent.
x----------------------------x
RESOLUTION
SUBMITTED for resolution is a complaint for violation
Republic Act No. 8282 allegedly committed during the October
1, 2012, at Manila, supported by the sworn statement of the
complainant and photocopies of the police report of the
incident.
In his sworn statement, the complainant alleges that the
respondent has not been remitting any of her contributions
with the SSS thus leading to her rejection for loan.
act and the complainant was merely asked to answer mere
queries about her background and that there was 2 other

students at the time of signing.
sufficient cause to hold the respondent MARK REYES for
VIOLATION of Republic Act No. 8282.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
APPROVED:
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor

(Information)

Plaintiff,
- versus Mark Reyes,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
INFORMATION
Manila, upon prior written authority of the City Prosecutor,
Marienell Fortuno, accuses MARK REYES of crime punishable
under Republic Act No. 8282, committed as follows:
of Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, actuated by lust, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit violation
of Republic Act No. 8282 on the person of Pedra Santos, as her
Barber Shops sole proprietor, by requiring her to grab her
breast and allow him to touch and massage her back as a
requisite for her graduation clearance.
Contrary to law.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
BAIL RECOMMENDED:
Php 50,000.
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor


City of Manila
) s.s.
I, PEDRA SANTOS, of legal age, single, Filipino, and
residing at 300 Masangkay St. Manila, Philippines, after
having been sworn to in accordance with law, depose and says
that:
1. I am the Private Complainant in Criminal Case No. E456-789 for VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
8282, entitled People of the Philippines vs. MARK
REYES, which is now pending before the Metropolitan
Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Manila,
Branch 001;
honestly believe that, I actually given consent to the act
in question and that I previously misapprehend the
facts surrounding the event due to the social
implications it might give rise to;

this 20th day of October 2012, in the City of Manila.
PEDRA SANTOS
Affiant
Manila, this 20th day of October 2012 by Pedra Santos with
September 17, 2012.

Notary Public
December 31, 2012
Roll: E566789
IBP:678796
PTR:1234890
MCLE:Y6897636
Doc. No. _________;
Page No. _________;
Book No. ________;
Series of 2012.


Plaintiff,
- versus -

Mark Reyes,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
MOTION TO ALOW ACCUSED TO POST BAIL
COMES NOW accused MARK REYES, through the
commission of the violation of Republic Act No. 8282;
strong;
courts discretion.

LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll: 225245
IBP O.R.8765
PTR O.R.34567
MCLE:987634
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Manila
Greetings:
of the court.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Manila
Received by:


Plaintiff,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
Accused
MARK
REYES,
through
the
undersigned

Php 50,000.00
WHEREFORE, the accused MARK REYES respectfully
5,000.00 or such amount as the court sees just in accordance
with the circumstances thus presented.

LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll: 225245
IBP O.R.8765
PTR O.R.34567
MCLE:987634
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Manila
Greetings:
of the court.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Manila
Received by:


Plaintiff,
- versus -

Mark Reyes,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
COMES NOW accused MARK REYES and respectfully
alleges:
commission of the offense of violation of Social Security
Act of 1997;
hereby binds herself, pending final decision of the aboveentitled case, to appear before the court when so
ordered ;

accept the authority of LOURENA A. BUNDAC in whose
respectfully
prayed
that
the
defendant
be
released
on
recognizance.
MARK REYES
Accused
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Manila
Greetings:
of the court.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Manila
Received by:


Plaintiff,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH
Accused MARK REYES,
through
the
undersigned

offense of violation of Social Security Act of 1997
Republic Act No. 8282 committed against Pedra Santos.
this case.
oficio.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll: 225245
IBP O.R.8765
PTR O.R.34567
MCLE:987634
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Manila
Greetings:
of the court.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Counsel for Accused
Manila
Received by:


Plaintiff,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
Accused
MARK
REYES,
through
the
undersigned

offense of violation of Republic Act No. 8282 committed
against Pedra Santos.
this case.

WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
this

herein accused.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll: 225245
IBP O.R.8765
PTR O.R.34567
MCLE:987634
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Manila
Greetings:
of the court.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Counsel for Accused
Manila
Received by:


Plaintiff,
- versus -

Mark Reyes,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
The undersigned City Prosecutor of Manila respectfully
alleges that:


accused.
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Notice of Hearing
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Manila
Greetings:
of the court.
Manila, Philippines. October 20, 2012.
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor
City of Manila
Received by:
____________________


Plaintiff,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
Accused
MARK
REYES,
through
the
undersigned

crime of Violation of Social Security Act of 1997
committed against Pedra Santos;
this case;
WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
this

the herein accused.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll: 225245
IBP O.R.8765
PTR O.R.34567
MCLE:987634
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Manila
Greetings:
of the court.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Counsel for Accused
Manila
Received by:

(Pre-Trial Brief)

Plaintiff,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
UNDERSIGNED
Assistant
City
Prosecutor
hereby

Criminal
Procedure,
and
sub-paragraph
number
of


application of the provisions of the Republic Act No. 8282, on
the following circumstances, to wit:
That on or about May 26, 2012, in the City of
violations of Social Security Act of 1997 on the
person of Pedra Santos, as sole proprietor of the
Barber Shop, has failed to remit to the SSS
employees contribution which led to the rejection of
Ms. Kilays loan application with the SSS.
PLEA BARGAINING
agreement.
I. JURISDICTION:
III-A. That, Ms. Kilay has filed a loan application with
the SSS, and was subsequently denied because on
SSSs records, her company has not remitted any of

her contributions in Annex B;
III-B. That, Ms. Kilay has been deducted by company
with SSS contribution as evidenced by her payslips in
Annex A along with other employees in Annex C
III-C. That, Ms. Kilay has demanded Mr. Bongolan to
resolve the matter with the SSS as evidenced by a
letter in Annex D;
III-D That, Mr. Bongolan has been religiously and
faithfully remitting the contributions to the SSS as
evidenced by official receipts in Annex 1;

EXHIBIT A --- Ms. Kilays payslips with SSS
deductions;
EXHIBIT B --- Denial of SSS of loan
EXHIBIT C --- Payslips of other employees
EXHIBIT D --- Letter of demand to Mr.
Bongolan
1. Pedra Santos, the private offended party;
ISSUES

accused:
violation of Republic Act No 7877 Social Security Act of
1997.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Counsel for the accused, Manila.


Plaintiff,
- versus -

Mark Reyes,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------x
EXHIBIT A --- Ms. Kilays payslips with SSS
deductions;
EXHIBIT B --- Denial of SSS of loan
EXHIBIT C --- Payslips of other employees
EXHIBIT D --- Letter of demand to Mr.
Bongolan
given by witness Pedra Santos (private offended party).

identical purpose of showing that on October 1, 2012, at
Federasyon Barber Shop in Quiricada , Manila, Philippines, the
accused performed acts complained of on the person of the
complainant without the latters consent.
MARIENELL FORTUNO
Copy furnished:
LOURENA A. BUNDAC,
VIOLATION OF ANTI-HAZING LAW


Makati City
) s.s.
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, Juanita Dela Cruz, Filipino, 19, Female, single, and a
resident of 250 Gil Puyat Extention Pasay City, Philippines,
after being sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state:
1. That I know the person of Mary Santos, who is a
resident
of
No.
69
Reposo
Street,
Makati
City,
Philippines;
2. That sometime on the night of September 10, 2012,
at Starbucks Blue Wave D. Macapagal
Blvd., Pasay
City, Philippines, I met the said Mary Santos, brokered

by Kaka M. Pinya in a recruitment meeting for the
I.M.Boring Sorority of San Miguel University - Makati;
3. That I was taken to her office unit, at Berg and Co.
71F RCBC Tower Ayala Ave, Makati, for my initiation to
join their sorority I.M.Boring Sorority, San Miguel
Chapter at around 10:30PM;
4. That, as part of the initiation, I was to perform oral
sex on her whole maintenance crew, there were 4 men
present;
5. That, only Ms. Berg and the 4 men were present in
the office.
6. That, after knowing the act I was supposed to

perform oral sex, I demanded that I would not proceed
and quit joining the sorority;
7. That, the respondent prevented me from leaving by
having 2 members of the maintenance crew hold both
my hands and feet so as to not be able to run;
8. That, the last two members, opened their trousers
and proceeded to insert their penis into my mouth;
9. That, I was able to break free from their bondage
through the glass door as shown by wounds and
bruises on my wrists and proceeded to run away at
around 11:00 PM;
8049 Anti Hazing Law against the said Mary Santos
and the I.M.Boring Sorority, who may be served with
subpoena and other processes of this Honorable Office
at her office address at Berg and Co. 71F RCBC Tower
Ayala Ave, Makati City, Philippines;
this 12th day of September, 2012 at Makati City, Philippines.
Juanita Dela Cruz
Affiant-Complainant
Makati City.
CERTIFICATION
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO

(Counter-Affidavit)

Makati City
) s.s.
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, Mary Santos, of legal age, single, Filipino and with
resident address at, 69 Reposo St. Makati City, Philippines,
1. I was charged with violation of Republic Act 8049
Anti Hazing Act, by the private-complainant;
2. However, on the night in question, the fact of the
matter is that the consent on her part to join the
sorority, in fact she attended the sorority function
that night in Starbucks Blue Wave in D. Macapagal
Ave. Pasay City and in my office in Berg and Co. in
RCBC Tower, Makati;
3. She was accompanied by 2 members of the sorority
one Bettina Balda and Carla Pila to serve and
comply with mere informative queries about their
backgrounds and intentions in joining our sorority
and at any time was never restrained nor forced
from performing oral sex on any maintenance crew
of the building;
4. The private complainant was forced to file this

serve.
Makati City, 30th October 2012
Mary Santos
Respondent-Affiant
Makati, this 30th day of October 2012 by Mary Santos with
Residence Certificate No. 00123457 issued at Makati City, on
October 30, 2012.
Atty. Mon Del Rosario
Notary Public
Doc No. __________;
Page No. _________;
Book No. _________;
Series of 2012.
Copy Furnished:
Juanita Dela Cruz
250 Gil Puyat Extention, Pasay City, Philippines

(Resolution)

Makati City
Juanita Dela Cruz,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 123456
For: Violation of R.A. 8049
- versus Mary Santos,

Respondent.
x-------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
Sec. 4 Republic Act No. 8049 allegedly committed during the
September 15, 2012, at Makati City, supported by the sworn
statement of the complainant and photocopies of the police
report of the incident.
respondent alone forced her to perform oral sex on 4 men as
part of her service for membership to her sorority I.M.Boring
Sorority and refused to let her go when she changed her mind
in refusing to go through with the initiation.

act and the complainant was merely asked to answer mere
queries
about
her
background
and
that
there
was
representatives of the sorority Bettina Balda and Carla Pila

present the whole time.
that the lewd act was performed against the complainant
without the latters consent. The hurried escape of the
complainant through the glass door and the wounds and
bruises of the complainant hands indicates guilt on the part of
the respondent.
sufficient cause to hold the respondent MARY SANTOS for
VIOLATION of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8049.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
APPROVED:
MARIENELL FORTUNO
City Prosecutor

(Information)

Makati City
Plaintiff,

Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
INFORMATION
Makati, upon prior written authority of the City Prosecutor ,
Alfredo De Ocampo, accuses MARY SANTOS of violation of
Republic Act 8049 committed as follows:
That on or about the 10th day of September, 2012, in the
City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously commit acts punishable under
Republic Act 8049, Section 4.
1) By ordering her perform oral sex on 4 members of
the maintenance crew of Ms. Mary Santos
2) By refusing to let Ms. Juanita Dela Cruz go after

she has declined to proceed with the initiation after
initially applied to join
3) As well as not having the required number of
representatives of the school nor the organization in
performing the service or membership requirement
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
BAIL RECOMMENDED:
Php 50,000.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO


Makati City
) s.s.
I, JUANITA DELA CRUZ, of legal age, single, Filipino,
and residing at 250 Gil Puyat Extn, Pasay City, Philippines,
says that:
1. I am the Private Complainant in Criminal Case No. E123-457 for VIOLATION OF SECTION 4 OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8049, entitled People of the
Philippines vs. MARY SANTOS, which is now pending
before the Metropolitan Trial Court, National Capital
Judicial Region, Makati City, Branch 07;
honestly believe that, I actually given consent to the
act in question and that I previously misapprehend the
facts surrounding the event due to the social
implications it might give rise to;

this 20th day of October 2012, in the City of Makati.
JUANITA DELA CRUZ

Affiant
Makati, this 20th day of October 2012 by Juanita Dela Cruz
with Residence Certificate No. 0987654321 issued at Makati
City, on September 17, 2012.
Sarah Casin
Notary Public
December 31, 2012
Roll:68678686
IBP:45646546
PTR: 46464646
MCLE:6785756
Doc. No. _________;
Page No. _________;
Book No. ________;
Series of 2012.


Makati City
Plaintiff,
- versus -

Mary Santos,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
COMES NOW accused MARY SANTOS, through the
commission of the violation of Republic Act 8049;
strong;
courts discretion.

October 30, 2012. Makati City
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll: 12353343
IBP O.R.123413
PTR O.R.12313
MCLE:121313
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
Makati, Philippines. October 20, 2012
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Makati City
Received by:
Lourena A. Bundac


Makati City
Plaintiff,

Defendant.
x---------------------------------x

Accused
MARY
SANTOS,
through
the
undersigned

Php 50,000.00
WHEREFORE, the accused MARY SANTOS respectfully
5,000.00 or such amount as the court sees just in accordance
with the circumstances thus presented.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll: 12353343
IBP O.R.123413
PTR O.R.12313
MCLE:121313
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Makati City
Received by:
Lourena A. Bundac


Makati City
Plaintiff,
- versus -

Mary Santos,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
COMES NOW accused MARY SANTOS and respectfully
alleges:
commission of the offense of violation of Anti Hazing Act;
hereby binds herself, pending final decision of the aboveentitled case, to appear before the court when so
ordered ;
3. That the undersigned hereby further binds herself to

accept the authority of Tata Y. Nya in whose custody he
respectfully
prayed
that
the
defendant
be
released
on
recognizance.
MARY SANTOS
Accused
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Makati City
Received by:


Makati City
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH
Accused
MARY
SANTOS,
through
the
undersigned

offense of violation of Anti Hazing Act Republic Act 8049
committed against Juanita Dela Cruz.
this case.
oficio.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll: 12353343
IBP O.R.123413
PTR O.R.12313
MCLE:121313
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Makati City
Received by:
Lourena A. Bundac


Makati City
Plaintiff,

Defendant.
x---------------------------------x

Accused
MARY
SANTOS,
through
the
undersigned

offense of violation of Sec. 4 of Republic Act 8049
committed against Juanita Dela Cruz.
this case.

WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
this

herein accused.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll: 12353343
IBP O.R.123413
PTR O.R.12313
MCLE:121313
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Counsel for Accused
Makati City
Received by:


Makati City
Plaintiff,
- versus -

Mary Santos,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
alleges that:

justice;
poses a danger to the society within her locality.
accused.
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
NOTICE OF HEARING
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
Alfredo De Ocampo
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Received by:
LOURENA A. BUNDAC


Makati City
Plaintiff,
- versus -

Mary Santos,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
Accused MARY SANTOS, through the undersigned
crime of Violation of Anti Hazing Act committed against
Juanita Dela Cruz;
this case;
WHEREFORE,
it
is
respectfully
prayed
that
this

the herein accused.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Roll: 098765
IBP O.R.3456789
PTR O.R.368096345
MCLE:4545674879
:
Notice of Hearing
Marienell Fortuno
City Prosecutor
Makati City
Greetings:
of the court.
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Counsel for Accused
Makati City
Received by:
Lourena A. Bundac

(Pre-Trial Brief)

Makati City
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
UNDERSIGNED
Assistant
City
Prosecutor
hereby

Criminal
Procedure,
and
sub-paragraph
number
of

application of the provisions of the Republic Act 8049 (Sec. 4),
on the following circumstances, to wit:
That on or about the 15th day of September, 2012, in

the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the
feloniously commit violations of Anti Hazing Act on
the person of Juanita Dela Cruz by ordering her
against her will to perform oral sex on 4 members of
the accuseds maintenance crew, refusing to let her
go initially having consented to joining I.M.Boring
Sorority and not having the required number of
school or organization representatives present in the
performance of such activities.
PLEA BARGAINING
agreement.
I. JURISDICTION:
III. FACTS OF THE CASE:
III-A. That sometime on the night of September 15,

2012, at Berg and Co. 7F RCBC Tower Ayala Ave.
Makati City, Philippines, the said Mary Santos was
with Ms. Juanita Dela Cruz for the performance of the
service to join the I.M.Boring Sorority at around 10:30
PM that night;
III-B. That somehow Ms. Ubog refused to join the
sorority after having initially admitted to joining
III-C. That, Ms. Ubog left the building at around 11:00 PM
that same night;
1. Juanita Dela Cruz, the private offended party;
ISSUES
accused:
constitute violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No
8049 Anti Hazing Act.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
LOURENA A. BUNDAC
Makati City


Makati City
Plaintiff,
- versus -

Mary Santos,
Defendant.
x---------------------------------x
EXHIBIT A ---
A true and faithful
machine
reproduction of the police report of the incident.

given by witness Juanita Dela Cruz (private offended party).
Exhibit A with all its respective sub-markings, together with the
testimony of said witnesses, are offered for the identical
purpose of showing that on September 15, 2012, at Berg and
Co. Offices in 7F RCBC Bldg,
Ayala Ave, Makati City,
person of the complainant without the latters consent.
Furthermore, the prosecution respectfully manifests that all of
the afore-described exhibits/evidence for the prosecution have
been submitted to custody of the Honorable Court.
ALFREDO DE OCAMPO
Copy furnished:
LOURENA A. BUNDAC,
Counsel for the Accused.
Civil
Proceedings

(Complaint)
Regional Trial Court
National Judicial Region
Branch 88, Cavite
Ana Capri,
Plaintiff,
- versus-
Civil Case No. 11122

For: Permanent Protection
Order under RA 9262
Jude Capri,
Defendant,
x-----------------------x
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF,
by counsel and to this Honorable Court,
1 PLAINTIFF is of legal age, and with residence at
DulongBayan, General Trias Cavite, while Defendant is
also of legal age and at present residing at Biga Tanza
Cavite;
2 PLAINTIFF has two (2) daughters of the Defendant and
is living with her mother and two (2) minor brothers at
the aforementioned address;
3 Defendant and his wife, Merely Gonzaga, the mother of
PLAINTIFF,
are living separately since 2005.
Defendant is now living with his Common Law Wife at
the aforementioned address and since the day he left
his family, failed and refused to provide financial
support and maintenance to them but he visits his

family once in a while;
4 PLAINTIFF,
since her father had already stopped
supporting because he lost his job and no mean of
supporting her,
so she had to discontinue her
schooling and she helped her mother earn a living;
5 On or about November 2, 2010, Defendant asked for
some money from PLAINTIFF to some buy Candles for
his deceased Mother and a bottle of Tanduay Rum and
some pulutan for celebration All souls Day and
when PLAINTIFF refused to give Defendant what he
wanted, the latter harassed and threatened to inflict
physical harm upon her every time they cross each
others path. When Defendant was finally able to
obtain money from PLAINTIFF,
he hit her on the
face with a rolled news paper, threatened to inflict
more injury upon her if she refused again the next
time he asked for some money and then left the house
of the PLAINTIFF;
6 PLAINTIFF since then had developed fear and anxiety
due to continuous harassment of her father even when
she is at work;
7 In support of PLAINTIFFs complaint, enclosed
herewith are PLAINTIFFs affidavit, and testimonies
from her mother and two (2) co-workers who have
witnessed the incidents, which are attached as
Annexes A, B, C, and D, respectively.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for the issuance of
Permanent Protection order and for the grant of the following
reliefs:
a Prohibition of the defendant from threatening to
commit or committing, personally or through
another, physical harm upon the PLAINTIFF and her
family members.;
b Prohibition of the defendant from harassing, annoying,

telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating
with the PLAINTIFF,
directly or indirectly;
c Directing the defendant to stay away from PLAINTIFF
and designated family or household member at a
distance specified by the court, and to stay away from
the residence, school, place of employment, or any
specified place frequented by the petitioner and any
designated family or household member;
d Prohibition of the defendant from any use or
possession of any firearm or deadly weapon and order
him to surrender the same to the court for appropriate
disposition by the court, including revocation of
license and disqualification to apply for any license to
use or possess a firearm.
Cavite, Philippines, April 10, 2012.
Cherry Amor Venzon-Ongson

Counsel for PLAINTIFF
Baranagay Tapia, General Trias, Cavite
Roll of Attorney No. 11120
IBP No. 111862
PTR No. 1119427
MCLE No. I-37249
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, Ana Reyes, of legal age and with residence at
DulongBayan, General Trias Cavite, after having been duly
sworn, depose and say:
1 That I am the PLAINTIFF in the above titled complaint.
2 That I have caused the preparation of said complaint.
3 That I have read the allegations therein contained and
that the same are true and correct of my personal
knowledge or based on authentic records.
4 That I have not theretofore commenced any action or
filed any claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of
my knowledge, no such other action or claim is
pending therein; and if I should thereafter learn that
the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, I shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint
or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Witness my hand this 11th day of April 2012 at Cavite,
Philippines.
Ana Reyes
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the
municipality of Baler, Aurora this 18th day of September 2010
by Ana Reyes with Residence Certificate No. 011985 issued at
General Trias, Cavite on June 20, 2003 and SSS No. 17278
issued at General Trias, Cavite on June 20, 2003.
Nota Ryu Poohblikoh

Commission Issued: 07/12/10
Commission Expires : 07/02/15
IBP No. 111862
PTR No. 1119427

MCLE No. I-37249
Doc. No. 11
Page No. 11
Book No. 11
Series of 2012
Copy Furnished:
Tom Sawyer

I, Fernando Jose, of legal age and having been duly
sworn depose and say:
1. That I am the messenger of Atty. Franco Grepo,
counsel for Ana Reyes in the cases entitled Ana Reyes
vs. Marco Reyes, Civil Case No. 22111, and that such
messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party
and other parties, the pleading in said case, as follows:
2. Atty. Franco Grepo, counsel Ana Reyes by registered
mail by depositing the copy in the post office in sealed
envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel at
his office, with postage fully prepaid, and with
instruction to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten days if undelivered, this 21 th day of
April 2012, as shown by Registry No. 11 dated April
11, 2012 of the post office of General Trias, Aurora.
April 11, 2012 at Cavite, Philippines.
Fernando Jose
Affiant
April 2012 at Cavite, Philippines, affiant appearing before me
with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2, 1998 at Aurora,
Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April 12, 1995.
Nota Ryu Poohblikoh

Commission Issued: 07/12/10
Commission Expires : 07/02/15
IBP No. 111862
PTR No. 1119427
MCLE No. I-37249
Doc. No. 11
Page No. 11
Book No. 11
Series of 2012
(Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading)
Branch 88, Cavite
Ana Capri,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Order under RA 9262
Jude Capri,
Defendant,
x-----------------------x
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER
DEFENDANT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:
1 Defendant engaged the services

counsel only on May 2 , 2012;
of
undersigned
2 Defendant was served with Summons and copy of the

Complaint on April 30, 2012 and thus has until May
15, 2012 within which to submit an Answer or
Responsive Pleading;
3 However, due to the pressures of equally urgent
professional work and prior commitments, the
undersigned counsel will not be able to meet the said
deadline;
4 As such, undersigned counsel is constrained to
request for an additional period of ten (10) days from
today within which to submit Defendant's Answer or
Responsive Pleading. Moreover, this additional time
will also allow the undersigned to interview the
available witness and study this case further;
5 This Motion is not intended for delay but solely due to
the foregoing reasons.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Defendant most respectfully prays of this
Honorable Court that he be given an additional period of ten
(10) days from today within which to submit an Answer or
other Responsive Pleading.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Cavite, Philippines, May 2, 2012.
Tom Sawyer
101 Zobel Roxas, Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 888891
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Manila
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Manila
MCLE Compliance No. I-175440

NOTICE OF HEARING
Atty. Franco Grepo
Baranagay Tapia General Trias Cavite
Sir:
Please be informed that the undersigned counsel has set
the foregoing motion for hearing on May 14, 2012. At 9:30 am
for consideration of the Honorable Court or soon thereafter as
counsel may be heard.
Tom Sawyer
COPY FURNISHED:
Atty. Cherry Amor Venzon-Ongson

I, Edgar Diaz, of legal age and having been duly sworn
depose and say:
That I am the messenger of Atty. Bryan Zafra, counsel for
Marco Reyes in the cases entitled Ana Reyes vs. Marco Reyes,
Civil Case No. 11122, and that such messenger I served upon
the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in
said case, as follows:
Atty Bryan Zafra, counsel for Marco Reyes by registered
envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel at his
office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to the
postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten days if

undelivered, this 3th day of May 2012, as shown by Registry
No. 17 dated October 2, 2010 of the post office Biga Tanza
Cavite.
3 day of May 2012 at Cavite, Philippines.
rd
Edgar Diaz
Affiant
May 2012 at Cavite , Philippines, affiant appearing before me
with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2, 1998 at Cavite,
ATTY. CHERRY AMOR VENZON-ONGSON

Notary Public
PTR No. 0478257
IBP No. 779524
MCLE No. I-85712
Doc. No. 07
Page No. 6
Book No. 16
Series of 2010
(Motion for Bill of Particulars)
Branch 88, Cavite
Ana Capri,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Order under RA 9262
Jude Capri,
Defendant,
x-----------------------x
MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
DEFENDANT, by counsel and to this Honorable Court,
alleges:
1. The information did not show, with sufficient
definiteness, the following allegations to wit:
3.Defendant since the day he left his family, failed
and refused to provide financial support and
maintenance to them;
xxx xxx xxx
6. PLAINTIFF since then had developed fear and
anxiety due to continuous harassment of her father
even when she is at work;
2. The foregoing allegations are conclusions of law, which
PLAINTIFF should clarify and flesh them with facts
and specific acts to enable Defendant-movant to
prepare and file a responsive answer thereto which
requires information as to the precise nature,
character, scope and extent of PLAINTIFFs cause of
action.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that PLAINTIFF be

ordered to file a bill of particulars of the facts and acts
constituting the conclusions alleged in the complaint.
Aurora, Philippines, October 8, 2010.
Tom Sawyer
IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Manila
PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Manila
NOTICE OF HEARING
Sir:
the foregoing motion for hearing on April 14, 2012. At 9:30 am
Tom Sawyer
COPY FURNISHED:

I, Renato Pascua, of legal age and having been duly sworn
depose and say:
That I am the messenger of Tom Sawyer, counsel for Jude
Capri in the cases entitled Ana Capri vs. Jude CApri, Civil
Case No. 1711, and that such messenger I served upon the
counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in
Atty. Tom Sawyer, counsel for Jude Capri by registered
No. 18 dated May 2, 2010 of the post office Biga Tanza Cavite.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 3 rd
day of May 2012 at Cavite, Philippines.
Edgar Diaz,
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of May
2012 at Cavite, Philippines, affiant appearing before me with
his CTC No. 1298 issued on June 2, 1998 at Cavite,

Notary Public
PTR No. 0478257

IBP No. 779524
MCLE No. I-876512
Doc. No. 31
Page No. 6
Book No. 7
Series of 2012
(Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings)
Branch 88, Cavite
Ana Capri,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Order under RA 9262
Jude Capri,
Defendant,
x-----------------------x
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
PLAINTIFF, by counsel and to this Honorable Court
respectfully moves that judgment on the pleadings be directed,
on the following ground:
1 In his answer to the complaint for Permanent
Protection Order, Defendant merely denied that he
harassed and threatened to inflict physical harm upon
the PLAINTIFF,
which is tantamount to denial of
any knowledge and information as to the truth of the

allegations of the complaint. This kind of denial, while
allowed in certain instances, does not apply when the
facts as to which want of knowledge is asserted are to
the knowledge of the court are so plainly and
essentially within the Defendants knowledge. It
amounts to a general denial that entitles the
PLAINTIFF to judgment on the pleadings.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays that judgment on the
pleading be rendered in favor of PLAINTIFF,
ordering
Defendant to pay PLAINTIFF as prayed for in the complaint.
Cavite, Philippines, May 8, 2012

Address Baranagay Tapia, General
Trias, Cavite
IBP No. 111862
PTR No. 1119427
MCLE No. I-37249
NOTICE OF HEARING
Atty. Tom Sawyer
Sir:
the foregoing motion for hearing on May 14, 2012. At 9:30 am
CherryAmor Venzon-Ongson
COPY FURNISHED:
Atty. Tom Sawyer

That I am the messenger of Atty. Cherry Amor VenzonOngson, counsel for AnaCapri in the cases entitled Ana Capri
vs. Jude Capri, Civil Case No. 11122, and that such
messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and
other parties, the pleading in said case, as follows:
Atty. Cherry Amor Venzon-Ongson, counsel for Ana Capri by
registered mail by depositing the copy in the post office in
sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel at
his office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to
the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten days
if undelivered, this 12th day of May 2012, as shown by Registry
No. 17 dated May 9, 2012 of the post office at Dulong Bayan,
General Trias, Cavite.

May 3, 2012 at Aurora, Philippines.
Fernando Jose
Affiant
May 2012 at Cavite, Philippines, affiant appearing before me

Notary Public
PTR No. 0478257/1-20-05/ Manila
IBP No. 779524/1-20-05/ Manila
Doc. No. 31
Page No. 6
Book No. 16
Series of 2012
(Answer with Affirmative Defenses)
Branch 88, Cavite
Ana Capri,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Order under RA 9262

Jude Capri,
Defendant,
x-----------------------x
ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
DEFENDANT, by counsel and to this Honorable Court,
answering the complaint for Permanent Protection Order
under RA 9262, to this Honorable Court, respectfully states:
1 Defendant admits the allegations under par. 1 and 2 of
the complaint and the portion of par. 3 regarding the
fact that he now lives with his new wife but denies the
rest thereof, for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth thereof.
2 Defendant denies the allegation under par. 3 regarding
the fact that PLAINTIFF had to stop from going to
school because he failed to support them. As a matter
of fact he was the one who spends for the education of
all of his children.
3 Assuming arguendo that PLAINTIFF stopped from
going to school, it was voluntary on her part and was
not premised on his failure to support them as
PLAINTIFF claimed.
4 Defendant denies under oath that he harassed,
slapped on the face and threatened to inflict physical
harm upon the PLAINTIFF as alleged under par. 5, 6,
and 7 of the complaint.
5 Assuming, arguendo, that Defendant indeed asked for

some money from the PLAINTIFF no case did he ever
harassed, hit on the nape or threatened her when she
refused to give her money, the truth being that it was
his wife who reacted violently over the situation to the
extent that she even aimed a bolo upon him and

angrily told him to leave.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that the
complaint be dismissed for lack of merit, with costs against
PLAINTIFF.
Defendant further prays for such other reliefs as may be
just and equitable in the premises.
Cavite, Philippines, October 1, 2010
Tom Sawyer
IBP No. 521098
PTR No. 304701
MCLE No. I-175440
VERIFICATION
I, Jude Capri, of legal age and with residence at Biga
Tanza Cavite, after having been duly sworn, depose and say:
1 That I am the Defendant in the above entitled
answer;
2 That I have caused the preparation by my counsel of
said answer;
3 That I have read the allegations therein contained,
and that the same are true and correct of my
personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
Witness my hand this 1st day of October 2010 at

Dipaculao, Aurora, Philippines.
Jude Capri
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3st day of
with his CTC No. 1879 issued on June 2, 1998 at Cavite,

Notary Public
PTR No. 0478257
IBP No. 779524
MCLE No. I-876512
Doc. No. 2
Page No. 52
Book No. 17
Series of 2012

I , Edgar Diaz, of legal age and having been duly sworn
depose and say:
1 That I am the messenger of Atty. Tom Sawyer, counsel
for Jude Capri in the cases entitled Ana Reyes vs.
Marco Reyes, Civil Case No 11122, and that such
2 Atty. Tom Sawyer, counsel for Jude Capri by registered
sender after ten days if undelivered, this 8 th day of May
2012, as shown by Registry No. 15 dated May 2, 2012
of the post office of Biga, Tanza Cavite.
3 day of May 2012 at Cavite, Philippines.
rd
Edgar Diaz,
Affiant
Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on june1 4, 1995.

Notary Public
PTR No. 0478257
IBP No. 779524
MCLE No. I-876512

Doc. No. 12
Page No. 5
Book No. 17
Series of 2010
(Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim)
Branch 88, Cavite
Ana Capri,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Order under RA 9262
Jude Capri,
Defendant,
x-----------------------x
ANSWER WITH COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant, by counsel and to this Honorable Court
respectfully states:
1 That as a consequence of PLAINTIFFs clearly
unfounded claims, which forced Defendant to litigate
and protect his interests and to secure the services of
counsel, Defendant suffered damages in the form of
attorneys fees in the amount of P10,000 and expenses
of litigation in the amount of no less than P5,000, all
of which should be assessed against PLAINTIFF as
penalty for filing such unfounded and harassment

complaint.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that the complaint be
dismissed for lack of merit.
Cavite, Philippines May 17, 2012
Tom Sawyer
IBP No. 521098
PTR No. 304701
I, Jude Capri, of legal age and with residence at Biga
Tanza Cavite, after having been duly sworn, depose and say:
1 That I am the Defendant in the above titled complaint.
2 That I have caused the preparation of said complaint.
4 That I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed
any claim involving the same issues in any court,
tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; and if I should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I
shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory
pleading has been filed.
Witness my hand this 17th day of May 2012 at Cavite,
Philippines.

municipality of Biga Tanza Cavite this 18th day of April 2010 by
Jude Capri with Residence Certificate No. 011985 issued at
Biga Tanza Cavite on March 27, 2001 and SSS No. 17278
issued at Biga Tanza Cavite on July 17, 2000.

Notary Public
PTR No. 0478257
IBP No. 779524
MCLE No. I-876512
Doc. No. 12
Page No. 37
Book No. 11
Series of 2012
I, Edgar Diaz, of legal age and having been duly sworn
depose and say:
1. That I am the messenger of Atty. Bryan Zafr, counsel
for Marco Reyes in the cases entitled Ana Reyes vs.
Marco Reyes, Civil Case No. 11122, and that such
2. Atty. Tom Sawyer, counsel for Jude Capri by registered
sender after ten days if undelivered, this 20 th day of
May 2012, as shown by Registry No. 13 dated May 17,
2010 of the post office of Biga Tanza Cavite.
day of May 17, 2012 at Aurora, Philippines.
Edgar Diaz
Affiant
October 2010 at Aurora, Philippines, affiant appearing before
me with his CTC No. 1298 issued on December 2, 1998 at
Aurora, Philippines and SSS No. 021646544 issued on April
12, 1995.

Notary Public
PTR No. 478257
IBP No. 779524
MCLE No. I-876512
Doc. No. 12
Page No. 5
Book No. 18
Series of 2012
(Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaim)
Branch 88, Cavite
Ana Capri,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Order under RA 9262
Jude Capri,
Defendant,
x-----------------------x
ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant, by counsel and to this Honorable Court
1 Defendant denies the allegation u+nder par. 3
regarding the fact that PLAINTIFF had to stop from
going to school because he failed to support them. As
a matter of fact he was the one who spends for the
education of all of his children.
2 Assuming arguendo that PLAINTIFF stopped from
going to school, it was voluntary on her part and was
not premised on his failure to support them as
PLAINTIFF claimed.
3 That as a consequence of PLAINTIFFs clearly
unfounded claims, which forced Defendant to litigate
and protect his interests and to secure the services of
counsel, Defendant suffered damages in the form of
attorneys fees in the amount of P20,000 and expenses
of litigation in the amount of no less than P9,000, all
of which should be assessed against PLAINTIFF as
penalty for filing such unfounded and harassment
complaint.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that the complaint be
dismissed for lack of merit.
Cavite, Philippines May 17, 2012
Tom Sawyer

IBP No. 521098
PTR No. 304701
MCLE No. I-175440
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF

NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, Marco Reyes of legal age and with residence at Biga

Tanza Cavite , after having been duly sworn, depose and say:
1 That I am the Defendant in the above titled complaint.
2 That I have caused the preparation of said complaint
4 That I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed
tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency;
5 That to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or
claim is pending therein; and
6 That if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar
action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court
wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading
has been filed.
Witness my hand this 17th day of May 2012 at Cavite,
Philippines.
Jude Capri,
Affiant
municipality of Baler, Aurora this 18th day of April 2012 Marco
Reyes with Residence Certificate No. 011985 issued at Biga
Tanza Cavite on March 27, 2001 and SSS No. 17278 issued at
Biga Tanza Cavite on June 17, 200.
Cherry Amor Venzon- Ongson

Notary Public
PTR No. 0478257
IBP No. 779524
MCLE No. I-876512
Doc. No. 52
Page No. 17
Book No. 11
Series of 2012

I, , Edgar Diaz, of legal age and having been duly sworn
depose and say:
(a) That I am the messenger of Atty. Bryan Zafra, counsel
for Marco Reyes the cases entitled Ana Reyes. Marco
Reyes, Civil Case No. 11122 and that such messenger
I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other
parties, the pleading in said case, as follows:
(b)Atty. Bryan Zafra, counsel for Marco Reyes by
registered mail by depositing the copy in the post office
in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or
counsel at his office, with postage fully prepaid, and
with instruction to the postmaster to return the mail
to the sender after ten days if undelivered, this 20 th
day of May 2012, as shown by Registry No. 15 dated
May 17, 2012 of the post office of Biga Tanza Cavite.
day of May 17, 2012 at Cavite , Philippines.
Edgar Diaz,
Affiant


Notary Public
PTR No. 0478257
IBP No. 779524
MCLE No. I-876512
Doc. No. 10
Page No. 5
Book No. 18
Series of 2012
(Reply)
Branch 88, Cavite
Ana Capri,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Order under RA 9262
Jude Capri,
Defendant,
x-----------------------x
REPLY
Ana Reyes, after being duly sworn in accordance with

law, deposes and says:
1 That I am the PLAINTIFF in the Civil Case for seeking
for Permanent Protection Order under RA 9262;
2 That the allegations of Defendant in his answer under
par. 2 are baseless, the truth being that from June
2011 until Jan 2012 before she stopped from going to
school, it was her mother who paid for her educational
expenses as evidenced by Annex E, the Official
Receipts issued by Father St. Francis High School and
not Defendant as he so claimed;
3 That the allegations under par. 4 are not true, in fact
attached herewith to support my allegations against
the DEFENDANT is Annex F, the Medical Certificate
executed by Dr. Hyden Kho , certifying that her face
swelled, had bruises, and she had a cut lip, as a
result of the physical harm inflicted upon her by
Defendant. Also attached herewith are the Affidavits
of the PLAINTIFF,
her mother, Merly Gonzaga and
her two (2) co-workers, Allan Gomez and Jake de Asis,
who witnessed the harassment, as Annexes A, B C and
D, respectively.
4 That for the abovementioned evidences, DEFENDANT
cannot claim lack of knowledge of the accusations
against him.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays that she be given leave
of court to file this reply and for such other reliefs as may be
just and equitable in the premises.
Cavite, Philippines, May 16, 2012

Address Baranagay Tapia, General
Trias, Cavite

IBP No. 111862
PTR No. 1119427
MCLE No. I-17245
Copy furnished:
Atty. Tom Sawyer


That I am the messenger of Atty Cherry Amor VenzonOngson, counsel for Ana Capri in the cases entitled Ana Capri
vs Jude Capri, Civil Case No. 1711, and that such messenger I
served upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties,
the pleading in said case, as follows:
Atty. Cherry Amor Venzon-Ongson , counsel Ana Capri by
registered mail by depositing the copy in the post office in
sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the party or counsel at

his office, with postage fully prepaid, and with instruction to
the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten days
if undelivered, this 25th day of May 2012, as shown by Registry
No. 14 dated May 20, 2012 of the post office of at
DulongBayan, General Trias , Cavite
May 16, 2012 at Cavite, Philippines.
Fernando Jose
Affiant

Notary Public
PTR No. 0478257
IBP No. 779524
MCLE No. I-876512
Doc. No. 37
Page No. 61
Book No. 26
Series of 2012
(Pre-Trial Brief - Plaintiff)
Branch 88, Cavite
Ana Capri,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Order under RA 9262
Jude Capri,
Defendant,
x-----------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
PLAINTIFF, by counsel and to this Honorable Court,
respectfully submits this pre-trial brief containing the
following:
9 WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN AMICABLE
SETTLEMENT
a Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and
from PLAINTIFF,
DEFENDANT is open to the
possibility of amicably settling this dispute.
b Pursuant to Sec.1, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, DEFENDANT respectfully submits
that the desired terms of amicable settlement would
involve, first, a clarification of the actual extent of any
obligation due and owing to PLAINTIFF inasmuch as
there is nothing to indicate the obligations of the
DEFENDANT to PLAINTIFF and, second, a schedule of
payments.
10 SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS AND PROPOSED
STIPULATION OF FACTS
a The PLAINTIFF only admits to those facts stated in

their counter affidavit, etc., i.e. their personal
circumstances.
b Subject to a concrete proposal for stipulation of
additional facts from PLAINTIFF during pre-trial or
even thereafter, PLAINTIFF admits no other facts
stated in the Complaint.
11 ISSUE/S TO BE TRIED
a PLAINTIFF submits that the following issues put
forward by PLAINTIFF are subject to proof :
a.1 Whether or not the acts of harassment and threat
to inflict physical harm by Defendant upon PLAINTIFF
may be prosecuted under RA 9262.
a.2 Whether or not Defendants mere denial of the
allegations against him may acquit him from the
coverage of RA 9262.
12 PLAINTIFF intends to present the following
documents, in connection with which PLAINTIFF
requests from Defendant their admission of their
execution and due authenticity:
a Official Receipt.
Purpose: To prove that Defendant deliberately deprived
PLAINTIFF and her mother of educational support
since the day he left them.
b Medical Certificate.
Purpose: To prove the physical harm inflicted upon
PLAINTIFF by Defendant.
13 PLAINTIFF manifests his intention to resort to
discovery procedures.
14 PLAINTIFF does not intend to amend his

complaint.
15 PLAINTIFF intends to present the following
witnesses:
a PLAINTIFF himself, who will testify on the true
circumstances leading to the filing of this suit.
b Merley Gonzaga, her mother, who witnessed the
commotion on June 2, 2010.
c Allan Gomez and Jake de Asis, her two (2) co-workers
who witnessed the harassment at her working place.
RESPECTFULLY submitted.
Cavite, Philippines, October 20, 2010.
Cherry Amor Venzon-ongson

Address Baranagay Tapia, General Trias,
Cavite
IBP No. 111862
PTR No. 1119427
MCLE No. I-17245
Copy furnished:
Atty. Tom Sawyer

1. That I am the messenger of Atty Cherry Amor VenzonOngson, counsel for Ana Capri in the cases entitled
Ana Capri vs. Jude Capri, Civil Case No. 11122, and
that such messenger I served upon the counsel of
adverse party and other parties, the pleading in said
case, as follows:
2. Atty. Cherry Amor Venzon-Ongson, counsel for Ana
Capri by registered mail by depositing the copy in the
post office in sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the
party or counsel at his office, with postage fully
prepaid, and with instruction to the postmaster to
return the mail to the sender after ten days if
undelivered, this 25th day of May 2012, as shown by
Registry No. 17 dated May 20, 2012 of the post office
of at DulongBayan, General Trias Cavite .
May 16, 2012 at Cavite, Philippines.
Fernando Jose
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20th day of May
2012 at Aurora, Philippines, affiant appearing before me with
his CTC No. 1298 issued on june

2, 1998 at Cavite,

Notary Public
PTR No. 0478257
IBP No. 779524
MCLE No. I-876512
Doc. No. 31
Page No. 6
Book No. 11
Series of 2012
(Pre-Trial Brief - Defendant)
Branch 88, Cavite
Ana Capri,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Order under RA 9262
Jude Capri,
Defendant,
x-----------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
COMES NOW, the DEFENDANT, by counsel and to this

Honorable Court, respectfully submits this pre-trial brief in
compliance with the trial courts order, containing the
following:
I

SETTLEMENT AND POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY
SUCH SETTLEMENT
a Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and

from PLAINTIFF,
DEFENDANT is open to the
possibility of amicably settling this dispute.
b Pursuant to Sec.1, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, DEFENDANT respectfully submits
that the desired terms of amicable settlement would
involve, first, a clarification of the actual extent of any
obligation due and owing to PLAINTIFF inasmuch as
there is nothing to indicate the obligations of the
DEFENDANT to PLAINTIFF and, second, a schedule of
payments.
II
SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS AND

PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS
a The DEFENDANT only admits to those facts stated in

their counter affidavit, etc., i.e. their personal
circumstances.
b Subject to a concrete proposal for stipulation of
additional facts from PLAINTIFF during pre-trial or
even thereafter, DEFENDANT admit no other facts
stated in the Complaint.
III
ISSUE/S TO BE TRIED
DEFENDANT submit that the following issues put

forward by PLAINTIFF are subject to proof :
a Whether or not the pieces of evidence presented by

Defendant are admissible on the ground that they are
relevant.
b Whether or not Defendant had deliberately deprived
PLAINTIFF and her mother of the financial support
they needed so that he may be indicted under RA
9262.
c
Whether or not Defendants acts are indictable under

RA 9262.
IV
DOCUMENT/S, EXHIBIT/S, EVIDENCE, OR

NUMBER AND NAMES OF WITNESSES TO BE
PRESENTED, STATING THE PURPOSE THEREOF
DEFENDANT or Defense intends to present the
following witnesses:
a Defendant himself, who will testify on the true

circumstances leading to the filing of this suit against
him;
b Teresa Lumagi , who will testify on the fact of
Defendants continuous financial support to
PLAINTIFF.
c We reserve the right to present other evidence
necessary, material or relevant to the case.
V
A MANIFESTATION OF THEIR HAVING AVAILED

OR THEIR INTENTION TO AVAIL THEMSELVES
OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURES OR REFERAL TO
COMMISSIONERS
a Considering the relatively simple issues presented,
DEFENDANT does not intend to avail of discovery at
this time;
b Subject however, to a concrete and reasonable request
for discovery from PLAINTIFF,
DEFENDANT reserves
the right to resort to discovery before trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that the foregoing be

taken cognizance of.
Cavite , Philippines, May 22, 2012
Tom Sawyer
Roll of Attorneys No.
888891
IBP No. 521098
PTR No. 304701
MCLE No. I-175440
Copy furnished:

I, Edgar Diaz, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose
and say:
That I am the messenger of Atty. Tom Sawyer, counsel for

Jude Capri in the cases entitled Ana Capri vs. Jude Capri ,
Civil Case No. 11122 , and that such messenger I served upon
the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the pleading in
Atty Tom Sawyer , counsel for Jude Capriby registered
No. 17 dated May 22, 2012 of the post office of Biga Tanza
Cavite.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 22nd
day of May 2012 at Cavite, Philippines.
Fernando Jose
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22nd day of

Notary Public
PTR No. 0478257
IBP No. 779524
MCLE No. I-876512
Doc. No. 09
Page No. 7
Book No. 15
Series of 2012
(Compromise Agreement)
Branch 88, Cavite
Ana Capri,
Plaintiff,
Order under RA 9262
- versus-
Jude Capri,
Defendant,
x-----------------------x
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
This compromise and settlement agreement is made by
and between Ana Reyes, who will be referred to as PLAINTIFF,
whose address at DulongBayan, General Trias Cavite , and
Marco Reyes, who will be referred to as Defendant, whose
address is Biga Tanza Cavite
The parties stipulate to the following:
PLAINTIFF asserts a claim against Defendant based on
violation of RA 9262 or Anti-Violence Against Women
and their Children.
An action based on this claim is now pending in the
Regional Trial Court Cavite Branch no 88 , case
number 11122, with PLAINTIFF represented by
Attorney Cherry Amor Venzon-Ongson, and Defendant
represented by Attorney Tom Sawyer.
Defendant denies any liability in connection with the

alleged claim.
The parties wish to reach a full and final settlement of the
action and all matters arising from the dispute
described above.
Therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises set

forth, the parties agree to the following:
6. Defendant will pay to PLAINTIFF P150,000 on execution
of this agreement or as the case may be.
7. PLAINTIFF will execute a Request for Dismissal,
dismissing the pending action with prejudice, and deliver
this to the Defendant on execution of this agreement or
as the case may be.
8. Each party releases the other from all rights and claims
that they may have against the other arising from the
dispute described above.
9. This agreement is a compromise of a disputed matter and
may not be construed as an admission of any party's
liability.
10.
This agreement was the result of a negotiated
settlement and may not be construed as having been
prepared by any one party.
11.
In the event any action is instituted to enforce the
provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party will be
entitled to recover attorney fees.
12.
This agreement is intended to bind and benefit the
parties, their heirs, agents, legal representatives, assigns,
and successors in interest.
Ana Capri
Plaintiff
May 30, 2012

May 30, 2012
Jude Capri
Defendant
May 30, 2012
Tom Sawyer
May 30, 2012
ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE
(Petition)
Branch 88, Manila
Augusto Cesar Medina,
Petitioner,
- versus-

For: Annulment of Marriage
(Psychological Incapacity)
Juana Gamboa Cruz,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------x
PETITION
Petitioner, by the undersigned counsel, and unto the
Honorable Court, respectfully alleges that:
1 Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, married, a former
resident of Unit 505 Lancaster Building, Padre Faura
Street, Ermita, Manila, for the last 3 years, and
presently residing at 1234 Ocampo Street, Sta. Mesa,
Manila; while respondent is likewise of legal age,
Filipino, married, and a resident of Unit 505 Lancaster
Building, Faura Street, Ermita, Manila, where she may
be served with summons and other court processes.
2 Respondent, the daughter of influential businessman
Aristotle Ty Cruz, was twenty (20) years old and was
about to graduate from college when she married
herein petitioner who was then eighteen (18) years old.
The marriage was officiated by Manila Mayor Lito Lim

on December 25, 2009 at the Manila City Hall.
3 Petitioner and respondent, prior to their marriage,
were not even acquaintances. They first met in a class
party where everyone was having the most of the
night. After a few exchange of conversations while
getting drunk amidst a noisy environment, they drove
to a motel and spent the night together. That night has
since started the malady of their lives.
4 Respondent found out her pregnancy in October 2009
and informed the petitioner in the same month.
However, the petitioner doubts his paternity over the
child.
5
On December 1, 2009, the herein petitioner was

approached by the two armed bodyguards of Aristotle
Cruz informing him of the misfortune that he would
be should he not marry the respondent. A revolver was
shown to him when the bodyguards sensed his
hesitation.
6 Two days after the incident, the petitioner approached

personally the respondents father invoking his
incapability to enter into marriage. However, Atty. Go
accordingly told him to expect to die. The lawyer
further stated that they already conducted an
investigation about petitioners parents in the province.
7 Because of fear for his life and for the safety of his
parents, he reluctantly agreed to marry the
respondent. Accompanied by the bodyguards of
Aristotle Cruz, petitioner visited his parents in
Bulacan and informed them that they should give him
a written consent to contract marriage with the
respondent. He also told them that he was not sure if
he is really the father of the child and informed them
that respondents father is too influential and their
lives might be placed in danger if they refuse.

8 In front of the bodyguards of the respondents father,
the petitioners parents signed a fabricated consent
written in English which they neither understand nor
was able to comprehend which is tantamount to
absence of consent because they did not really intend
to give their consent. Thus, the marriage was held.
9 In support of the petitioners allegations, the parents of
the petitioner executed an affidavit attesting to the fact
that they merely signed a piece of paper with words
written in English which they do not understand.
What they only knew was that if they will not sign the
paper, their lives would be at stake.
10After the wedding, petitioner and respondent lived
under the roof of Aristotle Cruz. Every time the
petitioner was having an argument with the
respondent, Cruz will always approach him and
threaten him that he will kill the petitioner if he would
hurt respondents feelings or if he would attempt to
leave her. That goes on for almost one year.
11Sometime in November 2010, Aristotle Cruz suffered
from a massive heart attack and died on November 9,
2010.
12In April 2011, petitioner decided to consult a lawyer
regarding his situation informing the lawyer that he
was only threatened and forced to marry the
respondent. The counsel advised him to file a Petition
for Annulment of Marriage under Article 45 of the
Family Code of the Philippines on the ground that the
consent by the petitioners parents was not lawfully
obtained but was obtained by force, threat and
intimidation, and thus, did not really give their
consent.
13The petitioner further states that after the death of the

respondents father, he ceased living with the
respondent and has no intention of cohabiting with
her.
14Parties have not acquired any property and have a
minor child who is with the respondent.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing judgment
be rendered annulling the marriage contracted by the parties
on December 25, 2009 pursuant to Article 45 of the Family
Code of the Philippines.
Petitioner further prays for such other relief as may be
just and equitable under the premises.
Manila, June 20, 2012.
KRIZA FORTE QUIRANTE

Counsel for the Petitioner
Unit 205 Juan Luna Condominium,
Pampanga Street, Gagalangin, Tondo, Manila
PTR No. 189034/Manila/01-08-12
IBP Lifetime Roll No. 1212
Roll No. 51663/August 13, 2008
cc:
Office of the Solicitor General
Amorsolo Street, Makati City
Hall of Justice, Manila

I, AGUSTO CESAR MEDINA, of legal age, Filipino and a

resident at the above given address, avers under oath that:
1. I am the petitioner in the above entitled case;
2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing
complaint and all the material allegations therein are
true of my own knowledge and based on authentic
records;
3. I have not commenced any other action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal
or quasi-judicial agency and to the best of my
therein;
4. Should I hereafter learn that the same or similar
action or claim has been filed or is pending, I
undertake to report such fact within five (5) days
therefrom to this Honorable Court.
AGUSTO CESAR MEDINA
Affiant
June 2012 affiant exhibiting to me his COMELEC Voters ID
No. 14344.
JUAN MANUEL MARQUEZ

Notary Public
PTR No. 199999/Manila/11-07-2011
Commission No. NP-050 (2011-2012)
Roll No. 45678/April 9, 2000
Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;
(Compliance)
Branch 88, Manila
Petitioner,
- versus-
Juana Gamboa Cruz,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------x
COMPLIANCE
PETITIONER, by counsel, in compliance with the
directive of the Honorable Court, and pursuant to Section 5 (4)
of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which took effect on March 15, 2003,
most respectfully submits a duplicate copy of the petition
(Annex A hereof) showing on page 1 the proof of service to
and receipt of copies of the same by the Office of the Solicitor
General and Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.


PTR No. 189034/Manila/01-08-12
(Answer)
Branch 88, Manila
Petitioner,
- versus-

Juana Gamboa Cruz,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------x
ANSWER
Respondent JUANA GAMBOA CRUZ
undersigned counsel respectfully states that:
through
the
4. Respondent is of legal age, Filipino, married, and a

resident of Unit 505 Lancaster Building, Faura Street,
Ermita, Metro Manila; and petitioner is of legal age,
Filipino, married, and presently residing at 1234
Ocampo Street, Sta. Mesa, Metro Manila.
5. Respondent, is the daughter of Aristotle Ty Cruz, was
twenty (20) years old and was about to graduate from

college when she married the eighteen (18) year old
petitioner. The marriage was officiated by Manila
Mayor Lito Lim on December 25, 2009 at the Manila
City Hall.
6. That prior to the said marriage, petitioner and
respondent were not even acquaintances. They first
met in a class party where everyone was having the
most of the night. After a few exchange of
conversations while getting drunk amidst a night
environment, they drove to a motel and spent the night
together. That night has since started the malady of
their lives.
7. Respondent found out her pregnancy sometime in
October 2009 and informed the petitioner in the same
month. Contrary to what the petitioner alleged in his
petition, there is no showing of doubt as to the
petitioners paternity over the child.
8. On December 1, 2009, the petitioner asked the
respondent if he can discuss his intentions of
marrying the respondent with her father. On the same
day, the petitioner and the respondent were able to
talk to the respondents father and the Cruzs family
lawyer, Atty. Go, advised them to obtain the petitioners
parents consent because he was only eighteen years
old.
9. Petitioner was accompanied by the respondents family
driver and bodyguard to Bulacan where the petitioners
family is residing to obtain the necessary consent.
10. The spouses Julio and Conchita Medina voluntarily
executed and signed the written consent and though
disappointed because the petitioner is too young to
enter into a marriage, manifest their intention to face
their responsibility as parents of the petitioner.

11. After the wedding, they lived happily as husband
and wife with the full support of the respondents
father. Aristotle Cruz also financed the college
education of the petitioner.
12. Sometime in August 2010, the respondent noticed
the changes in the petitioners treatment towards the
respondent and their child. He seemed to care less for
them and often stayed late at night outside, using his
friends as excuse. Rumor reached the respondent that
the petitioner is dating a girl name Gina.
13. Despite the marital issues between the petitioner
and the respondent, they were still living as husband
and wife. The petitioner never missed any important
occasion in the respondents life and when Aristotle
Cruz died, petitioner was there to support and console
the respondent.
14. To the respondents surprise and confusion, on
June 24, 2012, she received the copy of the petition of
the petitioner seeking the annulment of their marriage
using as basis Article 45 of the Family Code of the
Philippines which she considers as false and
groundless.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered,
respondent
respectfully prays that the Petition for Annulment be DENIED
for the grounds he presented are bereft of merit.
Other relief just and equitable under the premises is also
prayed for.
Manila , July 4, 2012.
ATTY. JUN TINIO LOZADA

Santo Tomas Street, Tayuman, Manila
PTR No. 185834, 10/24/2011, Manila City
IBP No. 75611, 1/13/2012, Pasay City
Copy Furnished:
Atty. Kriza Forte Quirante

Unit 205, Juan Luna Condominium,
Pampanga Street, Gagalangin,
Tondo, Manila
(Pre-Trial Brief)
Branch 88, Manila
Petitioner,
- versus-

Juana Gamboa Cruz,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
Honorable Court, most respectfully states:
Petitioner is willing to enter into agreements as may be
allowed by law, such as the matter of custody and support of
the minor child of the parties.
ADMISSIONS/STIPULATIONS
Other than the facts already submitted in the petition,
petitioner submits no other proposal for stipulation or
admission by the respondent or the state.
DOCUMENTARY EXHIBITS
Petitioner intends to mark and offer in evidence the
following documentary exhibits:
1. Marriage contract between the parties, to prove the
existence of marriage.
2. Certificate of Live Birth of Julius Cruz Medina, to
prove the fact of the birth of the child of the parties.
3. Affidavit prepared and signed by the petitioners
parents, Julio Sanchez Medina and Conchita Salazar
Medina.
ISSUE
The only issue for the consideration of the Honorable
Court is whether or not the marriage of the petitioner and
respondent is void under Article 45 of the Family Code of the

Philippines.
WITNESS
Petitioner intends to present as witnesses the following:
a. Himself, to testify on the material allegations in the
petition.
b. Julio Sanchez Medina, to testify on the material
allegations in the affidavit.
c. Conchita Salazar Medina, to testify on the material

allegations in the affidavit.
Manila, July 31, 2012.

PTR No. 189034/Manila/01-08-12
cc:
Hall of Justice,
(Pre-Trial Brief)

Branch 88, Manila
Petitioner,
- versus-
Juana Gamboa Cruz,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
Respondent, by the undersigned counsel, and unto the
Respondent is willing to enter into agreements as may be
allowed by law, such as the matter of custody and support of
the minor child of the parties.
Other than the facts already submitted in the Answer,
respondent submits no other proposal for stipulation or
admission by the petitioner or the state.

i. Marriage contract between the parties, to
prove the existence of marriage.
ii. Certificate of Live Birth of Julius Cruz
Medina, to prove the fact of the birth of the
child of the parties.
iii. Affidavit prepared and signed by the
respondent's witness, Edgardo Luisito and
Miguel Ramos.
ISSUE
Court is whether or not the marriage of the petitioner and
respondent is void under Article 45 of the Family Code of the
Philippines.
WITNESS
Respondent intends to present as witnesses the following:
1. Herself, to testify on the material allegations in the
answer.
2. The Cruz's family driver, Edgardo Luisito, to testify on the
material allegations in the affidavit.
3. Aristotle Cruz's bodyguard, Miguel Ramos, to testify on
the material allegations in the affidavit.
Manila, August 1, 2012.

Santo Tomas Street, Tayuman, Manila
PTR No. 185834, 10/24/2011, Manila City
IBP No. 75611, 1/13/2012, Pasay City
(Memorandum)
Branch 88, Manila
Petitioner,
- versus-
Juana Gamboa Cruz,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
PETITIONER, thru the undersigned counsel, to this
Honorable Court most respectfully avers that:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A Petition of Annulment of Marriage in accordance with

A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC Section 2 (d) was filed by the petitioner
on June 20, 2012 based on Article 45 of the Family Code.
Summons and copy of the petition, together with its
annexes, were duly served on the respondent on June 30,
2012 as per Process Server's Report dated July 1, 2012. On
July 4, 2012, the respondent filed her Answer before the
Honorable Court denying the absence of the consent of
petitioner's parents and averring that they continue to live as
husband and wife until the filing of the Petition by the herein
petioner.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Respondent, the daughter of influential businessman
Aristotle Ty Cruz, was twenty (20) years old and was about to
graduate from college when she married herein petitioner who
was then eighteen (18) years old. The marriage was officiated
by Manila Mayor Lito Lim on December 25, 2009 at the Manila
City Hall.
Petitioner and respondent, prior to their marriage, were
not even acquaintances. They first met in a class party where
everyone was having the most of the night. After a few
exchange of conversations while getting drunk amidst a noisy
environment, they drove to a motel and spent the night
together. That night has since started the malady of their lives.
Respondent found out her pregnancy in October 2009
and informed the petitioner in the same month. However, the
petitioner doubts his paternity over the child.
On December 1, 2009, the herein petitioner was
approached by the two armed bodyguards of Aristotle Cruz
informing him of the misfortune that he would be should he
not marry the respondent. A revolver was shown to him when
the bodyguards sensed his hesitation. Two days after the
incident,
the
petitioner
approached
personally
the
respondents father invoking his incapability to enter into

marriage. However, Atty. Go accordingly told him to expect to
die. The lawyer further stated that they already conducted an
investigation about petitioners parents in the province.
Because of fear for his life and for the safety of his
parents, he reluctantly agreed to marry the respondent.
Accompanied by the bodyguards of Aristotle Cruz, petitioner
visited his parents in Bulacan and informed them that they
should give him a written consent to contract marriage with
the respondent. He also told them that he was not sure if he is
really the father of the child and informed them that
respondents father is too influential and their lives might be
placed in danger if they refuse.
In front of the bodyguards of the respondents father, the
petitioners parents signed a fabricated consent written in
English which they neither understand nor was able to
comprehend which is tantamount to absence of consent
because they did not really intend to give their consent. Thus,
the marriage was held.
In support of the petitioners allegations, the parents of
the petitioner executed an affidavit attesting to the fact that
they merely signed a piece of paper with words written in
English which they do not understand. What they only knew
was that if they will not sign the paper, their lives would be at
stake.
After the wedding, petitioner and respondent lived under
the roof of Aristotle Cruz. Every time the petitioner was having
an argument with the respondent, Cruz will always approach
him and threaten him that he will kill the petitioner if he
would hurt respondents feelings or if he would attempt to
leave her. That goes on for almost one year.
Sometime in November 2010, Aristotle Cruz suffered from
a massive heart attack and died on November 9, 2010.
In April 2011, petitioner decided to consult a lawyer

regarding his situation informing the lawyer that he was only
threatened and forced to marry the respondent. The counsel
advised him to file a Petition for Annulment of Marriage under
Article 45 of the Family Code of the Philippines on the ground
that the consent by the petitioners parents was not lawfully
obtained but was obtained by force, threat and intimidation,
and thus, did not really give their consent.
The petitioner further states that after the death of the
respondents father, he ceased living with the respondent and
has no intention of cohabiting with her.
ISSUE
Whether or not the marriage between the petitioner and
the respondent should be declared void pursuant to Article 45
of the Family Code of the Philippines and in accordance with
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
ARGUMENTS
Article 45 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides
that a marriage may be annulled for any of the following
causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to
have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of
age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage
was solemnized without the consent of the parents,
guardian or person having
substitute
parental
authority over the party, in that
order,
unless
after attaining the age of twenty-one, such
party freely cohabited with the other and both lived
together as husband and wife; xxx.
Further, Article 14 of the same Code provides that in a
marriage wherein one of the party is eighteen years old and
above but is below twenty-one, the written consent of the
father, mother, surviving parent or guardian, or persons

having legal charge of the party, should be exhibited before the
local civil registrar for the issuance of a marriage license.
Through careful consideration of the facts presented, it
was shown that the petitioners parents signed a fabricated
consent written in English which they neither understand nor
was able to comprehend which tantamount to absence of
consent or lack of consent as evidenced by their affidavit
presented before the Honorable Court.
The petitioner was also able to file the petition for
annulment within five years after attaining the age of twentyone in accordance with Section 3 (a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
It was also clearly established that on June 20, 2012, the
petitioner and the respondent ceased to live together as
husband and wife. Thus, the marriage should be annulled.
PRAYER
Honorable Court that judgment be rendered annulling the
marriage contracted by the parties on December 25, 2009
pursuant to Article 45 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
Manila, September 8, 2012.

PTR No. 189034/Manila/01-08-12

Copy Furnished:

143 Gorge Building, Santo Tomas Street
Tayuman, Manila
(Formal Offer of Exhibits)
Branch 88, Manila
Petitioner,
- versus-
Juana Gamboa Cruz,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------x
FORMAL OFFER OF EXHIBITS
Honorable Court, most respectfully offers in evidence the
following documentary exhibits together with the purposes for
which they are being offered, to wit:
Exhibi
Description
t
A
Marriage Contract between
the parties
B
Affidavit prepared and
signed by Julio Medina
C
Affidavit prepared and
signed by Conchita Medina
D
Certificate of Live Birth of
Julius Cruz Medina
Purpose
To prove the existence of
marriage
As the direct testimony
Proof of birth of the
parties common child
PRAYER
Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the
foregoing exhibits be admitted for the purposes for which they
are being offered and that upon their admission, petitioner
respectfully rests his case and moves that this case be deemed
submitted for decision.
Manila, December 29, 2012.

PTR No. 189034/Manila/01-08-12
cc:
LEGAL SEPARATION
(Petition)
Branch 88, Manila
Teresita S. Dizon,
Petitioner,
- versus-

For: Legal Separation with
Application for Support
Pendente Lite
Felix B. Dizon,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
PETITION
(With Application for Support Pendente Lite)
PETITIONER Teresita S. Dizon, by counsel and unto this
Honorable Court most respectfully states that:
PARTIES
Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, and with residence
and postal address at 1598 M.H. del Pilar corner
Mabini and Dr. Quintos Streets, Malate, Manila. For
purposes of this petition, she may be served with
notices and other pertinent court processes through
counsel at Unit 31 Malate Bayview Plaza, No. 1025
M.H. del Pilar Street, Malate, Manila;
Respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino, and with
residence and postal address at 1597 M.H. del Pilar
corner Mabini and Dr. Quintos Streets, Malate,

Manilawhere he may be served with summons and
other legal processes of this Honorable Court.
ANTECEDENT CIRCUMSTANCES
Petitioner and respondentwere married on February
14, 20001 and out of this marriage, they have two (2)
children2: Oona B. Dizon, tweleve (12) years old, born
on October 25, 2000 in Makati City; and Segundo B.
Dizon, eleven (11) years old, born on October 31, 2001
likewise in Makati City.
At the time of the marriage until 2010, the parties,
under the regime of absolute community of property,
acquired several properties, to wit: several real estate
propertieslocated in Makati City covered by Transfer
Certificates of Title (TCT) No. 242013, 321056,
120356, and 1265213, all registered in the Registry of
Deeds for Makati City; a 2002 Honda Civic with plate
number USS 3584; and a 2010 Ford Everest with plate
number NTGLTY-1235.
Petitioner and respondent did not enter into any
property relations and petitioner has no known
creditors
CAUSE OF ACTION
A copy of their marriage certificate is hereto attached as Annex A.
Copies of their Certificate of Live Birth are hereto attached as Annexes B

and C
3
Copies of the TCTs are hereto attached as Annexes D to D-4
A copy of the OR/CR is hereto attached as Annex E
A copy of the OR/CR is hereto attached as Annex E-1
Soon after three (3) years of marriage, petitioner and

respondent quarreled almost every day, with physical
violence being inflicted upon her.
Felix
would
shout
invectives
at
her
like
putang ina mo, gago, tanga, and he would slap
her, kick her, pull her hair, bang her head against
concrete wall and throw at her whatever he could
reach with his hand. The causes of these fights were
petty things regarding their children or their business.
Felix would also scold and beat the children at
different parts of their bodies using the buckle of his
belt. Whenever she tried to stop Felix from hitting the
children, he would turn his ire on her and box her.
On December 9, 2010, after she protested with Felixs
decision to allow their daughter Oona to go to Bacolod,
Felix slapped her and said, It is none of your
business.
On December 14, 2010, she asked Felix to bring Oona
back from Bacolod; a violent quarrel ensued and Felix
hit her on her head, left cheek, eye, stomach, and
arms. When Felix hit her on the stomach and she bent
down because of the pain, he hit her on the head then
pointed a gun at her and asked her to leave the house.
She then went to her sisters house in Binondo where
she was fetched by her other siblings and brought to
their parents house in Dagupan; the following day, she
went to her parents doctor, Dr. Vicent Centeno for
treatment of her injuries6.
Both of their children are in the petitioners custody
and are being supported by her financially and
emotionally.
Since then, the respondent failed to provide for the
support of the petitioner and their legitimate minor
6
A copy of the medical certificate issued by Dr. Vincent Centeno is hereto

attached as Annex F
children. Respondent has become totally unmindful of

his obligations to their children as all his time and
money were spent for his vices.
Petitioner and their legitimate minor children currently
incurs a monthly expense of at least PESOS: SIXTY
THOUSAND (P60,000.00) consisting of electricity,
telephone and water bills, SSS, healthcare and
insurance payments, helpers salary, allowances and
tuition for the minor children, medical expenses,
groceries and food allowances, among others.
Petitioner cannot, however, provide for all the financial
needs of their children as she is only earning a limited
amount of money from her work whereas respondent
has a flourishing restaurant, car exchange and real
estate business from which income, he can well afford
to support the petitioner and their two legitimate
minor children, more than enough for his own
personal needs. Petitioner earns only Pesos: Twenty
Thousand7 (Php20,000.00) whereas respondent earns,
Pesos: Five Hundred Thousand8 (Php500,000.00) a
month. Thus, respondent must be directed to provide
monthly support to his children in the amount of
PESOS:
TWO
HUNDRED
THOUSAND
(Php200,000.00).
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Court that after due notice and
hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of the petitioner, as
follows:
Decreeingthe legal separation between petitioner and
respondent;
A copy of petitioners payslip is hereto attached as Annex G
A copy of respondents income tax return is hereto attached as Annex H
Ordering the liquidation of the absolute community

property and the division of the net assets;
Requiring respondent to give support to petitioner and
her two children until they reach the age of majority or
until they finish their college education, in such
amount as prayed for by the petitioner or as the
Honorabe Court may reasonably fix;
Other forms of relief, just and equitable,are likewise
prayed for.
City of Manila, February 1, 2013.
DELA CRUZ LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Petitioner
Unit 31 Malate Bayview Plaza
No. 1025 M.H. Del PilarStreet, Malate, Manila
405-7379/JDELACRUZ@gmail.com
By:
JAN MICHAEL S. DELA CRUZ

MCLE Compliance No. IV-0007993/09.18.12
IBP No. 905242/01.04.13/Manila
PTR No 3102425/01.07.13/Manila
Roll No. 54126

I, TERESITA S. DIZON, of legal age, Filipino, under oath
depose and say, that:
1. I am the petitioner in the above-entitled case and I have
caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition for Legal
Separation (with Application for Support Pendente Lite),

read the same, and that the factual statements contained
therein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief;
2. I likewise certify that I have not theretofore commenced
any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in
any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is
pending therein; and if I should thereafter learn that the
same or similar action has been filed or is pending, I
shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this
Honorable Court.
TERESITA S. DIZON
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 1 st day of
February 2013 at the City of Manila, affiant who is personally
known to me has likewise exhibited to me her Drivers License
issued by the Land Transportation Office with license no.
56146591324 containing her picture and signature.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. ____________;

Page No. ____________;
Book No.____________;
Series of 2013.
LEGAL SEPARATION
(Answer)
Branch 88, Manila
Teresita S. Dizon,
Petitioner,
- versus-

Pendente Lite
Felix B. Dizon,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
ANSWER
RESPONDENT Felix B. Dizon, by counsel and unto this
Honorable Court most respectfully avers and states that:
1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4
are admitted.
2. Paragraph 5 is admitted insofar as it alleges that
petitioner and respondent did not enter into any
property relations but respondent denies the rest of
the allegations therein for lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth
and veracity.
3. Paragraph 6 is specifically denied the truth being that
respondent treated the petitioner and their children
with love and affection and that respondent never laid
his hands against petitioner Dizon whom up to now he

dearly loves and endears.
4. The allegations contained in paragraph 7, 8, 9, and 10
are likewise specifically denied insofar as the petitioner
alleges that respondent repeatedly shouted invectives
and inflicted physical violence upon her. Respondent is
a differently-abled individual. Since he was born he
was never able to utter any word or speak any sound
as he is MUTE9 so that it is absolutely impossible for
respondent to be able to shout invectives at petitioner
or their children. Moreover, there is a very remote
possibility that respondent may be able to throw or
hurl things at the petitioner or even box petitioner with
the respondents own hands the truth being that both
of his hands were amputated as a result of a vehicular
accident10 that happened even before they were
married.
petitioner left the conjugal dwelling on December 10,
2010.
their children are in the custody of petitioner but
respondent specifically denies the allegations that
their children are being supported by her financially
the truth being that respondent pays for the monthly
tuition fees11 for both of their children since petitioner
and their children left the conjugal dwelling on
December 14, 2010.
9
A copy of the medical certificate officially stating that respondent is mute

since birth is hereto attached as Annex 1.
10
A copy of the medical certificate issued by Dr. Jerry Estranghero officially

stating that respondents both arms were amputated on October 31, 1987 is
hereto attached as Annex 2
11
Copies of official receipts evidencing tuition fee payments made by

respondent for the education of their minor children are hereto attached as
Annexes 3 to 3-AA.
7. Respondent repleads the averments contained in the

immediately next preceding paragraph hereof for the
purpose of specifically denying paragraph 12.
8. The material allegations contained in paragraph 13 are
denied for lack of knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to their truth and veracity.
9. Paragraph 14 is denied insofar as petitioners salary is
concerned for lack of knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to their truth and veracity.
With respect to respondents income, the same is
likewise specifically denied the truth being that the
businesses stated therein are owned by several
persons under a partnership agreement 12 and hence
not all the income from the said businesses are
received by the respondent. And by way of -----FIRST SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
respondent repleads and incorporates herein, by way of
reference, all the foregoing allegations, and further avers and
states that:
10. The petitioner has no cause of action against the
respondent. The respondent is a differently-abled
person. He is mute. He has no arms. Thus, it is
absolutely impossible for respondent to have
committed the acts alleged by the petitioner as
constituting a ground for legal separation.
11. The policy of our laws on marriage emphasizes that
marriage is more than a mere contract; that it is a
social institution in which the state is vitally
interested, so that its continuation or interruption
cannot be made to depend on the whims and caprices
of the parties. It is for this reason that the grounds for
legal separation are mandatorily construed as
exclusive and restrictive. Hence, legal separation may
12
Articles of Partnership duly registered with the Securities and Exchange

Commission is hereto attached as Annex 4.
only be allowed based on the grounds enumerated

under Article 55 of the Family Code.13
SECOND SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12. Paragraph 5 hereof is hereby repleaded and
incorporated herein, by way of special and affirmative
defense.
13. More than two (2) years ago, on December 10, 2010,
petitioner together with their minor children without
any justifiable cause left their conjugal dwelling. The
fact of her having initiated the petition for legal
separation in the instant case is sufficient to deduce
that petitioner has no intention of returning therein.
14. In order for a petition legal separation to prosper, it
must be claimed only by the innocent spouse. The
legal maxim, he who comes to court must come with
clean hands applies in cases of legal separation.
Hence, legal separation is unwarranted because it was
claimed by the petitioner, the guilty spouse.
PRAYER
prayed of this Honorable Court that after due notice and
hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of the respondent
DISMISSING the instant petition for legal separation with
application for support pendente lite for utter lack of merit.
Other forms of relief, just and equitable, are likewise
prayed for.
City of Manila, February 14, 2013.
13
Adong vs. Cheong, 43 Phil. 43; cited in Rabuya, The Law on Persons and
Family Relations, 2006 ed., p. 350.
VALERIO LAW OFFICE

914 Betina Street, Kamachile, Manila
411-1111/JMValerio@gmail.com
By:
JESSIELYN M. VALERIO
IBP No. 905240/01.04.13/Manila
PTR No 3102495/01.07.13/Manila
Roll No. 54127
Copy Furnished (By registered mail with return card):

Atty. Jan Michael dela Cruz
Unit 31, Malate Bayview Plaza
No. 1025, M.H. Del Pilar St.
Malate, Manila
Registry Receipt No. 898987

February 14, 2013
Manila Central Post Office
EXPLANATION
[Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure]
A copy of the foregoing Answer was served upon counsel

for petitioner by registered mail due to time constraints and
lack of personnel who could undertake personal service.
JESSIELYN M. VALERIO
LEGAL SEPARATION
(Pre-Trial Brief)
Branch 88, Manila
Teresita S. Dizon,
Petitioner,
Pendente Lite
- versus-
Felix B. Dizon,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
Petitioner, by the undersigned counsel, unto this
Honorable Court most respectfully files the instant Brief and
in support thereof avers as follows:
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.)Petitioner and respondent were married on February
14, 2000 and out of this marriage, they have two (2)
children: Oona B. Dizon, twelve (12) years old, born on
October 25, 2000 in Makati City; and Segundo B.
Dizon, eleven (11) years old, born on October 31, 2001
likewise in Makati City.
2.)At the time of the marriage until 2010, the parties,
under the regime of absolute community of property,
acquired several properties, to wit: several real estate
properties located in Makati City covered by Transfer

Certificates of Title (TCT) No. 242013, 321056,
120356, and 126521, all registered in the Registry of
Deeds for Makati City; a 2002 Honda Civic with plate
number USS 358; and a 2010 Ford Everest with plate
number NTGLTY-123.
3.)Petitioner and respondent did not enter into any
property relations.
4.)Soon after three (3) years of marriage, petitioner and
respondent quarreled almost every day, with physical
violence being inflicted upon her.
5.)Felix
would
shout
invectives
at
her
like
putang ina mo, gago, tanga, and he would slap
her, kick her, pull her hair, bang her head against
concrete wall and throw at her whatever he could
reach with his hand. The causes of these fights were
petty things regarding their children or their business.
6.)Felix would also scold and beat the children at
different parts of their bodies using the buckle of his
belt. Whenever she tried to stop Felix from hitting the
children, he would turn his ire on her and box her.
7.)On December 9, 2010, after she protested with Felixs
decision to allow their daughter Oona to go to Bacolod,
Felix slapped her and said, It is none of your
business.
8.)On December 14, 2010, she asked Felix to bring Oona
back from Bacolod; a violent quarrel ensued and Felix
hit her on her head, left cheek, eye, stomach, and
arms. When Felix hit her on the stomach and she bent
down because of the pain, he hit her on the head then
pointed a gun at her and asked her to leave the house.
She then went to her sisters house in Binondo where
she was fetched by her other siblings and brought to
their parents house in Dagupan; the following day, she
went to her parents doctor, Dr. Vicent Centeno for

treatment of her injuries.
9.)Both of their children are in the petitioners custody
and are being supported by her financially and
emotionally.
10.) Since then, the respondent failed to provide for the
support of the petitioner and their legitimate minor
children. Respondent has become totally unmindful of
his obligations to their children as all his time and
money were spent for his vices.
11.) Petitioner and their legitimate minor children
currently incurs a monthly expense of at least PESOS:
SIXTY
THOUSAND
(P60,000.00)
consisting
of
electricity, telephone and water bills, SSS, healthcare
and insurance payments, helpers salary, allowances
and tuition for the minor children, medical expenses,
groceries and food allowances, among others.
12.) Petitioner cannot, however, provide for all the
financial needs of their children as she is only earning
a limited amount of money from her work whereas
respondent has a flourishing restaurant, car exchange
and real estate business from which income, he can
well afford to support the petitioner and their two
legitimate minor children, more than enough for his
own personal needs. Petitioner earns only Pesos:
Twenty Thousand (Php20,000.00) whereas respondent
earns,
Pesos:
Five
Hundred
Thousand
(Php500,000.00) a month. Thus, respondent must be
directed to provide monthly support to his children in
the amount of PESOS: TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND
(Php200,000.00).
ADMITTED FACTS AND PROPOSED STIPULATIONS
1.)That petitioner and respondent were legally married.
2.)That they have two children who are presently living

with petitioner.
3.)That they have no property acquired during the
subsistence of marriage.
ISSUES:
a. Whether or not the respondent guilty of repeated
physical violence and grossly abusive conduct directed
towards the petitioner?
b. Whether or not petitioner is guilty of abandonment?
c. Whether or not Legal Separation and Application for
Support Pendente Lite should be granted by the
Honorable Court?
DOCUMENTS TO BE PRESENTED
1.)Marriage Contract of petitioner and respondent
2.)Medical Certificate of petitioner
3.)Official Receipts representing expenses incurred by the
petitioner for the support of their minor children.
Petitioner reserves the right to present additional
documentary exhibits during the trial of the case, if necessary.
WITNESSES
Petitioner
Dr. Vincent Centeno
Jessica Alfaro
Petitioner reserves the right to
witnesses during the trial, if necessary.
present
additional
LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

1. Pertinent provisions of the Civil Code.
2. Pertinent provisions of the Family Code.
3. Pertinent Provisions of the Rules of Court and Applicable
Supreme Court decisions.
4. Other related laws.
City of Manila, November 26, 2013.

Counsel for Petitioner
Unit 31 Malate Bayview Plaza
No. 1025 M.H. Del Pilar Street, Malate, Manila
405-7379/JDELACRUZ@gmail.com
By:

IBP No. 905242/01.04.13/Manila
PTR No 3102425/01.07.13/Manila
Roll No. 54126
Copy Furnished (By registered mail with return card):

Atty. JESSIELYN M. VALERIO

VALERIO LAW OFFICE

914 Betina Street, Kamachile, Manila
November 26, 2013

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

GENERAL
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village
Makati City, M.M.

November 26, 2013
EXPLANATION
[Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure]
A copy of the foregoing Pre-trial Brief was served upon

counsel for respondent by registered mail due to time
constraints and lack of personnel who could undertake
personal service.
RESCISSION OF CONTRACT WITH DAMAGES

(Complaint)
Branch 8, Manila
Rosanno A. Dinio,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

For: Rescission of Contract
With Damages
Eliza A. Quizon,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
COMPLAINT
COMPLAINANT, by counsel, respectfully state:
1. COMPLAINANT Rosanno A. Dionio, Filipino, of legal
age, and resident of Leon Guinto Street, Manila.
Rosanno A. Dionio is a Nurse at OspitalngSampaloc;
2. Respondent Eliza A. Quizon,ALL Around Construction,
CO. is, and at all times herein mentioned, was a
Corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the Philippines with principal office located at 8th
floor, Westridge, Makati City;
3. On or about April 17, 2009, COMPLAINANT and
Respondents entered into a written contract by the
terms of which COMPLAINANT was to purchase five
123 Diesel Engines, all of 60 horsepower, for 165,500
each from Respondent corporation (contract attached

as Exhibit 1-A);
4. The Respondent had warranted and assured the
COMPLAINANT that all spare parts of the above
mentioned engines were kept in stock in its stores,
enabling the latter to avoid loss due to long periods of
waiting, and that Respondent would replace any part
of the engines that might break within twelve (12)
months after delivery;
5. COMPLAINANT further charged that on April 8, 2012,
the cam rocker arm of all the five engines broke due to
faulty material and workmanship and the engines
stopped functioning, that the Respondent was unable
to send a replacement until August 29, 2009 and that
barely six days after replacement the new parts broke
again due to faulty casting and poor material;
6. COMPLAINANT, then on April 10, 2012, notified the
Respondent and demanded rescission of the contract
of sale, sought for return for the price of the engines
and damages but Respondent did not pay (Notice and
Demand correspondence attached as Exhibit 1-B).
WHEREFORE, the COMPLAINANT respectfully prays
before this Honorable Court the following:
1. A determination by the Court that the said contract of
sale has been rescinded and ordering restitution of the
consideration paid by the COMPLAINANT with legal
interest from April 10, 2012.
2. That the Respondent be required to compensate the
COMPLAINANT of
actual, moral and exemplary
damages, plus attorneys fees and other litigation
expenses incurred in connection therewith;
3. COMPLAINANT,
likewise pray for such other reliefs
as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable
under the premises.
Manila, April 20, 2010.
ATTY. MARIFE T. MANEJA

Counsel for the COMPLAINANT
PTR No. 21384896K; 01/02/12, Makati City
IBP # 633727; Lifetime; Cavite City Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. III-1126011; 04/23/10
Attorneys Roll # 26565

I, Rosanno A. Dionio, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby
depose and say:
1. That I am the COMPLAINANT in the above-entitled
case;
2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing
complaint; I have read the allegations therein and
certify that the same are true and correct of my own
personal knowledge;
3. That I further certify that COMPLAINANT have not
commenced any action involving the same issues,
before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, the
different divisions thereof, or in any other court,
tribunal or agency. To the best of my knowledge, no
such other actions or proceedings are pending before
the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, the different
divisions thereof, or in any other court, tribunal or
agency; and
4. That in the event that any action involving the same
should be made known, I hereby bind myself to report
the same within five (5) days therefrom to this

Honorable Court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands
this April 21, 2012 at Manila, Philippines.
Rossano A. Diono
Affiant
SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 27th day of
April, 2012, by the affiant who exhibited me to his Community
Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at Paranaque City,
Philippines on January 6, 2000.

(Motion for a Bill of Particulars)
Branch 8, Manila
Rosanno A. Dinio,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
Eliza A. Quizon,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
RESPONDENT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto

this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers that:
1. That the COMPLAINANTs complaint in paragraphs 5
alleges:
On April 10, 20012, COMPLAINANT notified the
Respondent and demanded rescission of the contract of
sale sought for the return of the price of the engine x
xxx (underscoring supplied);
2. The said allegation is not averred with sufficient
definiteness and particularity; specifically it does not
mention the specific engine subject of the sale under
consideration and of the amount of the consideration
actually paid;
3. That a more definite statement on the matters as
above indicated is necessary in order to enable the
Respondent to prepare its responsive pleading because
from the very onset of this controversy, the main
dispute was on what was actually and exactly agreed
upon by the parties with respect to instances as
averred by the plaintiff;
4. That a bill of particulars or a more definite statement
as to particulars of the said agreement which was
signed by the parties would definitely simplify the
issues in this case and hopefully uncomplicate the
negotiations between the parties for amicable
settlement.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Respondent most respectfully prays that
an order be issued by this Honorable Court requiring the
COMPLAINANT to make more definite statement as to the
particulars of the Terms of Agreement entered by the
contracting parties and the particular breach which brought
about the complaint.
Manila, Philippines, April 13, 2010.
ATTY. MYRIELL A. CERA

VDXMB Jubilation, Paco Manila
Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX
IBP No 4879555X, Manila
PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 11-0820, Jan,15, 2011

Branch 8, Manila
Rosanno A. Dinio,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
Eliza A. Quizon,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
COMPLAINANT,
by counsel and to this Honorable
Court respectfully moves that judgment on the pleadings must
be directed, on the following grounds;
1. In its answer to the complaint for rescission of
contract, the Respondent merely alleged that he had
no knowledge and information as to the allegations of
the complaint. This kind of denial, while allowed on
certain instances does not apply when the facts as to
which want of knowledge is asserted are to the
knowledge of the court are so plainly and essentially
within the Respondents knowledge. It amounts to a
general denial that would entitle the COMPLAINANT to
judgment on the pleadings.
2. Moreover, attached to the complaint, as actionable
document is the contract of sales signed by the
COMPLAINANT and Respondent corporation. The
corporation did not question the authenticity of the

agreement. Respondent merely denies knowledge of
the document, which is not sufficient to render factual
issue and the same impliedly admits the due execution
and authenticity, as to entitle the COMPLAINANT on
WHEREFORE, COMPLAINANT prays that judgment on
the pleadings be rendered in favor of the COMPLAINANT,
ordering the rescission of the contract of sale and the
restitution of the consideration paid for by the COMPLAINANT.


Branch 8, Manila
Rosanno A. Dinio,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
Eliza A. Quizon,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned
attorney and in answer to COMPLAINANTs complaint, in the
above-entitled case, respectfully prays:
1. That Respondent admits paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of the
complaint;
2. That Respondent is without knowledge of information
to form beliefs as the truth of the averments made in
paragraphs 4, 5, and 6;
3. That paragraph 4 of the complaint failed to allege any
ultimate fact that would indicate that COMPLAINANT
was indeed entitled to the sought rescission of the
contract of sale entered into with the Respondent;
without said allegation of the ultimate fact,
COMPLAINANTs demand for rescission would be
without legal basis and consequently, COMPLAINANT

have no cause of action against Respondent;
4. Assuming, arguendo, that the COMPLAINANT was
indeed entitled to the rescission, paragraph 4 of the
complaint:
a. Failed to allege by what written instrument the
latter, presumably during the period of the contract,
the particular engine model and other specifications
which will uncomplicate the issues;
b. Failed to attached to the complaint as annexes the
necessary contract covering the purported sale of
the subject engines;
5.
That the allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the

complaint are not likewise averments of ultimate facts
constituting COMPLAINANTs cause of action;
6. That contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the

Respondent records show that no notice for rescission
was ever filed by the COMPLAINANT;
7. As consequence of COMPLAINANTs unfounded claims,
which forced Respondent to litigate and protect its
interest and to secure the services of a counsel,
Respondent suffered damages in the form of attorneys
fees and other litigation expenses;
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
1. To the extent COMPLAINANTs lack standing with
respect to any claim, that claim should be dismissed;
To the extent of absence of any writing to support the
rescission prayed for, the claim should be dismissed;
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Based upon these answers and affirmative defenses, the

Respondent respectfully request that the Court enter a
judgment as follows:
a. Dismissing the COMPLAINANTs claim in its entirety,
on the merits, and with prejudice;
b. Awarding such other and further relief as the Court
may find just and equitable.
Manila, Philippines, April 14, 2012.

PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009, Manila

(Answer with Counterclaim and Cross Claim)
Branch 8, Manila
Rosanno A. Dinio,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
Eliza A. Quizon,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS CLAIM

complaint;

complaint:
5.


COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
By way of
Respondent alleges:
compulsory
counterclaim,
answering
1. That the allegations in paragraph 1 to 7 of the answer

are hereby reproduced and reiterated;
2. That the filing of the malicious and ground less action
by the COMPLAINANT against the answering
Respondent
has
besmirched
the
Respondent
corporations reputation which should be compensated

by way of suffered damages in the form of attorneys
CROSS CLAIM
And for this cross claim against co-Respondent REMY
MURALAGI, answering Respondent further alleges:
1. That Respondent hereby repleads, reiterates, and
reproduces all material allegations contained in the
foregoing answer with counterclaim;
2. That Respondent Quizon should reimburse answering
Respondent on any and whatever amount the matter
maybe held answerable or which it may be ordered or
suffered to pay under and by virtue of the present
action in favor of the COMPLAINANT,
answering
Respondent not having benefited whatsoever from the
transactions entered into between Respondent Quizon
and the COMPLAINANT.
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered
answering
Respondent respectfully prays to the Honorable Court to
render judgment as follows:
1. By dismissing
Respondent;
the
complaint
against
answering
2. Answering Respondent prays for such other reliefs as

may be just and equitable under the premises.
Manila, Philippines, May 14, 2012.

PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009, Manila


(Answer with Specific Denial of a Document under Oath)
Branch 8, Manila
Rosanno A. Dinio,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
Eliza A. Quizon,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
ANSWER
complaint;

complaint:
5.


By way of
Respondent alleges:
compulsory
counterclaim,
answering

Respondent
has
besmirched
the
Respondent

CROSS CLAIM
answering
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered
answering
1. By dismissing
Respondent;
the
complaint
against
answering


PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009, Manila


(Answer with Specific and Affirmative
Defenses and Counterclaim)
Branch 8, Manila
Rosanno A. Dinio,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
Eliza A. Quizon,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
ANSWER
complaint;

complaint:
5.


SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
At the time the Contract of Sales was entered on April 17,
2009, Respondent made it clear to the COMPLAINANT that it
officially transacts business only through direct sales duly
authorized by the Respondent Corporation:
A. Respondent Quizon was not duly authorized direct
sales agent of answering Respondent
B. And that transactions entered into in behalf of the

answering Respondent by Quizon are unauthorized,
COMPLAINANT have no cause of action against
answering Respondent.
By way of
Respondent alleges:
compulsory
counterclaim,
answering

Respondent
has
besmirched
the
Respondent
CROSS CLAIM
answering
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered
answering
1. By dismissing
Respondent;
the
complaint
against
answering


PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 19, 2009, Manila
(Reply)
Branch 8, Manila
Rosanno A. Dinio,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
Eliza A. Quizon,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
REPLY
COMPLAINANT, through counsel, reply to the affirmative

defenses asserted by Respondent in its answer and allege:
1. In its answer to the complaint for rescission of
contract, the Respondent merely alleged that he had
no knowledge and information as to the allegations of
the complaint. This kind of denial, while allowed on
certain instances does not apply when the facts as to
which want of knowledge is asserted are to the
knowledge of the court are so plainly and essentially
within the Respondents knowledge. It amounts to a
general denial that would entitle the COMPLAINANT to
2. Moreover, attached to the complaint, as actionable
document is the contract of sales signed by the
COMPLAINANT and Respondent Corporation. The
corporation did not question the authenticity of the
agreement. Respondent merely denies knowledge of
the document, which is not sufficient to render factual
issue and the same impliedly admits the due execution
and authenticity, as o entitle the COMPLAINANT on
WHEREFORE, COMPLAINANT, through counsel, reply to

the affirmative defenses asserted by the Respondent, move to
strike certain affirmative defenses, and renew his prayer for
the relief contained in the Complaint


(Pre-Trial Brief)
Branch 8, Manila
Rosanno A. Dinio,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-
Eliza A. Quizon,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
COMPLAINANT,
through counsel, unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully submits the following Pre-trial Brief
in compliance with the order of the Court dated May 19, 2012.
A.
Possibility of Amicable Settlement
COMPLAINANT hereby manifest that he is open to

amicable settlement on matters other than rescission of the
contract of sale;
B.
Brief Statement of COMPLAINANT
The complaint filed is founded on the basic legal maxim

that no one shall be enriched at the expense of another. The
Respondents breach of contract has not only caused monetary
loss but likewise resulted to the COMPLAINANTs mental
anguish, serious anxiety and embarrassment and has
besmirched reputation for which he should be compensated by

way of moral damages.
C.
Facts for Stipulation
Jurisdiction of the Honorable Court on the person of the

parties
Authenticity and enforceability of the subject contract of
sale.
D.
Statement of Issue
Whether the contract entered into between the

COMPLAINANT and Respondent corporation may be
rescinded.
E.
Documents for Markings
i. Contract of Sale
ii. Invoices (delivery and official receipts)
iii. Receiving Papers
F.
Witnesses
1. COMPLAINANT himself
2. Trucking Services representative (who made the
delivery)
G.
Trial Dates
Subject to available dates of the Honorable Court

Respectfully submitted, Manila, June 6, 2012.



Branch 8, Manila
Rosanno A. Dinio,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-
Eliza A. Quizon,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
COMPLAINANT Rosanno A. Dionio, filed this complaint
against Respondent Eliza A. Quizon, ALL Around
Construction, CO. for rescission of the written contract of sale
entered into between them. COMPLAINANT prays for the
restitution of the consideration paid to the Respondent with
damages.
The parties, however, reached an amicable settlement
and submitted to the court a compromise agreement, the
terms and conditions are as follows:
Comes Now, the parties COMPLAINANT Rosanno A.
Dionio and Respondent Eliza A. Quizon,ALL Around
Construction, CO. and unto this Honorable Court respectfully
submit this compromise agreement:
1. Respondent corporation acknowledges its obligation to

the COMPLAINANT for a total amount of Php899,500
plus 6% PA interest from June 8, 2012;
2. Respondent promises and undertakes to pay the
aforementioned amount to the COMPLAINANT in 6
monthly installments of equal amounts;
3. Said monthly installment payments shall commence
on February 20, 2011 and every end of the month
thereafter until fully paid and shall be deposited to
COMPLAINANT Banco De Oro
4. The if the Respondent fails to comply with one (1)
installment, the obligation shall become due and
demandable;
5. That the COMPLAINANT shall return all the diesel
engines purchased from the Respondent after the 2nd
installment has been cleared;
6. The parties agree that the approval of this agreement
by the Court shall put an end to this litigation, except
for the purposes of execution in case of default.
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered,
the
parties
respectfully pray that the Honorable Court approve this
Compromise Agreement and render judgment on the basis
thereof.
Eliza A. Quizon ,
Respondent
Rosanno A. Dionio
Complainant
Specific Performance with Damages

(Complaint)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
For: Specific Performance
With Damages
- versus-
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, through counsel and to this Honorable Court,
respectfully avers:
Cause of Action
(Specific Performance)
1.
Plaintiff, Juan Dela Cruz, is fifty-seven (57) years

old, married, Filipino, and a resident of No. 40 Nagoya
Street, B.F. Homes, Quezon City;
2.
Plaintiffs attorney-in-fact, Maria Czarina T.

Esplanada, is of legal age, single, Filipino, and a
resident of No. 312 Bancal Meycauayan Bulacan;
3.
Defendant ABC Services Inc., a domestic

corporation with office at Suite 406, 4/F Columbian
Building, No. 160 West Avenue Bgy. Phil-Am, Quezon

City;
4.
That on the 15th of March 2010, defendant ABC

Services Inc., through its president Maria Clara
Ibarra, contracted with plaintiff Mr. Dela Cruz to
provide the plumbing and electrical design and
drafting requirements for its proposed EFG Employees
Housing Project located at the Malacanang grounds,
Cristobal Street. U.N. Avenue, Manila;
5.
The agreement between defendant ABC and plaintiff

Mr. Dela Cruz was for the former to pay the latter P1,
500,000.00 upon submission and ABCs acceptance of
the required design and drafting requirements;
6.
Plaintiff repeatedly made verbal demands upon ABC

to pay him the contract agreed upon;
7.
Due to the defendants unwarranted refusal to

comply with the plaintiffs patently valid demand and
the terms of their agreement, plaintiff was constrained
to institute this instant action and retain the services
of counsel thereby incurring litigation expenses and
expenses for attorneys fee for which defendants
should be ordered to a plaintiff the sum of P
100,000.00;
Second Cause of Action
(Breach of Contract)
1. Plaintiff, on May 15, 2010, in strict compliance with
their agreement, submitted to ABC all the plumbing
and electrical plans pertaining to the EFG project;
2. That defendant, ABC company, accepted to their full
satisfaction and without any reservation;
3. That defendants failure and refusal to perform its
obligations under the agreement constitute a breach of
contract and have damaged plaintiff in the amount of
P 500,000.00, constituting the value of the labor

applied for the electrical designs and drafting
requirements;
4. The contract between plaintiff and Defendant
Corporation provides for an award of attorney fees and
costs that are incurred to enforce the contract
amounting to P100, 000.00.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against
defendants as follows:
1. For an order that Defendant Corporation and its
agents specifically perform the contract agreed by the
parties amounting to P1,500,000.00;
2. In the event that the court does not order specific
performance of the contract, for compensatory
damages in the amount of P500,000.00 for breach of
contract;
3. To pay plaintiff the sum of P100,000.00 as and by way
of litigation expenses and attorneys fees;
4. Other relief and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.
Meycauayan City, Bulacan, January 23, 2012.
Maria Czarina T. Esplanada

No. 312 Bancal St. Meycauayan
Bulacan, Philippines
PTR No.080808
IBP No. 88888
MCLE No. 888888

Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING
Defendant, by undersigned counsel, unto the Honorable
Court, most respectfully avers that;
1. Defendant engaged the services of the undersigned
counsel only on January 16, 2013,
2. Defendant was served with Summons and copy of the
Complaint on January 3, 2013 and thus, has until
January 18, 2013 within which to submit an Answer
or Responsive Pleading;
3. However, due to the pressure of equally urgent
professional work or prior commitments, the
undersigned counsel may not be able to meet the said
deadline;
4. As such, undersigned counsel is constrained to

today within which to submit Defendants Answer or
WHEREFORE, for reasons above indicated and in interest

of justice and due process, defendant respectfully prayed the
Honorable Court for an extension of ten (10) days from
January 17, 2013 within which to file their Answer or
responsive pleading to the complaint of the plaintiff.
Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are
Quezon City, January 17, 2013.
Atty. Emilio Aguinaldo

PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
Copy furnished:
Atty. Maria Czarina Esplanada

Counsel for the Plaintiff
312 Bancal Meycauayan Bulacan
NOTICE / REQUEST / EXPLANATION
The Honorable Branch Clerk of Court
RTC Branch 118 Quezon City
Greetings:
Please submit the foregoing non-litigated motion to the

Honorable Court for its consideration and approval on
January 22, 2013 at 8:30 AM or immediately upon receipt
hereof sans further argument and undersigned counsel is
waiving his appearance on such date. The foregoing motion
was served by registered mail due to distance and lack of
messengerial staff.
Emilio Aguinaldo

Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
Defendant, through the undersigned counsel and unto this
Honorable Court, respectfully avers:
1. That the plaintiffs complaint in paragraph 7 alleges:
Due to the defendants unwarranted refusal to

comply with the plaintiffs patently valid demand and
the terms of their agreement, plaintiff was constrained
to institute this instant action and retain the services
of counsel thereby incurring litigation expenses and
expenses for attorneys fee for which defendants
should be ordered to a plaintiff the sum of P
100,000.00;
definiteness and particularity, specifically it does not
mention the dates when the valid demands were sent
to the defendant;
above-indicated is necessary in order to enable the
defendant to prepare its responsive pleading;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, defendant most respectfully prays that an
order be issued by this Honorable Court requiring the plaintiff
to make more definite statement as to the dates when the
demand letter were sent as indicated in paragraph 5 of his
complaint.
Quezon City, Philippines, February 10, 2013.
Maria Clara Ibarra

President, ABC Services Inc.
Defendant
Copy furnished:
Atty. Maria Czarina Espladana
Meycauayan, Bulacan

Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
PLAINTIFF, by
counsel,
to
this
Honorable
Court
1. On 3 January 2013, plaintiff sued defendant for

specific performance and breach of contract for
P500,000;
2. In his Answer, defendant admitted the obligation
and merely stated that he was asking to be given
an extension of time to perform his obligation but
that plaintiff instead filed this Complaint. The
Answer admits the material allegations of the
Complaint and has not tendered any issue;
consequently, a judgment on the pleadings may
be rendered.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays a judgment

on the pleadings be rendered in his favor.

PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
Copy furnished:
312 Bancal Meycauyan Bulacan
Greetings:
Please submit the foregoing motion to the Honorable Court
or its kind consideration and approvable immediately upon
receipt hereof. The foregoing motion was served by registered
mail due to distance and lack of messengerial staff.
Emilio Aguinaldo

(Answer)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
ANSWER
COMES NOW, the defendant ABC Services Inc., by and
through the undersigned counsel, answering plaintiffs
complaint alleges that:
1. Defendant admits paragraph 4 and 5 of the complaint;
2. Defendant specifically denies allegations contained in
paragraphs 6 and 7 of the complaint for lack of
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth and correctness of the same;
3. Defendant admits the allegation in paragraph 5 of the
complaint to the effect that there was an agreement
between the parties.
Quezon City, Philippines, 29 January, 2013.
Maria Clara Ibarra

President, ABC Services Inc.
Defendant/Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 29th day of

January, 2013 at Quezon City, affiant exhibiting to me his
Community Tax Certificate No. 123456789 issued on January
3, 2013 issued at Quezon City.
Amalayer Sanchez
Notary Public
PTR: No. 02929/01.8.2008/Quezon City
IBP- Lifetime Member No. 33333
Doc No. 2;
Page No. 2;
Book No. 2;
Series of 2013.

(Answer Ad Cautelam)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
ANSWER AD CAUTELAM
DEFENDANT ABC SERVICES INC., by the undersigned
counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submit
the following Answer Ad Cautelam (With Counterclaim)
without prejudice to the right of answering defendant to
assail the Orders of this Honorable Court dated February
28, 2013 before the Court of Appeals.
Answering
defendants hereby state:
ADMISSIONS
1. Paragraphs 3 of the Complaint is admitted
only insofar as the personal circumstances of
defendant Philippine Global Services is
concerned.
2. Paragraph 4 and 5 are admitted but only
insofar as plaintiffs submission of electrical
designs
and
drafting
requirements
to
defendant ABC Services Inc. and that there

was an agreement between the plaintiff and
defendant. Answering defendant specifically
deny the rest of the allegations in paragraph 4
of the Complaint, the truth being those stated
in the special and affirmative defenses stated
herein under.
DENIALS
3. Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the Complaint are hereby
specifically denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof.
SPECIAL/AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Answering defendant hereby replead and incorporate by
reference all the foregoing insofar as material thereto, and in
addition, respectfully states:
4. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the
allegations stated in the complaint are true,
answering defendant cannot be held liable to
plaintiff for the following reasons:
THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST ANSWERING DEFENDANTS.
6. Section 1, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that: Every ordinary civil action
must be based on a cause of action. A cause of
action has been defined by the Supreme Court as
an act or omission of one party in violation of the
right of the other14.
Its essential elements are
namely: (1) the existence of a legal right in the
plaintiff; (2) a correlative legal duty in the defendant;
14
Section 2, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; Nacar vs. Nistal, et.
al., L-3306, Dec. 8, 1982; Mathay vs. Consolidated Bank & Trust Co., 58 SCRA
559.
and (3) an act or omission of the defendant in violation

of plaintiffs right with consequential injury or damage
to the plaintiff for which he may maintain an action for
the recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. 15
7.It is basic that ones cause of action as against another
can be determined by the allegations in the pleading
asserting the claim. In this case, the allegations in the
complaint obviously state no cause of action as against
answering defendants.
8. In its Complaint, plaintiff expressly stated that
defendant ABC Services Inc. entered into an
agreement with the defendant. Significantly, there
is absolutely nothing in the Complaint which says
that answering defendant acquiesced to the alleged
unconditional agreement. It is a basic rule that a
contractual obligation or liability, or an action excontractu, must be founded upon a contract; oral or
written, either express or implied.
If there is no
contract, there is no corresponding liability, and no
cause of action may arise therefrom.
9. The Supreme Court has time and again ruled that the
test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in a
complaint is whether or not, accepting the veracity
thereof, the trial court could render a valid judgment
in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. 16 In
this case, no such averments were made that would
entitle plaintiff to any relief from answering
defendants.
10. Under Article 1157 of the New Civil Code,
obligations arise from: (1) law; (2) contracts; (3) quasi15
Mathay vs. Consolidated Bank & Trust Co., 58 SCRA 59, 577; Ma-ao Sugar
Central Co., Inc. vs. Barrios, et. al., 79 Phil. 666, 667; Ramitere, et. al. vs.
Montinola Vda. De Yulo, et. al., 16 SCRA 251, 255.
16
Suyom vs. Collantes, 69 SCRA 514; Galeon vs. Galeon, 49 SSCRA 516;
Garcon vs. Redemptorist Fathers, 17 SCRA 341; PNB vs. Hipolito, 13 SCRA 20;
Alquige vs. De Leon, 7 SCRA 513.
contracts; (4) acts or omissions punished by law; and,

(5) quasi-delicts.
Significantly, in its Opposition,
plaintiff categorically admitted that the legal right of
the plaintif arose from the alleged verbal agreement
with the defendant. With this open and unequivocal
admission of plaintiff, with more reason that the
complaint against answering defendants should be
dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. It is
worthy to reiterate that answering defendant was not
unjustly enriched since the GPP project was not
awarded to the defendant;
Answering defendants hereby reiterates, repleads, and
incorporates by way of reference all the foregoing as they are
material hereto, and further states:
11.
It is clear that the filing of the instant case by
the plaintiff as against answering defendant is not only
unwarranted but likewise without any basis as
explained hereinabove. Needless to say, the filing of
this patently unfounded suit besmirched the good
name and reputation of defendant ABC Services Inc.
before the business community for which plaintiff
should be made to pay moral damages in the amount
of not less than P500,000.00. On the other hand, as a
consequence of the filing of this baseless and
unjustified suit, defendant ABC Services Inc. suffered
mental anguish, serious anxiety, sleepless nights and
wounded feelings and is bound to be exposed to public
ridicule and humiliation for which he should be
compensated in the amount of at least P200,000.00.
12. Furthermore, in instituting this clearly unfounded
complaint, plaintiff acted in a wanton, oppressive and
fraudulent manner. To serve as a lesson to plaintiff
and to deter others similarly minded from filing a
similar baseless Complaint and for the public good,
plaintiff should be made to pay exemplary damages in
an amount not less than P200,000.00.
13. To protect their rights, answering defendants were

constrained to hire the services of undersigned
counsel and agreed to pay attorneys fees in the
amount of P100,000.00 plus appearance fee of P3,000
per court hearing;
PRAYER
prayed of this Honorable Court that:
1 The complaint
DISMISSED;
against
answering
defendants
be
2.
ON THE COUNTERCLAIM - plaintiff should be
ordered to pay answering defendants:
a.
A sum not less than P700,000.00 as moral

damages for both answering defendants;
b.
A sum not less than P200,000.00 as exemplary
damages;
c.
The sum of P100,000.00 plus P3,000.00 per

court appearance of counsel as attorneys fees.
d.
Cost of suit and litigation expenses.
Other measures of relief, just and equitable under the

premises are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City, Philippines March 1, 2013.

PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
Copy furnished:
312 Bancan Maycauayan Bulacan

(Ex-parte Motion for Reconsideration)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
EX-PARTE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff, JUAN DELA CRUZ, unto this Honorable Office
hereby respectfully states:
1. That he received a copy of the Resolution dated
August 14, 2012 only on September 8, 2012 and
she has until September 18, 2012 to file this
motion of reconsideration;
2. That, in the said resolution he was fully convinced in
the findings of fact and law violated by the herein
defendant;
3. That, after a careful examination of the evidence
supporting the action for specific performance against
the defendant, it is the humble opinion of the
undersigned, and after consultation with his legal
advisers, that the defendant is liable to pay its
contractual obligation to the plaintiff in the amount of
P1,500,000.00 since it is apparent that there was a

meeting of minds between plaintiff and defendant on
the acquisition of the plumbing, electrical designs and
drafting requirements;
4. That the defendant is likewise evidently guilty of bad
guilty of bad faith in refusing to settle the obligation
with the plaintiff without even giving any valid or
justifiable reason, which caused the latter mental
anguish, serious anxiety, moral shock and other
similar injury, for which the defendant should be held
liable to pay P500,000.00 as value to the labor applied
for the electrical designs and drafting requirements
amounting to P100,000.00 as and by way of attorneys
fees.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the plaintiff
most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that the
Resolution dated August 24, 2012 be reversed and set aside
and that another resolution be issued finding the defendants
liable for an order that Defendant Corporation and its agents
specifically perform the contract agreed by the parties
amounting to P1,500,000.00 for compensatory damages in the
amount of P100,000.00 and as and by way of litigation
expenses and attorneys fees.
Plaintiff also prays for such other relief and remedies as
Meycauayan City, Bulacan, 20 September 2012.

PTR No.080808
IBP No. 88888
MCLE No. 888888

Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
Comes now, the defendant ABC Services Inc., by and
through the undersigned counsel, answering plaintiffs
1 Defendant admits paragraph 4 and 5 of the complaint;
2 Defendant admits paragraph 7, to the effect that he
denies that there was unwarranted refusal to comply
with the plaintiffs patently valid demand and the terms
of their agreement.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Based on the foregoing affirmative allegations, the alleged
verbal contract entered into by the defendants has no
force and effect
2. Moreover, since the arrangement thereof was attended

with fraud, duress, intimidation, threat and undue
influence, the same is void from its inception.
3. Furthermore, since the terms and conditions contained
therein, particularly with respect to the attorneys fees
and liquidated damages are all shocking to the
conscience and are wantonly against public policy.
4. That since the penalties and liquidated damages are
iniquitous and unconscionable, the courts, under the
circumstances, can reduce the penalties and liquidated
damages, pursuant to Articles 1229 and 2227 of the Civil
Code, which provision state:
Art. 1229. The judge shall equitably reduce the
penalty when the principal obligation has been partly
or irregularly complied with by the debtor. Even if
there has been no performance, the penalty may also
be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or
unconscionable.
Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended
as an indemnity or penalty, shall be equitably reduced
reduced if they are iniquitous and inconscionable.
5. Base on all foregoing, the plaintiff clearly has no cause of
action against the defendants.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, defendant prays for judgment:
1 Dismissing the complaint with costs against the
plaintiff;
2 On the Counter, ordering plaintiff to pay defendant the
sum of P70,000.00 as attorneys fees and the sum of
P80,000.00 for the loss of income; and
3 Any other reliefs through Honorable Court may deem

just and equitable under the foregoing premises.
Pasig City, Philippines, 21 February, 2013.
Emilio Aguinaldo
187 Novalichez Quezon City
PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
(Answer with Counterclaim and Cross-Claim)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS-CLAIM
COMES NOW, Defendant ABC Services Inc., by and
through his undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court
1. That the answering defendant lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations contained in paragraph 6 and 7,

specially denies the same;
2. That the answering defendant admits paragraph 4 and
5 of the Complaint;
3. That the answering defendant lacks knowledge or
the allegations contained in paragraph 6 and 7 of the
complaint and therefore, specially denies the same;
For his special affirmative defenses further avers
4. That the answering defendant agreed to enter into an
agreement with the plaintiff, with the principal
condition that the EFG project be awarded to the
defendant;
5. That without the knowledge and consent of answering
defendant, the principal condition of the loan was
changed by the plaintiff; to the prejudice of the
answering defendant.
By way of compulsory counterclaim, answering defendant
alleges:
by the plaintiff against defendant has caused the latter
mental anguish, serious anxiety and embarrassment
and has besmirched reputation for which, serious
anxiety and embarrassment and has besmirched
reputation for which he should be compensated by way
of moral damages the amount of which he should be
compensated by way of moral damages the amount of
which, though not capable of pecuniary estimation
would not be less than P 5,000.00.
And for his crossclaim against

answering defendant further alleges;
his
co-defendant
8. That the defendant hereby repleads reiterates and

reproduces all the material allegations in the foregoing
answer with special / affirmative defenses and in the
counterclaim;
9. That defendant should reimburse answering defendant
on may amount the matter maybe held answerable or
which he may be ordered or suffered to pay under and
by virtue of the present action in favor of plaintiff,
answering defendant not having benefited whatsoever
from the transaction which defendant Exceed
International obtained from plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, premises considered answering defendant
respectfully prays to the Honorable Court render judgment as
follows:
1. By dismissing
defendant;
the
complaint
against
answering
By ordering plaintiff to pay answering defendant moral

damages amounting to not less than Php50,000.00 plus
exemplary as the Honorable Court may find reasonable plus
attorneys fees of Php50,000.00 and the costs of suit;
Answering defendant prays for such other and further

relief as may be just and equitable in the premises.
Quezon City, Philippines February 25, 2013.
Emilio Aguinaldo
PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City

ROLL No. 98278

Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
ANSWER
COMES NOW, the Defendant ABC Services Inc., through
the undersigned attorney and in answer to Plaintiffs
complaint, in the above-entitled case, respectfully prays:
6. That Defendant admits paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of the
complaint;
7. That Plaintiff is without knowledge of information to form
beliefs as the truth of the averments made in paragraphs
4, 5, and 6;
ultimate fact that would indicate that Plaintiff was indeed
entitled to the sought rescission of the contract of sale
entered into with the Defendant; without said allegation
of the ultimate fact, Plaintiffs demand for rescission
would be without legal basis and consequently, Plaintiff
9. Assuming, arguendo, that the Plaintiff was indeed

entitled to the rescission, paragraph 4 of the complaint:
a. Failed to allege by what written instrument the latter,
presumably during the period of the contract, the
particular engine model and other specifications which
will uncomplicate the issues;
necessary contract covering the purported sale of the
subject engines;
10.
That the allegations in paragraphs 5
and 6 of the complaint are not likewise averments of
ultimate facts constituting Plaintiffs cause of action;
11.
That contrary to the allegations in the
complaint, the Respondent records show that no notice
for rescission was ever filed by the Plaintiff;
12.
As consequence of Plaintiffs unfounded
claims, which forced Defendant to litigate and protect its
By way of
Defendant alleges:
compulsory
counterclaim,
answering
1. That the allegations in paragraph 1 to 7 of the answer are

hereby reproduced and reiterated;
2. That the filing of the malicious and ground less action by
the Plaintiff against the answering Defendant has
besmirched the Respondent corporations reputation
which should be compensated by way of suffered
damages in the form of attorneys fees and other litigation
expenses;
CROSS CLAIM
And for this cross claim against co-defendant Ana Cruz ,
answering Respondent further alleges:
I.
That Defendant hereby plead, reiterates, and

II.
That Defendant ABC Services Inc. should reimburse

answering Respondent on any and whatever amount
the matter maybe held answerable or which it may be
ordered or suffered to pay under and by virtue of the
present action in favor of the Plaintiff,
answering
transactions entered into between Defendant ABC
Services Inc. and the Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, premises considered answering Defendant

respectfully prays to the Honorable Court to render judgment
as follows:
1. By dismissing
Defendant;
the
complaint
against
answering
2. Answering Defendant prays for such other reliefs as may

be just and equitable under the premises.
Quezon City, Philippines, May 14, 2013.
ATTY. Maria Czarina Esplanada

PTR No.080808
IBP No. 88888
MCLE No. 888888

Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIM
Comes now, the defendant ABC Services Inc. by and

through the undersigned counsel answering plaintiff
1. Defendant admits paragraph 1 and 2 of the complaint;
2. Defendants admits paragraph 5 to the effect that he denies
responsibility over the acceptance of the required design
and drafting requirements.
3. At the time of the Service Contract was entered on 15 th of
March 2010,defendant that the agreement is subject to the
defendants acceptance of the required design and drafting
requirements;
COUNTERCLAIM
4. Because of the suit filed against herein defendant, he was
constrained to hire the services of the undersigned of the
counsel in the amount of P 70,000 as attorneys fees;
5. As a result of this suit, he has spent many sleepless nights
which rendered him to be ill and from his work losing an
aggregate amount P 80,000 as income for the past 2
months.
January 2013, Quezon City defendant having exhibited to me
he CTC 123456 issued on March 15, 2010 at Quezon City.
Amalayer Sanchez
Notary Public
Until Dec. 31, 2013
PTR:123456
IBP:78910
MCLE 88909
Doc. No:1
Page No.:1
Book No.:1
Series of 2013.:
Copy furnished:

Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
COMES NOW, Defendant ABC Services Inc., by and
through his undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court
1. That it admits paragraph 5 of the complaint;
2. That it denies paragraph 6 and 7 of the complaint, the
truth being that there was no valid demand made by
the plaintiff;
3. That he lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the truth of the
allegations contained in paragraph 6 and 7 of the
complaint and therefore, specifically denies the same;
By way of compulsory, answering defendant alleges:

by the plaintiff answering defendant has caused the
latter
mental
anguish
serious
anxiety
and
embarrassment and has besmirched he should be
compensated by way of moral damages the amount of
which, though not capable of pecuniary estimation
would not less than P500,000.00.
follows:
1. By dismissing
defendant;
the
complaint
against
answering
2. By ordering plaintiff to pay answering defendant moral

damages amounting to not less than P150,000.00 plus
exemplary damages as the Honorable Court may find
reasonable plus attorneys fees of P70,000 and the cost
of suit;
Quezon CIty, Philippines, March 4, 2013.

PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278

(Reply)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
REPLY
DEFENDANTS Maria Clara Ibarra and ABC Services Inc.
through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court,
and by way of Reply to plaintiffs Opposition dated January 27,
2013, most respectfully state:
1. In its Opposition to herein defendants Motion to
Dismiss, plaintiff argued that a careful perusal and
examination of the complaint for specific performance
and alternatively for breach of contract will establish
that it complied with all the elements of a cause of
action;
obligations arise from: (1) law; (2) contracts; (3) quasicontracts; (4) acts or omissions punished by law; and,
(5) quasi-delicts.
the plaintif arose from the Service Contract dated 15
March 2010.
With this open and unequivocal
admission of plaintiff, with more reason that the
complaint against defendants ABC Services Inc. and
Maria Clara Ibarra should be dismissed for failure to
state a cause of action;
3. In addition, defendant ABC Services Inc. would like
to stress before this Honorable Court that the service
contract specifies that the agreement is subject to the
acceptance of defendant. There is therefore absolutely
no way for the plaintiff to rely on the assumption that
the design and draft were sent to defendants through
mail;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, defendants ABC Services Inc. and Maria
Clara Ibarra respectfully pray that the Complaint as against
them be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
Other measures of relief just and equitable under the
Quezon City, Philippines 4 March 2013.

PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
Copy furnished:
Bancal Meycauayan Bulacan

(Trial Brief)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
PLAINTIFFS TRIAL BRIEF
PART I
Abstract of Pleadings
The complaint has one cause of action in which it is
alleged that plaintiff, while residing in Quezon City some
fifteen years ago, was engaged in the business of providing

electrical designs and draft requirements.
That on the 15th of March 2010, defendant ABC Services
Inc., through its president Maria Clara Ibarra, contracted with
plaintiff Mr. Dela Cruz to provide the plumbing and electrical
design and drafting requirements for its proposed EFG
Employees Housing Project located at the Malacanang
grounds, Cristobal Street. U.N. Avenue, Manila.
That the agreement between defendant ABC and plaintiff
Mr. Dela Cruz was for the former to pay the latter P1,
500,000.00 upon submission and ABCs acceptance of the
required design and drafting requirements.
Defendants answer.
The effect of a defendants answer is to admit plaintiffs
allegation as to the scope and conditions of its engagement of
services with the aforesaid plaintiff; and to deny all other
allegations in the complaint; and to set up by way of
affirmative defenses:
1. Based on the foregoing affirmative allegations, the
alleged verbal contract entered into by the defendants
has no force and effect
2. Moreover, since the arrangement thereof was attended
3. Furthermore, since the terms and conditions
contained therein, particularly with respect to the
attorneys fees and liquidated damages are all shocking
to the conscience and are wantonly against public
policy.
Issues.
Apparently the issues are:
1. Do the acts complained of constitute the right of

plaintiff to an action for specific performance for the
alleged
services
rendered
to
the
defendant
corporation?
2. That assuming that there were obligations arising
from the alleged agreement, does a cause of action
accrue for damages where the non-payment of said
obligation was done without malice, not gain nor profit
for the defendant?
PART II
A. Facts essential to plaintifs case
1. The plaintiff had a contract with the defendant as to the
plumbing, electrical designs and drafting requirements
2. Plaintiff Mr. Dela Cruz submitted to Philippine Global
Services all the plumbing and electrical plans pertaining
to the GPP project which PGS accepted to their full
satisfaction and without any reservation
3. That the Defendant accepted the plumbing and electrical
design and drafting requirements from the Plaintiff for its
proposed EFG Employees Housing Project.
B. Facts for the defendant to prove
Defendant will probably try to prove facts tending to
uphold the matters set forth in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, which
plaintiff will have already negative in presentation to his main
case.
PART III
Brief of Evidence.
A. Main Case.
1. Plaintiff, Juan Dela Cruz:

1. Will give account on what transpired between him and
the Defendant when the verbal agreement was made
by both parties.
2. That there was a delivery of the plumbing, electrical
designs and drafting requirements to the Defendant.
3. That the Defendant did not specifically perform the
contract as agreed with the Plaintiff.
Defendants probable proof.
A. Defendant ABC Services Inc.:
1. That he received no material gain from the plumbing,
electrical designs and drafting requirements received
from the Plaintiff
2. That the agreement was made in good faith and
without fraud or malice on the part of the Defendant.
B. Other witness:
1. Plaintiffs prominence.
2. Public nature of plaintiffs work
PART IV
The law of the case.
Applicable statutory provisions:
1. Article 1157 of the New Civil Code, obligations arise
from: (1) law; (2) contracts; (3) quasi-contracts; (4) acts
or omissions punished by law; and, (5) quasi-delicts.
2. Art. 1167. If a person obliged to do something fails to
do it, the same shall be executed at his cost.
This same rule shall be observed if he does it in

contravention of the tenor of the obligation. Furthermore,
it may be decreed that what has been poorly done be
undone. (1098).
Makati City, 12 November 2012.

Counsel for Plaintif
PTR No.080808
IBP No. 88888
MCLE No. 888888

Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
COME NOW THE PARTIES, to this Honorable Court,
respectfully submit for approval their
Compromise Agreement, to wit:

1. That defendant admits his liability with the plaintiff in
the amount of Php 1,500,000.00
2. That defendant shall pay the said amount to the
plaintiff in the following manner:
a. Downpayment of Php 500,000.00 on March 30,
2013;
b. Php 100,000.00 a month for thirty ten (10) months
starting on April 1,2013 and every 2nd day of the
month thereafter until January 2, 2014.
3. In case of failure or refusal of defendant to comply with
the terms and conditions of this Compromise
Agreement, or to pay plaintiff any of the stipulated
installments on or before its due date, then the whole
obligation still outstanding shall immediately become
due and demandable and an interest of 3.5% per
month shall be charged on the outstanding obligation
until fully paid. Likewise, plaintiff may ask for a writ of
execution to enforce this agreement.
4. In the event that plaintiff is compelled to resort to the

court for the enforcement and execution of this
Compromise Agreement, defendant/s shall be liable to
pay the plaintiff all expenses, incidental and
necessary, that may be incurred by the latter in
connection therewith;
5. Parties hereto attest that they have entered into this
Compromise Agreement freely and voluntarily and
they fully understand the terms and conditions
thereof;
Compromise Agreement be approved and be the basis of the
Decision to be rendered by this Honorable Court in the aboveentitled case.
Respectfully submitted, 10th day of March, 2013.
Juan Dela Cruz

Plaintiff
Assisted By:
Maria Czarina Esplanada
Bancal St. Meycauayan Bulacan
PTR No.080808
IBP No. 88888
MCLE No. 888888
Maria Clara Ibarra

Defendant, President of ABC Services Inc.
Assisted By:
Emilio Aguinaldo
PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278

IBP No. 9999
MCLE No. 9999
The Branch Clerk of Court
REGIONAL Trial Court
Branch 118, QUEZON CITY
GREETINGS:
Please submit the foregoing compromise agreement for
consideration and approval of the Honorable Court
immediately upon your receipt thereof.
Juan Dela Cruz

Plaintiff
Maria Clara Ibarra

Defendant

(Position Paper)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
Defendant ABC Services Inc. through the undersigned
counsel respectfully submits the following position paper and
states that:
This action filed by plaintiff Juan Dela Cruz for specific
performance with defendants ABC Services Inc. and Maria
Clara Ibarra on January 3, 2013 was filed in the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City Branch 118 on the following grounds:
1.)Fraud on account of the defendants non-payment of
the agreed service fees.
2.)Not having obtained plaintiffs consent prior to the
changes in the agreement.
The plaintiff also prays for moral damages on account of
the foregoing allegations.

Defendant ABC Services Inc. is a domestic corporation
with office at Suite 406, 4/F Columbian Building, No. 160
West Avenue Bgy. Phil-Am, Quezon City;
On the 15th of March 2010, defendant ABC Services Inc.,
through its president Maria Clara Ibarra, contracted with
plaintiff Mr. Dela Cruz to provide the plumbing and electrical
design and drafting requirements for its proposed EFG
grounds, Cristobal Street. U.N. Avenue, Manila.
The agreement between defendant ABC and plaintiff Mr.
Dela Cruz was for the former to pay the latter P1, 500,000.00
upon submission and ABCs acceptance of the required design
and drafting requirements. Plaintiff repeatedly made verbal
demands upon ABC to pay him the contract agreed upon.
Due to the defendants unwarranted refusal to comply
with the plaintiffs patently valid demand and the terms of
their agreement, plaintiff was constrained to institute this
instant action and retain the services of counsel thereby
incurring litigation expenses and expenses for attorneys fee
for which defendants should be ordered to a plaintiff the sum
of P 100,000.00.
ISSUES
The court defined the following issues which the plaintiff
prays to result in the action for specific performance with
defendant ABC Services Inc.:
1. The right of the plaintiff to demand fulfillment of the
obligation.
2. Failure in obtaining valid demands prior to the
institution of the civil action.
ARGUMENTS
Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court and

on the ground that the violations of laws for which he is
charged is contrary to Section 2 of the Corporation Code of the
Philippines and thus, violates the Corporate Entity Theory.
Plaintiff attempted to state a cause of action for Specific
Performance against herein defendant in Paragraph 4 and 6 of
the complaint, to wit:
1. That on the 15th of March 2010, defendant ABC Services
Inc., through its president Maria Clara Ibarra, contracted
with plaintiff Mr. Dela Cruz to provide the plumbing and
electrical design and drafting requirements for its
proposed DBM Employees Housing Project located at the
Malacanang grounds, Cristobal Street. U.N. Avenue,
Manila;
2. Plaintiff repeatedly made verbal demands upon BCF to
pay him the contract agreed upon;
It is a doctrine well-established and obtains both at law
and in equity that a corporation is a distinct legal entity to be
considered as separate and apart from personal rights,
obligations and transactions of its stockholders or members.
The mere fact that one is a president of a corporation
does not render the property which he owns and possess the
property of the corporation, since the president, as individual,
and the corporation, are separate entities.
Significantly, there is no showing that the ABC Services
Inc. was a fictitious corporation and did not have a separate
juridical personality, to justify making the defendant, as the
president thereof, responsible for the obligation.
In light of the foregoing facts, plaintiff, Ms. Dela Cruz,
has failed to state a cause of action against herein defendant
Ms. Ibarra.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE
premises
considered,
Defendant
respectfully prays that plaintiffs action for specific
performance be denied for the grounds he presented are bereft
of merit.
prayed for.
Manila City, March 10, 2013.

EMILIO AGUINALDO
P. Burgos St., Manila
PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
(Judicial Affidavit)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
OFFER OF TESTIMONY. The testimony of plaintiff, JUAN

DELA CRUZ is being offered to prove the material allegations
in the petition regarding his service contract with defendant
ADB SERVICES INC., and the circumstances before, during
and after their agreement. To prove that, ABC Services Inc.
failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the service
contract.
How are you related to the plaintiff?
A. I am the petitioner sir.
Where are you residing?
A. I am a resident of No. 40 Nagoya Street, B.F. Homes,
Quezon City.
Do you know Maria Clara Ibarra?
A.Yes sir.
Why do you know her?
A. She is the president of ABC Services Inc.
When and where did you meet Ms. Ibarra?
1. She was the one who signed the service contract on
behalf of ABC Services Inc .
What are the terms and conditions of the service contract
that was said to be violated?
A: ABC Services Inc. did not pay me the agreed service
fee after they used the design and draft that I made.
That I executed this Affidavit to confirm the truth of all
facts herein stated and to serve this Judicial Affidavit as my
direct testimony and further, for such other legal intents and
purposes this may serve.
this 6th day of May 2012 at Manila
JUAN DELA CRUZ

Affiant

March 2013 in Quezon City.
PTR No.080808
IBP No. 88888
MCLE No. 888888
Doc No. 12
Page No. 11
Book No. 34
Series of 2013.

(Motion for Written Interrogatories)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MOTION FOR WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES
NOW COMES the plaintiff in the above entitled case,
moves for a rule on the defendant, ABC Services Inc., to
answer under oath the following interrogatories:
1. Did ABC Services Inc. prior to 15th day of March,
2010, enter into a contract with Juan Dela Cruz to
drafting requirements for its proposed EFG Employees
Housing Project located at the Malacanang grounds,
Cristobal Street. U.N. Avenue, Manila?
2. Was such contract, if any, in writing?
3. Was the said contract in force on the 15 th day of
March, 2010?
4. What was the relationship, if any, between the

aforesaid ABC Services Inc. and Juan Dela Cruz?
AFFIDAVIT
MARIA CZARINA ESPLANADA, being first duly sworn, on
oath, deposes and says that he is the attorneys for the plaintiff
in the above-entitled cause; that said cause of action arises
out of the escape of certain dangers gases from certain bar
fixtures sold to the plaintiff by the defendant, ABC Services
Inc.
Affiant further says that the evidence required by the
answers of the interrogatories herewith presented, and the list
of sworn documents, are necessary and material in the trial of
said cause.

PTR No.080808
IBP No. 88888
MCLE No. 888888

(Motion for the Taking of Deposition of Witness)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MOTION FOR THE TAKING OF DEPOSITION OF WITNESS
PLAINTIFF Juan Dela Cruz, by and through the

undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully manifests:
1. That last March 15, 2013, KIM CHUI, witness for the
herein plaintiff, arrived for a one-month vacation from
Korea where she is currently working;
2. That, her testimony is of utmost importance for the
judicial determination of the instant case.
3. That however, herein witness is constrained, by reason
of her work, to go back to Korea on March 30, 2013.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that an Order be
taken before the Branch Clerk of Court of this Court preferably

on March 28, 2013 at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon.
Other relief and remedies, just and equitable in the
premises, are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City, March 10, 2013.

PTR No.080808
IBP No. 88888
MCLE No. 888888
The Clerk of Court

This Court
Greetings:
Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Honorable
Court immediately upon receipt hereof for its consideration
and approval.
Emilio Aguinaldo
Counsel of the defendant
Novaliches Quezon City

(Deposition)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
DEPOSITION OF ENGR. PETRA SANTOS
The deposition of Engr. Petra Santos of No. 18 Ventura
Street, B.F. Homes, Quezon City, was taken before me a notary
public, in and for the City of Quezon City on September 23,
2012 at 9:30 a.m., at 1217 Cattleya St., Brgy. Pasong Tamo,
Quezon City, pursuant to the annexed notice in the aboveentitled action pending in the abovenamed court. Ms. Czarina
Esplanada appeared as attorney for the plaintiff and Ms.
Amalayer Sanchez appeared as the attorney for the defendant.
Engr. Petra Santos, being by me first duly sworn as
hereafter certified, testified as follows:
Direct Examination
Q.
State your name and personal circumstances.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Petra Santos, 55 years of age, licensed engineer,

residing at 18 Ventura Street, B.F. Homes, Quezon
City.
Since when have you practiced engineering?
Since 1976, continuously until now.
Where do you have your office, if you have any?
In the Eastwood Area, in MDC building.
Do you know Juan Dela Cruz?
Yes sir.
Why do you know him?
He is my officemate?
Since when?
He is my officemate for 10 years now.
Are you familiar with the projects that he is
handling?
Yes sir.
Are all projects have written contracts?
No sir.
What type of projects has no written contracts?
Those small projects like electrical designs and
drafting requirements are usually contracted
verbally with the clients.
That is all.
(Sgd.) Petra Santos

(Motion to Dismiss)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant Maria Clara Ibarra, through counsel and to
this Honorable Court, respectfully moves for the dismissal of
the Complaint on the following:
Grounds
1. The plaintiff has failed to state the cause of action in his
complaint; and
2. The plaintiff is not the real party in interest and, thus,
has no legal capacity to sue;
Discussion Of The Grounds
1. Failure to State the Cause of Action
Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court and

on the ground that the violations of laws for which he is
charged is contrary to Section 2 of the Corporation Code of the
Philippines and thus, violates the Corporate Entity Theory.
Plaintiff attempted to state a cause of action for Specific
Performance against herein defendant in Paragraph 4 and 6 of
the complaint, to wit:
That on the 15th of March 2010, defendant BCF A & E
Services Inc., through its president Arnel Alvarado, contracted
with plaintiff Mr. Colas to provide the plumbing and electrical
design and drafting requirements for its proposed DBM
grounds, Cristobal Street. U.N. Avenue, Manila;
Plaintiff repeatedly made verbal demands upon BCF to
pay him the contract agreed upon;
It is a doctrine well-established and obtains both at law
and in equity that a corporation is a distinct legal entity to be
considered as separate and apart from personal rights,
obligations and transactions of its stockholders or members.
The mere fact that one is a president of a corporation
does not render the property which he owns and possess the
property of the corporation, since the president, as individual,
and the corporation, are separate entities.
Significantly, there is no showing that the BCF A & E
Services Inc. was a fictitious corporation and did not have a
separate juridical personality, to justify making the defendant,
as the president thereof, responsible for the obligation.
In light of the foregoing facts, plaintiff, Ms. Colas, has
failed to state a cause of action against herein defendant Mr.
Alvarado.
2. No Legal Capacity to Sue
Pursuant to Section 1 Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, the
Plaintiff in the instant Civil Case is not the real party in
interest, thus, this instant motion to dismiss on the ground

that Plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue.
In Paragraph No. 1 and 4 of the instant Civil Case, it was
alleged by the plaintiff that it was her husband, Felicisimo R.
Colas, Jr., who contracted with BCF A & E Services Inc.,
through its president Arnel Alvarado, to provide the plumbing
and electrical design and drafting requirements for its
proposed DBM Employees Housing Project located at the
Malacanang grounds, Cristobal Street. U.N. Avenue, Manila.
In view of Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court:
A real party in interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. XXX
There is no showing in the instant complaint that Ms.
Josephina Colas was in any way injured on the account of the
agreement allegedly entered into by her husband Mr. Dela
Cruz and ABC Services Inc.
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that the above entitled
case be dismissed and that plaintiff be ordered to pay
defendant Maria Clara Ibarra the sum of P100, 000.00 as
attorneys fees.
Quezon City, January 27, 2013.

PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
NOTICE OF HEARING
Branch Clerk of Court
Metropolitan Trial Court, Makati City
Atty. Emilio Aguinaldo (plaintiffs counsel)
GREETINGS:
Please take note that on Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at
1:30 oclock in the afternoon, the foregoing motion will be
submitted for consideration and approval of this Honorable
Court.

Copy furnished:
EXPLANATION
Copy of the foregoing motion was served upon plaintiff by
registered mail due to the considerable distance between the
undersigned counsels office and that of the addressee.

(Motion for New Trial)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Appellant, through the undersigned counsel, unto this
Honorable Court, respectfully moves for new trial on the
ground of newly discovered evidence.
The newly discovered evidence is as follows:
1. That the original copy of the letter of admittance of
the disputed transaction was found after earnest
efforts to locate such document
2. That the aforesaid documentary evidence is material
to the case and will prove the claims of the
appellant
As above shown, the newly discovered evidence could not
have been discovered by exercise of due diligence.
The character of the newly discovered evidence would

probably change the result of the case in favor of the movant,
for the following reasons.
1. That the original copy of the letter of admittance is
material to the case as it will prove the authenticity of
the disputed photocopy earlier submitted in court as
Annex D and
2. That the aforesaid documentary evidence will establish
the claims of the Appellant and put to rest the issue
on the case
Attached herewith are affidavits, Annexes 3 and 4,
which will prove such requisites showing the facts constituting
the same.
WHEREFORE, appellant respectfully prays that an order
issue granting appellant a new trial, or such order for the
taking of further testimony, either orally in court, or by
depositions, as to render such other judgment as sought to be
rendered upon such terms as it may deem just.
Appellant further prays for such other reliefs as may be
just and equitable in the premise.
Quezon City, Philippines, March 15, 2013.

PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
Notice of Hearing:
The Clerk of Count
Branch 118, Quezon City
Greetings:
Please set the foregoing Motion to Declare Defendant in
Default on March 20, 2013 at 9:00 oclock in the morning or at
any time convenient to the calendar of the Honorable Court.
Thank You.
Copy Furnished:
(Motion for Postponement)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT
DEFENDANT ABC Services Inc. through the undersigned
counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully moves that
the hearing set for March 20, 2013 be postponed to another
date, at least one (1) month therefrom, on the ground that his
remaining material witness, Mr. Juana Dela Cruz, whom he
has scheduled to present, is abroad and will not be back until

three (3) weeks from date hereof.
The gist of the testimony of witness Juana Dela Cruz and
its materiality or relevancy are shown in the attached affidavit,
which is attached herewith, as Annex X.
WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays that the
hearing set for March 20, 2013 be postponed to another date,
at least one (1) Month from said date, to enable Ms. Angel
Locsin to present her as his last witness.

PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
Notice of Hearing:
The Clerk of Count
Greetings:
Default on March 30, 2013 at 9:00 oclock in the morning or at
Thank You.
Copy Furnished:

(Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw
with Substitution of Counsel)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MANIFESTATION AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW
WITH SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL
COMES NOW the undersigned counsel,
Honorable Court, respectfully state that:
unto
this
1. As of this date, the undersigned counsel has

withdrawn as counsel of the Respondent in the aboveentitled case for all legal purpose;
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed to this Honorable
Court that all notices, orders, and decision in the instant case
be furnished to Atty. LUMUBOS at her above-given office
address.
Manila, April 27, 2012.

PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278

(Motion for Execution of Judgment)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MOTION FOR EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
1.
The decision in favour of the plaintiff has become

final and executor since more than fifteen (15) days
from defendants receipt thereof on September 15,
2009 had already lapsed without a defendants
appealing therefrom.
2.
After a decision has become final, execution is a

matter of right on the part of the prevailing party
and ministerial duty of the court to issue writ of

execution.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that a writ of execution be
issued for the satisfaction of the judgment date September 30,
2009.
Muntinlupa, April 30, 2013.
ATTY. MARIA CZARINA ESPLANADA

(Motion for the Issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION
COMES NOW, the petitioner in the above captioned case

by and through counsel, and to this Honorable Court most
respectfully states that:
a. On March 21, 2013, this Honorable Court
rendered its decision granting the petitioners
petition for the issuance of writ of execution;
b. To implement the Decision, this Honorable Court
cause the issuance of the writ of execution dated
March 28, 2013;
c. As the date however, the said writ of
execution/possession has not been implemented
yet making the same functus officio. Thus
necessitating the issuance of an alias writ of
possession for the sheriff to implement the
Decision dated March 21, 2013;
d. This motion is filed due to the foregoing reasons
only and for the purpose of delaying the early
disposition of this case,
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most

respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court an alias writ of
execution be issued.
Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Pasay City, Philippines, March 5, 2013
EMILIO AGUINALDO
13 Leveriza St., Pasay City
IBP No. 37468598
PTR No. 8373613
NOTICE OF HEARING
THE Branch Clerk of Court

RTC, Brach 118
Quezon City
Greetings:
Please submit the foregoing motion to the Honorable
Court immediately upon receipt hereof, for its consideration
and approval without further oral arguments.
EMILIO AGUINALDO
Counsel
Copy Furnished:
MARIA CZARINA ESPLANADA
EXPLANATION
The foregoing Motion is being served to the counsel of the
defendant by registered mail instead of personal delivery due
to unavailability of personnel to effect personal delivery.
EMILIO AGUINALDO
Counsel
(Motion for Extension of Time and Entry of Appearance)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND
URGENT EX-PARTE MOTION FOR TIME
UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL, respectfully states that:
1. He is entering his appearance for the cause of the
General Manager, Eduardo P. Abad of the Guagua
Water District;
2. The order dated March 11, 2013 was received on
March 19, 2013 by the office of the said General
Manager directing him to comment within five (5) days
from receipt thereof ending March 24, 2013 why he
should not be administratively charged;
3. Due to the preoccupation of the undersigned counsel
with other prior commitments of equal import, he
would earnestly seek for time within which to prepare
and submit said comment;
4. The needed time is not intended to delay the soonest
administration of justice;
prayed that the undersigned counsel be granted time of
another five (5) days from March 24, 2013 up to March 28,
2013 within which to prepare and submit subject comment.
Guagua for City of San Fernando, Pampanga, March 23,
2013.
Respectfully submitted
With my conformity:
EDUARDO P. ABAD
General Manager
Ex parte:
RIC M. CRUZ
Assisting Counsel
Guagua, Pampanga
PTR O/R No. 2167795 01-282009
IBP O/R No. 75776 01-282009
Pampanga Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. III000529

(Second Motion for Extension of Time)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
A Defendant engaged the services of the undersigned
B Defendant was served with Summons and copy of the
January 18, 2013 within which to submit an Answer or
C However, due to the pressures of equally urgent
undersigned counsel would not be able to meet the said
decline;
D As such, undersigned counsel is constrained to request
for an additional period of ten (10) days from today within
which to submit Defendants Answer or Responsive

Pleading. Moreover, this additional time will also allow
the undersigned to interview the available witness and
study this case further;
E However, defendant failed to submit the said motion on
time for honestly failing to foresee their inability to
prepare and file the intended petition within the
reglamentary period due to prepare due to voluminous
and pressing work load on equally important cases of the
undersigned counsel, not to mention his daily court
appearances;
F Moreover, this additional time will also allow the
undersigned to interview the available witness and study
this case further;
G This Second Motion is not intended for delay but solely
due to the foregoing reasons.
Honorable Court that he be given an additional period of five
days from today within which to submit an answer or other
Responsive Pleading.
Other relief just and equitable is likewise prayed for.
PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
Copy furnished:

(Final Motion for Extension of Time)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
FINAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
3. However, due to the pressures of equally urgent
undersigned counsel would not be able to meet the
said decline;

5. However, defendant failed to submit the said motion on
and pressing work load on equally important cases of
the undersigned counsel, not to mention his daily
court appearances;
6. Moreover, this additional time will also allow the
undersigned to interview the available witness and
7. This Second Motion is not intended for delay but solely
PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
Copy furnished:

(Motion to Declare Defendant in Default)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT DEFAULT
Plaintiff, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court,
respectfully states
- The records of the Honorable Court show that
Defendant was served with copy of the summons and
of the complaint, together with annexes thereto on
January 3, 2013;
- Upon verification however, the records show that

Defendant ABC Services Inc. has failed to file her
Answer within the reglamentary period specified by
the Rules of Court despite the service of summons and
the complaint;
- As such. It is respectfully prayed that Defendant ABC
Services Inc. be declared in default pursuant to the
Rules of Court and that the Honorable Court proceed
to render judgment as the complaint may warrant.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Defendant
Services Inc. be declared in default pursuant to the Rules of
Court and that the Honorable Court proceed to render
judgment as the complaint may warrant.
Quezon City, Philippines, 12 February, 2013.

PTR No.080808
IBP No. 88888
MCLE No. 888888
Notice of Hearing:
The Clerk of Count
Greetings:

Default on February 13 at 9:00 oclock in the morning or at
Thank You.
Copy Furnished:

(Motion to Lift Order of Default)
Branch 18, Bulacan
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
ABC Services, Inc.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT
Defendant, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully
alleges that:
1. Ten (10) days after the summons of the complaint was
received by this defendant, she filed a motion to
dismiss;
2. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to said motion
and no hearing was held on said motion to dismiss;
3. While the said motion to dismiss was still pending,
this Honorable Court declared defendant in default;
4. Said order declaring defendant in default is premature
and without legal basis since there is still a pending
motion to dismiss.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the order

declaring the defendant in default be lifted and that this
Honorable Court rule on the aforesaid pending motion to
dismiss.
Quezon City, Philippines 14 February 2013.
Emilio Aguinaldo
PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
Notice of Hearing:
The Clerk of Court
Greetings:
Default on February 24, 2013 at 9:00 oclock in the morning
or at any time convenient to the calendar of the Honorable
Court.
Thank you.
Copy Furnished:
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

(Petition)
Branch 18, Manila
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

For: Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Marriage
Juana Lao Miranda.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
PETITION
1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, married, a former
resident of Unit 123 Garcia Building, Bocobo Street,
Malate, Metro Manila, for the last 7 years, and
presently residing at 5678 Guadal Canal Street, Sta.
Mesa, Metro Manila; while respondent is likewise of
legal age, Filipino, married, and a resident of Unit 255
Victoria de Manila Condominium, Malvar Street corner
Taft Avenue, Metro Manila, where she may be served
with summons and other court processes.
2. The parties got acquainted with each other sometime
in May 2003, when they became members of the
Polytechnic University of the Philippines choir group.
The petitioner started showing interest before long but
the more he asked around about the respondent, the
more he elicited discouragement from the people who

knew her because, while he was a bachelor at age
eighteen, the respondent was a twenty-year old single
mom. Notwithstanding the discouragement by his
relatives and friends, the respondent earned the good
graces of the petitioner expediently after the
acquaintance. They exchange cellular phone numbers
and engaged in healthy conversations every time they
see each other.
3. Out of a brief acquaintance of the petitioner and the
respondent, much to the dismay of many, they became
sweethearts on August 1, 2003.
4. Every time the petitioner would stay in the
respondent's premises, respondent would demand the
petitioner not to leave and stay late or until morning of
the following day. In November 2003, due to the
demands of the respondent and to the dismay of the
petitioner's parents, he decided to stay for good with
the respondent sharing their time as common law
husband and wife.
5. Out of love, the petitioner and respondent exchanged
their vows in a marriage ceremony on August 30,
2007, solemnized by the Hon. Benjamin Torres,
celebrated in Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.
6. Prior to their marriage, the respondent manifested
signs of psychological incapacity and personality
disorder by her irrational and immature behavior,
uncontrolled public outrage, ill-temperedness and her
sarcasm. These behavior and traits of the respondent
made the petitioner decide to break-up with her but
respondent threaten the petitioner that she will hurt
herself.
7. Because of the petitioner's love for the respondent and
despite respondent's bad traits and behavior, the
petitioner married her believing that her behavioral
problems were merely childish manifestations which
she can outgrow.

8. However, immediately after the marriage, the
respondent's psychological incapacity was more
concretely manifested and became evident that she
cannot assume the functions and duties of a married
person. Such psychological incapacity consists, among
others, of respondent's thinking disorder, persecutory
ideation,
self-depreciation,
depression,
social
introversion, low gregariousness, low trust, timidity,
impulse expression, aggression, need for control and
deviation.
9. Every now and then, petitioner and respondent would
engage in quarrels and fights which would often be
physical especially when respondent seen the
petitioner or the petitioner would be:
a. talking to or a mere nodding to someone of
opposite sex;
b. going out with his colleagues, friends or
officemates in any occasion such as lunch, party,
or some social gathering;
c. receiving text messages from someone even it
came from a guy;
d. out for field work;
e. going home and visiting his parents in the
province;
f. giving financial help to his parents and siblings.
10. Some of the results caused by the psychological
incapacity
manifested by the respondent to the
petitioner were:
a. Respondent,
driven
by
her
psychological
incapacity, when petitioner was about to print his
work-related report and retrieved the files saved
in his laptop computer, he saw the content of the
files deleted and replaced by the phrase
MAMATAY NA KAYONG LAHAT! which was
repeatedly typed on a number of times; and
b. Respondent would not allow the petitioner to visit

his parents. Otherwise, respondent would not eat
her meals for the whole duration of petitioner's
stay with his family. Given with no other choice,
petitioner would be compelled to just go back to
respondents place and never attend any occasion
again.
11. From the middle part of the year 2009, the
petitioner noticed the coldness of the respondent. This
is also the beginning of spreading rumors about the
flirting of the respondent with a member of the men's
basketball team of the agency where the respondent
works. Noticeably, the respondent got inclined on
collecting images of the superhero Superman and
pasted a picture of him in her desk top computer, with
her picture beside it as if they were flying together. The
person portrayed by Superman happened to be the
male basketball player.
12. On February 14, 2010, petitioner had a present to
respondent for the celebration of the Valentine's Day,
but respondent seemed disinterested. It seemed love
and trust is not present anymore.
13. Because of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner
finally decided to break-up with the respondent and
cut all the ties that impose obligations upon her.
Petitioner consulted counsel on what to do about his
marriage and he was advised to seek the help of a
clinical psychologist for him to determine the root
cause of the problem.
14. Per clinical diagnosis, the respondent harbors
patterns of distrust and hyper vigilance, beginning by
at least early adulthood. Her malignant distrust and
suspiciousness of others are deemed as best
accounted for by Paranoid Personality Disorder (Axis
II, Cluster A), as indicated by the following:
a. Persistently bears grudges;
b. Perceives attacks on her character that are not

apparent to others and is quick to react angrily;
c. Suspects without sufficient basis, that others are
exploiting or deceiving her.
15. Aside from the above propensities, the respondent
was
also
found
to
exude
the
following
psychopathological
patterns
associated
with
Borderline Personality Disorder:
a. Instability
of
interpersonal
relationships,
characterized by frequent shifts to and fro
excessive idealization and devaluation;
b. Impulsivity;
c. Identity Disturbance;
d. Frequent feelings of emptiness;
e. Excessive and inappropriately intense anger.
16. Through careful consideration of the facts presented
and data from gauges if psychological functioning,
respondent is unable to perform her essential marital
obligations and duties as a wife.
17. With at least one of the parties exuding an Axis II
disorder, it is unlikely that they would eventually
adjust to each other more cogently. In the event that
they attempt to do so, their respective debilities would
inevitably precipitate, at the very least, the same level
of
discord
which
persisted
throughout
the
cohabitation. The least that can be accorded the
parties at this point is the chance to lead lives free of
each others propensities.
18. Based on what have so far been established by
longitudinal studies regarding the respondents
aberration, it was found that people who have
Paranoid Personality Disorder tend to be mistrustful of
everyone, including mental health professionals. As a
result, they likely to seek out professional help when
they need it, and will also have difficulty developing
the types of trusting relationships necessary for
successful therapy. When they do seek therapy, the

trigger is usually some crisis in their lives or other
problems they experience such as anxiety or
depression, and not their personality disorder. In her
full adult state, the respondent is still in active denial
about her condition. It is therefore deemed that the
respondents
stable
set
of
socio-emotional
maladjustment is severe, incurable, and permanent in
nature.
19. Persons suffering from Paranoid Personality
Disorder, such as that of the respondent, are
psychologically incapacitated to comply with and
perform the essential marital obligations to observe
mutual love, respect and fidelity and to render mutual
help and support, either spiritual or temporal, which
are essential to sustain the marriage. Thus, pursuant
to Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, the
marriage between petitioner and respondent is null
and void ab initio.
20. Parties have not acquired any property and have no
common child.
PRAYER
be rendered declaring the marriage contracted by the parties
on August 30, 2007 as null and void ab initio pursuant to
Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

PTR No. 189034/Manila/01-08-12

I, JUAN T. DELA CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino and a
resident at the above given address, avers under oath that:
1. I am the petitioner in the above entitled case;
2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint
and all the material allegations therein are true of my
own knowledge and based on authentic records;
3. I have not commenced any other action or filed any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency and to the best of my knowledge,
no such other action or claim is pending therein;
4. Should I hereafter learn that the same or similar action
or claim has been filed or is pending, I undertake to
report such fact within five (5) days therefrom to this
Honorable Court.
JUAN T. DELA CRUZ

Affiant
June 2012 affiant exhibiting to me his COMELEC Voters ID
No. 14344.
JUAN MANUEL MARQUEZ

Notary Public
PTR No. 199999/Manila/11-07-2011
Roll No. 45678/April 9, 2000
Doc. No. ______;
Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;

(Compliance)
Branch 18, Manila
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
Nullity of Marriage
- versus-
Juana Lao Miranda.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
COMPLIANCE
PETITIONER, by counsel, in compliance with the
directive of the Honorable Court, and pursuant to Section 5 (4)
of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which took effect on March 15, 2003,
most respectfully submits a duplicate copy of the petition
(Annex A hereof) showing on page 1 the proof of service to
and receipt of copies of the same by the Office of the Solicitor
General and Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.
Manila, July 1, 2012.

PTR No. 189034/Manila/01-08-12

(Pre-Trial Brief)
Branch 18, Manila
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
Nullity of Marriage
- versus-
Juana Lao Miranda.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
Petitioner is willing to enter into agreements as may be
allowed by law.
Other than the facts already submitted in the petition,
petitioner submits no other proposal for stipulation or
admission by the respondent or the state.
1
Marriage contract between the parties, to prove the

existence of marriage.
Psychological Report of Ermi S. Tanio, as expert evidence

on the psychological incapacity of the respondent.
Judicial affidavit of petitioner and the expert witness.

ISSUE

Court is whether or not the respondent is psychologically
incapacitated to comply with and perform her essential
marital obligations.
WITNESS
Petitioner intends to present as witnesses the following:
a. Himself, to testify on the material allegations in the petition.
b. Ermi S. Tanio, as expert witness evidence on the
psychological incapacity of the respondent.
Manila, August 8, 2012.

PTR No. 189034/Manila/01-08-12
cc:

Branch 18, Manila
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
Nullity of Marriage
- versus-
Juana Lao Miranda.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
The testimony of petitioner, JUAN TOMAS DELA CRUZ is
being offered to prove the material allegations in the petition
regarding his marriage to JUANA LAO MIRANDA, and the
circumstances before, during and after their marriage. To
prove that respondent, Juana Lao Miranda failed to comply
with and perform his essential marital obligation to live
together, observe mutual love and respect and render mutual
help and support and to prove the psychological incapacity of
the respondent, and to identify some documents necessary in
the prosecution of this petition.
Question: How are you related to the petitioner?
Answer: I am the petitioner sir.
Q: Where are you residing?
A: I am a resident of 5678 Guadal Canal Street, Sta.
Mesa, Metro Manila.
Q: Do you know JUANA LAO MIRANDA?

A: Yes sir.
Q: Why do you know her?
A: She is my wife sir.
Q: When and where did you meet JUANA LAO MIRANDA?
A: I met her sometime in May 2003 at the Polytechnic
University if the Philippines.
Q: How would you describe your first meeting with
JUANA LAO MIRANDA?
A: I saw her as an interesting person.
Q: What did you do if any?
A: We exchanged cellular phone numbers and engaged in
healthy conversations.
Q: How did you court her?
A: I personally visited her or i would call her on the
phone to profess my love.
Q: So what happened next?
A: We became sweethearts on August 1, 2003.
Q: What else happened?
A: Every time that I would stay in her house, she would
demand me not to leave and stay late or until morning of
the following day.
In November 2003, due to her
demands, I decided to stay for good with her and shared
our time as common law husband and wife.
Q: Did you marry JUANA LAO MIRANDA and when?
A: Yes, on August 30, 2007, solemnized in Metropolitan
Trial Court of Manila before the Honorable Judge
Benjamin Torres .
Q: Why?
A: Out of love
Q: After the marriage ceremony, what happened next?

A: I noticed her behavior.
Q: What behavior?
A: Before our marriage, I already noticed her bad traits
and behaviour but I thought, her behavioral problems
were merely childish manifestations which she can
outgrow.
Q: What happened next?
A: Immediately after the marriage, she cannot assume
the functions and duties of a married person.
Q: Why did you say so?
A: Every now and then, we would engage in quarrels and
fights which would often be physical because of her
baseless jealousy. Juana, driven by her psychological
incapacity, when I was about to print my work-related
report, I saw that the files were deleted and replaced by
the phrase MAMATAY NA KAYONG LAHAT! which was
repeatedly typed on a number of times; and she would
not allow me to visit my parents. Otherwise, she would
not eat her meals for the whole duration of my stay with
my family. Other situations similar to those mentioned
were included in the petition.
A: What else?
A: From the middle part of the year 2009, I noticed her
coldness. This is also the beginning of spreading rumors
about the flirting of my wife with a member of the men's
basketball team of the agency where she was working.
Noticeably, the respondent got inclined on collecting
images of the superhero Superman and pasted a
picture of the player in her desk top computer, with her
picture beside it as if they were flying together. The
person portrayed by Superman happened to be the male
basketball player. So, I finally decided to break-up with
her and cut all the ties that impose obligations upon her.
I consulted my counsel on what to do about our marriage
and I was advised to seek the help of a clinical
psychologist to determine the root cause of our marital

problems.
Q: Did Juana Lao Miranda submit herself to the test?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was that clinical psychologist?
A: Dr. Ermi Tanio.
Q: What did Dr. Tanio do if any?
A: He performed various psychological tests.
Q: After those psychological tests, what happened?
A: He prepared a written report.
Q: What is that written report?
A: It is a report on the psychological condition of Juana.
Q: What does it contain?
A: Her background data and our brief marital history.
Q: What else?
A: The tests results and evaluation and remarks.
Q: You mentioned remarks, what were her remarks?
A: Per clinical diagnosis, the respondent harbors patterns
of distrust and hyper vigilance, beginning by at least early
adulthood. Her malignant distrust and suspiciousness of
others are deemed as best accounted for by Paranoid
Personality Disorder. She was also found to exude the
following psychopathological patterns associated with
Borderline Personality Disorder.
She is unable to
perform her essential marital obligations and duties as a
wife.
That I executed this Affidavit to confirm the truth of all
facts herein stated and to serve this Judicial Affidavit as my
direct testimony and further, for such other legal intents and
purposes this may serve.

this 6th day of August 2012 at Manila.
JUAN TOMAS DELA CRUZ

Affiant
September 2012 affiant exhibiting to me his COMELEC Voters
ID No. 14344.
JUAN MANUEL MARQUEZ

Notary Public
PTR No. 199999/Manila/11-07-2011
Roll No. 45678/April 9, 2000
Doc. No. ______;
Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;
cc:

(Memorandum)
Branch 18, Manila
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
Nullity of Marriage
- versus-
Juana Lao Miranda.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
(For the Petitioner)
PETITIONER, thru the undersigned counsel, to this
Honorable Court most respectfully avers that:
A Petition for Dclaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriage in accordance with A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC Section 2
(d) was filed by the petitioner on June 20, 2012 based on
Article 36 of the Family Code.
Summons and copy of the petition, together with its
annexes, were duly served on the respondent on June 30,
2012 as per Process Server's Report dated July 1, 2012.
Respondent having failed to file any responsive pleading,
neither did she appear in court at anytime, the Honorable
Court directed the public the public prosecutor to investigate
whether or not collusion exists between the parties and to

appear in behalf of the State to take care that evidence is not
fabricated or suppressed.
The parties got acquainted with each other sometime in
May 2003,when they became members of the Polytechnic
University of the Philippines choir group. The petitioner
started showing interest before long but the more he asked
around about the respondent, the more he elicited
discouragement from the people who knew her because, while
he was a bachelor at age eighteen, the respondent was a
twenty-year
old
single
mom.
Notwithstanding
the
discouragement by petitioner's relatives and friends, the
respondent earned the good graces of the petitioner
expediently after the acquaintance. They exchange cellular
phone numbers and engaged in healthy conversations every
time they see each other.
Out of a brief acquaintance of the petitioner and the
respondent, much to the dismay of many, they became
sweethearts on August 1, 2003. Every time the petitioner
would stay in the respondent's premises, respondent would
demand the petitioner not to leave and stay late or until
morning of the following day. In November 2003, due to the
demands of the respondent and to the dismay of the
petitioner's parents, he decided to stay for good with the
respondent sharing their time as common law husband and
wife.
Out of love, the petitioner and respondent exchanged
their vows in a marriage ceremony on August 30, 2007,
solemnized by the Hon. Benjamin Torres, celebrated in
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.
Prior to their marriage, the respondent manifested signs
of psychological incapacity and personality disorder by her
irrational and immature behavior, uncontrolled public outrage,
ill-temperedness and her sarcasm. These behavior and traits of
the respondent made the petitioner decide to break-up with
her but respondent threaten the petitioner that she will hurt
herself.
Because of the petitioner's love for the respondent and
despite respondent's bad traits and behavior, the petitioner
married her believing that her behavioral problems were
merely childish manifestations which she can outgrow.
However, immediately after the marriage, the respondent's
psychological incapacity was more concretely manifested and
became evident that she cannot assume the functions and
duties of a married person. Such psychological incapacity
consists, among others, of respondent's thinking disorder,
persecutory ideation, self-depreciation, depression, social
introversion, low gregariousness, low trust, timidity, impulse
expression, aggression, need for control and deviation.
Every now and then, petitioner and respondent would
engage in quarrels and fights which would often be physical
especially when respondent seen the petitioner or the
petitioner would be: 1) talking to or a mere nodding to
someone of opposite sex; 2) going out with his colleagues,
friends or officemates in any occasion such as lunch, party, or
some social gathering; 3) receiving text messages from
someone even it came from a guy; 4) out for field work; 5)
going home and visiting his parents in the province; and 6)
giving financial help to his parents and siblings.
Some of the results caused by the psychological
incapacity manifested by the respondent to the petitioner were:
1) Respondent, driven by her psychological incapacity, when
petitioner was about to print his work-related report and
retrieved the files saved in his laptop computer, he saw the
content of the files deleted and replaced by the phrase
MAMATAY NA KAYONG LAHAT! which was repeatedly typed
on a number of times; and 2) respondent would not allow the
petitioner to visit his parents. Otherwise, respondent would
not eat her meals for the whole duration of petitioner's stay
with his family. Given with no other choice, petitioner would be
compelled to just go back to respondents place and never
attend any occasion again.
From the middle part of the year 2009, the petitioner

noticed the coldness of the respondent. This is also the
beginning of spreading rumors about the flirting of the
respondent with a member of the men's basketball team of the
agency where the respondent works. Noticeably, the
respondent got inclined on collecting images of the superhero
Superman and pasted a picture of him in her desk top
computer, with her picture beside it as if they were flying
together. The person portrayed by Superman happened to be
the male basketball player. On February 14, 2010, petitioner
had a present to respondent for the celebration of the
Valentine's Day, but respondent seemed disinterested. It
seemed love and trust is not present anymore.
Because of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner finally
decided to break-up with the respondent and cut all the ties
that impose obligations upon her. Petitioner consulted counsel
on what to do about his marriage and he was advised to seek
the help of a clinical psychologist for him to determine the root
cause of the problem.
Per clinical diagnosis, the respondent harbors patterns of
distrust and hyper vigilance, beginning by at least early
adulthood. Her malignant distrust and suspiciousness of
others are deemed as best accounted for by Paranoid
Personality Disorder (Axis II, Cluster A), as indicated by the
following:
a. Persistently bears grudges;
b. Perceives attacks on her character that are not
apparent to
others and is quick to react angrily; and
c. Suspects without sufficient basis, that others are
exploiting or
deceiving her.
Aside from the above propensities, the respondent was
also found to exude the following psychopathological patterns
associated with Borderline Personality Disorder:
by
a. Instability of interpersonal relationships, characterized

frequent shifts to and fro excessive idealization and
devaluation;
b. Impulsivity;
c. Identity Disturbance;
d. Frequent feelings of emptiness; and
e. Excessive and inappropriately intense anger.
ISSUE
Whether
or
not
respondent
is
psychologically
incapacitated to comply with and perform her essential
marital obligations.
ARGUMENTS
Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides:
A marriage contracted by any party who, at the
time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if
such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization. (As amended by Executive Order
227).
Through careful consideration of the facts presented and
data from gauges if psychological functioning, respondent is
unable to perform her essential marital obligations and duties
as a wife.
Marriage is a social institution that binds spouses to
accord each other love and affection, mutual trust and
respect, fidelity, physical and emotional support, clear
delianation of roles and a meaningful and gratifying
relationship.
The Supreme Court has has the opportunity of
amplifying what grounds constitute psychological incapacity
to warrant a declaration of absolute nullity of marriage. In
Republic vs. Molina (G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997), the
High Court in a unanimous decision ruled that the incapacity
must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of
the marriage. Such incapacity must be medically or clinically
permanent or incurable and that such illness must be grave

enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
obligation.
In Ching Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals (78 SCAD 57, 266
SCRA 325), the malady or mental disposition of one or both of
the spouses must be such as to seriously and effectively
prevent them from having a functional and normal life clearly
conductive of bringing up a healthy personal inter-marital
relationship within the family which is necessary for its
growth. It involves a senseless, protracted, and constant
refusal to comply with the essential marital obligations by one
or both at the spouses although he, she or they are physically
incapable of performing such obligations.
With at least one of the parties exuding an Axis II
disorder, it is unlikely that they would eventually adjust to
each other more cogently. In the event that they attempt to do
so, their respective debilities would inevitably precipitate, at
the very least, the same level of discord which persisted
throughout the cohabitation. The least that can be accorded
the parties at this point is the chance to lead lives free of each
others propensities.
Based on what have so far been established by
longitudinal studies regarding the respondents aberration, it
was found that people who have Paranoid Personality Disorder
tend to be mistrustful of everyone, including mental health
professionals. As a result, they likely to seek out professional
help when they need it, and will also have difficulty developing
the types of trusting relationships necessary for successful
therapy. When they do seek therapy, the trigger is usually
some crisis in their lives or other problems they experience
such as anxiety or depression, and not their personality
disorder. In her full adult state, the respondent is still in active
denial about her condition. It is therefore deemed that the
respondents stable set of socio-emotional maladjustment is
severe, incurable, and permanent in nature.
Persons suffering from Paranoid Personality Disorder,
such as that of the respondent, are psychologically
incapacitated to comply with and perform the essential marital

obligations to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and to
render mutual help and support, either spiritual or temporal,
which are essential to sustain the marriage. Thus, pursuant to
Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, the marriage
between petitioner and respondent is null and void ab initio.
PRAYER
be rendered declaring the marriage contracted by the parties
on August 30, 2007 as null and void ab initio pursuant to
Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
Manila, November 3, 2012.
Condominium,
Manila

Unit 205 Juan Luna
Pampanga Street, Gagalangin, Tondo,
PTR No. 189034/Manila/01-08-12
Copy Furnished:
143 Gorge Building, Santo Tomas Street
Tayuman, Manila

Branch 18, Manila
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
Nullity of Marriage
- versus-
Juana Lao Miranda.,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
FORMAL OFFER OF EXHIBITS
Honorable Court, most respectfully offers in evidence the
following documentary exhibits together with the purposes for
which they are being offered, to wit:
Exhibi
Description
t
A
Marriage Contract
between the parties
B
Judicial affidavit of
petitioner
C
Purpose
To prove the existence

of marriage
of Juan Tomas dela
Cruz
Psychological Evaluation
Expert evidence on the
Report of Ermi S. Tanio
psychological incapacity
of the respondent
Judicial affidavit of expert As the direct testimony
witness
of Ermi S. Tanio
PRAYER
Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the

foregoing exhibits be admitted for the purposes for which they
are being offered and that upon their admission, petitioner
respectfully rests his case and moves that this case be deemed
submitted for decision.
Manila, December 29, 2012.

PTR No. 189034/Manila/01-08-12
cc:
Collection of Sum of Money with Damages

Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
For: Collection of Sum
With Damages
- versus-
Philippine Global Services,

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, by undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable
Court, respectfully states, that:
1. Plaintiff is of legal age, married, Filipino and a
resident of No. 40 Nagoya Street, B.F. Homes, Quezon
City;
2. Defendant is a domestic corporation duly organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the
Philippines, with principal office address at Suite 406,
4/F Columbian Building, No. 160 West Avenue, Bgy.
Phil-Am, Quezon City, where it may be served with
summons and other court processes;
3. Plaintiff is a licensed civil engineer who was verbally
contracted by defendant Philippine Global Services
(PGS for brevity), through its president, John Doe, to

drafting requirements for its proposed GPP Employees
Housing Project located at the Neopolitan Subdivision,
Fairview, Quezon City;
4. That the agreement was for PGS to pay Mr. Dela Cruz
the full contract price of P1,500,000.00 upon
plaintiffs submission and PGSs acceptance of the
required electrical design and drafting requirements;
5. On May 15, 2010, in strict compliance with the
aforesaid agreement, herein plaintiff submitted to PGS
all the plumbing and electrical plans pertaining to the
GPP project which PGS accepted to their full
satisfaction and without any reservation;
6. Plaintiff repeatedly made verbal demands upon PGS
for the payment of the services rendered by the former
but to no avail as the latter refused payment saying it
did not with the bid for the GPP project and so
plaintiffs electrical designs and drafting requirements
were never put to use and did not benefit PGS;
7. That there was no agreement between the parties on
whether the payment of plaintiffs fee is conditioned
upon PGS winning the bid for the GPP project, yet the
latter refused and failed and still continues to refuse
and fails to settle said obligation despite further verbal
and written demands. A copy of the last demand letter
sent to defendant is hereto attached as Annex A;
8. Due to the said defendants failure and refusal to pay
its obligation with the plaintiff, the latter was
constrained to engage the services of the undersigned
counsel and institute the instant action thereby
incurring expenses for attorneys fees for which
defendants should be ordered to pay the plaintiff the
sum of P100,000.00;
9. Defendant is evidently guilty of bad guilty of bad faith
in refusing to settle the obligation with the plaintiff
without even giving any valid or justifiable reason,

which caused the latter mental anguish, serious
anxiety, moral shock and other similar injury, for
which the defendant should be held liable to pay
P100,000 as moral damages;
10. By way of example or correction for the public good,
and to deter other like-minded individuals from
trampling upon the rights of the others, defendant
should likewise be held liable to pay P100,000.00 as
nominal damages.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be
rendered by this Honorable Court ordering defendant to pay
plaintiff, as follows:
a)
The amount of P 1,500,000.00 for
payment of services rendered by the plaintiff;
b)
The sum of P 100,000.00 as and
moral damages;
c)
exemplary damages;
d)
attorneys fees;
e)
The cost of suit.
the
for
for
for
Plaintiff further prays for other remedies just and

equitable in the premises.
Makati City, 25 December 2012.
LLANES & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Plaintif
8th Floor, Liberty Center
104 H.V. dela Costa Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City
By:
WILLIAM B. LLANES
PTR No. 8626018/01.5.2012/Makati City
IBP-Lifetime Member No. 88538
MCLE Compliance No. III-8224388
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
I, JUAN DELA CRUZ, of legal age, married, Filipino, and
a resident of No. 40 Nagoya Street, B.F. Homes, Quezon City,
subscribing under oath, hereby depose and state that:
1. I am a licensed civil engineer and plaintiff in the
above-captioned case;
2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint for
Sum of Money with Damages; and that the material
allegations contained therein are true and correct of
my own knowledge;
3. In compliance with Supreme Court Administrative
Circular No. 040-94, I hereby certify that:
1. I have not heretofore commenced any other
action or proceeding involving the same issues
in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
or any other tribunal agency;
2. to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal

agency;
3. if I should thereafter learn that a similar
action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals, or any other tribunal agency, I
undertake to report such fact within five (5)
days therefrom to this Honorable Court.
JUAN DELA CRUZ

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ____day
of____________2012 at __________, affiant exhibiting to his
Drivers License No. NO1-10-283882 issued by the Land
Transportation Office which will expire on February 21, 2014.
Doc. No. ____;
Page No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Series of 2012.
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE
PLEADING
Defendant, by undersigned counsel, unto the Honorable
Court, most respectfully avers that;
1.
Defendant earlier filed a Motion for Extension of Time to
File Answer seeking an extension of fifteen (15) days from July
30, 2012 within which to file their Answer to the above entitled
case.
2.
The services of the undersigned counsel has just been
hired today by the defendants and it is quite impossible for
him, given the limited time of three days from today, to draft
and finalize the Answer for the defendants.
3.
Due to time constraints, defendants need an extension,
at least, of thirty (30) days from August 15, 2012 to September
14, 2012 in order for them to file an intelligent Answer or
responsive pleading.
WHEREFORE, for reasons above indicated and in interest of

justice and due process, defendant respectfully prayed the
Honorable Court for an extension of thirty (30) days from July
30, 2012 within which to file their Answer or responsive
pleading to the complaint of the plaintiff.
Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are likewise
prayed for.
Quezon City, July 30, 2012.
Atty. Anne Cortes

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
Copy furnished:

Greetings:
Honorable Court for its consideration and approval on August
18, 2012 at 8:30 AM or immediately upon receipt hereof sans
further argument and undersigned counsel is waiving his
appearance on such date. The foregoing motion was served by
registered mail due to distance and lack of messengerial staff.
Anne Cortes

Juan Dela Cruz,

Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
DEFENDANT states:
1. That the present action is for the recovery of One Million
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00) as
compensation for alleged professional services rendered
by the plaintiff, as a licensed civil engineer of the herein
defendant.
2. That the nature and extent of said professional services
are not averred with sufficient definiteness or
particularity to enable said defendant to properly prepare
his answer, since the defendant availed of the plaintiffs
services on several occasions.
WHEREFORE, the defendant prays that the plaintiff be
ordered to set out the details of the services allegedly rendered
plaintiff, the nature and dates of such service, and the charges
corresponding to each.
Atty. Anne Cortes

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City
Copy furnished:

Greetings:
Please submit the foregoing motion to the Honorable Court or
its kind
consideration and approvable immediately upon receipt hereof.
The foregoing motion was served by registered mail due to
distance and lack of messengerial staff.
Anne Cortes

(Motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings)
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
PLAINTIFF, by
counsel,
to
this
Honorable
Court
1. On 6 July 2005, plaintiff sued defendant for a sum of

money in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P1,500,000.00)
2. In his Answer, defendant admitted the obligation and
merely stated that he was asking to be given an extension of
time to pay his obligation but that plaintiff instead filed this
Complaint. The Answer admits the material allegations of the
Complaint and has not tendered any issue; consequently, a
judgment on the pleadings may be rendered.

Quezon City, September 1, 2012
Atty. Anne Cortes

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City
Copy furnished:

Greetings:
Honorable Court for its consideration and approval on
September 5, 2012 at 8:30 AM or immediately upon receipt
hereof sans further argument and undersigned counsel is
waiving his appearance on such date. The foregoing motion
was served by registered mail due to distance and lack of
messengerial staff.
Anne Cortes

(Answer)
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
ANSWER
COMES NOW, the defendant Philippine Global Services,
by and through the undersigned counsel, answering plaintiffs
1
Defendant admits paragraph 1 and 2 of the complaint;
Defendant specifically denies allegations contained in

paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the complaint for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth and correctness of the same;
Defendant admits the allegation in paragraph 4 of the

between the parties, subject to the condition that PGS
wins the bid for the GPP project.
Quezon City, Philippines, 10 September, 2012.
Atty. Anne Cortes

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
ANSWER AD CAUTELAM
DEFENDANT Philippine Global Services, by the
respectfully submit the following Answer Ad Cautelam (With
Counterclaim) without prejudice to the right of answering
defendant to assail the Orders of this Honorable Court
dated September 12, 2012 before the Court of Appeals.
Answering defendants hereby state:
ADMISSIONS
1.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint is admitted
only insofar as the personal circumstances of defendant
Philippine Global Services is concerned.
2.
Paragraph 4 is admitted but only insofar as
plaintiffs submission of electrical designs and drafting
requirements to defendant Philippine Global Services is
concerned. Answering defendant specifically deny the rest of
the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, the truth
being those stated in the special and affirmative defenses
stated herein under.
DENIALS
3.
Paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Complaint are
hereby specifically denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to
4.
Answering defendants specifically deny paragraphs
9 and 10 for being absolutely baseless and erroneous
conclusions of fact and law. The foregoing paragraphs are not
statement of ultimate facts but false inferences/presumptions
of law hence, the same should be stricken-off from the
Complaint.
5.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the
allegations stated in the complaint are true, answering
defendant cannot be held liable to plaintiff for the following
reasons:
THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO

STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST ANSWERING
DEFENDANTS.
6.
Section 1, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
must be based on a cause of action. A cause of action
has been defined by the Supreme Court as an act or
omission of one party in violation of the right of the
other17. Its essential elements are namely: (1) the existence
of a legal right in the plaintiff; (2) a correlative legal duty in
the defendant; and (3) an act or omission of the defendant
in violation of plaintiffs right with consequential injury or
damage to the plaintiff for which he may maintain an action
for the recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. 18
defendant Philippine Global Services entered into an
agreement with the defendant. Significantly, there is
absolutely nothing in the Complaint which says that
answering defendant acquiesced to the alleged
unconditional agreement.
It is a basic rule that a
contractual obligation or liability, or an action ex-contractu,
must be founded upon a contract; oral or written, either
express or implied.
If there is no contract, there is no
17
559.
18
corresponding liability, and no cause of action may arise

therefrom.
test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in a complaint is
whether or not, accepting the veracity thereof, the trial
court could render a valid judgment in accordance with the
prayer of the complaint.19
In this case, no such
averments were made that would entitle plaintiff to any
relief from answering defendants.
10.
Under Article 1157 of the New Civil Code,
obligations arise from: (1) law; (2) contracts; (3) quasicontracts; (4) acts or omissions punished by law; and, (5)
quasi-delicts.
Significantly, in its Opposition, plaintiff
categorically admitted that the legal right of the plaintif
arose from the alleged verbal agreement with the defendant.
With this open and unequivocal admission of plaintiff, with
more reason that the complaint against answering
defendants should be dismissed for failure to state a cause
of action. It is worthy to reiterate that answering defendant
was not unjustly enriched since the GPP project was not
11. It is clear that the filing of the instant case by the
plaintiff as against answering defendant is not only
unwarranted but likewise without any basis as explained
hereinabove. Needless to say, the filing of this patently
unfounded suit besmirched the good name and reputation of
defendant Philippine Global Services before the business
community for which plaintiff should be made to pay moral
19
damages in the amount of not less than P500,000.00. On the

other hand, as a consequence of the filing of this baseless and
unjustified suit, defendant Philippine Global Services suffered
wounded feelings and is bound to be exposed to public ridicule
and humiliation for which he should be compensated in the
amount of at least P200,000.00.
fraudulent manner. To serve as a lesson to plaintiff and to
deter others similarly minded from filing a similar baseless
Complaint and for the public good, plaintiff should be made to
pay exemplary damages in an amount not less than
P200,000.00.

constrained to hire the services of undersigned counsel and
agreed to pay attorneys fees in the amount of P100,000.00
plus appearance fee of P3,000 per court hearing;
PRAYER
2 The complaint
DISMISSED;
against
answering
defendants
be
2.
a.

b.
damages;
c.

d.

Quezon City, 10 September 2012.
By:
Anne Cortes
PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
Copy furnished:

Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
Comes now, the defendant Philippine Global Services, by
and through the undersigned counsel, answering plaintiffs
1
Defendant admits paragraph 4, to the effect that he

denies that there was an agreement with the plaintiff as
to the full contract price of P1,500,000.00, and as
1
Based on the foregoing affirmative allegations, the alleged

force and effect
Moreover, since the arrangement thereof was attended

Furthermore, since the terms and conditions contained

That since the penalties and liquidated damages are

unconscionable.
Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as
an indemnity or penalty, shall be equitably reduced
Base on all foregoing, the plaintiff clearly has no cause of

PRAYER
plaintiff;

Pasig City, Philippines, 15 September, 2012.
Anne Cortez
Commonwealth Ave., Quezon City
PTR # 0577210/ 01-02-08 / Quezon City
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
COMES NOW, Defendant Philippine Global Services, by and

That the answering defendant lacks knowledge or

the allegations contained in paragraph 1, specially denies
the same;
That the answering defendant admits paragraph 2 of the

Complaint;

the allegations contained in paragraph 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
and 10 of the complaint and therefore, specially denies
the same;
That the answering defendant agreed to enter into an

agreement with the plaintiff, with the principal condition
that the GPP project be awarded to the defendant;
That without the knowledge and consent of answering


alleges:
6
That the allegations in paragraph 1 to 2 of the answer are

That the filing of the malicious and ground less action by

the plaintiff against defendant has caused the latter
mental anguish, serious anxiety and embarrassment and
has besmirched reputation for which, serious anxiety and
embarrassment and has besmirched reputation for which
he should be compensated by way of moral damages the
amount of which he should be compensated by way of
moral damages the amount of which, though not capable
of pecuniary estimation would not be less than P
5,000.00.

his
co-defendant
That the defendant hereby repleads reiterates and

counterclaim;
That defendant should reimburse answering defendant

which he may be ordered or suffered to pay under and by
virtue of the present action in favor of plaintiff, answering
defendant not having benefited whatsoever from the
transaction which defendant Exceed International
obtained from plaintiff.

follows:
1
By dismissing
defendant;
the
complaint
against
answering

exemplary as the Honorable Court may find reasonable
plus attorneys fees of Php50,000.00 and the costs of suit;

Makati for Manila, Philippines September 20, 2012.
Atty. Anne Cortes

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City


Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
ANSWER
COMES NOW, the Defendant, through the undersigned
attorney and in answer to Plaintifs complaint, in the aboveentitled case, respectfully prays:
1
That Defendant admits paragraph 2 of the complaint;
That Defendant is without knowledge of information to

form beliefs as the truth of the averments made in
paragraphs 1 and 3;
That paragraph 4 of the complaint failed to allege any

entitled to the sought rescission of the alleged contract
have no cause of action against Defendant;
Assuming, arguendo, that the Plaintiff was indeed

1
Failed to allege by what written instrument the

Failed to attached to the complaint as annexes the
That the allegations in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10

of the complaint are not likewise averments of ultimate
facts constituting Plaintiffs cause of action;
That contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the

Defendant records show that no notice for rescission was
ever filed by the Plaintiff;
As consequence of Plaintiffs unfounded claims, which

forced Defendant to litigate and protect its interest and to
secure the services of a counsel, Defendant suffered
expenses;
By way of compulsory counterclaim, answering Defendant
alleges:
besmirched the Defendant corporations reputation which
should be compensated by way of suffered damages in
the form of attorneys fees and other litigation expenses;
CROSS CLAIM
And for this cross claim against co-Defendant EXCEED

INTERNATIONAL, answering Defendant further alleges:
III. That Defendant hereby plead, reiterates, and
IV.
That Defendant EXCEED INTERNATIONAL should

reimburse answering Defendant on any and whatever
amount the matter maybe held answerable or which it
may be ordered or suffered to pay under and by virtue
of the present action in favor of the PLAINTIFF,
answering Defendant not having benefited whatsoever
from the transactions entered into between Defendant
EXCEED INTERNATIONAL and the PLAINTIFF.

as follows:
3. By dismissing the complaint against answering
Defendant;
Manila, Philippines, September 25, 2012.
By:

104 H.V. dela Costa Street, Salcedo
Village, Makati City
By:
WILLIAM B. LLANES

(Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses)
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
ANSWER WITH SPECIAL / AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIM
attorney and in answer to PLAINTIFFs complaint, in the
1.
That Defendant admits paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of the
complaint;
2.
That Defendant is without knowledge of information
paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10;
3.
That paragraph 4 of the complaint failed to allege
any ultimate fact that would indicate there was indeed a
contract of sale entered into by the Plaintiff with the
Defendant; without said allegation of the ultimate fact,
Plaintiffs claim would be without legal basis and
consequently, Plaintiff have no cause of action against

Defendant;
4.
Assuming, arguendo, that there was indeed a
contract between the parties, paragraph 4 of the
complaint:
a.
latter, presumably during the period of the contract, the
particular electrical designs and drafting requirements
which will simplify the issues;
b.
Failed to attach to the complaint as annexes the
necessary contract covering the purported electrical
designs and drafting requirements;
5.
constituting Plaintiffs cause of action;
6.
As consequence of Plaintiffs unfounded claims,
which forced Defendant to litigate and protect its interest
and to secure the services of a counsel, Defendant
suffered damages in the form of attorneys fees and other
litigation expenses;
At the time the agreement was verbally contracted on
March 15, 2012, Defendant made it clear to the Plaintiff that:
A.
The agreement is conditioned upon the Defendant
winning the bid for the GPP project
B.
And since there is no existing contract, Plaintiff
have no cause of action against answering Defendant.
By way of
Defendant alleges:
compulsory
counterclaim,
answering
1.
That the allegations in paragraph 1 to 10 of the
answer are hereby reproduced and reiterated;
2.
That the filing of the malicious and ground less
action by the Plaintiff against the answering Defendant
has besmirched the Defendant corporations reputation
expenses;
as follows:
3.
By dismissing the complaint against answering
Defendant;
4.
Answering Defendant prays for such other reliefs as
Quezon City, Philippines, 20 September 2012.
September 2012, Quezon City, defendant having exhibited to
me he CTC 123456 issued on January 5, 2012 at Quezon City.
Atty. Anne Cortes

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City

Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
COMES NOW, Defendant Philippine Global Services, by
and through his undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable
Court respectfully states:
1
That he admits paragraph 1, 2 and 3 of the complaint;
That he denies paragraph 4 of the complaint, the truth

being that it was defendant Exceed International who
applied for and exclusively benefited from the GPP
project;

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 5,6,7,
8, 9 and 10 of the complaint and therefore, specifically
denies the same;

4
That the allegations in paragraph 4 to 10 of the answer


the plaintiff answering defendant has caused the latter
mental anguish serious anxiety and embarrassment and
has besmirched he should be compensated by way of
of pecuniary estimation would not less than
P500,000.00.

follows:
3. By dismissing
defendant;
the
complaint
against
answering

reasonable plus attorneys fees of P50,000.00 and the
cost of suit;
Quezon City, September 25, 2012.
Atty. Anne Cortes

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City

(Reply)
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
REPLY
DEFENDANT Philippine Global Services through the
undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, and by way
of Reply to plaintiffs Opposition dated September 24, 2013,
most respectfully state:
examination of the complaint of Juan Dela Cruz will
establish that it complied with all the elements of a
cause of action. This may be true with defendant
Exceed International but this is definitely not true with
respect to defendant Philippine Global Services;
(5) quasi-delicts.
the plaintif arose from the alleged contract dated 15

March 2012 and that its contract was even under the
letterhead of Exceed International. With this open and
unequivocal admission of plaintiff, with more reason
that the complaint against defendant Philippine Global
Services should be dismissed for failure to state a
cause of action. It is worthy to note that defendant
Philippine Global Services not parties to the said
contract as the same was executed only between
plaintiff and defendant Exceed International;
3. Finally, defendant Philippine Global Services do not
argue that plaintiff may have a cause of action against
Exceed International based on the allegations stated in
the Complaint. This however is totally not true with
defendant Philippine Global Services as fully explained
hereinabove.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, defendant Philippine Global Services
respectfully pray that the Complaint as against them be
dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
Atty. Anne Cortes

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City
Copy furnished:


(Trial Brief)
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
TRIAL BRIEF
PART I
That on March 15, 2012, Philippine Global Services
(PGS), a domestic corporation with offices at Suite 406, 4F
Columbian Building No. 160 West Avenue, Bgy. Phil-Am,
Quezon City, through its president, John Doe, verbally
contracted with Mr. Dela Cruz for the latter to provide the
plumbing and electrical design and drafting requirements for
its proposed GPP Employees Housing Project located at the

Neopolitan Subdivision, Fairview, Quezon City.
That on May 15, 2012, in strict compliance with their
agreement, Mr. Dela Cruz submitted to Philippine Global
Services all the plumbing and electrical plans pertaining to
the GPP project which PGS accepted to their full satisfaction
and without any reservation. Since the agreement was for PGS
to pay Mr. Dela Cruz the full contract price of P1.5M upon his
submission and PGSs acceptance of the required electrical
design and drafting requirements, Mr. Dela Cruz repeatedly
made verbal demands upon PGS to pay him the contract price.
PGS, however, refused payment saying it did not win the bid
for the GPP project and so Mr. Dela Cruzs electrical designs
and drafting requirements were never put to use and did not
benefit the company. There was no agreement between the
parties whether the payment of Mr. Dela Cruzs fee is
conditioned upon PGS winning the bid for the GPP project.
Defendants answer.
1.
verbal contract entered into by the defendants has no force
and effect
2.
with fraud, duress, intimidation, threat and undue influence,
the same is void from its inception.
3.
therein, particularly with respect to the attorneys fees and
liquidated damages are all shocking to the conscience and are
wantonly against public policy.
Issues.

3. Do the acts complained of constitute the right of plaintiff to
compensation for the alleged services rendered to the
defendant corporation?
4. That assuming that there were obligations arising from the
alleged contract, does a cause of action accrue for damages
where the non-payment of said obligation was done without
malice, not gain nor profit for the defendant?
PART II
4. The plaintiff had a verbal agreement with the defendant
as to the plumbing, electrical designs and drafting
requirements
6. That there was no condition whatsoever on the
compensation of the Plaintiff upon submission of the
plumbing, electrical designs and drafting requirements to
the Defendant.
Defendant will probably try to prove facts tending to uphold
the matters set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5, which plaintiff
will have already negative in presentation to his main case.
PART III
Brief of Evidence.
A. Main Case.

by both parties.
3. That Plaintiff was not compensated for submitting
to the Defendant as agreed upon.
A. Defendant Philippine Global Services:
from the Plaintiff
B. Other witness:
PART IV
4. Art. 1181 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides
that in conditional obligations, the acquisition of
rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those
already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of
the event which constitutes the condition. Hence, the
supposed agreement of the Plaintiff with the
Defendant is one that falls under the purview of the
aforesaid provision, otherwise known as a suspensive

condition, wherein if the condition does not happen,
obligation does not come into existence.

By:
WILLIAM B. LLANES
(Pre-Trial Brief)
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages
Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel, unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully submits the following Pretrial Brief in compliance with the order of the Court dated
September 19, 2012.
1. Possibility of Amicable Settlement
PLAINTIFF hereby manifest that he is open to amicable
settlement on matters other than rescission of the
contract of sale;
2. Brief Statement of PLAINTIFF
that no one shall be enriched at the expense of another.
The Defendants breach of contract has not only caused
monetary loss but likewise resulted to the PLAINTIFF's
has besmirched reputation for which he should be
compensated by way of moral damages.
3. Facts for Stipulation

1. Jurisdiction of the Honorable Court on the person of
the parties
2. Authenticity and enforceability of the subject contract
of sale.
4. Statement of Issue
PLAINTIFF and Defendant corporation may be rescinded.
5. Documents for Markings
1. Contract of Sale
2. Invoices (delivery and official receipts)

3. Receiving Papers
6. Witnesses
- PLAINTIFF himself
Trucking Services representative (who made the
delivery)
7. Trial Dates
4. Subject to available dates of the Honorable Court
By:
WILLIAM B. LLANES
Copy Furnished:
Atty. Anne Cortes
21 Commonwealth Ave., Quezon City

Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
1.
That defendant admits his liability with the plaintiff
in the amount of Php 296,208.39
2.
That defendant shall pay the said amount to the
2.1 Downpayment of Php 12,000.00 on October
10, 2012;
2.2 Php 3,000.00 a month for thirty five (35)
months starting on September 30,2001 and every
30th day of the month thereafter until August 10,
2015.
2.3 Balance of Php 179,208.39 on September 10,

2015.
3.
In case of failure or refusal of defendant to comply
with the terms and conditions of this Compromise
obligation still outstanding shall immediately become due
and demandable and an interest of 2% per month shall
be charged on the outstanding obligation until fully paid.
Likewise, plaintiff may ask for a writ of execution to
enforce this agreement.
4.
In the event that plaintiff is compelled to resort to
the court for the enforcement and execution of this
pay the plaintiff all expenses, incidental and necessary,
that may be incurred by the latter in connection
therewith;
5.
Parties hereto attest that they have entered into this
Compromise Agreement freely and voluntarily and they
fully understand the terms and conditions thereof;
Respectfully submitted, 22rd day of August, 2001.

Juan Dela Cruz
Plaintiff
Assisted By:
By:
WILLIAM B. LLANES
GREETINGS:
JUAN E. DELA CRUZ
JOHN DOE

(Position Paper)
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
Defendant Philippine Global Services, through the
undersigned counsel, respectfully submits the following
position paper and states that:
This action for sum of money with damages filed by
plaintiff Juan Dela Cruz for the alleged contract with
defendant Philippine Global Services on March 15, 2011 was
filed in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 110 on
the following grounds:
1
2
Failure of the defendant in complying with the terms of

the contract
Unjust enrichment on the part of the defendant for
obtaining the plumbing, electrical designs and drafting
requirements without paying the plaintiff
That there was fraud on the part of the defendant in the

performance of its contractual obligation to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff also prays for support and moral damages

on account of the foregoing allegations.

On March 15, 2012, Philippine Global Services (PGS), a
domestic corporation with offices at Suite 406, 4F Columbian
Building No. 160 West Avenue, Bgy. Phil-Am, Quezon City,
through its president, John Doe, verbally contracted with Mr.
Dela Cruz for the latter to provide the plumbing and electrical
design and drafting requirements for its proposed GPP
Employees Housing Project located at the Neopolitan
Subdivision, Fairview, Quezon City.
On May 15, 2012, in strict compliance with their
agreement, Mr. Dela Cruz submitted to Philippine Bank all the
plumbing and electrical plans pertaining to the GPP project
which PGS accepted to their full satisfaction and without any
reservation. Since the agreement was for PGS to pay Mr. Dela
Cruz the full contract price of P1.5M upon his submission and
PGSs acceptance of the required electrical design and drafting
requirements, Mr. Dela Cruz repeatedly made verbal demands
upon PGS to pay him the contract price. PGS, however,
refused payment saying it did not win the bid for the GPP
project and so Mr. Dela Cruzs electrical designs and drafting
requirements were never put to use and did not benefit the
company. There was no agreement between the parties
whether the payment of Mr. Dela Cruzs fee is conditioned
upon PGS winning the bid for the GPP project.
In a cross examination with the plaintiff, (TSN,
September 28, 2012, p. 16), he alleged that there was indeed
no written contract at all and that he just assumed that there
was already an agreement with the defendant. Moreover, the
plaintiff contends that there is no need for a written contract a
verbal agreement in submitting the electrical designs and
drafting requirements to the defendant.
ISSUES
The court defined the following issues which the
defendant prays to dismiss the foregoing case:
3. There is no written contract to signify the intentions of
the parties
4. There was no consent on the part of the defendant on the
contract being alleged by the plaintiff.
ARGUMENTS
The court has established the fact that defendant
Philippine Global Services had no knowledge of the alleged
arrangement with the plaintiff regarding the compensation for
the electrical designs and drafting (TSN, July 13, 2007, p.4).
Said accusation was denied by defendant Philippine Global
Services.
Defendant Philippine Global Services admitted that there
was an initial agreement as to the preparation of the plumbing
proposed GPP Employees Housing Project located at the
Neopolitan Subdivision, Fairview, Quezon City. However, it has
to be pointed out that said contract is conditioned upon PGS
winning the bid for the GPP project.
It is provided under Art. 1181 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines that in conditional obligations, the acquisition of
rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already
acquired, shall depend upon the happening of the event which
constitutes the condition. Hence, the supposed agreement of
the Plaintiff with the Defendant is one that falls under the
purview of the aforesaid provision, otherwise known as a
suspensive condition, wherein if the condition does not
happen, obligation does not come into existence.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE
premises
considered,
Defendant
respectfully prays that plaintiffs action for sum of money with
damages de denied for the grounds he presented are bereft of
merit.
prayed for.
Copy furnished:
Atty. Anne Cortez

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City


Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law depose
and state:
1. Plaintiff is a licensed civil engineer.
2. That plaintiff is a licensed civil engineer who was verbally
contracted by defendant Philippine Global Services (PGS
for brevity), through its president, John Doe, to provide the
plumbing and electrical design and drafting requirements
for its proposed GPP Employees Housing Project located at
the Neopolitan Subdivision, Fairview, Quezon City.
3. That the agreement was for PGS to pay Mr. Dela Cruz the
full contract price of P1,500,000.00 upon plaintiffs

design and drafting requirements.
4. That on May 15, 2010, in strict compliance with the
aforesaid agreement, herein plaintiff submitted to PGS all
the plumbing and electrical plans pertaining to the GPP
project which PGS accepted to their full satisfaction and
without any reservation.
5. That plaintiff repeatedly made verbal demands upon PGS
for the payment of the services rendered by the former but
to no avail as the latter refused payment saying it did not
with the bid for the GPP project and so plaintiffs electrical
designs and drafting requirements were never put to use
and did not benefit PGS.
whether the payment of plaintiffs fee is conditioned upon
PGS winning the bid for the GPP project, yet the latter
refused and failed and still continues to refuse and fails to
settle said obligation despite further verbal and written
demands. A copy of the last demand letter sent to defendant
is hereto attached as Annex A.
7. That several demands were made upon the defendant to pay
his due and demandable obligation to pay the plaintiff the
amount of P100,000.00 but the defendant refused to pay
the same.
8. That due to the said defendants failure and refusal to pay
its obligation with the plaintiff, the latter was constrained to
engage the services of the undersigned counsel and
institute the instant action thereby incurring expenses for
attorneys fees for which defendants should be ordered to
pay the plaintiff the sum of P100,000.00.
9. That I am executing this Judicial Affidavit to attest to the
truth of the foregoing statements and to serve as an
additional evidence for the plaintiff in the above-entitled
case.

this 1st day of October 2013 at Quezon City.
JUAN DELA CRUZ

Affiant
October 2013 at Qu, affiant exhibiting to me his Drivers
License
No.
NO1-10-283882
issued
by
the
Land
Notary Public
Doc No. ______;

Page No. _____;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2013.

Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
NOW COMES the plaintiff in the above entitled case, moves
for a rule on the defendant, Philippine Global Services, to
1
Did Philippine Global Services prior to 15 th day of

March, 2012, enter into a contract with Juan Dela
Cruz to provide the plumbing and electrical design and
Fairview, Quezon City?
Was such contract, if any, in writing?
Was the said contract in force on the 15 th day of

March, 2012?
Was the contract, if any, is conditioned upon

Philippine Global Services winning the bid for the GPP
project?
Did Juan Dela Cruz demanded payment for the

electrical design and drafting requirements?
In what manner did Juan Dela Cruz demanded

payment for the electrical design and drafting
requirements?
Did Philippine Global Services benefited from the

AFFIDAVIT
JUAN DELA CRUZ, being first duly sworn, on oath,

deposes and says that he is the plaintiff in the above-entitled
cause; that said cause of action arises out of contract with
Philippine Global Services.
Affiant is informed and believes that the defendant
benefited from the plumbing, electrical design and drafting
requirements provided to it by the plaintiff.
said cause.

By:
WILLIAM B. LLANES

(Motion for Taking of Deposition of Witness)
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
PLAINTIFF JUAN DELA CRUZ, by and through the

1
That last September 26, 2013, ANGELA LOCSIN, witness

for the herein plaintiff, was with the plaintiff at the time ;
That, her testimony is of utmost importance for the

That however, herein witness is constrained, by reason of

her work, to go back to Qatar on October 1, 2012, and, is
uncertain as to when departure on September 28, 2012.

respectfully prayed of this Honourable Court that an Order be

on November 12, 2012 at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon.

By:
WILLIAM B. LLANES

Greetings:
and approval.
William B. Llanes

(Deposition of Witness)
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
DEPOSITION OF WITNESS
The deposition of Engr. Pedro Santos of No. 18 Ventura
Quezon City, pursuant to the annexed notice in the aboveentitled action pending in the abovenamed court. Mr. William
Llanes appeared as attorney for the plaintiff and Ms. Anne

Cortes appeared as the attorney for the defendant.
Engr. Pedro Santos, being by me first duly sworn as
Direct Examination
State your name and other personal circumstances.
Q. State your name and personal circumstances.
A.
Pedro Santos, 55 years of age, licensed engineer,
City.
Q. Since when have you practiced engineering?
A.
Q. Where do you have your office, if you have any?
A.
Q. Do you know Juan Dela Cruz?
A.
Yes sir.
Q. Why do you know him?
A.
Q. Since when?
A.
Q. Are you familiar with the projects that he is
handling?
A.
Yes sir.
Q. Are all projects have written contracts?
A.
No sir.
Q. What type of projects has no written contracts?
A.
That is all.
(Sgd.) Pedro Santos

(Motion to Dismiss)
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully moves and prays
for the DISMISSAL of the instant action, on the following
grounds:
I
LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE
DEFENDANT DUE TO IMPROPER SERVICE OF SUMMONS
DISCUSSION AND SUBMISSION
I
The Honorable Court has no
Jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant Philippine Global
Services
1.
Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
specifically provides:
Sec. 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity.
When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or
association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a
juridical personality, service may be made on the president,
managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary,
treasurer, or in-house counsel.
(Underscoring supplied)
2.
Under this rule, service upon a person other than those
mentioned therein is invalid and does not bind such juridical
entity (Delta Motors Corp., vs. Pamintuan, et. al., L-41667,
April 30, 1976);
3.
Record disclosed that the summons together with the
complaint was served and received by PAULEEN SALVADOR
an accounting staff of Philippine Global Services. Verily the

person who received the summons not being those mentioned
under Section 11, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court,
authorized to receive summons for and in behalf of defendants
corporation there is no service at all, such being the case, the
Honorable Court does not acquired jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the instant
case be DISMISSED.
Other reliefs which are just and equitable under the premises
are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City, Metro Manila.
September 19, 2012.
Atty. Anne Cortez

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City
Copy furnished:
NOTICE
THE CLERK OF COURT

G R E E T I N G S:
Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration
and resolution of this Honorable Court on October 12, 2012 at
9:00 a.m.
Anne Cortes
EXPLANATION
Service of this pleading was sent to plaintiffs counsel via
registered mail due to lack of office personnel at the time of
service.
Anne Cortes

Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
1
That the original copy of the letter of admittance of the

disputed transaction was found after earnest efforts to
locate such document
That the aforesaid documentary evidence is material to
the case and will prove the claims of the appellant


Annex C and
on the case
the same.
City of Manila, Phlippines, October 2, 2012.
Atty. Anne Cortez
PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08
Quezon City
NOTICE OF HEARING
The Clerk of Count
RTC-Branch 110, Quezon City
Greetings:
Please set the foregoing Motion for New Trial on October 12,
2012 at 9:00 oclock in the morning or at any time convenient
to the calendar of the Honorable Court.
Thank You.
Copy furnished:
(Motion for Taking Postponement)
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully
moves that the hearing set for October 19, 2012 be postponed
to another date, at least one (1) month therefrom, on the
ground that his remaining material witness, Mr. Pedro

Bautista, whom he has scheduled to present, is abroad and
will not be back until three (3) weeks from date hereof.
hearing set for October 5, 2012 be postponed to another date,
at least one (1) month from said date, to enable Mr. Bautista to
present him as his last witness.
Atty. Anne Cortez
PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
NOTICE OF HEARING
The Clerk of Count
Greetings:
Please set the foregoing Motion to Declare Defendant in Default
on October 19, 2012 at 9:00 oclock in the morning or at any
time convenient to the calendar of the Honorable Court.
Thank You.
Copy furnished:

with Substitution of Counsel )
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
unto
this

3. Atty. Love Marie Ongpauco will be substituting as
counsel for the Plaintiff with office address at 110
Eastwood Ave., Bagumbayan, Quezon City
4. This Motion is interposed due solely to the foregoing
reasons and is not intended for delay.
PRAYER

be furnished to Atty. Ongpauco at her above-given office
address.

By:
WILLIAM B. LLANES
With the consent of:

Juan Dela Cruz
Plaintiff
NOTICE OF HEARING
THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Greetings:
Please set the foregoing Motion for the consideration and

approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt
hereof.
Atty. Love Marie Ongpauco

(Motion for Execution of Judgment )
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
1 The decision in favour of the plaintiff has become final and
executor since more than fifteen (15) days from defendants
receipt thereof on January 20, 2013 had already lapsed
without a defendants appealing therefrom.
2 After a decision has become final, execution is a matter of
right on the part of the prevailing party and ministerial duty of
the court to issue writ of execution.
issued for the satisfaction of the judgment date January 20,
2013.
WILLIAM B. LLANES
The Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court, Branch 110
Quezon City
Greetings:
Please submit the foregoing for the approval of the Court
upon receipt thereof, notice and hearing not being required
ATTY.WILLIAM B. LLANES
Service of motion.
Proof of service

(Motion For The Issuance Of Alias Writ Of Execution)
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
With Damages
- versus-

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x
1
On February 20, 2013, this Honorable Court rendered

its decision granting the petitioners petition for the
issuance of writ of execution;
To implement the Decision, this Honorable Court
March 15, 2013;
As
the
date
however,
the
said
writ
of
execution/possession has not been implemented yet
making the same functus officio. Thus necessitating
the issuance of an alias writ of possession for the
sheriff to implement the Decision dated March 21,
2013;
This motion is filed due to the foregoing reasons only

and for the purpose of delaying the early disposition of
this case,

Anne Cortes
PTR # 0577210/ 01-02-08 / Quezon City
NOTICE OF HEARING
RTC, Branch 110
Quezon City
Greetings:
ANNE CORTES
Copy Furnished:


EXPLANATION
ANNE CORTES
(Motion for The Issuance of Alias Writ Of Execution)
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages

Defendant.
x------------------------------------x

Water District;

7. Due to the preoccupation of the undersigned counsel
with other prior commitments of equal import, he
would earnestly seek for time within which to prepare
and submit said comment;
2013.
With my conformity:
EDUARDO P. ABAD
General Manager
Ex parte:
RIC M. CRUZ
Assisting Counsel
Guagua, Pampanga
PTR O/R No. 2167795 01-282009
IBP O/R No. 75776 01-282009
Pampanga Chapter

Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
H Defendant engaged the services of the undersigned
I Defendant was served with Summons and copy of the
J However, due to the pressures of equally urgent
decline;
K As such, undersigned counsel is constrained to request

L However, defendant failed to submit the said motion on
appearances;
M Moreover, this additional time will also allow the
this case further;
N This Second Motion is not intended for delay but solely
PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
Copy furnished:

Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
said decline;

12. However, defendant failed to submit the said motion
on time for honestly failing to foresee their inability to
court appearances;
14. This Second Motion is not intended for delay but
solely due to the foregoing reasons.
PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
Copy furnished:

(Motion to Declare Defendant in Default)
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT DEFAULT
Plaintiff, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court,
respectfully states
- The records of the Honorable Court show that
Defendant was served with copy of the summons and
of the complaint, together with annexes thereto on
January 3, 2013;
- Upon verification however, the records show that

Defendant ABC Services Inc. has failed to file her
Answer within the reglamentary period specified by
the Rules of Court despite the service of summons and
the complaint;
- As such. It is respectfully prayed that Defendant ABC
Services Inc. be declared in default pursuant to the
Rules of Court and that the Honorable Court proceed
to render judgment as the complaint may warrant.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Defendant
Services Inc. be declared in default pursuant to the Rules of
Court and that the Honorable Court proceed to render
judgment as the complaint may warrant.
Quezon City, Philippines, 12 February, 2013.

PTR No.080808
IBP No. 88888
MCLE No. 888888
Notice of Hearing:
The Clerk of Count
Greetings:

Default on February 13 at 9:00 oclock in the morning or at
Thank You.
Copy Furnished:

(Motion to Lift Order of Default)
Juan Dela Cruz,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

With Damages

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT
Defendant, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully
alleges that:
5. Ten (10) days after the summons of the complaint was
received by this defendant, she filed a motion to
dismiss;
6. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to said motion
and no hearing was held on said motion to dismiss;
7. While the said motion to dismiss was still pending,
this Honorable Court declared defendant in default;
8. Said order declaring defendant in default is premature
and without legal basis since there is still a pending
motion to dismiss.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the order

declaring the defendant in default be lifted and that this
Honorable Court rule on the aforesaid pending motion to
dismiss.
Quezon City, Philippines 14 February 2013.
Emilio Aguinaldo
PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
Notice of Hearing:
The Clerk of Court
Greetings:
Default on February 24, 2013 at 9:00 oclock in the morning
or at any time convenient to the calendar of the Honorable
Court.
Thank you.
Copy Furnished:
Breach of Contract of Carriage with Damages

(Complaint)
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

For: Breach of Contract of
Carriage with Damages
XYZ Pacific Airlines,

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, by undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable
Court, respectfully states, that:
1. Plaintiff is of legal age, married, Filipino and a
resident of No. 40 Nagoya Street, B.F. Homes, Quezon
City;
2. Defendant is a domestic corporation duly organized
Philippines, with principal office address at 123
Diliman Quezon City, where it may be served with
summons and other court processes;
3. On December 23, 2012, plaintiff Tomas Alcantara was
a first class passenger of defendant XYZ Pacific
Airways, Ltd. (XYZ for brevity) on its Flight No. CX-900
from Manila to Hongkong and onward from Hongkong

to Jakarta on Flight No. CX-711;
4. Upon plaintiffs arrival in Jakarta,
discovered that his luggage was missing;
respondent
5. That defendant offered $20.00 as "inconvenience

money" to buy plaintiffs immediate personal needs
until the luggage could be delivered;
6. Plaintiffs luggage finally reached Jakarta more than
twenty four (24) hours after arrival. However, it was
not delivered to plaintiff at the hotel but was required
by defendant to be picked up by an official of the
Philippine Embassy;
7. Defendant breached its contract of carriage with the
plaintiff when it failed to deliver his luggage at the
designated place and time it being the obligation of a
common carrier to carry its passengers and their
luggage safely to their destination, which includes the
duty not to delay their transportation, and the
evidence shows that petitioner acted willfully and in
bad faith.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be
rendered by this Honorable Court ordering defendant to pay
plaintiff, as follows:
a.) The amount of P 300,000 for moral
damages;
b.) The sum of P 100,000.00 for exemplary
damages;
c.) The sum of P 50,000 for temperate
damages;
d.) The sum of P50, 000 for attorneys fees and
other costs.
Plaintiff further prays for other remedies just and

Quezon City, 25 January 2013.
Llanes, Esplanada & Associates Law Offices

By:
Counsel for Plaintif
PTR No.080808
IBP No. 88888
MCLE No. 888888
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION
I, Tomas Alcantara., of legal age, married, Filipino, and a
resident of No. 40 Nagoya Street, B.F. Homes, Las Pias City,
subscribing under oath, hereby depose and state that:
4. I am a licensed certified public accontant and plaintiff

in the above-captioned case;
5. I caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint for
violation of contract of carriage with damages; and
that the material allegations contained therein are
true and correct of my own knowledge;
6. In compliance with Supreme Court Administrative
Circular No. 040-94, I hereby certify that:
4. I have not heretofore commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal
agency;
5. to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal agency;
6. if I should thereafter learn that a similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal agency, I undertake to report such fact within
five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.
Tomas Alcantara
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 1 st day of
March 2013 at Quezon City, affiant exhibiting to his
Community Tax Certificate No. 18492708 issued on January
3, 2013 issued at Quezon CIty City.
Doc. No. 12;

Page No. 22;
Book No. 2;
Series of 2013.
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Defendant engaged the services of the undersigned
Defendant was served with Summons and copy of the
Complaint on March 10, 2013 and thus, has until March 25,
2013 within which to submit an Answer or Responsive
Pleading;
However, due to the pressure of equally urgent

professional work or prior commitments, the undersigned
counsel will not be able to meet the said deadline;
As such, undersigned counsel is constrained to request
for an additional period of ten (10) from today within which to
submit Defendants Answer or Responsive Pleading. Moreover,
this additional time will also allow the undersigned to
interview the available witness and study this case further;
This Motion is not intended for delay but solely due to the
foregoing reasons.
PRAYER
Honorable Court that he be given an additional period of ten
(10) from today within which to submit an Answer or other
Responsive Pleading. Other relief just and equitable are
Czarina Esplanada
The Clerk of Court
Quezon City
Sir:
upon receipt thereof, notice and hearing not being required.
Atty. Czarina Esplanada

Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
Defendant, through the undersigned counsel and unto

this Honorable Court, respectfully avers:
1 That the plaintiffs complaint in paragraph 7 alleges:
Due to the defendants unwarranted refusal to comply
with the plaintiffs patently valid demand and the terms
of their agreement, plaintiff was constrained to institute
this instant action and retain the services of counsel
thereby incurring litigation expenses and expenses for
attorneys fee for which defendants should be ordered to
a plaintiff the sum of P 100,000.00;
definiteness and particularity, specifically it does not
mention the dates when the valid demands were sent to
the defendant;
above-indicated is necessary in order to enable the
defendant to prepare its responsive pleading;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, defendant most respectfully prays that an order

be issued by this Honorable Court requiring the plaintiff to
make more definite statement as to the dates when the
demand letter were sent as indicated in paragraph 5 of his
complaint.
Atty. Katarina Legarda

21 Katipunan Ave., Quezon City
PTR # 8877212 / 01-02-13 / Quezon City
IBP # 88347 / 01-03-13 / Quezon City
Copy furnished:

Greetings:
its kind

Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
PLAINTIFF, by
1.
counsel,
to
this
Honorable
Court
On 3 January 2013, plaintiff sued defendant for

violation of contract f carriage for P500,000;
2. In his Answer, defendant admitted the obligation and

merely stated that he was asking to be given an
extension of time to perform his obligation but that
plaintiff instead filed this Complaint. The Answer
admits the material allegations of the Complaint and
has not tendered any issue; consequently, a judgment
on the pleadings may be rendered.

By :
21 Katipunan Ave., Quezon City
PTR # 8877212 / 01-02-13 / Quezon City
IBP # 88347 / 01-03-13 / Quezon City

Copy furnished:

Greetings:
its kind
Katarina Legarda

(Answer)
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
ANSWER
COMES NOW, the defendant Philippine Global Services,
by and through the undersigned counsel, answering plaintiffs
4
Defendant specifically denies allegations contained in

paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the complaint for
lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth and correctness of the same;
Defendant admits the allegation in paragraph 4 of the

between the parties, subject to the condition that PGS
wins the bid for the GPP project.
Quezon City, Philippines, 10 September, 2012.
Atty. Anne Cortes

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
ANSWER AD CAUTELAM
DEFENDANT Philippine Global Services, by the
respectfully submit the following Answer Ad Cautelam (With
Counterclaim) without prejudice to the right of answering
defendant to assail the Orders of this Honorable Court
dated September 12, 2012 before the Court of Appeals.
Answering defendants hereby state:
ADMISSIONS
1.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Complaint is admitted
only insofar as the personal circumstances of defendant
Philippine Global Services is concerned.
2.
Paragraph 4 is admitted but only insofar as
plaintiffs submission of electrical designs and drafting
requirements to defendant Philippine Global Services is
concerned. Answering defendant specifically deny the rest of
the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, the truth
being those stated in the special and affirmative defenses
stated herein under.
DENIALS
3.
Paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Complaint are
hereby specifically denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to
4.
Answering defendants specifically deny paragraphs
9 and 10 for being absolutely baseless and erroneous
conclusions of fact and law. The foregoing paragraphs are not
statement of ultimate facts but false inferences/presumptions
of law hence, the same should be stricken-off from the
Complaint.
5.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that the
allegations stated in the complaint are true, answering
defendant cannot be held liable to plaintiff for the following
reasons:
THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO

STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST ANSWERING
DEFENDANTS.
6.
Section 1, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
must be based on a cause of action. A cause of action
has been defined by the Supreme Court as an act or
omission of one party in violation of the right of the
other20. Its essential elements are namely: (1) the existence
of a legal right in the plaintiff; (2) a correlative legal duty in
the defendant; and (3) an act or omission of the defendant
in violation of plaintiffs right with consequential injury or
damage to the plaintiff for which he may maintain an action
for the recovery of damages or other appropriate relief. 21
defendant Philippine Global Services entered into an
agreement with the defendant. Significantly, there is
absolutely nothing in the Complaint which says that
answering defendant acquiesced to the alleged
unconditional agreement.
It is a basic rule that a
contractual obligation or liability, or an action ex-contractu,
must be founded upon a contract; oral or written, either
express or implied.
If there is no contract, there is no
20
559.
21
corresponding liability, and no cause of action may arise

therefrom.
test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in a complaint is
whether or not, accepting the veracity thereof, the trial
court could render a valid judgment in accordance with the
prayer of the complaint.22
In this case, no such
averments were made that would entitle plaintiff to any
relief from answering defendants.
10.
Under Article 1157 of the New Civil Code,
obligations arise from: (1) law; (2) contracts; (3) quasicontracts; (4) acts or omissions punished by law; and, (5)
quasi-delicts.
Significantly, in its Opposition, plaintiff
categorically admitted that the legal right of the plaintif
arose from the alleged verbal agreement with the defendant.
With this open and unequivocal admission of plaintiff, with
more reason that the complaint against answering
defendants should be dismissed for failure to state a cause
of action. It is worthy to reiterate that answering defendant
was not unjustly enriched since the GPP project was not
11. It is clear that the filing of the instant case by the
plaintiff as against answering defendant is not only
unwarranted but likewise without any basis as explained
hereinabove. Needless to say, the filing of this patently
unfounded suit besmirched the good name and reputation of
defendant Philippine Global Services before the business
community for which plaintiff should be made to pay moral
22
damages in the amount of not less than P500,000.00. On the

other hand, as a consequence of the filing of this baseless and
unjustified suit, defendant Philippine Global Services suffered
wounded feelings and is bound to be exposed to public ridicule
and humiliation for which he should be compensated in the
amount of at least P200,000.00.
fraudulent manner. To serve as a lesson to plaintiff and to
deter others similarly minded from filing a similar baseless
Complaint and for the public good, plaintiff should be made to
pay exemplary damages in an amount not less than
P200,000.00.

constrained to hire the services of undersigned counsel and
agreed to pay attorneys fees in the amount of P100,000.00
plus appearance fee of P3,000 per court hearing;
PRAYER
3 The complaint
DISMISSED;
against
answering
defendants
be
2.
a.

b.
damages;
c.

d.

By:
Anne Cortes
PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
Copy furnished:

Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
Comes now, the defendant Philippine Global Services, by
and through the undersigned counsel, answering plaintiffs
3
Defendant admits paragraph 4, to the effect that he

denies that there was an agreement with the plaintiff as
to the full contract price of P1,500,000.00, and as
6

force and effect


That since the penalties and liquidated damages are

unconscionable.
Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as
an indemnity or penalty, shall be equitably reduced
10
Base on all foregoing, the plaintiff clearly has no cause of

PRAYER
plaintiff;

Pasig City, Philippines, 15 September, 2012.
Anne Cortez
Commonwealth Ave., Quezon City
PTR # 0577210/ 01-02-08 / Quezon City
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
COMES NOW, Defendant Philippine Global Services, by and

10

the allegations contained in paragraph 1, specially denies
the same;
11
That the answering defendant admits paragraph 2 of the

Complaint;
12

the allegations contained in paragraph 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
and 10 of the complaint and therefore, specially denies
the same;
13
That the answering defendant agreed to enter into an

agreement with the plaintiff, with the principal condition
that the GPP project be awarded to the defendant;
14
That without the knowledge and consent of answering


alleges:
15
That the allegations in paragraph 1 to 2 of the answer are

16

the plaintiff against defendant has caused the latter
has besmirched reputation for which, serious anxiety and
embarrassment and has besmirched reputation for which
he should be compensated by way of moral damages the
amount of which he should be compensated by way of
of pecuniary estimation would not be less than P
5,000.00.

his
co-defendant
17
That the defendant hereby repleads reiterates and

counterclaim;
18
That defendant should reimburse answering defendant

which he may be ordered or suffered to pay under and by
virtue of the present action in favor of plaintiff, answering
defendant not having benefited whatsoever from the
transaction which defendant Exceed International
obtained from plaintiff.

follows:
2
By dismissing
defendant;
the
complaint
against
answering

exemplary as the Honorable Court may find reasonable
plus attorneys fees of Php50,000.00 and the costs of suit;

Makati for Manila, Philippines September 20, 2012.
Atty. Anne Cortes

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City


Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
ANSWER
attorney and in answer to Plaintifs complaint, in the aboveentitled case, respectfully prays:
8
That Defendant admits paragraph 2 of the complaint;
That Defendant is without knowledge of information to

form beliefs as the truth of the averments made in
paragraphs 1 and 3;
10
That paragraph 4 of the complaint failed to allege any

entitled to the sought rescission of the alleged contract
have no cause of action against Defendant;
11
Assuming, arguendo, that the Plaintiff was indeed

1

Failed to attached to the complaint as annexes the
12
That the allegations in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10

of the complaint are not likewise averments of ultimate
facts constituting Plaintiffs cause of action;
13
That contrary to the allegations in the complaint, the

Defendant records show that no notice for rescission was
ever filed by the Plaintiff;
14
As consequence of Plaintiffs unfounded claims, which

forced Defendant to litigate and protect its interest and to
secure the services of a counsel, Defendant suffered
expenses;
By way of compulsory counterclaim, answering Defendant
alleges:
besmirched the Defendant corporations reputation which
should be compensated by way of suffered damages in
the form of attorneys fees and other litigation expenses;
CROSS CLAIM
And for this cross claim against co-Defendant EXCEED

INTERNATIONAL, answering Defendant further alleges:
V.
That Defendant hereby plead, reiterates, and
VI.
That Defendant EXCEED INTERNATIONAL should

reimburse answering Defendant on any and whatever
amount the matter maybe held answerable or which it
may be ordered or suffered to pay under and by virtue
of the present action in favor of the PLAINTIFF,
answering Defendant not having benefited whatsoever
from the transactions entered into between Defendant
EXCEED INTERNATIONAL and the PLAINTIFF.

as follows:
5. By dismissing the complaint against answering
Defendant;
Manila, Philippines, September 25, 2012.
By:

104 H.V. dela Costa Street, Salcedo
Village, Makati City
By:
WILLIAM B. LLANES

(Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses)
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
ANSWER WITH SPECIAL / AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIM
attorney and in answer to PLAINTIFFs complaint, in the
1.
That Defendant admits paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of the
complaint;
2.
That Defendant is without knowledge of information
paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10;
3.
That paragraph 4 of the complaint failed to allege
any ultimate fact that would indicate there was indeed a
contract of sale entered into by the Plaintiff with the
Defendant; without said allegation of the ultimate fact,
Plaintiffs claim would be without legal basis and
consequently, Plaintiff have no cause of action against

Defendant;
4.
Assuming, arguendo, that there was indeed a
contract between the parties, paragraph 4 of the
complaint:
a.
latter, presumably during the period of the contract, the
particular electrical designs and drafting requirements
which will simplify the issues;
b.
Failed to attach to the complaint as annexes the
necessary contract covering the purported electrical
designs and drafting requirements;
5.
constituting Plaintiffs cause of action;
6.
As consequence of Plaintiffs unfounded claims,
which forced Defendant to litigate and protect its interest
and to secure the services of a counsel, Defendant
suffered damages in the form of attorneys fees and other
litigation expenses;
At the time the agreement was verbally contracted on
March 15, 2012, Defendant made it clear to the Plaintiff that:
A.
The agreement is conditioned upon the Defendant
winning the bid for the GPP project
B.
And since there is no existing contract, Plaintiff
have no cause of action against answering Defendant.
By way of
Defendant alleges:
compulsory
counterclaim,
answering
1.
That the allegations in paragraph 1 to 10 of the
answer are hereby reproduced and reiterated;
2.
That the filing of the malicious and ground less
action by the Plaintiff against the answering Defendant
has besmirched the Defendant corporations reputation
expenses;
as follows:
3.
By dismissing the complaint against answering
Defendant;
4.
Answering Defendant prays for such other reliefs as
Quezon City, Philippines, 20 September 2012.
September 2012, Quezon City, defendant having exhibited to
me he CTC 123456 issued on January 5, 2012 at Quezon City.
Atty. Anne Cortes

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City

Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
COMES NOW, Defendant Philippine Global Services, by
and through his undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable
Court respectfully states:
6
That he admits paragraph 1, 2 and 3 of the complaint;
That he denies paragraph 4 of the complaint, the truth

being that it was defendant Exceed International who
applied for and exclusively benefited from the GPP
project;

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 5,6,7,
8, 9 and 10 of the complaint and therefore, specifically
denies the same;

9
That the allegations in paragraph 4 to 10 of the answer

10

the plaintiff answering defendant has caused the latter
mental anguish serious anxiety and embarrassment and
has besmirched he should be compensated by way of
of pecuniary estimation would not less than
P500,000.00.

follows:
5. By dismissing
defendant;
the
complaint
against
answering

reasonable plus attorneys fees of P50,000.00 and the
cost of suit;
Atty. Anne Cortes

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City

(Reply)
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
REPLY
undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, and by way
of Reply to plaintiffs Opposition dated September 24, 2013,
most respectfully state:
examination of the complaint of Juan Dela Cruz will
establish that it complied with all the elements of a
cause of action. This may be true with defendant
Exceed International but this is definitely not true with
respect to defendant Philippine Global Services;
(5) quasi-delicts.
the plaintif arose from the alleged contract dated 15

March 2012 and that its contract was even under the
letterhead of Exceed International. With this open and
unequivocal admission of plaintiff, with more reason
that the complaint against defendant Philippine Global
Services should be dismissed for failure to state a
cause of action. It is worthy to note that defendant
Philippine Global Services not parties to the said
contract as the same was executed only between
plaintiff and defendant Exceed International;
3. Finally, defendant Philippine Global Services do not
argue that plaintiff may have a cause of action against
Exceed International based on the allegations stated in
the Complaint. This however is totally not true with
defendant Philippine Global Services as fully explained
hereinabove.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, defendant Philippine Global Services
respectfully pray that the Complaint as against them be
dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
Atty. Anne Cortes

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City
Copy furnished:


(Trial Brief)
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
TRIAL BRIEF
PART I
That on March 15, 2012, Philippine Global Services
(PGS), a domestic corporation with offices at Suite 406, 4F
Columbian Building No. 160 West Avenue, Bgy. Phil-Am,
Quezon City, through its president, John Doe, verbally
contracted with Mr. Dela Cruz for the latter to provide the
plumbing and electrical design and drafting requirements for
its proposed GPP Employees Housing Project located at the

Neopolitan Subdivision, Fairview, Quezon City.
That on May 15, 2012, in strict compliance with their
agreement, Mr. Dela Cruz submitted to Philippine Global
Services all the plumbing and electrical plans pertaining to
the GPP project which PGS accepted to their full satisfaction
and without any reservation. Since the agreement was for PGS
to pay Mr. Dela Cruz the full contract price of P1.5M upon his
design and drafting requirements, Mr. Dela Cruz repeatedly
made verbal demands upon PGS to pay him the contract price.
PGS, however, refused payment saying it did not win the bid
for the GPP project and so Mr. Dela Cruzs electrical designs
and drafting requirements were never put to use and did not
benefit the company. There was no agreement between the
parties whether the payment of Mr. Dela Cruzs fee is
conditioned upon PGS winning the bid for the GPP project.
Defendants answer.
1.
verbal contract entered into by the defendants has no force
and effect
2.
with fraud, duress, intimidation, threat and undue influence,
the same is void from its inception.
3.
therein, particularly with respect to the attorneys fees and
liquidated damages are all shocking to the conscience and are
wantonly against public policy.
Issues.

5. Do the acts complained of constitute the right of plaintiff to
compensation for the alleged services rendered to the
defendant corporation?
6. That assuming that there were obligations arising from the
alleged contract, does a cause of action accrue for damages
where the non-payment of said obligation was done without
malice, not gain nor profit for the defendant?
PART II
7. The plaintiff had a verbal agreement with the defendant
as to the plumbing, electrical designs and drafting
requirements
9. That there was no condition whatsoever on the
compensation of the Plaintiff upon submission of the
plumbing, electrical designs and drafting requirements to
the Defendant.
Defendant will probably try to prove facts tending to uphold
the matters set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5, which plaintiff
will have already negative in presentation to his main case.
PART III
Brief of Evidence.
A. Main Case.

by both parties.
3. That Plaintiff was not compensated for submitting
to the Defendant as agreed upon.
A. Defendant Philippine Global Services:
from the Plaintiff
B. Other witness:
PART IV
6. Art. 1181 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides
that in conditional obligations, the acquisition of
rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those
already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of
the event which constitutes the condition. Hence, the
supposed agreement of the Plaintiff with the
Defendant is one that falls under the purview of the
aforesaid provision, otherwise known as a suspensive

condition, wherein if the condition does not happen,
obligation does not come into existence.

By:
WILLIAM B. LLANES
(Pre-Trial Brief)
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel, unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully submits the following Pretrial Brief in compliance with the order of the Court dated
September 19, 2012.
8. Possibility of Amicable Settlement
PLAINTIFF hereby manifest that he is open to amicable
settlement on matters other than rescission of the
contract of sale;
9. Brief Statement of PLAINTIFF
that no one shall be enriched at the expense of another.
The Defendants breach of contract has not only caused
monetary loss but likewise resulted to the PLAINTIFF's
has besmirched reputation for which he should be
compensated by way of moral damages.
10.
Facts for Stipulation
3. Jurisdiction of the Honorable Court on the person of
the parties
4. Authenticity and enforceability of the subject contract
of sale.
11.
Statement of Issue

PLAINTIFF and Defendant corporation may be rescinded.
12.
Documents for Markings
5. Contract of Sale
6. Invoices (delivery and official receipts)

7. Receiving Papers
13.
Witnesses
- PLAINTIFF himself
Trucking Services representative (who made the
delivery)
14.
Trial Dates
8. Subject to available dates of the Honorable Court

By:
WILLIAM B. LLANES
Copy Furnished:
Atty. Anne Cortes

Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
1.
That defendant admits his liability with the plaintiff
in the amount of Php 296,208.39
2.
That defendant shall pay the said amount to the
2.1 Downpayment of Php 12,000.00 on October
10, 2012;
2.2 Php 3,000.00 a month for thirty five (35)
months starting on September 30,2001 and every
30th day of the month thereafter until August 10,
2015.
2.3 Balance of Php 179,208.39 on September 10,

2015.
3.
In case of failure or refusal of defendant to comply
with the terms and conditions of this Compromise
obligation still outstanding shall immediately become due
and demandable and an interest of 2% per month shall
be charged on the outstanding obligation until fully paid.
Likewise, plaintiff may ask for a writ of execution to
enforce this agreement.
4.
In the event that plaintiff is compelled to resort to
the court for the enforcement and execution of this
pay the plaintiff all expenses, incidental and necessary,
that may be incurred by the latter in connection
therewith;
5.
Parties hereto attest that they have entered into this
Compromise Agreement freely and voluntarily and they
fully understand the terms and conditions thereof;
Respectfully submitted, 22rd day of August, 2001.

Juan Dela Cruz
Plaintiff
Assisted By:
By:
WILLIAM B. LLANES
GREETINGS:
JUAN E. DELA CRUZ
JOHN DOE

(Position Paper)
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
Defendant Philippine Global Services, through the
undersigned counsel, respectfully submits the following
position paper and states that:
This action for sum of money with damages filed by
plaintiff Juan Dela Cruz for the alleged contract with
defendant Philippine Global Services on March 15, 2011 was
filed in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 110 on
the following grounds:
4
5
Failure of the defendant in complying with the terms of

the contract
Unjust enrichment on the part of the defendant for
obtaining the plumbing, electrical designs and drafting
requirements without paying the plaintiff
That there was fraud on the part of the defendant in the

performance of its contractual obligation to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff also prays for support and moral damages

on account of the foregoing allegations.

On March 15, 2012, Philippine Global Services (PGS), a
domestic corporation with offices at Suite 406, 4F Columbian
Building No. 160 West Avenue, Bgy. Phil-Am, Quezon City,
through its president, John Doe, verbally contracted with Mr.
Dela Cruz for the latter to provide the plumbing and electrical
design and drafting requirements for its proposed GPP
Employees Housing Project located at the Neopolitan
Subdivision, Fairview, Quezon City.
On May 15, 2012, in strict compliance with their
agreement, Mr. Dela Cruz submitted to Philippine Bank all the
plumbing and electrical plans pertaining to the GPP project
which PGS accepted to their full satisfaction and without any
reservation. Since the agreement was for PGS to pay Mr. Dela
Cruz the full contract price of P1.5M upon his submission and
PGSs acceptance of the required electrical design and drafting
requirements, Mr. Dela Cruz repeatedly made verbal demands
upon PGS to pay him the contract price. PGS, however,
refused payment saying it did not win the bid for the GPP
project and so Mr. Dela Cruzs electrical designs and drafting
requirements were never put to use and did not benefit the
company. There was no agreement between the parties
whether the payment of Mr. Dela Cruzs fee is conditioned
upon PGS winning the bid for the GPP project.
In a cross examination with the plaintiff, (TSN,
September 28, 2012, p. 16), he alleged that there was indeed
no written contract at all and that he just assumed that there
was already an agreement with the defendant. Moreover, the
plaintiff contends that there is no need for a written contract a
verbal agreement in submitting the electrical designs and
drafting requirements to the defendant.
ISSUES
The court defined the following issues which the
defendant prays to dismiss the foregoing case:
5. There is no written contract to signify the intentions of
the parties
6. There was no consent on the part of the defendant on the
contract being alleged by the plaintiff.
ARGUMENTS
The court has established the fact that defendant
Philippine Global Services had no knowledge of the alleged
arrangement with the plaintiff regarding the compensation for
the electrical designs and drafting (TSN, July 13, 2007, p.4).
Said accusation was denied by defendant Philippine Global
Services.
Defendant Philippine Global Services admitted that there
was an initial agreement as to the preparation of the plumbing
proposed GPP Employees Housing Project located at the
Neopolitan Subdivision, Fairview, Quezon City. However, it has
to be pointed out that said contract is conditioned upon PGS
winning the bid for the GPP project.
It is provided under Art. 1181 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines that in conditional obligations, the acquisition of
rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already
acquired, shall depend upon the happening of the event which
constitutes the condition. Hence, the supposed agreement of
the Plaintiff with the Defendant is one that falls under the
purview of the aforesaid provision, otherwise known as a
suspensive condition, wherein if the condition does not
happen, obligation does not come into existence.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE
premises
considered,
Defendant
respectfully prays that plaintiffs action for sum of money with
damages de denied for the grounds he presented are bereft of
merit.
prayed for.
Copy furnished:
Atty. Anne Cortez

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City


Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law depose
and state:
10.
Plaintiff is a licensed civil engineer.
11. That plaintiff is a licensed civil engineer who was verbally

contracted by defendant Philippine Global Services (PGS
for brevity), through its president, John Doe, to provide the
plumbing and electrical design and drafting requirements
for its proposed GPP Employees Housing Project located at
the Neopolitan Subdivision, Fairview, Quezon City.
12. That the agreement was for PGS to pay Mr. Dela Cruz the
full contract price of P1,500,000.00 upon plaintiffs

design and drafting requirements.
13. That on May 15, 2010, in strict compliance with the
aforesaid agreement, herein plaintiff submitted to PGS all
the plumbing and electrical plans pertaining to the GPP
project which PGS accepted to their full satisfaction and
without any reservation.
14. That plaintiff repeatedly made verbal demands upon PGS
for the payment of the services rendered by the former but
to no avail as the latter refused payment saying it did not
with the bid for the GPP project and so plaintiffs electrical
designs and drafting requirements were never put to use
and did not benefit PGS.
whether the payment of plaintiffs fee is conditioned upon
PGS winning the bid for the GPP project, yet the latter
refused and failed and still continues to refuse and fails to
settle said obligation despite further verbal and written
demands. A copy of the last demand letter sent to defendant
is hereto attached as Annex A.
16. That several demands were made upon the defendant to
pay his due and demandable obligation to pay the plaintiff
the amount of P100,000.00 but the defendant refused to
pay the same.
17. That due to the said defendants failure and refusal to
pay its obligation with the plaintiff, the latter was
constrained to engage the services of the undersigned
counsel and institute the instant action thereby incurring
expenses for attorneys fees for which defendants should be
ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of P100,000.00.
18. That I am executing this Judicial Affidavit to attest to the
truth of the foregoing statements and to serve as an
additional evidence for the plaintiff in the above-entitled
case.

this 1st day of October 2013 at Quezon City.
JUAN DELA CRUZ

Affiant
October 2013 at Qu, affiant exhibiting to me his Drivers
License
No.
NO1-10-283882
issued
by
the
Land
Notary Public
Doc No. ______;

Page No. _____;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2013.

Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
NOW COMES the plaintiff in the above entitled case, moves
for a rule on the defendant, Philippine Global Services, to
8
Did Philippine Global Services prior to 15 th day of

March, 2012, enter into a contract with Juan Dela
Cruz to provide the plumbing and electrical design and
Fairview, Quezon City?
Was such contract, if any, in writing?
10
Was the said contract in force on the 15 th day of

March, 2012?
11
Was the contract, if any, is conditioned upon

Philippine Global Services winning the bid for the GPP
project?
12
Did Juan Dela Cruz demanded payment for the

13
In what manner did Juan Dela Cruz demanded

payment for the electrical design and drafting
requirements?
14
Did Philippine Global Services benefited from the

AFFIDAVIT
JUAN DELA CRUZ, being first duly sworn, on oath,

deposes and says that he is the plaintiff in the above-entitled
cause; that said cause of action arises out of contract with
Philippine Global Services.
Affiant is informed and believes that the defendant
benefited from the plumbing, electrical design and drafting
requirements provided to it by the plaintiff.
said cause.

By:
WILLIAM B. LLANES

(Motion for Taking of Deposition of Witness)
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
PLAINTIFF JUAN DELA CRUZ, by and through the

4
That last September 26, 2013, ANGELA LOCSIN, witness

for the herein plaintiff, was with the plaintiff at the time ;
That, her testimony is of utmost importance for the

That however, herein witness is constrained, by reason of

her work, to go back to Qatar on October 1, 2012, and, is
uncertain as to when departure on September 28, 2012.

respectfully prayed of this Honourable Court that an Order be

on November 12, 2012 at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon.

By:
WILLIAM B. LLANES

Greetings:
and approval.
William B. Llanes

(Deposition of Witness)
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
DEPOSITION OF WITNESS
The deposition of Engr. Pedro Santos of No. 18 Ventura
Quezon City, pursuant to the annexed notice in the aboveentitled action pending in the abovenamed court. Mr. William
Llanes appeared as attorney for the plaintiff and Ms. Anne

Cortes appeared as the attorney for the defendant.
Engr. Pedro Santos, being by me first duly sworn as
Direct Examination
State your name and other personal circumstances.
Q. State your name and personal circumstances.
A.
Pedro Santos, 55 years of age, licensed engineer,
City.
Q. Since when have you practiced engineering?
A.
Q. Where do you have your office, if you have any?
A.
Q. Do you know Juan Dela Cruz?
A.
Yes sir.
Q. Why do you know him?
A.
Q. Since when?
A.
Q. Are you familiar with the projects that he is
handling?
A.
Yes sir.
Q. Are all projects have written contracts?
A.
No sir.
Q. What type of projects has no written contracts?
A.
That is all.
(Sgd.) Pedro Santos

(Motion to Dismiss)
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully moves and prays
for the DISMISSAL of the instant action, on the following
grounds:
I
LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE
DEFENDANT DUE TO IMPROPER SERVICE OF SUMMONS
DISCUSSION AND SUBMISSION
I
The Honorable Court has no
Jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant Philippine Global
Services
1.
Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
specifically provides:
Sec. 11. Service upon domestic private juridical entity.
When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or
association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a
juridical personality, service may be made on the president,
managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary,
treasurer, or in-house counsel.
(Underscoring supplied)
2.
Under this rule, service upon a person other than those
mentioned therein is invalid and does not bind such juridical
entity (Delta Motors Corp., vs. Pamintuan, et. al., L-41667,
April 30, 1976);
3.
Record disclosed that the summons together with the
complaint was served and received by PAULEEN SALVADOR
an accounting staff of Philippine Global Services. Verily the

person who received the summons not being those mentioned
under Section 11, Rule 14 of the Revised Rules of Court,
authorized to receive summons for and in behalf of defendants
corporation there is no service at all, such being the case, the
Honorable Court does not acquired jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that the instant
case be DISMISSED.
Other reliefs which are just and equitable under the premises
are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City, Metro Manila.
September 19, 2012.
Atty. Anne Cortez

PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Quezon City
Copy furnished:
NOTICE
THE CLERK OF COURT

G R E E T I N G S:
Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration
and resolution of this Honorable Court on October 12, 2012 at
9:00 a.m.
Anne Cortes
EXPLANATION
Service of this pleading was sent to plaintiffs counsel via
registered mail due to lack of office personnel at the time of
service.
Anne Cortes

Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
3
That the original copy of the letter of admittance of the

disputed transaction was found after earnest efforts to
locate such document
That the aforesaid documentary evidence is material to
the case and will prove the claims of the appellant


Annex C and
on the case
the same.
Atty. Anne Cortez
PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08
Quezon City
NOTICE OF HEARING
The Clerk of Count
Greetings:
Please set the foregoing Motion for New Trial on October 12,
2012 at 9:00 oclock in the morning or at any time convenient
to the calendar of the Honorable Court.
Thank You.
Copy furnished:
(Motion for Taking Postponement)
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully
moves that the hearing set for October 19, 2012 be postponed
to another date, at least one (1) month therefrom, on the
ground that his remaining material witness, Mr. Pedro

Bautista, whom he has scheduled to present, is abroad and
will not be back until three (3) weeks from date hereof.
hearing set for October 5, 2012 be postponed to another date,
at least one (1) month from said date, to enable Mr. Bautista to
present him as his last witness.
Atty. Anne Cortez
PTR # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Quezon City
NOTICE OF HEARING
The Clerk of Count
Greetings:
Please set the foregoing Motion to Declare Defendant in Default
on October 19, 2012 at 9:00 oclock in the morning or at any
time convenient to the calendar of the Honorable Court.
Thank You.
Copy furnished:

with Substitution of Counsel )
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
unto
this

6. Atty. Love Marie Ongpauco will be substituting as
counsel for the Plaintiff with office address at 110
Eastwood Ave., Bagumbayan, Quezon City
7. This Motion is interposed due solely to the foregoing
reasons and is not intended for delay.
PRAYER

be furnished to Atty. Ongpauco at her above-given office
address.

By:
WILLIAM B. LLANES
With the consent of:

Juan Dela Cruz
Plaintiff
NOTICE OF HEARING
THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Greetings:
Please set the foregoing Motion for the consideration and

approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt
hereof.
Atty. Love Marie Ongpauco

(Motion for Execution of Judgment )
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
3 The decision in favour of the plaintiff has become final and
executor since more than fifteen (15) days from defendants
receipt thereof on January 20, 2013 had already lapsed
without a defendants appealing therefrom.
4 After a decision has become final, execution is a matter of
right on the part of the prevailing party and ministerial duty of
the court to issue writ of execution.
issued for the satisfaction of the judgment date January 20,
2013.
WILLIAM B. LLANES
The Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court, Branch 110
Quezon City
Greetings:
upon receipt thereof, notice and hearing not being required
ATTY.WILLIAM B. LLANES
Service of motion.
Proof of service

(Motion For The Issuance Of Alias Writ Of Execution)
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-

Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
5
On February 20, 2013, this Honorable Court rendered

its decision granting the petitioners petition for the
issuance of writ of execution;
To implement the Decision, this Honorable Court
March 15, 2013;
As
the
date
however,
the
said
writ
of
execution/possession has not been implemented yet
making the same functus officio. Thus necessitating
the issuance of an alias writ of possession for the
sheriff to implement the Decision dated March 21,
2013;
This motion is filed due to the foregoing reasons only

and for the purpose of delaying the early disposition of
this case,

Anne Cortes
PTR # 0577210/ 01-02-08 / Quezon City
NOTICE OF HEARING
RTC, Branch 110
Quezon City
Greetings:
ANNE CORTES
Copy Furnished:


EXPLANATION
ANNE CORTES
(Motion for The Issuance of Alias Writ Of Execution)
Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x

Water District;

11. Due to the preoccupation of the undersigned
counsel with other prior commitments of equal import,
he would earnestly seek for time within which to
prepare and submit said comment;
2013.
With my conformity:
EDUARDO P. ABAD
General Manager
Ex parte:
RIC M. CRUZ
Assisting Counsel
Guagua, Pampanga
PTR O/R No. 2167795 01-282009
IBP O/R No. 75776 01-282009
Pampanga Chapter

Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
O Defendant engaged the services of the undersigned
P Defendant was served with Summons and copy of the
Q However, due to the pressures of equally urgent
decline;
R As such, undersigned counsel is constrained to request

S However, defendant failed to submit the said motion on
appearances;
T Moreover, this additional time will also allow the
this case further;
U This Second Motion is not intended for delay but solely
PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
Copy furnished:

Tomas Alcantara,
Plaintiff,
- versus-


Defendant.
x-----------------------------x
16. Defendant was served with Summons and copy of
the Complaint on January 3, 2013 and thus, has until
said decline;

19. However, defendant failed to submit the said motion
on time for honestly failing to foresee their inability to
court appearances;
21. This Second Motion is not intended for delay but
solely due to the foregoing reasons.
PTR # 088289 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
IBP # 98098 / 08-08-08 / Quezon City
ROLL No. 98278
Copy furnished:
Summary
Proceedings
SUM OF MONEY
(Complaint)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ
Plaintif,
CIVIL CASE No. L-000923
-versus-
For: SUM OF MONEY

PEDRO SANTOS
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned counsel, and unto

this Honorable Court most respectfully submit this Complaint
for the collection of sum of money amounting to ONE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php 100,000.00) and in
support hereof makes the following assertions:
15.
Plaintiff JUAN DELA CRUZ is a Filipino, of
legal age, with residence and postal address at #45
P. Ocampo Street cor. Taft Avenue, Manila City,
where he may be served with court order and other
processes;
16.
Defendant PEDRO SANTOS is also a Filipino,
of legal age and resident of #367 Teresa Street,
Makati City where he may be served with summons,
order and other court processes;
17.
Defendant
borrowed
ONE
HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 100,000.00) from Plaintiff
as exhibited in a loan agreement labeled as Annex
A;
18.
Despite repeated demands, both oral and
written, Defendant failed or has refused to pay the
Plaintiff after due date for the payment expired on
June 1, 2011. A copy of each of Plaintiffs two (2)
demand letters is attached as Annex B and C
and made an integral part of this complaint,
respectively.
19.
The same acts of the Defendant compelled the
Plaintiff to incur litigation expenses consisting of
filing fee, cost of transportation and other
miscellaneous accommodation of its lawyers and
other personal expenses to be incurred in attending
the hearings of this case, etc., fixed at TWENTY
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 20,000.00), which the
Defendant should also be held answerable therefore;
20.
This action is governed by the Rules on
Summary Procedure;
PRAYER

prayed unto this Honorable Court that:
(c) After the proceeding, judgment be rendered in favor

of herein Plaintiff and order Defendant to pay the
sum of money amounting to ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 100,000.00);
(d)Defendant pays Plaintiff the amount of TWENTY
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 20,000.00), as and by way
of attorneys fees;
(e) Defendant pays Plaintiff the cost of this suit.
Plaintiff prays for such other remedies and further reliefs as

may be deemed just and equitable under the premises.
January 31, 2012. Manila City.
ATTY. LEOLAIDA M. ARAGON

Manila City
IBP No. A-1234567
PTR No. A- 1234567
MCLE No. A-1234567

AGAINST NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, JUAN DELA CRUZ, of legal age, after being duly sworn
to in accordance with law, depose and attest:
That I am the Plaintiff in the above-titled case; that I
have caused the preparation of the foregoing Complaint for
Sum of Money and understood the contents thereof, and I
hereby declare that all the allegations contained therein are
true and correct according to my knowledge and belief.
Furthermore, I hereby certify that I have not filed nor
caused to be filed a similar case involving the same issues in
the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any tribunal or
agency, I shall inform the Court, tribunal or agency of such
fact within five (5) days thereof.
this 31st day of January 2012, Manila City, Philippines.
JUAN DELA CRUZ
Affiant
Drivers License No. 1234567
Issued On: March 15, 2011
Issued At: Manila City
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 31st day of

January 2012, at Manila City, affiant appearing before me
with his Drivers License No. 1234567 issued on March 15,
2011 at Manila City and presenting a document entitled
Complaint for Sum of Money, affiant being known to me
personally as he is an acquaintance, and who signed said
document that he understood the contents thereof, and that
the same was his free and voluntary act and deed.
ATTY. MARK S. LERMA
Notary Public
PTR No. A-1234567
Issued at Manila City
On January 1, 2011
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 1;
Book No. 1;
Series 2012.
SUM OF MONEY
(Answer)
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-

For: SUM OF MONEY
PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
ANSWER
DEFENDANT PEDRO SANTOS, through the undersigned

counsel, by way of answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, and unto
this Honorable Court most respectfully submits that:
1 The DEFENDANT ADMITS all allegations, EXCEPT
paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
2 The Plaintiff gave an extension for the payment of
said loan for another period of ONE (1) year.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, most respectfully prays for

judgment dismissing the complaint with costs against the
Plaintiff.
Defendant prays for such other remedies and further
reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable under the
premises.
February 5, 2012. Manila City.
ATTY. JOSE R. HONTIVEROS

Manila City
Roll of Attorneys No. B-1234567
IBP No.B-1234567
PTR No. B-1234567
MCLE No. B-1234567
VERIFICATION
I, PEDRO SANTOS, Filipino, of legal age, and residing at

#367 Teresa Street, Makati City after having been duly sworn
in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that I, the
Defendant in the present case; caused the preparation of the
foregoing Answer; that I have read and understood the
contents thereof and that the same are true and correct as to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
PEDRO SANTOS
Defendant
Issued On: June 1, 2010
Issued At: Makati City
Copy furnished:

Manila City
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, DOMINGO REYES, messenger for Atty. Jose R.

Hontiveros, herein counsel for the Defendant Pedro Santos,
hereby certify that I personally delivered Defendants Answer
dated February 5, 2012 to Plaintiffs counsel Atty. Leolaida M.
Aragon with address at Manila City. The Answer was received
by Plaintiffs Counsel herself.
DOMINGO REYES
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 5TH day of

February 2012, at Manila City, affiant appearing before me
with his Drivers License No. 1234567 issued on August 15,
2011 at Manila City and presenting a document entitled Proof
of Service, affiant being known to me personally as he is an
acquaintance, and who signed said document that he
understood the contents thereof, and that the same was his
free and voluntary act and deed.
ATTY. MARK S. LERMA

Notary Public
PTR No. A-1234567
On January 1, 2011
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 1;
Book No. 1;
Series 2012.
SUM OF MONEY
(Reply)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-
For: SUM OF MONEY

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
REPLY
COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, through the undersigned

counsel, and hereby respectfully states that:
1. In the Defendants Answer, the said Defendant
stated that Plaintiff gave an extension for the
payment of said loan for another period of ONE (1)
year;
2. Defendant is evidently misleading the court in
denying the existence of the cause of action;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that judgment
be rendered in his favor in accordance with the original prayer
set forth in the Plaintiffs Complaint.

Manila City
IBP No. A-1234567
PTR No. A- 1234567
MCLE No. A-1234567
SUM OF MONEY
(Pre-Trial Brief)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-
For: SUM OF MONEY

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PRETRIAL BRIEF

respectfully submits this pre-trial brief in compliance with the
trial courts order dated March 15, 2012, containing the
following:
1. Plaintiff is willing to enter into an amicable
settlement of the case, under terms and conditions
which are agreeable to both parties. Plaintiff is
willing to submit the technical issues for resolution
by technical experts.
2. Plaintiff admits the following facts:
a. Plaintiff JUAN DELA CRUZ is a Filipino, of legal

age, with residence and postal address at #45 P.
Ocampo Street cor. Taft Avenue, Manila City,
where he may be served with court order and
other processes;
b. Defendant borrowed ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (Php 100,000.00) from Plaintiff;
c. Despite repeated oral and written demands,
Defendant failed or has refused to pay the
Plaintiff after due date for the payment expired on
June 1, 2011.
3. The issues which Plaintiff raises are as follows:
a. Whether or not Defendant is guilty of delay for

failure to pay his debt on time.
b. Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys
fees.
4. Plaintiff intends to present the following documents, in
connection with which Plaintiff requests from Defendant
the admission of their execution and due authenticity:
a. Exhibit A Loan Agreement concerning the
amount of money borrowed and the agreed date
of payment;
b. Exhibit B and C Demand Letters concerning
the written demands made by the Plaintiff to
Defendant.
5. Plaintiff manifests his intention to resort to Discovery
Procedures.
6. Plaintiff does not intend to amend his Complaint.
7. Plaintiff requests of Defendant to stipulate or admit the

following:
a. That the Loan Agreement as herein attached was
validly executed.
b. That he is guilty of delay for failure to pay his
debt on the agreed date of payment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the foregoing be taken
cognizance of.
March 20, 2012. Manila City.

Manila City
IBP No. A-1234567
PTR No. A- 1234567
MCLE No. A-1234567
Copy furnished:

Manila City
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, CARLOS BELTRAN, messenger for Atty. Leolaida M.

Aragon, herein counsel for the Plaintiff Juan Dela Cruz,
hereby certify that I personally delivered Plaintiffs Pre-trial
Brief dated March 20, 2012 to Defendants counsel with
address
at
Manila
City.
The
Answer
was
received
by
Defendants counsel himself.

CARLOS BELTRAN
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 20TH day

of March 2012, at Manila City, affiant appearing before me
with his Drivers License No. 0987654 issued on September 1,
ATTY. MARK S. LERMA

Notary Public
PTR No. A-1234567
On January 1, 2011
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 1;
Book No. 1;
Series 2012.
SUM OF MONEY
(Position Paper)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-
For: SUM OF MONEY

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
POSITION PAPER
PLAINTIFF, by counsel, unto this Honorable Office,

respectfully submits this Position Paper in the above entitled
case, and alleged that:
THE CASE
The case arose from the nonpayment by the Defendants
loan to the Plaintiff despite repeated demands. Plaintiff now
prays for the specific performance of the Defendant and the
payment of damages.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
Plaintiff JUAN DELA CRUZ is a Filipino, of legal

Ocampo Street cor. Taft Avenue, Manila City, where
he may be served with court order and other
processes;
2.
Defendant PEDRO SANTOS is also a Filipino, of

legal age and resident of #367 Teresa Street, Makati
City where he may be served with summons, order
and other court processes;
3.
Defendant borrowed ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND

4.
Despite repeated demands, both oral and written,

Defendant failed or has refused to pay the Plaintiff
after due date for the payment expired on June 1,
2011;
5.

6.
This action is governed by the Rules on Summary

Procedure.
ISSUE/S
1.Whether Defendant has missed the due date of the

payment.
2.Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to damages.
ARGUMENTS
1. Under the Civil Code, a person is entitled to specific

performance from whom a sum of money is borrowed and
thereafter the borrower refused or failed to pay for such.
2. Under the Civil Code, the Plaintiff is also entitled to
moral and actual damages.
RESERVATIONS
Plaintiff
respectfully
reserves
his
right
to
file
supplemental pleadings or adduce additional evidence in due

course of the proceedings whenever necessary and proper.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the reliefs he prayed
for in his complaint be granted and any other reliefs which the
court may award to him, which is just and equitable under the
circumstances.
April 13, 2012. Manila City.

Manila City
IBP No. A-1234567
PTR No. A- 1234567
MCLE No. A-1234567
SUM OF MONEY
(Position Paper)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-
For: SUM OF MONEY

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
POSITION PAPER FOR THE DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT, by counsel, unto this Honorable Office,

respectfully submits this Position Paper in the above-titled
case, and alleges that:
THE CASE
The case arose from the alleged nonpayment by the
Defendants loan to the Plaintiff despite repeated demands.
Plaintiff prayed for the payment of the sum of money loaned
from him by the Defendant and the payment of damages.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Plaintiff JUAN DELA CRUZ is a Filipino, of legal

processes;
2. Defendant PEDRO SANTOS is also a Filipino, of
3. Defendant borrowed ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
4. Despite repeated oral and written demands,
Defendant failed or has refused to pay the Plaintiff
after due date for the payment expired on June 1,
2011;
5. The same acts of the Defendant compelled the
6. This action is governed by the Rules on Summary
Procedure.
ISSUE/S
1. Whether the Defendant is liable to pay the amount of the

loan.
ARGUMENTS
1. Under the Rules of Court, the complaint should be

dismissed for there is NO CAUSE OF ACTION. The
Plaintiff extended the due date of the loan to June 1,
2012. Thus, the loan amount is not yet due and
demandable.
RESERVATIONS
Defendant
respectfully
reserves
its
right
to
file

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that the reliefs he prayed
for in his answer be granted and any other reliefs which the
circumstances.

Manila City
IBP No.B-1234567
PTR No. B-1234567
MCLE No. B-1234567
SUM OF MONEY
(Arbitration / Compromise Agreement)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-
For: SUM OF MONEY

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
THE UNDERSIGNED PARTIES
JUAN DELA CRUZ,

resident of #45 P. Ocampo Street cor. Taft Avenue,
Manila City
AND
PEDRO SANTOS,
resident of #367 Teresa Street, Makati City
AGREE as follows:
1. That PEDRO SANTOS shall pay for the LOAN AMOUNT in

full.
2. The Plaintiff shall drop this civil case against the
Defendant.
IN
WITNESS
WHEREOF,
the
Parties
hereto
have
mutually and voluntarily agreed to the above stipulations, and

sign this Agreement, at the METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT of
Manila City, Branch 023, on this 15 th day of May, 2012 for the
consideration and approval of the Honorable Court.
JUAN DELA CRUZ

Plaintiff
PEDRO SANTOS
Defendant
Assisted by:
FERNANDO T. RODRIGUEZ
Mediator
MARIA S. MENDOZ
Mediation-Supervisor/Coordinator
(EJECTMENT) FORCIBLE ENTRY

(Complaint)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-
For: FORCIBLE ENTRY

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
COMPLAINT

this
Honorable
Court
most
respectfully
submits
this
Complaint for Forcible Entry and in support hereof makes the

following assertions:
processes;
3. Plaintiff became owner of a certain parcel of land,
through a Deed of Sale from the original owner,
DANNY UY. (A copy of the Deed of Sale is hereto
attached as Annex A);
4. The parcel of land, situated in #76 M.H. Del Pilar
Street, Project 4, Quezon City, is covered by Transfer
of Certificate of Title No. 12345 issued by the
Register of Deeds of Quezon City and is more
particularly described, as follows:
(Technical Description)
(A Copy of TCT- 12345 is hereto attached as Annex

B);
5. Herein Defendant, through stealth and strategy,
occupied the parcel of land in question and refuses
to vacate the same despite repeated oral and written
demands. (A Copy of the written demand is hereto

attached as Annex C);
Plaintiff to incur damages consisting of attorneys
fees in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 20,000.00) and filing fee, cost of transportation
and other miscellaneous accommodation of its
lawyers and other personal expenses to be incurred
in attending the hearings of this case in the amount
of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 50,000.00);
Procedure.
PRAYER

prayed of this Honorable Court that, after the proceedings,
judgment be rendered in favor of the Plaintiff and ordering the
Defendant and all persons claiming rights under him to:
(a) Permanently VACATE the premises in question and
give the immediate right of possession to the
Plaintiff;
(b)Pay Plaintiff the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND
PESOS (Php 20,000.00) by way of attorneys fees
and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 50,000.00) by
way of other litigation expenses;
(c) Pay the cost of this suit.
Plaintiff prays for such other remedies and reliefs as may

be deemed just and equitable under the premises.

Manila City
IBP No. A-1234567
PTR No. A- 1234567
MCLE No. A-1234567

Forcible Entry and understood the contents thereof, and I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hand
JUAN DELA CRUZ

Affiant
Issued On: March 15, 2011
Issued At: Manila City

Complaint for Forcible Entry, affiant being known to me
ATTY. MARK S. LERMA

Notary Public
PTR No. A-1234567
On January 1, 2011
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 1;
Book No. 1;
Series 2012.

(Answer)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-

For: FORCIBLE ENTRY
PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
ANSWER

counsel, by way of answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, and unto
1. DEFENDANT ADMITS the allegations in paragraph
1 and paragraph 2 of complaint insofar as they
relate to their personal circumstances;
2. DEFENDANT specifically DENIES the allegations in
paragraph 5 since he was already in possession of
the said property even before the plaintiff allegedly
acquired the property through a contract of sale;
3. On or about August 21, 2005, Defendant acquired

the permission of the original owner DANNY UY to
take possession of such property.
PRAYER
Plaintiff.
premises.

Manila City
IBP No.B-1234567
PTR No. B-1234567
MCLE No. B-1234567
VERIFICATION

PEDRO SANTOS
Defendant
Copy furnished:

Manila City
PROOF OF SERVICE

by Plaintiffs counsel herself.
DOMINGO REYES
Affiant

ATTY. MARK S. LERMA
Notary Public
PTR No. A-1234567
On January 1, 2011
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 1;
Book No. 1;
Series 2012.
(Reply)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-

For: FORCIBLE ENTRY
PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
REPLY

stated that he was already in possession of the
parcel of land even before the contract of sale
between Plaintiff and original owner DANNY UY was
executed;
denying the existence of the cause of action;
PRAYER

set forth in the plaintiffs complaint.

Manila City
IBP No. A-1234567
PTR No. A- 1234567
MCLE No. A-1234567

(Pre-Trial Brief)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-
For: FORCIBLE ENTRY

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PRETRIAL BRIEF

following:

other processes;
b. Plaintiff became owner of a certain parcel of land,
DANNY UY.
c. Herein Defendant, through stealth and strategy,
occupied the parcel of land in question and
refuses to vacate the same despite repeated oral
and written demands.
a. Whether or not Defendant does have the

permission to stay in the premises of the property
subject of this case.
c. Whether or not Defendant can be ejected by
reason of forcible entry from the premises of the
property subject of this case.
Procedures.

following:
c. That the Plaintiff has the right of possession and
ownership to the subject parcel of land.
d. That he is guilty of forcible entry and should be

ejected from the premises of the property.

cognizance of.

Manila City
IBP No. A-1234567
PTR No. A- 1234567
MCLE No. A-1234567
Copy furnished:

Manila City
PROOF OF SERVICE


address
at
Manila
City.
The
Answer
was
received
by

CARLOS BELTRAN
Affiant

ATTY. MARK S. LERMA

Notary Public
PTR No. A-1234567
On January 1, 2011
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 1;
Book No. 1;
Series 2012.

(Position Paper)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-
For: FORCIBLE ENTRY

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
POSITION PAPER FOR THE PLAINTIFF

THE CASE
The case arose from the stealthy strategic usurpation of
the defendant of the property of the herein Plaintiff. Plaintiff
now prays for the ejectment of the defendant and the payment
of damages.
FACTS OF THE CASE

processes;

DANNY UY;
Register of Deeds of Quezon City;
5. Herein Defendant, through stealth and strategy,
occupied the parcel of land in question and refuses
to vacate the same despite repeated oral and written
demands;
Plaintiff to incur damages consisting of attorneys
fees in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 20,000.00) and filing fee, cost of transportation
and other miscellaneous accommodation of its
lawyers and other personal expenses to be incurred
in attending the hearings of this case in the amount
of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 50,000.00);
Procedure.
ISSUE/S
1. Whether or not Defendant should be ejected.
2. Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to damages.
ARGUMENTS
1. Under Rule 70 Section 1 of the Revised the Rules of

Court, where a person is deprived of the possession of
any land or building by force, intimidation, threat,
strategy, or stealth, an ejectment by reason of forcible
entry case may be filed against the usurper.
2. Under the Civil Code, the Plaintiff is entitled to moral and
actual damages where a person unlawfully deprives
another of his property and suffers damages therefrom.
RESERVATIONS
Plaintiff
respectfully
reserves
his
right
to
file

PRAYER
circumstances.

Manila City
IBP No. A-1234567
PTR No. A- 1234567

MCLE No. A-1234567

(Position Paper)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-
For: FORCIBLE ENTRY

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

THE CASE
The case arose from the alleged stealthy strategic
usurpation of the defendant of the property of the herein
plaintiff. The subject matter of this action is a piece of land
identified as in #76 M.H. Del Pilar Street, Project 4, Quezon
City, is covered by Transfer of Certificate of Title No. 12345
issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
FACTS OF THE CASE

processes;
DANNY UY;
Register of Deeds of Quezon City;
5. That as early as August 21, 2005, Defendant
acquired the permission of the original owner
DANNY UY to take possession of such property;
6. On April 17, 2011 the Defendant was surprised that
Plaintiff approached and informed him that he was
the lawful owner of the land and they acquired it
through a contract of sale with the original owner
DANNY UY;
7. On January 31, 2012 the Defendant received a
summon from the Metropolitan Trial Court to
answer for a complaint filed against them for forcible
entry. On February 5, 2012 the Defendant, thru the
undersigned
complaint;
counsel,
filed
an
answer
to
the
8. The same acts of the Plaintiff compelled the

Defendant to incur litigation expenses consisting of
the hearings of this case, etc., fixed at FIFTY
Plaintiff should also be held answerable therefore.
ISSUE/S
1. Whether the Defendant can be ejected by reason of

forcible entry under Rule 70 Section 1 of the Revised the
Rules of Court.
ARGUMENTS
1. The Defendant cannot be ejected on the subject land for

the reason that for forcible entry to attach the following
circumstance must concur:
(a) That the person is deprived of his property;
(b)That such deprivation is due to force,

intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; and
(c) That such person has real title over such
property.
In this case, the Defendant made no deprivation of
possession on the Plaintiff because the property was
already in his possession and the Plaintiff started to claim

such land only on April 17, 2011 based on the alleged sale
of DANNY UY to the Plaintiff. This would only show that
Defendant was actually the one in a threat of losing the
subject land, which he lawfully acquired through the
permission of DANNY UY.
Moreover, the Plaintiff has never been in possession of
such land from the time it was acquired by the Defendant.
This means that the Plaintiff was never in possession of the
property as REQUIRED by one of the ELEMENTS OF
FORCIBLE ENTRY.
RESERVATIONS
Defendant
respectfully
reserves
its
right
to
file

PRAYER
circumstances.

Manila City
IBP No.B-1234567
PTR No. B-1234567
MCLE No. B-1234567

ARBITRATION / COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-

For: FORCIBLE ENTRY
PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
JUAN DELA CRUZ,

Manila City
AND
PEDRO SANTOS,
AGREE as follows:
1. That PEDRO SANTOS shall permanently VACATE the

premises in question and give the immediate right of
possession to the Plaintiff;
2. The plaintiff shall drop this civil case against the
defendant.
IN
WITNESS
WHEREOF,
the
Parties
hereto
have

JUAN DELA CRUZ

Plaintiff
PEDRO SANTOS
Defendant
Assisted by:
Mediator
MARIA S. MENDOZ
(EJECTMENT) UNLAWFUL DETAINER

(Complaint)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-
For: UNLAWFUL DETAINER

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
COMPLAINT

this
Honorable
Court
most
respectfully
submits
this
Complaint for Forcible Entry and in support hereof makes the

following assertions:
processes;
3. Initially, the possession of property located at #86
Antipolo Street, Makati City by the Defendant was
by a Contract of Lease with or by tolerance of the
Plaintiff (A Copy of Contract of Lease is hereto
attached as Annex A);
4. Defendants lease expired 2 months ago;
5. Defendant refused to turn over the said property

even after oral and written demand to do so was
made, thus, such possession became illegal (A Copy
of the Demand Letter is hereto attached as Annex
B);
6. Thereafter, the Defendant remained in possession of
the property and deprived the Plaintiff of the
enjoyment thereof;

defendant should also be held answerable;
Procedure.
PRAYER

prayed of this Honorable Court that, after the proceedings,
judgment be rendered in favor of the Plaintiff and ordering the
Defendant and all persons claiming rights under him to:
(a) Permanently VACATE the premises in question and
give the immediate possession thereof to the
Plaintiff;
(b)Pay plaintiff the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND
PESOS (Php 20,000.00) by way of attorneys fees
and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 50,000.00) by
way of other litigation expenses;
(c) Pay plaintiff the cost of this suit.
Plaintiff prays for such other remedies and reliefs as may

be deemed just and equitable under the premises.


Manila City
IBP No. A-1234567
PTR No. A- 1234567
MCLE No. A-1234567

Unlawful Detainer and understood the contents thereof, and I
JUAN DELA CRUZ

Affiant

Complaint for Unlawful Detainer, affiant being known to me

ATTY. MARK S. LERMA

Notary Public
PTR No. A-1234567
On January 1, 2011
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 1;
Book No. 1;
Series 2012.

(Answer)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
ANSWER

counsel, by way of answer to plaintiffs complaint, and unto
1. DEFENDANT ADMITS paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 insofar
as the personal circumstances of the Plaintiff and
Defendant is concerned;
2. DEFENDANT specifically DENIES paragraph 4 of
the complaint in as much as the Plaintiff allowed for
the extension of the lease contract;
3. DEFENDANT PARTIALLY ADMITS paragraph 5 in as

much as he refuses to turn over the said property
only because of the extension granted to him by the
Plaintiff;
Plaintiff should also be held answerable therefore;
Procedure.
PRAYER

Plaintiff.
premises.

Manila City
IBP No.B-1234567
PTR No. B-1234567

MCLE No. B-1234567
VERIFICATION
PEDRO SANTOS
Defendant
Copy furnished:

Manila City
PROOF OF SERVICE


by Plaintiffs counsel herself.
DOMINGO REYES
Affiant

ATTY. MARK S. LERMA

Notary Public
PTR No. A-1234567
On January 1, 2011
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 1;
Book No. 1;
Series 2012.

(Reply)

MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
REPLY

stated that Plaintiff allowed him to extend the lease
of the property in question;
alleging the claim in as much as the Plaintiff did not
extend such lease. Neither was there any evidence
of such extension.
PRAYER

set forth in the Plaintiffs Complaint.

Manila City
IBP No. A-1234567
PTR No. A- 1234567
MCLE No. A-1234567

(Pre-Trial Brief)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PRETRIAL BRIEF

following:

other processes;
b. Initially, the possession of property located at #86
Antipolo Street, Makati City by the Defendant
was by a Contract of Lease with or by tolerance of
the Plaintiff;
c. Defendants lease expired 2 months ago;
d. Defendant refused to turn over the said property

even after oral and written demand to do so was
made, thus, such possession became illegal;
e. Thereafter, the Defendant remained in possession
of the property and deprived the Plaintiff of the
enjoyment thereof.
a. Whether or not Defendant does have the

permission to stay in the premises of the property
subject of this case due to an alleged extension of
the Lease Agreement.
b. Whether or not Defendant can be ejected by
reason of unlawful detainer from the premises of
the property subject of this case.
connection with which Plaintiff requests from Defendant
a. Exhibit A Lease Agreement between Plaintiff

and Defendant;
b. Exhibit B Demand Letter concerning the
written demand made by the Plaintiff to
Defendant to vacate the premises.
Procedures.

following:
a. That the Lease Agreement between them has
expired and no extension of period for lease was
agreed upon.
b. That he is guilty of unlawful detainer and should
be ejected from the premises of the property.
cognizance of.

Manila City
IBP No. A-1234567
PTR No. A- 1234567

MCLE No. A-1234567
Copy furnished:

Manila City
PROOF OF SERVICE

address
at
Manila
City.
The
Answer
was
received
by

CARLOS BELTRAN
Affiant

ATTY. MARK S. LERMA

Notary Public
PTR No. A-1234567
On January 1, 2011
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 1;
Book No. 1;
Series 2012.

(Position Paper)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
POSITION PAPER FOR THE PLAINTIFF

THE CASE
The case arose from the expiration of the lease agreement
between
the
Plaintiff
and
Defendant
and
the
latters
subsequent refusal to vacate the formers property. Plaintiff

now prays for the ejectment of the Defendant and the payment
of damages.
FACTS OF THE CASE

processes;
2.
Defendant PEDRO SANTOS is also a Filipino, of

3.
4.
Defendant was a lessee of the Plaintiffs property

at #86 Antipolo Street, Makati City;
Defendants lease expired 2 months ago;
5.
Defendant refused to turn over the said property

even after demand was made;
6.
Thereafter, the Defendant remained in possession

of the property and deprived the Plaintiff of the
enjoyment thereof;
7.

defendant should also be held answerable;
8.
This action is governed by the Rules on Summary

Procedure.
ISSUE/S
1. Whether Defendant should be ejected by reason of

unlawful detainer.
2. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to damages.
ARGUMENTS
1. Under Rule 70 Section 1 of the Revised the Rules of

Court, where a lessor, vendor, or person against whom
the possession of any land or building is unlawfully
withheld after the expiration or termination of the right
to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, an
ejectment for unlawful detainer case may be filed against
the usurper.
2. Under the Civil Code, the Plaintiff is entitled to moral and
actual damages where a person unlawfully deprives
another of his property and suffers damages therefrom.
RESERVATIONS
Plaintiff
respectfully
reserves
his
right
to
file

PRAYER
circumstances.

Manila City
IBP No. A-1234567
PTR No. A- 1234567
MCLE No. A-1234567

(Position Paper)
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

THE CASE
The case arose from the complaint filed by the plaintiff
against the defendant on the alleged expiration of their lease
agreement.
FACTS OF THE CASE

processes;
3. Defendant was a lessee of the plaintiffs property at
#86 Antipolo Street, Makati City;
4. Defendants lease was extended 2 months ago after
initial period for the lease agreement had expired;
5. That as a consequence of the extension, the Plaintiff
allowed the Defendant to stay at the premises of the
property for another SIX (6) months. However, the
Defendant was shocked when a couple of weeks
after the extension was agreed upon the Plaintiff
asked him to vacate the property immediately;
Procedure.
ISSUE/S
1. Whether the Defendant should be ejected by reason of

unlawful detainer.
ARGUMENTS
1. The defendant cannot be ejected on the subject property

for the reason that for unlawful detainer to attach the
following circumstance must concur:
(a) Initially, the possession of the property by the
defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of
the plaintiff;
(b)Eventually, the possession became illegal upon
the plaintiffs notice to the defendant of the
termination of the latters right of possession;
and
(c) Thereafter, the defendant remained in possession
of the property and deprived the plaintiff of the
latters enjoyment.
In this case, the defendant made no deprivation of
possession on the plaintiff because the lease agreement was
extended for another SIX (6) months after the initial period
for the lease agreement expired. Therefore, the Plaintiff
cannot forcefully eject the Defendant upon short notice.
RESERVATIONS
Defendant
respectfully
reserves
its
right
to
file

PRAYER
circumstances.

Manila City
IBP No.B-1234567
PTR No. B-1234567
MCLE No. B-1234567
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Plaintif,
-versus-

PEDRO SANTOS,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
JUAN DELA CRUZ,

Manila City
AND
PEDRO SANTOS,
AGREE as follows:
1. That PEDRO SANTOS shall permanently VACATE the

premises in question and give the immediate right of
possession to the Plaintiff after a reasonable period is
given to him to find another place to lease;
2. The plaintiff shall drop this civil case against the
defendant.
IN
WITNESS
WHEREOF,
the
Parties
hereto
have

JUAN DELA CRUZ

Plaintiff
PEDRO SANTOS
Defendant
Assisted by:
Mediator
MARIA S. MENDOZ
TRAFFIC VIOLATION
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR
MANILA CITY
SPO1 RENATO T. CORDOVA,
Complainant,
-versus-
I. S. No. L-000923
For: TRAFFIC VIOLATION
PEDRO SANTOS,
Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, SPO1 RENATO T. CORDOVA, of legal age, Filipino, a

deputized police officer of the Metro Manila Development
Authority, after having sworn in accordance with law, do
hereby depose and state that:
1 I was present and personally saw that the accused,
PEDRO SANTOS, committed the traffic violation of
driving with a falsified drivers license.
2 I was on duty during the time of apprehension of the
accused due to his sudden swerving.
3 The accused showed a falsified drivers license when I
asked him to surrender his drivers license.
I executed this affidavit to attest the truthfulness of the

foregoing facts and to support the filing of Summary Procedure
for Traffic Violation of Driving with Falsified License.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my signature
this 31st day of January, 2012 at Manila City, Philippines.
SPO1 RENATO T. CORDOVA
Affiant
January, 2012 at Manila City, Philippines.

Investigating Prosecutor
Manila City
IBP No. A-1234567
PTR No. A- 1234567
MCLE No. A-1234567
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have personally examined the

herein affiant and I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed
and understood his given Affidavit.

Investigating Prosecutor
Manila City
IBP No. A-1234567
PTR No. A- 1234567
MCLE No. A-1234567
TRAFFIC VIOLATION
(Counter-Affidavit)
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR
MANILA CITY
Complainant,
I. S. No. L-000923
-versus-

PEDRO SANTOS,
Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, PEDRO SANTOS, of legal age, Filipino, with home

address at #367 Teresa Street, Makati City, after having sworn
in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that:
1. I ADMIT the allegations contained in the Complainants

Affidavit.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE,
the
Answering
Respondent,
most
respectfully prays for judgment of a lessened penalty for the

Traffic Violation of Driving with a Falsified Drivers License.
Respondent prays for such other remedies and further
premises.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my signature
this 5th day of February, 2012 at Manila City, Philippines.
PEDRO SANTOS
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 5th day of
February, 2012 at Manila City, Philippines.

City Prosecutor
Manila City
IBP No.B-1234567
PTR No. B-1234567
MCLE No. B-1234567
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have personally examined the

herein affiant and I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed
and understood his given Affidavit.

City Prosecutor
Manila City
IBP No.B-1234567
PTR No. B-1234567
MCLE No. B-1234567
Copy furnished:
SPO1 RENATO T. CORDOVA

Complainant
Manila City
PROOF OF SERVICE

Hontiveros, herein City Prosecutor, hereby certify that I
personally delivered Respondents Counter-Affidavit dated
February 5, 2012 to Complainant SPO1 Renato T. Cordova
with address at Manila City. The Counter-Affidavit was
received by Complainant himself.
DOMINGO REYES
Affiant

ATTY. MARK S. LERMA
Notary Public
PTR No. A-1234567
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 1;
Book No. 1;
Series 2012.
TRAFFIC VIOLATION
(Pre-Trial Brief)

MANILA CITY
Branch 023
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintif,
CRIMINAL CASE No. L-000923
-versus-

PEDRO SANTOS,
Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PRETRIAL BRIEF

following:
a. Plaintiff, pursuant of the Complaint-Affidavit filed
by SPO1 RENATO T. CORDOVA, who a deputized
police officer of the Metro Manila Development
Authority, is filing a criminal action against
herein Accused;
b. During the time of apprehension of the Accused
due to his sudden swerving, he showed a falsified
drivers license in violation of traffic rules and
regulations;
3. The issue which Plaintiff raises are as follows:
a. Whether or not Accused is guilty of Driving with a

Falsified Drivers License in violation of Traffic
Rules and Regulations.
connection with which Plaintiff requests from Accused
a. Exhibit A Traffic Violation Ticket given by the
Complainant SPO1 RENATO T. CORDOVA to the
Accused;
b. Exhibit B Preliminary Investigation Records
concerning the incident.
Procedures.
6. Plaintiff does not intend to amend the Information.
7. Plaintiff requests of Accused to stipulate or admit the

following:
a. That he is guilty of Driving with a Falsified
Drivers License in violation of Traffic Rules and
Regulations.

cognizance of.

Manila City
Copy furnished:
ATTY. MAR D. GRAS

Counsel for Accused
Manila City
PROOF OF SERVICE
address
at
Manila
City.
The
Answer
was
received
by
CARLOS BELTRAN
Affiant

ATTY. MARK S. LERMA

Notary Public
PTR No. A-1234567
On January 1, 2011
Doc. No. 1;
Page No. 1;
Book No. 1;
Series 2012.
TRAFFIC VIOLATION
ARBITRATION / COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
MANILA CITY
Branch 023
Plaintif,
-versus-
CRIMINAL CASE No. L-000923

PEDRO SANTOS,
Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

resident of #69 Chico St., Sampaloc, Manila City
and a deputized police officer of Metro Manila
Development Authority
AND
PEDRO SANTOS,

AGREE as follows:
1. That PEDRO SANTOS shall pay for the penalty raised by

Metro Manila Development Authority and other pertinent
fees and charges;
2. The Plaintiff shall drop the civil liabilities against the
Accused.
IN
WITNESS
WHEREOF,
the
Parties
hereto
have

JUAN DELA CRUZ

Plaintiff
PEDRO SANTOS
Defendant
Assisted by:
Mediator
MARIA S. MENDOZ
Appeals

(Rule 40 Appeal)
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
City of Manila, Branch 10
Rocelia Salig
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1234567
For: Permanent Protection Order
under R.A. 9262
-versus-
Elden Modequillo
Defendant.
x-------------------------x
NOTICE OF APPEAL
DEFENDANT, by the undersigned counsel, hereby files a
Notice of Appeal from the judgment of this Honorable Court in
the above-entitled case, dated January 2, 2012, a copy of
which was received by him on January 12, 2012, and appeals
the same to the Honorable Regional Trial Court for being
contrary to law.
Manila, January 15, 2012
PETER PAUL O. CALUSA

18th Floor, Security Bank Building, Ayala
Ave., Makati City
PTR No. 84836278/1-18-11
IBP No. 834265/3-18-10/Makati
Copy furnished:
MCLE No. 11-765678
ATTY AIRA MANIBOG

Siervo Law Office
(Rule 41 Appeal)
Rocelia Salig
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1234567

under R.A. 9262
-versus-
Elden Modequillo
Defendant.
x-------------------------x
NOTICE OF APPEAL
the same to the Honorable Court of Appeals for being contrary
to law.

Ave., Makati City
PTR No. 84836278/1-18-11
IBP No. 834265/3-18-10/Makati
MCLE No. 11-765678
Copy furnished:
ATTY AIRA MANIBOG
Siervo Law Office
(Rule 43 Appeal)
COURT OF APPEALS
City of Manila, 3rd Division
Rocelia Salig
Appellant,
-versus-
Case No. 1234567

under R.A. 9262
Elden Modequillo
Appelleee.
x-------------------------x
PETITION FOR REVIEW
PETITIONER, through counsels, unto this Honorable
Court, respectfully state:
I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
This is an appeal under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court

from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (CITY OF
MANILA BRANCH 10) dated February 1, 2012 in CA-G.R. CRHC No. 00356 entitled Elden Modequillo vs. Rocelia Salig
A certified copy of the said Decision in question is hereto
attached as Annex A and is hereinafter referred to as the
RTC Decision for brevity.
II.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES
Notice of the said RTC Decision was received by herein
counsel on January 25, 2012. The 15-day reglementary period
for a petition under Rule 42 ends on 9 February 2012, the last
day for its filing.
III.
PARTIES
Petitioners Elden Modequillo is the husband of Rocelia
Salig, they have been married for 10 years and blessed with
two (2) children age 9 and 7. He is a security officer of Food
Eat R Us a respectable Food Company. He is represented
herein by the undersigned counsel.
Respondent Rocelia Salig is a housewife and represented
by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) with offices at Jack
and Jill Village, Manila City where it may be served processes
by this Honorable Court
IV.
CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED
This is an appeal regarding the aforesaid RTC Decision
which affirmed the trial courts Decision dated December 25,
2010 in Civil Case No. 11-12345, Municipal Trial Branch 10,
Manila City granting the permanent protection Order under
R.A. 9262 against the petitioner.
The main point of this Petition is to call the urgent attention
and action of this Honorable Court to what petitioners believe
is a grave failure of the RTC Review, thus resulting in a grave

miscarriage of justice. Simply put, there was no real review at
all in the RTC.
This is largely a question of law, particularly the violation
of constitutional as well as civil rights of the herein petitioner.
That there is insufficiency of evidence to prove that the
petitioner is hostile to the respondent and her children;
That Elden provided Rocelia with a mini sari-sari store at
home, so she can augment the familys income. Instead, the
store never profited because she could never attend to it, as
she was want to sleep her day around, even forgetting to take
care of the childrens food. Worse, Rocelia kept selling the
things around the house, like his cellular phones, the
motorcycle, and even his clothes;
That the permanent protection order will deprive their
children of their father;
That the court committed reversible error of law when it
mandated appellant to give a monthly financial support of
P10,000.00 despite failure of appellee to adduce evidence to
prove the actual necessities of the recipients of support hence,
in clear contravention of the rule that the amount of support
shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver
and the necessities of the recipient.
V.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Supreme Court that it:
DECLARE AS VOID the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court (CITY OF MANILA BRANCH 10) dated
February 1, 2012 in Civil Case No. 11-12345 (Annex A)
for absence of an actual RTC review;
1
FORTHWITH ITSELF SPEEDILY DECIDE, WITHOUT
REMANDING TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, the appellate
review of the trial courts judgment of conviction, so that this
conviction be SET ASIDE AND REVERSED AND FIND IN
FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER.
Manila, 10 January 2012.

Ave., Makati City
PTR No. 84836278/1-18-11
IBP No. 834265/3-18-10/Makati
MCLE No. 11-765678
Copy furnished: (by personal delivery)
(thru the Presiding Justice)
Manila
The Solicitor General
Jack and Jill Village, Manila City
AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

The undersigned Complainant, after duly sworn by law,
hereby states that he has caused the preparation of this
pleading; he has read and understood its contents; and the
contents thereof are true and correct to the best of his
personal knowledge and belief.
Undersigned Complainant further states that he has not

commenced any action or any claim involving the same issues
in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and , to the
best of his knowledge, no much action or claim has been filed
or is pending, he shall report that fact within five(5) days
therefrom to this Board.
Elden Modequillo
Defendant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this 13th day of

January 2012, affiant having exhibited to me her Community
Tax Certificate Number 7777778 issued on January 9, 2012 at
Manila City.
ATTY. ERNESTO GUEVARA

Notary Public
PTR No. 76543218 1/10/08 Mla.
IBP No. 9879 1/4/07 Mla.
ROA 12345
Doc No
Page
Book No
Series of 2012

(Rule 45 Appeal)

SUPREME COURT
City of Manila, 3rd Division
Rocelia Salig
Appellant,
-versus-
Case No. 1234567

under R.A. 9262
Elden Modequillo
Appelleee.
x-------------------------x
PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (Sixteenth Division)
dated February 1, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00356 entitled
Elden Modequillo vs. Rocelia Salig
A certified copy of the said Decision in question is hereto
attached as Annex A and is hereinafter referred to as the CA
Decision for brevity.
II.
Notice of the said CA Decision was received by herein
lead counsel on January 25, 2012. The 15-day reglementary
period for a petition under Rule 45 ends on 9 February 2012,
the last day for its filing.
II.
day for its filing.
III.
PARTIES
Petitioners Elden Modequillo is the husband of Rocelia
Salig, they have been married for 10 years and blessed with
two (2) children age 9 and 7. He is a security officer of Food
Eat R Us a respectable Food Company. He is represented
herein by the undersigned counsel.
Respondent Rocelia Salig is a housewife and represented
by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) with offices at Jack
and Jill Village, Manila City where it may be served processes
by this Honorable Court
IV.
This is an appeal regarding the aforesaid CA Decision
2010 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00356, Court of Appeals Division
16, Manila City granting the permanent protection Order
under R.A. 9262 against the petitioner.
The main point of this Petition is to call the urgent
attention and action of this Honorable Court to what
petitioners believe is a grave failure of the CA Review, thus
resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice. Simply put, there
was no real review at all in the CA.
This is largely a question of law, particularly the violation
of constitutional as well as civil rights of the herein petitioner.
That there is insufficiency of evidence to prove that the

petitioner is hostile to the respondent and her children;
That Elden provided Rocelia with a mini sari-sari store at
home, so she can augment the familys income. Instead, the
store never profited because she could never attend to it, as
she was want to sleep her day around, even forgetting to take
care of the childrens food. Worse, Rocelia kept selling the
things around the house, like his cellular phones, the
motorcycle, and even his clothes;
That the permanent protection order will deprive their
children of their father;
That the court committed reversible error of law when it
mandated appellant to give a monthly financial support of
P10,000.00 despite failure of appellee to adduce evidence to
prove the actual necessities of the recipients of support hence,
in clear contravention of the rule that the amount of support
shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver
and the necessities of the recipient.
V.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
DECLARE AS VOID the Decision of the Court of
Appeals (CITY OF MANILA Division 16) dated February 1,
2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00356(Annex A) for absence
of an actual CA review;
REMANDING TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, the appellate
conviction be SET ASIDE AND REVERSED AND FIND IN
FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER.

Ave., Makati City
PTR No. 84836278/1-18-11
IBP No. 834265/3-18-10/Makati
MCLE No. 11-765678
Court of Appeals
Maria Orosa St.
Ermita, Manila
The Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo St.
Legaspi Village, Makati City
Elden Modequillo
Defendant

Manila City.

Notary Public
PTR No. 76543218 1/10/08 Mla.
IBP No. 9879 1/4/07 Mla.
ROA 12345
Doc No
Page
Book No
Series of 2012

(Rule 45)
SUPREME COURT
Manila
Elden Modequillo
Appellant,
-versus-
Gr. No. ________________

(CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00356
Rescission of Contract for
Damages
Rocelia Salig
Appellee.
x-------------------------------x

I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
Elden Modequillo vs. Rocelia Salig. A certified copy of the
said Decision in question is hereto attached as Annex A and is
hereinafter referred to as the CA Decision for brevity.
II.
III.
PARTIES
1. That the Petitioner, Elden Modequillo is the owner of the
estate in question, legal age, single, Filipino citizen and
resides at No.80 Daang Matuwid Street, Manila City. He
is represented herein by the undersigned counsel;
2. The Respondent, Rocelia Salig is the buyer of the estate,
legal age, single, Filipino citizen and resides in No. 2
Daang Baluktot Street, Manila City. She is represented by
Atty. AIRA MANIBOG, of legal age, single, Filipino Citizen
and Resides in No.3 Panyero Village, Manila City.
3. That both parties in this case may be served with all

notices, orders, and other processes thru the abovestated addresses of the parties hereof;
IV.
2010 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00356, Court of Appeals (16th
division), Manila City granting the Specific Performance for
Damages against the petitioner.
resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice.
The plaintiff is the owner of a certain parcel of realty
consisting 3,000 square meters, situated in the city of Manila,
and fully described in the complaint. About the month of
December, 2010, the defendants made a proposition to the
plaintiff for the purchase of this property. After negotiating for
some time, it was agreed that the defendants would pay
plaintiff the sum of P100, 000 for the land, P20, 000 of which
was to be handed over upon the signing of the deed, and the
balance of P80, 000, paid in monthly installments of P15,000.
The property was to be mortgaged to the plaintiff to secure the
payment of this balance of P80, 000. The plaintiff proceeded to
have survey made of the land and to prepare the deed and
mortgage. Expenses to the amount of P830.93 were incurred
for these purposes. The deed was ready about March 28,
2010, when the defendants were notified to appear and sign
the same. They failed to do this, and instead, the defendant,
Rocelia Salig, wrote a letter to plaintiff, as follows:
MANILA, January 3, 2011.
MR. Elden Modequillo,
MY DEAR SIR,
It is with regret that I inform you that it is now
absolutely impossible for us to effect the purchase of the
property at Juan Luna Street, as it was our desire to do. The
reason for this is that the business has failed, in which we had
invested all the money we had and from which he hope to
obtain sure gains and to get the P20,000 which we were to give
you in advance for the purchase of said property, and
consequently, we have lost our savings and our hope of being
able to purchase the property for the time being.
Before closing, I request you to pardon us for the troubles
we have caused you, for, in truth, we acted in good faith, but,
as you will readily realize, without having the P20, 000 in our
hands, it will be impossible for us to effect the purchase.
Reiterating my request that you pardon us for all the trouble, I
am
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) Rocelia Salig.
The Court of Appeals, however, had seen this as coercing

the respondent. According to the CA, Elden has not sustained
damages of any kind or character.The court said:
Whether or not the defendants are able to perform
the contract is a matter of defense, and there is no
special defense on that subject in the answer; but it
appears from the evidence that the defendants have not
the funds available for the cash payment on the contract,
and apparently the performance of the contract in the
terms agreed between the plaintiff and defendants would
be impracticable; the court would not be able to enforce a
decree for specific performance, and such a decree might
operate as a great hardship upon the defendants;
therefore, the court is of the opinion that it would be
useless, unjust and inequitable to render judgment
herein for specific performance.
However, article 1451 provides that, "A promise to

sell or buy, when there is an agreement as to the thing
and the price, entitles the contracting parties reciprocally
to demand the fulfillment of the contract." But the article
in recognition of a negative result also provides,
"whenever the promise to purchase and sell cannot be
fulfilled, the provisions relative to obligations and
contracts, contained in this book, shall be applicable in
the respective cases to the vendor and the vendee."
Turning to these provisions relating to obligations and
contracts, we find article 1096 making a distinction
between a specific thing to be delivered and an
indeterminate or generic thing; article 1098 providing
that a person is obligated to do a certain thing according
to the tenor of the obligation; and finally, article 1124 in
absolute approval of contractual mutually decreeing that
"the person prejudiced may choose between exacting the
fulfillment of the obligation or its resolution with
indemnity for damages and payment of interest in either
cases."
As to whether the vendor can compel the vendee to
perform, which is the point before the court, the
jurisprudence of the supreme court of Spain and the
commentaries of Manresa do not in the least attempt to
distinguish between one or the other party, the vendor or
the vendee, but constantly and without exception use the
word "reciprocamente." the following decisions of the
supreme court of Spain interpretative of these articles
can be noted: April 17, 1897; October 10, 1904; February
4, 1905.
The vendee is entitled to specific performance
essentially as a matter of course. Philippine cases have so
held. (Irureta Goyena vs. Tambunting [1902], 1 Phil., 490;
Thunga Chui vs. Que Bentec [1903], 2 Phil., 561; Couto
Soriano vs. Cortes [1907, 8 Phil., 459; Dievas vs. Co
Chongco [1910], 16 Phil., 447.) If the doctrine of
mutuality of remedy is to apply, the vendor should
likewise be entitled to similar relief. Philippine
jurisprudence, however, has never as yet been afforded
an opportunity to so hold. The nearest approach to the

idea has been, with reference to merchandise, in a
decision to the effect that if the purchaser refuses
without lawful reason to accept delivery when tendered
by the seller in conformity with the contract of sale, the
seller may elect to enforce compliance or to rescind.
(Matute vs. Cheong Boo [1918], 37 Phil., 372.)
V.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2
conviction be SET ASIDE AND REVERSED AND RESCIND
THE CONTRACT WITH DAMAGES.

18th Floor, Security Bank Building,
PTR No. 84836278/1-18-11
IBP No. 834265/3-18-10/Makati
MCLE No. 11-765678
Court of Appeals
ATTY AIRA MANIBOG
Siervo Law Office


Elden Modequillo
Defendant

Manila City.
Notary Public
PTR No. 76543218 1/10/08 Mla.
IBP No. 9879 1/4/07 Mla.

ROA 12345
Doc No
Page
Book No
Series of 2012

(Rule 40)
Rocelia Salig
Plaintiff
Case No. 123456
For: Rescission of
Contract for Damages
-versus-
Elden Modequillo
Defendant
x-----------------------------------------------x
NOTICE OF APPEAL
contrary to law.

PTR No. 84836278/1-18-11
IBP No. 834265/3-18-10/Makati
MCLE No. 11-765678
Copy furnished:
ATTY AIRA MANIBOG
Siervo Law Office
(Rule 41)
Rocelia Salig
Plaintiff
Case No. 123456
For: Rescission of
-versusElden Modequillo
Defendant.
x--------------------------------x
NOTICE OF APPEAL
the same to the Honorable Court of Appeals for being contrary
to law.
PTR No. 84836278/1-18-11

IBP No. 834265/3-18-10/Makati
MCLE No. 11-765678
Copy furnished:
ATTY AIRA MANIBOG
Siervo Law Office

(Rule 43)
COURT OF APPEALS
City of Manila, 3RD Division
Rocelia Salig
Plaintiff
-versus-
Case No. 123456

For: Rescission of
Elden Modequillo
Defendant.
x--------------------------------x
PETITION FOR REVIEW
I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT

MANILA BRANCH 10) dated February 1, 2012 in CA-G.R. CRHC No. 00356 entitled Elden Modequillo vs. Rocelia Salig A
certified copy of the said Decision in question is hereto
II.
day for its filing.
III.
PARTIES
pendant in question, legal age, single, Filipino citizen
and resides at No.80 Daang Matuwid Street, Manila City.
He is represented herein by the undersigned counsel;
2. The Respondent, Rocelia Salig is the buyer of the
pendant, legal age, single, Filipino citizen and resides in
No. 2 Daang Baluktot Street, Manila City. She is
represented by Atty. AIRA MANIBOG, of legal age, single,
Filipino Citizen and Resides in No.3 Panyero Village,
Manila City.
IV.
Manila City granting the Rescission of Contract for Damages

against the petitioner.
petitioners believe is a grave failure of the RTC Review, thus
That Petitioner is the owner of a pendant worth
Php10,000.00. He sold it to Rocelia in the condition that she
will give her a painting of herself. Although the respondent did
make such painting its drawing is so bad it does not look like
the respondent at all.
The Regional trial Court, however, seen this as a
completion of the contract between the parties. It is an
injustice to my client who cannot even look at the painting
because of how bad it looks. It is not the intent of my client to
exchange a fine jewelry to a worthless painting. Clearly this
honorable court can see the demise the petitioner is going
through.
V.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
DECLARE AS VOID the Decision of the Regional
Trial Court (CITY OF MANILA BRANCH 10) dated
February 1, 2012 in Civil Case No. 11-12345 (Annex A)
for absence of an actual RTC review;
3

PTR No. 84836278/1-18-11
IBP No. 834265/3-18-10/Makati
MCLE No. 11-765678
Manila
ATTY AIRA MANIBOG
Siervo Law Office
Elden Modequillo
Defendant

Manila City.
Doc No
Page
Book No
Series of 2012

Notary Public
PTR No. 76543218 1/10/08 Mla.
IBP No. 9879 1/4/07 Mla.
ROA 12345

(Rule 45)
SUPREME COURT

Rocelia Salig
Appellant,
Case No. 123456
For: Rescission of
Appellee.
x----------------------------x

I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
Elden Modequillo vs. Rocelia Salig. A certified copy of the
said Decision in question is hereto attached as Annex A and is
hereinafter referred to as the CA Decision for brevity.
II.
III.
PARTIES

pendant in question, legal age, single, Filipino citizen
and resides at No.80 Daang Matuwid Street, Manila City.
He is represented herein by the undersigned counsel;
pendant, legal age, single, Filipino citizen and resides in
represented by Atty. AIRA MANIBOG, of legal age, single,
Filipino Citizen and Resides in No.3 Panyero Village,
Manila City;
notices, orders, and other processes thru the abovestated addresses of the parties hereof.
IV.
2010 in CR-HC No. 00356, Municipal Trial Branch 10, Manila
City granting the Rescission of Contract for Damages against
the petitioner.
That Petitioner is the owner of a pendant worth
Php10,000.00. He sold it to Rocelia in the condition that she
will give her a painting of herself. Although the respondent did
make such painting its drawing is so bad it does not look like
the respondent at all.
The Court of Appeals, however, had seen this as a
completion of the contract between the parties. It is an
injustice to my client who cannot even look at the painting
because of how bad it looks. It is not the intent of my client to
exchange a fine jewelry to a worthless painting. Clearly this
honorable court can see the demise the petitioner is going

through.
V.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
4
PTR No. 84836278/1-18-11
IBP No. 834265/3-18-10/Makati
MCLE No. 11-765678

Court of Appeals
ATTY AIRA MANIBOG
Siervo Law Office

Elden Modequillo
Defendant

Manila City.
Notary Public
PTR No. 76543218 1/10/08 Mla.
IBP No. 9879 1/4/07 Mla.
ROA 12345
Doc No
Page
Book No
Series of 2012
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WITH DAMAGES

(Rule 40)
Rocelia Salig
Plaintif
Case No. 1234567
For: Specific
Performance for
Damages
Defendant
x-------------------------------x
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice of Appeal from the judgment of this Honorable Court
in the above-entitled case, dated January 2, 2012, a copy of
contrary to law.
18th Floor, Security Bank
Building, Ayala Ave., Makati
City
PTR No. 84836278/1-18-11
IBP No. 834265/3-1810/Makati
MCLE No. 11-765678
Copy furnished:
ATTY AIRA MANIBOG
Siervo Law Office

(Rule 41)
Rocelia Salig
Plaintif
Case No. 1234567
For: Specific
Performance for
Damages
Defendant
x-------------------------------x
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice of Appeal from the judgment of this Honorable Court
in the above-entitled case, dated January 2, 2012, a copy of
the same to the Honorable Court of Appeals for being
contrary to law.
City
PTR No. 84836278/1-18-11
IBP No. 834265/3-1810/Makati
MCLE No. 11-765678
Copy furnished:
ATTY AIRA MANIBOG

Siervo Law Office

(Rule 43)
COURT OF APPEALS
Rocelia Salig
Plaintif
Case No. 1234567
For: Specific
Performance for
Damages
Defendant
x-------------------------------x
PETITION FOR REVIEW

PETITIONER, through counsels, unto this Honorable Court,
respectfully state:
I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
MANILA BRANCH 10) dated February 1, 2012 in CA-G.R. CRHC No. 00356 entitled Elden Modequillo vs. Rocelia Salig A
certified copy of the said Decision in question is hereto
II.
counsel on January 25, 2012. The 15-day reglementary

III.
PARTIES
estate in question, legal age, single, Filipino citizen and
resides at No.80 Daang Matuwid Street, Manila City. He
is represented herein by the undersigned counsel;
estate, legal age, single, Filipino citizen and resides in
represented by Atty. AIRA MANIBOG, of legal age,
single, Filipino Citizen and Resides in No.3 Panyero
Village, Manila City.
IV.
Manila City granting the Specific Performance for Damages
against the petitioner.
petitioners believe is a grave failure of the RTC Review, thus
The plaintif is the owner of a certain parcel of realty
consisting 3,000 square meters, situated in the city of
Manila, and fully described in the complaint. About the
month of December, 2010, the defendants made a
proposition to the plaintif for the purchase of this property.
After negotiating for some time, it was agreed that the
defendants would pay plaintif the sum of P100, 000 for the
land, P20, 000 of which was to be handed over upon the
signing of the deed, and the balance of P80, 000, paid in
monthly installments of P15,000. The property was to be
mortgaged to the plaintif to secure the payment of this

balance of P80, 000. The plaintif proceeded to have survey
made of the land and to prepare the deed and mortgage.
Expenses to the amount of P830.93 were incurred for these
purposes. The deed was ready about March 28, 2010, when
the defendants were notified to appear and sign the same.
They failed to do this, and instead, the defendant, Rocelia
Salig, wrote a letter to plaintif, as follows:
MANILA, January 3, 2011.
MR. Elden Modequillo,
MY DEAR SIR
It is with regret that I inform you that it is now
absolutely impossible for us to efect the purchase of the
property at Juan Luna Street, as it was our desire to do. The
reason for this is that the business has failed, in which we
had invested all the money we had and from which he hope
to obtain sure gains and to get the P20,000 which we were
to give you in advance for the purchase of said property, and
consequently, we have lost our savings and our hope of
being able to purchase the property for the time being.
Before closing, I request you to pardon us for the
troubles we have caused you, for, in truth, we acted in good
faith, but, as you will readily realize, without having the P20,
000 in our hands, it will be impossible for us to efect the
purchase.
Reiterating my request that you pardon us for all the
trouble, I am
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) Rocelia
Salig.
The Regional trial Court, however, seen this as coercing
the respondent. It is not by the way it is only fulfilling a
binding contract. Elden has not sustained damages of any
kind or character.
The court said:
Whether or not the defendants are able to

perform the contract is a matter of defense, and there
is no special defense on that subject in the answer; but
it appears from the evidence that the defendants have
not the funds available for the cash payment on the
contract, and apparently the performance of the
contract in the terms agreed between the plaintif and
defendants would be impracticable; the court would not
be able to enforce a decree for specific performance,
and such a decree might operate as a great hardship
upon the defendants; therefore, the court is of the
opinion that it would be useless, unjust and inequitable
to render judgment herein for specific performance.
However, article 1451 provides that, "A promise to sell
or buy, when there is an agreement as to the thing and the
price, entitles the contracting parties reciprocally to demand
the fulfillment of the contract." But the article in recognition
of a negative result also provides, "whenever the promise to
purchase and sell cannot be fulfilled, the provisions relative
to obligations and contracts, contained in this book, shall be
applicable in the respective cases to the vendor and the
vendee." Turning to these provisions relating to obligations
and contracts, we find article 1096 making a distinction
between a specific thing to be delivered and an
indeterminate or generic thing; article 1098 providing that a
person is obligated to do a certain thing according to the
tenor of the obligation; and finally, article 1124 in absolute
approval of contractual mutually decreeing that "the person
prejudiced may choose between exacting the fulfillment of
the obligation or its resolution with indemnity for damages
and payment of interest in either cases."
As to whether the vendor can compel the vendee to
perform, which is the point before the court, the
jurisprudence of the supreme court of Spain and the
commentaries of Manresa do not in the least attempt to
distinguish between one or the other party, the vendor or
the vendee, but constantly and without exception use the
word "reciprocamente." the following decisions of the
supreme court of Spain interpretative of these articles can
be noted: April 17, 1897; October 10, 1904; February 4,
1905.
The vendee is entitled to specific performance
essentially as a matter of course. Philippine cases have so
held. (Irureta Goyena vs. Tambunting [1902], 1 Phil., 490;
Thunga Chui vs. Que Bentec [1903], 2 Phil., 561; Couto

Soriano vs. Cortes [1907, 8 Phil., 459; Dievas vs. Co Chongco
[1910], 16 Phil., 447.) If the doctrine of mutuality of remedy
is to apply, the vendor should likewise be entitled to similar
relief. Philippine jurisprudence, however, has never as yet
been aforded an opportunity to so hold. The nearest
approach to the idea has been, with reference to
merchandise, in a decision to the efect that if the purchaser
refuses without lawful reason to accept delivery when
tendered by the seller in conformity with the contract of sale,
the seller may elect to enforce compliance or to rescind.
(Matute vs. Cheong Boo [1918], 37 Phil., 372.)
V.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1
2
DECLARE AS VOID the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court (CITY OF MANILA BRANCH 10) dated February 1, 2012
in Civil Case No. 11-12345 (Annex A) for absence of an
actual RTC review;
5
conviction be SET ASIDE AND REVERSED AND RESCIND THE
CONTRACT WITH DAMAGES.
City
PTR No. 84836278/1-18-11
IBP No. 834265/3-1810/Makati
MCLE No. 11-765678

Manila
ATTY AIRA MANIBOG
Siervo Law Office
commenced any action or any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and , to
the best of his knowledge, no much action or claim has been
filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five(5)
days therefrom to this Board.
Elden Modequillo
Defendant

Tax Certificate Number 7777778 issued on January 9, 2012
at Manila City.
Notary Public
PTR No. 76543218 1/10/08
Mla.
IBP No. 9879 1/4/07 Mla.
ROA 12345
Doc No
Page
Book No
Series of 2012
Special
Civil Actions
and
Provisional
Remedies
Complaint for Interpleader

GF General Merchandising Corp.,
Plaintiff,
- versus -
Spec. Civil Case No. 307

For: Interpleader
Rachel Dimapilit and Michael Mendez

Defendants.
x----------------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, corporation, by counsel and to this honorable
court, most respectfully alleges:
1. Plaintiff is a corporation duly organized and existing
under the law of the Philippines with principal office at
47 Ermita st., Timog Avenue, Quezon City.
Defendants Rachel Dimapilit and Michael Mendez are
both of legal age and with residences at #42 Daisy
Street, Tandang Sora, Quezon City and 435 Mamanta
st., Bagoo, Quezon City, respectively, where they may
be served with summons and other legal processes.
2. On March 7, 2010, Rachel Ann Dimapilit subscribed
to 5,000 shares of stocks of plaintiff, with par value of
P100.00 per share, and accordingly he was issued a
certificate of stock, No. 93123, which upon request,
was in blank, he explaining that a blank certificate
would be easy to negotiate and transfer.
3. On or about April 2, 2010, a certain Michael Mendez

called on plaintiffs corporate secretary, presenting and
leaving to the corporate secretary, presenting and
leaving to the corporate secretary stock certificate no.
39244 in which his name was already therein and
which he claimed was endorsed by Rachel Ann
Dimapilit and asking that said certificate of stock to be
cancelled and a new certificate issued to him. But
before the corporate secretary could effect the transfer,
the former submitted an affidavit claiming that his
Stock Certificate No. 9321 was lost and asking that the
same be cancelled and a new replacement be issued to
him.
4. Confronted with conflicting claims of ownership of said
shares of stock, plaintiff held abeyance action for their
respective claims and demanded of defendants Rachel
Ann Dimapilit and Michael Mendez to interplead and
litigate their respective claims, but they refused and
continue to refuse.
5. Plaintiff was thus constrained to file the instant
complaint in interpleader and to incur expenses of
litigation, including attorneys fees in the amount of
Php 500,000 which should be assessed equally
between the defendants.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment, requiring
defendants to interplead and litigate their respective claims
between themselves.
Plaintiff further prays that defendants be ordered to pay
expenses of litigation and attorneys fees in the amount of Php
500,000.00 plus costs and other fees to be assessed against
them equally.
Quezon City, June 7, 2010.
Atty. Aljuhari U. Mangelen


11234 Dimayuga St., Damascus, Bicutan
IBP No 4798273188, Manila
PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0610, Jan,5,2009
Petition for Prohibition

Muntinlupa, Branch 12
Spouses Joel and Auggie Aguila.,
Petitioners,
- versus -

For: Prohibition
Hon. Felix A. Reynante, et, al.

Defendants.
x----------------------------------------------------x
PETITION
PETITIONERS, by undersigned counsel, and to this
honourable Court, respectfully allege:
NATURE OF PETITION
The instant petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus with Prayer for a temporary Restraining Order
and/or a Writ of preliminary Injunction seeks to annul and set
aside:
(a) the RESOLUTION dated February 3 ,2008 of
respondent judge which ordered the issuance of a writ Of

Execution; (b) the ORDER dated November 29, 2008 issued
by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch X Muntinlupa city, in
Civil Case No. 1234-A which ordered the issuance of the writ
of execution; and (c) the ORDER OF. EXECUTION issued by
Respondent Judge dated November 29, 2008.
Certified true Copies of the Resolution, Order and Writ
are here to attached as ANNEXES A,B, and C here of,
respectively.
STATEMENTS OF MATERIAL DATES TO
DETERMINE TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION
1. On June 16, 2007, the respondent Court rendered its
decision in the Unlawful Detainer Case in favour of the
plaintiffs below (respondents here in) against the
defendants below, petitioners here in; a copy of this
decision was received on June 23, 2007;
2. On July 5, 2007, petitioners filed their Motion For
Reconsideration of the decision;
3. On August 17, 2007, the respondent court issued a
resolution which denied petitioners a copy of this
resolution was received on August 27, 2007;
4. On September 14, 2007, petitioners filed their Noticed
of appeal of the decision dated June 16, 2007 and
Resolution dated August 17, 2007 denying their
Motion For Reconsideration of the decision. They
stated that the period of appeal shall be interrupted by
the timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. At
the same time, petitioners posted the requisite
SUPERSEDSEAS BOND in CASH in the amount of
FORTY THOUSAND (50,000.00) pesos as mandated in
the aforementioned decision and in the order to perfect
the appeal of the defendants from the said decision.
This payment was evidenced by Official Receipt No.
12345 a dated September 14, 2007;
5. However , On February 3, 2008, the respondent Court

issued a resolution which denied due course to
petitioners Notice of appeal; ordered the issuance of a
writ of execution; and ordered that the supersedeas
bond of P 50,000.00 be released in favour of the
plaintiffs for the satisfaction of the monetary award in
decision;
a copy of this resolution was dated
September 3, 2008, Annex-C part of A;
6. On April 7, 2008, petitioners filed with respondent
court an Urgent Motion to Quash, Lift or Recall Writ
of Execution to be issued;
7. On November 29,2008, the respondent Court issued
an ordered which denied petitioners motion to quash,
lift or recall writ of execution, and ordered the
issuance of a writ of execution; a copy of this order
was received on December 7, 2008;
8. Petitioners are this filing the instant Petition before
this Honourable Court due to extreme urgency as any
time the respondent sheriff will implement the Writ of
execution, which, if implemented will be gravely
prejudicial to the interest of petitioners, not to mention
that the instant petition may become moot and
academic and any action favourable to the petitioners
in the instant case may be rendered ineffectual.
THE PARTIES
The Petitioners Spouses Joel and Auggie Aguila are both
of legal age, Filipinos and with residence and Postal address at
#50 Padilla, Katihan Street, Rodriguez Village, Tunasan
Muntinlupa City;
Public respondent Hon. Felix A. Reynante is the Presiding
Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch X , Muntinlupa
city, and who issued the assailed orders and writs;
Public respondent sheriff and/or his Deputies of the

Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch X, Muntinlupa City Where
they may be served with Court processed at said court;
Private respondent Spouse Eric and Rica Padilla are both
of legal age, Filipinos, and presently residing at No. #60
Padilla,
Katihan
Street,
Rodriguez
Village,
Tunasan
Muntinlupa City. They are represented by their counsel of
record, Atty. Abegail Joan Calderon II, Suites 205-206 City
Bldg., National Road, Tunasan, Muntinlupa City. They may be
served with summons and court processed either of said
address.
STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED
1. Plaintiffs Spouse Eric and Rica Padilla filed with the

Metropolitan Trial Court, Muntinlupa City, a
Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against the
defendants Spouses Wilfredo and Josie Panes over a
parcel land ,known as Lot 9-f. The complaint was
docketed as Civil Case No. 1234-A and raffled to
Branch X of said court. Copies of the complaint and
its annexes are hereto attached as ANNEXES D
hereof and series;
2. Defendants Spouses Aguila filed their Answer to the
complaint traversing the allegations of the complaint
and interposing Special and Affirmative Defenses
and Compulsory Counterclaim Copies of the answer
and its annexes are hereto attached as ANNEXES
E and series hereof;
3. Thereafter, the parties filed their respective Position
Papers;
4. On May 16,2007, this Honourable Court rendered a
Decision in the instant case for Unlawful Detainer
filed by plaintiffs Spouse Eric and Rica Padilla which
decision is adverse to said defendants, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE , judgement is hereby

rendered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants ordering the latter:
1. To vacate the subject property in question and
to restore possession thereof to the plaintiffs;
2. To pay plaintiffs the total amount of FORTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) for the
unpaid rentals up to the time they actually
vacated the lease premises; and
3. To pay the cost of the suits.
SO ORDERED.
(A certified true copy of this decision is hereto
attached as ANNEX F hereof)
5. Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
aforesaid decision on the ground that the evidence is
insufficient to justify the decision. They contended
that the plaintiffs have not shown any document or
evidence to prove their claim of ownership over the
said premises; that the alleged title of the plaintiffs
over the subject property, TCT No. 1234, is still in
the name of Heirs of the original owners and has
never been cancelled; that they have submitted to
the Honourable Court a copy of the Deed of
Absolute Sales over the property in question
executed by Julie C. Juana in favour of Fely A. Paraz,
the father-in-law of defendant Joel Aguila, for a
consideration of P 80,0000. Julie Juliana claims
ownership over the subject property. Copies of the
motion and the title and deed of sale are hereto
attached as ANNEXES G. G-1 and G2 hereof;
6. On August 17, 2007, this Honourable Court issued
on Order which denied defendants motion for
reconsideration of the above quoted adopting the
stance of plaintiffs that a motion for reconsideration

is a prohibited pleading. On the validity of the deed
of sale, the court a quo ruled that The deed of
absolute sale allegedly executed in their favour is of
doubtful validity; A certified true copy of this order
is hereto attached as ANNEX H hereof;
7. On August 28, 2007, defendants filed their Notice of
Appeal of the Decision dated June 16, 2007 and
Resolution dated August 17, 2007. At the same time,
defendants posted the requisite supersedeas bond in
cash in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,0000.00)
Pesos as mandate in the aforementioned decision
and in order to perfect the appeal of the defendants
from the said decision. This payment was evidenced
by Official Receipt No. 1234 dated September 14,
2007. Copies of the notice and receipt are hereto
attached as ANNEX I and I-1 hereof;
8. Plaintiffs filed an Omnibus Motion to deny due
course to defendants notice of appeal; and to release
in favour of the plaintiffs supersedeas bond; and for
issuance of writ of execution; a copy of the omnibus
motion is hereto attached as ANNEX J hereof;
9. Defendants filed their Comment/Opposition to said
omnibus motion; a copy of the comment/opposition
is hereto attached as ANNEX K hereof;
10. However, on January 3,2008, this Honorable Court
issued a Resolution (ANNEX A of this Petition)
which denied due course to defendants Notice of
Appeal, the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:
WHEREFORE, defendants Notice of Appeal is
Denied due course. Have a writ of execution issued
for the satisfaction of the June 16, 2007 Decision in
this case. And have the supersedeas bond of P
50,0000.00 released in favour of the plaintiffs for
satisfaction of the monetary award in decision.
SO ORDERED.
(A certified true copy of this order of this order
is hereto attached as ANNEX L hereof; PART OF
ANNEX-A, P.2)
11. On February 19, 2008, defendants file a Motion and
Comment with Opposition stating that the resolution
of the court a quo dated February 3, 2008 was
referred to the owner, Mrs Julie C. Juana; that Mrs.
Juana executed an Affidavit; that it is clear from said
affidavit that the plaintiffs, Sps. Padilla have no
personality or authority to have said property for
rent or sale so that the alleged case contract between
defendants and plaintiffs was null and void, hence
unenforceable; that to ascertain the truth, Mrs.
Juana are hereto attached as ANNEX M and M-1
hereof;
12. On April 7,2008, petitioners filed with respondent
court an Urgent Motion to Quash, Lift or Recall Writ
of Execution or Any Writ of Execution To Be Issued; a
copy of the urgent motion is hereto attached as
ANNEX N hereof;
13. On April 11, 2008, the plaintiffs filed their
Comment/Opposition to the motion to quash, lift or
recall writ of execution; a copy of this comment is
hereto attached as ANNEX O hereof;
14. On June 2, 2008, defendants filed before the court a
quo a Manifestation and Motion stating, among
others, that the area of the subject property is in
conflict with the lawful occupation of the MERALCO
which can be seen that there is an existing main
power artery thereof, since the MERALCO is at
present using the property beside the residence of
the defendants, with proper deed of sale by relevant
vendor, such claims/s of plaintiffs never existed so
far, and impossible to be justified; that plaintiffs have
never presented any credible or legitimate title of
ownership over the said property; that if there may

be such declaration of tax purposes, the same is selfserving, devoid of basic origins of ownership; that if
the MERALCO may assert its right thereon,
defendants look on for MERALCOs satisfaction in
favour of the first owner, or in favour of whose
superior right is named thereto; that defendants
furnished a copy of this manifestation and motion to
the MERALCO, Office of the Ombudsman and
Supreme Court; a copy of the manifestation and
motion is hereto attached as ANNEX P hereof;
15. On June 12, 2008, the General Counsel of Napocor
wrote the National Transmission Corporation,
referring the letter of the defendants Spouses Padilla
considering that the matter involves a transmission
of facility and to inform the said spouses of the
results of the inspection or whatever action taken by
the National Transmission Corporation thereon; a
copy of this letter is hereto attached as ANNEX Q
hereof;
16. On July 3, 2008, the Office of the Ombudsman
wrote
counsel
for
the
defendants
letter
acknowledging receipt of copy of the aforementioned
and Motion dated June 2, 2008; a copy of the letter
is hereto attached as ANNEX R hereof;
17. On November 29, 2008, the respondent court
issued on Order(Annex B of this Petition) which
denied petitioners motion to quash, lift or recall writ
of execution, and ordered the issuance of a writ of
execution;
18. On Novemberr 29, 2008, the respondent ordered a
Writ of Execution (ANNEX C of this Petition);
19. Petitioners are thus filing the instant Petition before
this Honourable Court due to extreme urgency as
any time the respondent Sheriff will implement the
Writ of Execution, which if implemented will be
gravely prejudicial to the interests of petitioners, not

to mention that the instant petition may become
moot and academic and any action favourable to the
petitioners in the instant case may be rendered
ineffectual; and
20. Hence, the instant Petition for Certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, as there is no appeal or
any plain, speedy and adequate remedy available in
the ordinary course of law, except the instant
Petition.
GROUNDS OF THE PETITION
I
THE HONORABLE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
(COURT A QUO) COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN NOT APPLYING TO THE INSTINCT CASE
THE ORDINARY RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EQUITY
JURIDICTION CONSIDERING THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL
ISSUE INVOLVED IS THAT OF OWNERSHIP, AND
POSSESION IS A MERE INCIDENT OF OWNERSHIP HENCE,
THE RESPONDENT COURT A QUO WAS DIVESTED OF
JURISDICTION
TO
TAKE
COGNIZANCE
OF
AND
THEREAFTER RESOLVE THE INSTANT CASE.
II
JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
FILED
BY
THE
PETITIONERS
(DEFENDANTS) OF ITS DECISION WAS A PROHIBITED BY
THE RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE.
III

JURISDICTION IN DENYING PETITIONERS NOTICE OF
APPEAL FROM THE COURT A QUOS DECISION ON THE
GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS ALLEGEDLY FILED
BEYOND THE REGLEMENTERY PERIOD FOR APPEAL,
WHICH DISMISSAL WAS A MERE TECHNICALITY.
IV
JURISDICTION IN NOT HOLDING THAT A SUPERVENING
EVENT EXISTS, WHICH IS A VALID JURISDICTION TO
QUASH, LIFT OR RECALL WRIT OF EXECUTION THAT
MAY BE ISSUED.
DISCUSSION/ARGUMENT
1. THE HONORABLE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
JURISDICTION IN NOT APPLYING TO THE INSTINCT
CASE THE ORDINARY RULES OF PROCEDURE AND
EQUITY JURIDICTION CONSIDERING THAT THE
FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE INVOLVED IS THAT OF
OWNERSHIP, AND POSSESION IS A MERE INCIDENT
OF OWNERSHIP HENCE, THE RESPONDENT COURT A
QUO WAS DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION TO TAKE
COGNIZANCE OF AND THEREAFTER RESOLVE THE
INSTANT CASE.
It is error and a grave abuse of discretion on the
part of discretion on the part of the respondent court a
quo in taking cognizance of and entertaining and
thereafter resolving the unlawful detainer case, and

consequently in not applying the ordinary rules of
procedure. The fundamental issue involved is the issue of
ownership over the subject property, and the issue of
possession is a mere incident of ownership, thus, the
court of a quo was bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint for unlawful detainer filed by the respondent
court.
While the above-mentioned jurisprudence were
promulgated prior to the promulgation of BP Blg. 129,
however, the said exceptions still hold true in the instant
case is OWNERSHIP, and therefore, the MeTC is ousted of
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the instant unlawful
detainer case, as jurisdiction over the issue of ownership
over the subject premises properly devolves upon the
Regional Trial Court.
Petitioners have been claiming before
court a quo that the real issue in the
OWNRESHIP and NOT POSSESION.
petitioners is supported by substantial,
clear evidence.
the respondent
instant case is
This claim of
convincing and
a) The facts of this case will show that petitioners were

able to establish that they were in possession of the
subject premises for many years.
b) In their Motion for Reconsideration of the decision of
the respondent court a quo, petitioners claimed that
the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision.
They contended that the respondents have not shown
any document or evidence to prove the claim of
ownership over the said premises; that the alleged title
of the respondents over the subject property, TCT No.
1234, is still in the name of Heirs of the original
owners and has never been cancelled; that they have
submitted to the Honourable Court a quo a copy of the
Deed of Absolute Sale over the property in question
executed by Julie C. Juana in favour of Fely T. Paraz,
father-in-law of descendant Joel Aguila, for a
consideration of P 80,000.00; that Julie Juana claims

ownership over the subject property.
c) Likewise, in petitioners motion commenting on the
resolution of the court a quo dated February 3, 2008,
the same was referred to the owner, Mrs. Julie C.
Juana; that Mrs. Juan Executed an Affidavit(/annex
M hereof) that it is clear from said affidavit that the
plaintiffs, Sps. Padilla, have no personality or
authority to have said property for rent or sale so that
the alleged ease contract between defendants and
plaintiffs was null and void, hence unenforceable; that
to ascertain the truth, Mrs. Juana was willing to
testify in court.
d) There is also the question as to whether the subject
property may be owned by the MERALCO considering
that the transmission facility of MERALCO is located
therein. Thus, petitioners, on May 2, 2008 filed before
the court a quo Manifestation and Motion (Annex P
hereof) stating, among others, that the area of the
subject property is in conflict with the lawful
occupation of the MERALCO which can be seen that
there is an existing main power artery thereof, since
the MERALCO is at present using the property beside
the resident of the defendants with proper deed of sale
by relevant vendor, such claims/s of plaintiffs never
existed so far, and impossible to be justified; that
plaintiffs have never presented any credible or
legitimate title of ownership over the said property;
that if the may be such declaration of tax purposes,
the same is self-serving, devoid of basic origins of
ownership; that if the MERALCO may assert its right
thereon, defendants look on for MERALCOs
satisfaction in favour of the first owner, or in favour of
whose superior right is named thereto; that
defendants furnished a copy of this manifestation and
motion to the MERALCO, Office of the Ombudsman
and Supreme Court; On June 12, 2008, the General
Counsel of MERALCO wrote the National Transmission
Corporation (ANNEX Q hereof), referring the letter of
the defendants Spouses Padilla considering that the

matter involves a transmission of facility and to inform
the said spouses of the results of the inspection or
whatever action taken by the National Transmission
Corporation thereon; On July 3, 2008, the Office of
the Ombudsman wrote counsel for the defendants
letter acknowledging receipt of copy of the
aforementioned and Motion dated June 2, 2008;
These
documents/arguments
are
physically
evidence of the highest order; hence they should be
accorded probative value. Said documents further
proved that the subject property is clearly and in
reality not owned by the respondents but somebody
else.
All the foregoing evidence, if given probative value
and weight by this Honourable Court will clearly and
indubitably shows that the instant case is not rely an
action for ejectment (unlawful detainer), but
RECOVERY OF OWNERSHIP of the premises.
e) Since the issue of ownership is the primary issue, the
resolution of the ejectment case by the respondent
court a quo was merely provisional; hence, eviction of
the petitioners from the subject premises is not only
premature but also unjust and inequitable since there
is yet no conclusive determination of ownership of said
property. In our view, the prudent course to be
pursued
is
to
suspend
the
execution
or
implementation of the MeTC judgment and the writ of
execution issued by the MeTC until after the case
where the ownership is to be fully threshed out and
adjudicated has been instituted, tried and finally
resolved by the courts. This stance is for equity
considerations. It has been held that: Equity regards
the spirit and not the letter, the intent and not the
form, the substance rather than the circumstance, as
it is variously expressed by different courts. (Air
Manila Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 83 SCRA
579). Moreover, the suspension of the proceedings as
an exemption to the execution of the judgment is also

justified in the instant case based on the
pronouncement of this Honorable Court in the case of
Vda. de Legaspi vs Avendanao, 79 SCRA 135,
September 17, 1977) which is being cited by analogy.
Indeed, it is unjust, unfair and inequitable for
petitioners to be evicted at this stage of the proceedings
from the subject premise which is not actually owned by
the respondents but by other persons and which have
been occupied by petitioners for many years.
JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
(DEFENDANTS) OF ITS DECISION WAS A PROHIBITED
BY THE RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE.
The
Honourable
respondent
court
denied
defendants-petitioners motion for reconsideration of its
decision in the unlawful detainer case for being a
prohibited pleading under the rules. Section 19 of the
1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and Rule 70
of the Revised Rules of Court provides the filing of
pleading, motion or petition covered by the rules, one of
which is a motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a
judgment, or reopening for a trial.
Defendants-petitioners respectfully submit,
however, that the prohibition does not apply to the
instant case because as contended above, the
proceedings in the instant case are governed by the
ordinary rules procedure as what is fundamentally is a
mere incident thereof.
Thus, the prohibited pleadings are those filed under
the Rules on Summary Procedure, but once the case is
governed by the ordinary procedure, then the rule
prescribed by the Rules Of Court shall govern in the case

at bar.
JURISDICTION IN DENYING PETITIONERS NOTICE
OF APPEAL FROM THE COURT A QUOS DECISION
ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS ALLEGEDLY
FILED BEYOND THE REGLEMENTERY PERIOD FOR
APPEAL,
WHICH
DISMISSAL
WAS
A
MERE
TECHNICALITY.
The respondent court a quo dismissed petitioners
notice of appeal on the ground that it was allegedly filed
beyond the reglementary period for appeal, or 20 days
beyond the reglementary period to appeal. With due
respect, denial of petitioners notice of appeal is improper
and a dismissal based on technicalities. Petitioners had
contended that what governs the instant case is the
ordinary rule or procedure, not the Revised Rules on
Summary Procedure; that the filing by petitioners of the
motion for reconsideration of the decision interrupted the
filing of the notice of appeal, and the period to file notice
of appeal did not start to run until after the said motion
for reconsideration
Assuming arguendo that the notice of appeal was
filed out of time, the respondent court should not have
dismissed petitioners appeal and should have resolved
the issues raised in the appeal on the merits.
Moreover, the denial of defender-petitioners notice of
appeal is harsh and oppressive and foreclosed their right
to present evidence, testimonial and documentary to
prove that plaintiffs have no right over the property in
question. Respondents claimed that they own the subject
property but they have no proof or evidence to prove their
ownership thereto. Their claim of ownership over
questioned property is a bare allegation, and such bare
allegation is not evidence. It is basic in the rule of

evidence that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by
evidence, not equivalent to proof (Ongpauco vs Court of
Appeals, 447 SCRA 395,400) See also Yambao vs. Zuniga,
418 SCRA 266). Mere allegation is NOT evidence Saguid
vs. Court of Appeals, 403 SCRA 678,687; Sambar vs. Levi
Strauss & Co.378 SCRA 364)
If ever they prevailed in the alleged unlawful detainer
suit, the same is not conclusive of ownership, the finding
thereon merely provisional, as the sole issue to be
determined is only the question of possession.
The denial of defendants-petitioners notice of appeal
is a mere technicality which cannot prevail over
substantial justice and the merits of defendants claim
over the subject property,
It has been stated by the Supreme Court in a long
line of cases that the courts, in the exercise of equity
jurisdiction may disregard technicalities in order to
resolve the case on its merits based on evidence. Thus
technicalities are not favoured, especially when they
infringe upon the substantial rights of a party.
Furthermore, in the case of Gerales, et al. vs. Court
of Appeals (GR No.85909), February 9,1993), the
Supreme Court ruled that remedial laws should be
liberally construed in order that the litigants may have
ample opportunity to prove then respective claims, and
possible denial substantial justice, due to technicalities,
may avoided.
The
admission
of
defendants
Motion
for
Reconsideration and ruling it squarely on the merits will
subserve due process.
Thus, petitioners humbly plead of this Honourable
Court to exercise its wise and sound discretion so that
their case can be fully adjudicated on the merits and not
merely on technicalities.

COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUE OF DISCRETION
TANTAM,OUNT
TO
LACK
OR
EXCESS
OF
JURISDICTION
IN
NOT
HOLDING
THAT
A
SUPERVINING EVENT EXISTS, WHICH IS A VALID
JUSTIFICATION TO QUASH, LIFT OR RECALL WRIT
OF EXECUTION OR ANY WRIT OF EXECUTION THAT
MAY BE ISSUED.
The assailed Resolution of the Honourable respondent
Court dated February 3, 2008 which denied defendantspetitioners notice of appeal was referred to the owner of
Lot no. 9, the subject of the instant case, Mrs. Julie C.
Juana and upon reading of said resolution, she executed
an Affidavit on February 19, 2008 which affirms the
absence of any legal right of the plaintiffs over the
subject property.
From the affidavit of Mrs. Juana, it is very clear that
plaintiffs-respondents
Spouses
Padilla
have
no
personality or authority to cause said property in
question for rent or for sale, such that the alleged lease
contract
between
the
plaintiffs-respondents
and
defendants-petitioners is illegal and null and void ab
initio, hence unenforceable.
The affidavit of Mrs. Juana, the intended testimonies
of other witnesses, namely, the Engineer who caused the
survey of the property prepared the survey plan, among
others, constitute supervening event which would
sufficiently justify the quashal of the writ of execution or
any writ of execution that may be issued or have been
issued by the respondent court.
In fine, the conclusion is inescapable that the
respondent court a quo committed a grave abuse of
discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
issuing the assailed resolution, order and writ of
execution.
ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE

PRAYER FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND/OR A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The foregoing allegations are herein impleaded in support
of the prayer for injunctive relief. The prayer for Temporary
Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction is of
utmost urgency considering that the respondent court a quo
already issued a Writ of Execution and that at any time,
petitioners may be ordered evicted from the subject premises.
Hence, due to utmost urgency, petitioners humbly pray of
this Honourable Court to issue forthwith the Temporary
Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
restraining and enjoining the public and private respondents
from enforcing or implementing the Decision dated June 16,
2007, the Resolution dated February 3, 2008, the Order dated
October 29, 2008 Writ of Execution or from conducting further
proceedings in Civil Case No. 1234-A, until further orders from
this Honourable Court.
Petitioners are able, ready and willing to post a bond in
reasonable amount as may be fixed by this Honourable Court
to answer for whatever damages that may be suffered by
public and private respondents in the event that the
petitioners are not entitled to the injunctive writ.
PRAYER
Wherefore, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of
this Honourable Court as follows:
a) Upon the filing of the instant Petition, to immediately
issue a Temporary Restraining Order and later a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction restraining and enjoining the
public and private respondents from enforcing or
implementing the Decision dated June 16, 2007, the
Resolution dated February 3, 2008, the Order dated
November 29, 2008 or from conducting further
proceedings in Civil Case No. 1234-A, until further

orders from this Honourable Court, otherwise, the
respondent Sheriff will proceed to implement the Notice
to Vacate and Writ of Possession, and the instant petition
may be rendered moot and any decision in favour of
petitioners will be rendered ineffectual;
b) That the instant Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus be given due course; and
c) That after due proceedings, (a) the Resolution dated
February 3, 2008 of respondent Judge which ordered the
issuance of a Writ of Execution (b) the Order dated
November 29, 2008 issued by the Metropolitan Trial
Court Branch X, Muntinlupa City, in Civil Case No.
1234-A which ordered the issuance of the writ of
execution; and (c) the Writ of Execution issued by
respondent Judge all annulled and set aside and/or
quashed.
Other reliefs just and equitable in the premises are also
prayed for.
Paranaque City
November 13, 2008.
for
Muntinlupa
City,
Philippines,

PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila

We Spouses Joel and Auggie Aguila both legal ages,
Filipinos, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law,
hereby depose and say:
1. That we are the Petitioners in the above-entitled
case;
2. That we have caused the preparation of the foregoing
petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus,
with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or
writ of Preliminary Injunction;
3. That we have read and understood the contents of
the foregoing petition and that the same are true and
correct of our own personal knowledge and based on
authentic records of the case; and
4. That we hereby certify under oath that we have not
heretofore commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or the different Divisions thereof,
or any other tribunal or agency, if there is any such
action or proceeding we must state the status so
thereof and if she should thereafter learn that a
similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or the different Divisions thereof or any
other tribunal or agency, we undertake to promptly
inform this Honourable Court within five (5) days
from notice thereof.
AUGGIE AGUILA
Affiant
JOEL AGUILA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this November

15, 2008, in Paranaque City, Philippines, affiants exhibiting to
me their respective Community Tax Certificates and

Identification Card Numbers indicated under their respective
names, copies of which are hereto attached as Annexes hereof.
Joey De Luna
Notary Public
PTR No. 1234578 1/12/08 Mla.
IBP No. 6789 1/2/07 Mla.
ROA 98765
Doc. No. 1234

Page No. 678
Book No. 14
Series 2008
Petition for Quo Warranto

Muntinlupa, Brach 28
Anna Katrina Alvarez,
Petitioner,
- versus -

For: Quo Warranto
Glendale Balete
Respondent.
x----------------------------------x
PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO
PETITIONER, by counsel and to this Honorable Court,
1. Petitioner is of legal age and with residence at 78
Batangas st. Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa, while
respondent is also of legal age and with residence at 8
Tagbilaran st., Alabang Hills, Muntinlupa City where he
may be served summons and other legal processes.
2. Petitioner has been permanently appointed as chief of the
Collection Department of Bureau of Internal revenue, at
the head office in Quezon City, as shown by his
appointment paper, copy of which is attached as Annex
a,
3. Petitioner is covered by the Civil Service and enjoys
security of tenure, pursuant to the constitutions and
Civil Service Laws, and he cannot be removed without
valid cause and only after due process of law.
4. On May 29, 2009, petitioner went on official leave, as he

had be sent to the United States to study for a period of 3
months. When petitioner returned from his official leave,
he found out that his position as chief of the collection
department was occupied by the respondent, who
claimed that he had been appointed therein by
Commissioner of Internal Revenue and he refused to
vacate said position to give way to the petitioners
assumption of duties thereof.
5. Petitioner demanded of respondent to vacate the position,
as he has been legally occupying the same and has not
been removed therefrom for cause and after due process
of law, but the respondent refused and continues to
refuse to do so, constraining the petitioner to file the
instant petition for quo warranto.
6. Respondent is a usurper of the office, as petitioner has
not been legally removed therefrom for cause and after
due process as provided by law, the position has not been
vacant to which the respondent can be wholly appointed
and thus, respondents refusal to vacate the position is
unlawful.
7. When confronted about the matter, the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue advised the petitioner to file a quo
warranto case which is what he is filing within one (1)
year from the date respondent was illegally appointed to
the position.
8. As a consequence of respondents unlawful usurpation of
the position and unlawful holding and exercising the
position, receiving the salaries and monetary benefits
arising therefrom, petitioner suffered from damages in
the monthly amount of Php 25,000 from attorneys fees
and expenses of litigation in the amount of Php 500,000
which should be assessed against the respondent.
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays for judgment;
1. Ousting respondent from the position of chief of the

collection department of the BIR and altogether exclude
him therefrom;
2. Adjudging respondent liable for damages in the amount
of Php 25,000 a month from the time he returned from
official leave, starting May 29,2009 as well as attorneys
fees and expenses of litigation in the amount of Php
500,000 which should be all assessed against
respondent.
Muntinlupa, June 8, 2010.

PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila

I, Anna Katrina Alvarez, of legal age, Filipino, after having
been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and
say:
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;
petition for Quo Warranto;
3. That I have read and understood the contents of the
foregoing petition and that the same are true and
correct of my own personal knowledge and based on
4. That I hereby certify under oath that we have not
other tribunal or agency, I undertake to promptly
Anna Katrina Alvarez

Affiant
Joey De Luna
Notary Public
PTR No. 1234578 1/12/08 Mla.
IBP No. 6789 1/2/07 Mla.
ROA 98765
Doc. No. 1234

Page No. 678
Book No. 14
Series 2008
Petition for Quieting of Title

Donabell P. Tuazon,
Petitioner,
- versus -

For: Quieting of Title
Katrina B. Pilapil
Respondent.
x----------------------------------x
PETITION FOR QUIETING OF TITLE
PLAINTIFF, by undersigned
Honorable Court alleges;
counsel
and
to
this
1. Plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino and with residence of

Zone 5, Maleniza Compound, San Felipe, Naga City,
while the defendant is also of legal age, Filipino and
with residence at 67 Santa Monica Village, Magsaysay
Avenue, Naga City, where he may be served with
summons and other legal processes.
2. Plaintiff is the owner of the parcel of land situated in
90 Penafrancia Avenue, Naga City covered by TCT No.
987765 of the Register of Deeds of Naga City, which is
more particularly described as follows: (TECHNICAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND)
3. While Plaintiff was in the Office of the City Assessor of
Naga City, checking the tax declaration of his property
covered by TCT No. 987765, he discovered that
another person, then defendant in the instant case,
has another title, namely TCT No. 123455 covering the

same parcel of land described above, which was
subsequently issued by the plaintiff.
4. Unless defendants second TCT No. 987765 is
cancelled and declared null and void, a cloud of doubt
will continue to exist over plaintiffs title, thereby
warranting an action for quieting of title.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that defendants TCT No.
987765 over the same parcel of land as that of the plaintiff be
cancelled and declared null and void, and for such other reliefs
as may be just and equitable in the premises.
Naga City, Camarines Sur.

PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila

I, Donabell P. Tuazon, of legal age, Filipino, after having
been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and
say:
petition for Quieting of Title;
Donabell P. Tuazon
Affiant
Joey De Luna
Notary Public
PTR No. 1234578 1/12/08 Mla.
IBP No. 6789 1/2/07 Mla.
ROA 98765
Doc. No. 1234

Page No. 678
Book No. 14
Series 2008
Petition for Declaratory Relief

In Re: Matter of Petition for the
Declaratory Relief Regarding the
Validity of Municipal Ordinance
Of Guagua, Pampanga
Albertino Rafael Rivera,
Petitioner,
- versus -

For: Declaratory Relief
Hon. Christopher Benitez,

Respondent.
x------------------------------------x
PETITION
Plaintiffs, by counsel, to this Honorable Court most
respectfully state:
(1)That Petitioner is a Filipino, of legal age, a resident of
No. 420 San Bartolome Street, San Miguel, Guagua,
Pampanga. Plaintiff may be served orders, notices and
processes through undersigned counsel;
(2)That Defendants are the officials of the Municipality of
Guagua with office at the second floor, Municipal Hall,
Plaza Burgos, Guagua, Pampanga, where they may be
served with summons and other processes by this
Honorable Court;
(3)That on November 17, 2009, the respondents

Municipal Council of Guagua passed and promulgated
the Ordinance No. 24, series of 2009 which in part
reads:
SECTION 1 - That the following speed limits for
vehicular traffic along the National Highway and the
Provincial Roads within the territorial limits of
Urdaneta shall be as follows:
Thru crowded streets approaching intersections at
'blind corners, passing school zones or thickly
populated areas, duly marked with sign posts, the
maximum speed limit allowable shall be 20 kph.
SECTION 2 - That any person or persons caught
driving any motor vehicle violating the provisions of
this ordinance shall be fined P10.00 for the first
offense; P20.00 for the second offense; and P30.00
for the third and succeeding offenses, the Municipal
Judge shall recommend the cancellation of the
license of the offender to the Motor Vehicle's Office
(MVO); or failure to pay the fine imposed, he shall
suffer a subsidiary imprisonment in accordance
with law.
(4)That the said ordinance was approved by the
defendant municipal mayor of the Municipality of
Guagua;
(5)That On November 30, 2009 petitioner was driving his
car within Guagua when a member of Guagua
Municipal Police asked him to stop. He was told, upon
stopping, that he had violated Municipal Ordinance 24
(S. 2009), for overtaking a truck. The policeman then
asked for plaintiffs license which he surrendered, and
a temporary operators permit was issued to him. This
incident took place about 200 meters away from a
school building, San Miguel, Guagua;
(6)That criminal complaint was filed in the Municipal

Court of Guagua against petitioner for violation of
Ordinance 24 (S. 2009).
(7)That due to the institution of the criminal case,
petitioner hereby initiates an action for the annulment
of said ordinance with prayer for the issuance of
preliminary injunction for the purpose of restraining
defendants Municipality of Guagua from enforcing the
ordinance for the following reasons:
A. Ordinance is not clear and definite in its terms
When the Municipal Council of Guagu used the phrase
vehicular traffic (Section 1, Ordinance) it did not
distinguish between passenger cars and motor vehicles and
motor trucks and buses. Considering that this is a
regulatory ordinance, its clearness, definiteness and
certainty are all the more important so that an average
man should be able with due care, after reading it, to
understand and ascertain whether he will incur a penalty
for particular acts or courses of conduct.
B. Express repeal; Test of validity
The general rule is that a later law prevails over an earlier
law. Contention that a later enactment of the law relating
to the same subject matter as that of an earlier statute is
not sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the original law.
is erroneous. In case at bar, ordinances validity should be
determined vis-a-vis RA 4136, the mother statute (not Act
3992), which was in force at the time the criminal case was
brought against the petitioner.
C. Requisite of a valid ordinance
An essential requisite for a valid ordinance is, among
others, that is must not contravene . . . the statute, 7 for it
is a fundamental principle that municipal ordinances are
inferior in status and subordinate to the laws of the state.
Following this general rule, whenever there is a conflict
between an ordinance and a statute, the ordinance must

give way.
D. Ordinance contrary to mother statute (RA 4136)
The Municipal Council of Guagua did not make any
classification of its thoroughfares, contrary to the explicit
requirement laid down by Section 38, RA 4136. The
Ordinance refers to only one of the four classifications
mentioned in paragraph (b), Section 35. The classifications
which must be based on Section 35 are necessary in view of
Section 36 which states that no provincial, city or
municipal authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance or
resolution specifying maximum allowable speeds other than
those provided in this Act.
E. Delegation of power
A local legislative body intending to control traffic in public
highways is supposed to classify, first, and then mark them
with proper signs, all to be approved by the Land
Transportation Commissioner. Statutes which confer upon a
public body or officer power to perform acts which concern
the public interests or rights of individuals are generally
regarded as mandatory although the language is permissive
only since they are construed as imposing duties rather
than conferring privileges. Ordinance is invalid as there is
no showing that the marking of the streets and areas falling
under Section 1, par. (a), Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2009,
was done with the approval of the Land Transportation
Commissioner.
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays for judgment declaring
that the above-mentioned ordinance as violative of the
Constitution and is therefore invalid.
Such other relief and remedies as may be deemed just
and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Guagua, Pampanga, November 27, 2009.

PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila

I, Albertino Rafael Rivera, of legal age, Filipino, after
having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose
and say:
petition for Declaratory Relief;
action or proceeding I must state the status so
Donabell P. Tuazon
Affiant
Joey De Luna
Notary Public
PTR No. 1234578 1/12/08 Mla.
IBP No. 6789 1/2/07 Mla.
ROA 98765
Doc. No. 1234

Page No. 678
Book No. 14
Series 2008
Petition for Mandamus

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
MANILA
DIONEL ROSALES,
RICARDO PUNTO,
ADOR PUNTO, and
KAEL MONTES,
Petitioners,
3. versus
SC-GR No. 123456

[Criminal Case No. 1234,
People vs. J. Dela Cruz,
(Sandiganbayan, 1st Division)]
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN,
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR,
JUAN TORRES DELA CRUZ
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------x
PETITION
PETITIONERS, by counsel, respectfully state: That,
PREFATORY STATEMENT
This is a 20-year old criminal case for murder with
multiple frustrated and attempted murder pending before the
Sandiganbayan, the respondent court in this petition.
Trial started in December 2, 1992 and a decision was
rendered in January 16, 1995 convicting the private
respondent. However, this decision was set aside and

remanded to the respondent court for new trial by this
Honorable Court in its Resolution dated May 26, 1999.
New trial started in December 1999 but the decision
convicting the private respondent was rendered only on June
7, 2007. The second decision was again set aside by the
respondent court for a second new trial as contained in its
October 5, 2012 Resolution.
And now, petitioners ask that JUSTICE BE SERVED.
NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PETITION
This is a Special Civil Action for Mandamus under Rule
65 of the Revised Rules of Court with prayer for the issuance
of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Injunction.
The special civil action for mandamus is being availed of
for the purpose of seeking an order from this Honorable Court
commanding the respondents People of the Philippines as
represented by the Officer of the Solicitor General, the Office of
the Ombudsman and the Office of the Prosecutor, to, by
reason of their unlawful neglect in the performance of their
lawful duties, join in this petition as party petitioners.
The injunctive relief of temporary restraining and/or
injunction is being prayed for the purpose of seeking an order
from this Honorable Court commanding the respondent
Sandiganbayan, to refrain from hearing the second new trial.
PARTIES
Petitioners are all of legal age, Filipinos, and are private
complainants in Criminal Case No. 1234, entitled People vs.
Juan Dela Cruz. They may be served with notice and process
through the undersigned counsel.
Public Respondent Sandiganbayan, First Division, is the
tribunal before which Criminal Case No. 1234, entitled People
vs. Juan Dela Cruz is pending and which issued the
challenged Resolution. It may be served with notice and

process at the Centennial Building, Commonwealth Avenue,
Quezon City.
Public Respondent People of the Philippines is the
plaintiff in the said Criminal Case No. 4219, who may be
served with notice and process through the Office of the
Solicitor General at 134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village,
Makati City, and the Office of the Prosecutor at the Centennial
Building Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City.
Public Respondent Office of the Ombudsman and the
Office of the Prosecutor are the public prosecutors in the said
criminal case who may be served with notice and process at
their respective addresses:
(f) Office of the Ombudsman Old Nawasa Building,
Arroceros Street., Manila;
(g) Office of the Prosecutor Centennial Building,
Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City.
The private respondent Juan Torres Dela Cruz is of legal
age, who may be served with notice and process to his counsel
Atty. Vytruviuz Jacoby Bermuda at 143 Acacia Building, Saar
Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila.
TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION
The Petitioners, being private complainants, received the
Resolution dated October 5, 2012 on October 10, 2012 and
filed this petition on November 4, 2012.
Under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, petitioners
have sixty (60) days from notice of the resolution or until
December 4, 2012 within which to file this Petition. Hence,
this petition is filed within the reglementary period.
COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT
CIRCULAR NO. 98-91
DATED SEPTEMBER 7, 1991
No other action or proceedings involving the same issue

or issues have been commenced are pending in any other
division of this Honorable Tribunal or any other court or
agency. Should petitioners subsequently learn of the pendency
of any other action involving the same issues as in this case,
they undertake to inform this Honorable Tribunal of such fact
within five (5) days from notice thereof.
ANTECEDENT FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
i. Petitioners are the private complainants in Criminal case No.
1234, entitled People of the Philippines vs. Juan Dela Cruz
for Murder with multiple frustrated and attempted murder,
which case is still pending before the respondent court.
ii. On January 16, 1995, a judgment was rendered by the
Sandiganbayan finding the accused Juan Dela Cruz guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Murder with Multiple
Frustrated and Attempted Murder, qualified by abuse of
superior strength and to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua with the accessory penalties attached thereto; and to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased and to pay their
proportionate costs of the action.
1.
On January 26, 1995, the accused filed a Motion for

Reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution dated
March 1, 1995 and promulgated on March 2, 1995.
1.
On March 28, 1995, the accused filed in the Second

Division a Motion for New Trial dated March 27, 1995 on the
grounds of a) Error of law and irregularities have been
committed during the trial prejudicial to the substantial rights
of the accused; and b) The accused were denied procedural
due process of law.
2.
Meanwhile, the accused elevated the Decision

rendered by the Second Division to the Supreme Court in a
petition for Review on Certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 34567,
entiled Juan Dela Cruz vs. Sandiganbayan.
1.
On April 15, 1995, the Second Division denied the

accused's motion for new trial on the ground that the court
has no more jurisdiction over the case.
1.
On May 5, 1995, the accused filed a Petition for

Certiorari before the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No.
67891, entitled, Juan Dela Cruz vs. Sandiganbayan (Second
Division) impugning the resolution dated April 15, 1995
(denying the Motion for New Trial).
1.
In a Resolution dated July 28, 1995 in G.R. No.

67891, the Supreme Court en banc denied the petition for lack
of merit. The accused filed a motion for reconsideration which
was likewise denied in a resolution dated September 3, 1995.
1.
On May 26, 1999, the Supreme Court en bance,

speaking thru Justice Benjamin Miranda, rendered a decision
in G.R. No. 34567 granting the petition and setting aside the
decision and the case was remanded to the court a quo for
new trial as prayed for in the petitioner's motion.
1.
The respondent court dated May 4, 2006 rendered a

decision but promulgated on June 7, 2007 convicting the
private respondent.
1.
On June 17, 2007, private respondent filed an

Omnibus Motion to Set Aside Judgment and for New Trial.
1.
Public Respondent Office of the State Prosecutor

through Special Prosecution Officer II Joana Orosa file on July
1, 2007 its Comment and/or Opposition to Omnibus motion to
Set Aside Judgment and For New Trial. For which, private
respondents filed a reply on July 12, 2007.
1.
On October 11, 2007, private respondent filed a

Supplemental Omnibus Motion to Re-Open Case and to Set for
Oral Arguments. In this supplemental motion, the prosecution
through the public Respondent Office of the Special
Prosecutor negligently failed to file its opposition despite the
latter's request for time within which to file the same.
14.
On November 25, 2007, private respondent filed a
Supplemental Omnibus Motion to Set Aside Judgment and for
New Trial. The Office of the Public Prosecutor again failed to
file its opposition to the said second supplemental motion.
3.1.1.
On October 20, 2012, respondent court rendered
the assailed Resolution dated October 5, 2012 ordering the
second new trial in Criminal Case No. 1234, entitled People of
the Philippines vs. Juan Dela Cruz, which states that the
accused Omnibus Motion to Set Aside Judgment ans for New
Trial and its supplemental is granted. The Office of the
Prosecutor did not file any motion to reconsider the same. It
failed also to file petition before this court to question it.
1.
Petitioner believe and respectfully submit that

respondent court gravely erred its discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Resolution
dated October 5, 2012, and there is no appeal, speedy and
plain remedy under the ordinary course of law to nullify the
same, hence the instant petition.
GROUND FOR THE PETITION
The public respondents Office of the Ombudsman and
the Office of the Special Prosecutor negligently failed to protect
the interests of the petitioners and the State as a whole.
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS
Petitioners replead and incorporate herein by way of
reference all the foregoing allegations insofar as the same is
relevant.
As shown in this petition, the public respondents Office
of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor
negligently failed to protect the interests of the petitioners and
the State as a whole.
At the outset when the private respondents filed their
Omnibus Motion to Set aside Judgment and for New Trial, the
said public
respondents negligently failed to file their
opposition to the subsequent pleadings filed by the private
respondent. Worse, when the challanged Resolution was
promulgated on October 5, 2012, the said public respondents
likewise negligently failed to file any motion to reconsider such
resolution despite the fact that they know fully well that the
said resolution is patently erroneous and baseless, to the
damage and prejudice of the petitioners and the State. To
make matters clearly uncalled, until now, the said public
respondents sleep on their lawful duty to protect the interest of
the State and the petitioners by their clear neglect of not filing
any appeal or petition to his Honorable Court.
In sum, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3,
Rule 65, it is clear and undaunted that the said public
respondents unlawfully neglect to perform an act which the
law speccifically enjoins as duty resulting from an office, trust
or station.
And because of such unlawful neglect of duty and under
the present circumstance, there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to compel the
said public respondents to perform immediately their lawful
duties in protecting the interest of the State and the
petitioners, except through this petition of mandamus.
ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE

PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF RESTRAINING ORDER
AND/OR WRIT OF INJUNCTION
Petitioners replead and incorporate herein by way of
reference all of the foregoing allegations insofar as the sane are
relevant.
As shown in the foregoing discussion, respondent court
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in
promulgating the October 5, 2012 Resolution granting private
respondents Omnibus Motion to Set Aside Judgment and for
New Trial, and there is no appeal nor any plainm speedy or

adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law other than the
instant petition.
Petitioners are clearly entitled to the relief demanded and
the whole or part of such relief consists in enjoining the
respondent Court from implementing the Resolution.
Respondent court's grant of private respondents' subject
motion is void ab initio. However, said respondent is
implementing and attempting to continue implementing the
Resolution in violation of the rights of petitioners respecting
the subject of the action or proceeding and tending to render
the judgment of this Honorable Court on the matter
ineffectual.
In fact, respondent court, particulary its First Division, is
threatening to proceed with the trial of the private respondent
in Criminal Case No. 1234, entitled People of the Philippines
vs. Juan Dela Cruz on January 8, 2013 at 2:00 in the
afternoon.
The continued implementation of the Resolution of the
respondent court during the pendency of this Petition will
result in grave injustice as well as irrepable injury to the
petitioners and the State considering the illegality of the
questioned Resolution issued by respondent Court. If not
prohibited, enjoined or restrained, the threatened trial if
allowed to push through, will render this petition moot and
academic.
Hence, petitioners respectfully move that a temporary
restraining order, preliminary injunction or status quo order
be issued by this Honorable Court ordering the respondent
court, particularly the First Division, not to proceed with the
scheduled trial until such time as this petition is resolved by
this Honorable Court.
For unless respondent court is restrained or enjoined
from implementing the questioned Resolution, petitioners as
well as the State shall suffer grave and irreparable damage

and injury.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE,
petitioners
Honorable Court: That,
respectfully
pray
this
1. Upon filing of this petition, an order be issued

commanding the Honorable Sandiganbayan, First
Division, to desist from continuing with the trial in
Criminal Case No. 1234, entitled People of the
Philippines vs. Juan Dela Cruz until further orders from
this Honorable Court;
2. An order be issued giving due course to the instant
petition and ordering public respondents Office of the
Ombudsman and the Office of the Prosecutor to join
herein petitioners as party petitioners;
3. And after proceedings duly had, to render judgment:
a. Ordering the Judgment of Conviction dated June 7,
2007 by the respondent Court as valid;
b. Making the injunction permanent.
Such other reliefs just and equitable under the premises
are likewise prayed.
Manila, November 25, 2012.
PTR No. 189034/Manila/01-08-12

I, DIONEL ROSALES, of legal age, Filipino and a resident
at the above given address, avers under oath that:
VII.
I am the petitioner in the above entitled case;
VIII.
I have caused the preparation of the foregoing
complaint and all the material allegations therein are true of
my own knowledge and based on authentic records;
IX.
I have not commenced any other action or filed any
claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency and to the best of my knowledge, no
such other action or claim is pending therein;
X. Should I hereafter learn that the same or similar action or
claim has been filed or is pending, I undertake to report such
fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.
DIONEL ROSALES
November 2012 affiant exhibiting to me his COMELEC Voters
ID No. 14344.
JUAN MANUEL MARQUEZ

Notary Public
PTR No. 199999/Manila/11-07-2011

Roll No. 45678/April 9, 2000
Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of ______;
Complaint for Ejectment

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
BRANCH 30
QUEZON CITY
SPS. EMILIA C. GUIDOTTI
and MARCO N. GUIDOTTI,
Petitioner,
-versus-
CIVIL CASE No. 98765

For: EJECTMENT
MARGARETTE A. MONTENEGRO
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, the plaintiff, and unto this Honorable
Court most respectfully avers:
21.
That plaintiffs herein are spouses, with residence
and postal address at Harvard St., North Susana
Heights, Commonwealth, Quezon City where they may be
serve with court order and other processes;
22.
Defendant is a resident of Brgy. Bonifacio, Old
Balara, Quezon City where he may be serve with
summons, order and other court processes;
23.
That the subject lot/premises was originally owned
by Juan Miguel Marquez as evidenced by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. PT-112233 under his name. Copy
of TCT NO. 112233 is hereto attached as Annex A
hereof;
24.
That the defendant has been occupying the said
premises at Brgy. Bonifacio, Old Balara, Quezon City for
more than ten (10) years by mere tolerance of the original
registered owner;
25.
That on January 6, 2012, the original owner Juan
Miguel Marquez, sold the said parcel of land to the
plantiffs, Spouses Guidotti, as evidenced by the Deed of
Absolute Sale which is hereto attached as Annex B
hereof.
26.
That as the new owner, plaintiffs sent a demand
letter to the defendant demanding from the latter to
vacate the premises and to pay a reasonable
compensation for the use of the said premises in the
amount of P10, 000 per month. Copy of the demand
letter personally served to the defendants is hereto
attached as Annex C.
27.
That despite repeated demands orally and in
writing, defendant refused and continuously failing to
vacate the said premises and pay the amount of P10,000
as compensation for the reasonable use of the subject
premises to the damage and prejudice of herein plaintiff;
28.
That as a result of the unwarranted and
unjustifiable refusal of the defendants to vacate the
aforesaid parcel of land and to pay reasonable
compensation for the use of the same, plaintiffs suffered
sleepless nights, serious anxiety in which they should be
awarded the amount of P100, 000.00 as moral damages,
and to set an example to the public plaintiffs should be
awarded exemplary damages in the amount of
100,000.00.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
it is most
respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court that, after
hearing, judgment be rendered as follows:
(h)Ordering the defendant and all persons claiming right

under them to vacate the subject parcel of land;
(i) Ordering the defendant to pay the amount of TEN
THOUSAND PESOS P10,000.00 per month as
compensation for the reasonable use of the subject
lot/premises;
(j) Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the amount
of P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as
exemplary damages;
(k)Order the defendants to pay the cost of suit.
February 14, 2012 at Quezon City.
ATTY. LOURENA A. BUNDAC

NOTARY PUBLIC
Roll No. 478090

AGAINST NON- FORUM SHOPPING
I, SPS. MARCO N. GUIDOTTI, of legal age, married to
EMILIA C. GUIDOTTI after being duly sworn to in accordance
with law, depose and says:
That I am the petitioner in the above-entitled case, that I
have caused the preparation of the preparation of the foregoing
petition and understood the contents thereof, and I hereby
declare that all the allegations contained therein are true and
correct according to my knowledge and belief.
this 14th day of February 2012, Quezon City.
MARCO N. GUIDOTTI
Principal
CTC No. 123456
Issued On: Feb. 12, 2012
Issued At: Quezon City
EMILIA C. GUIDOTTI
Principal
CTC No. 123456
Issued On: Feb. 12, 2012
Issued At: Quezon
City
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, A Notary

Public for and in the Province of Quezon, this 14 th day of
February 2012, at Quezon City.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Roll No. 478090
Doc No.:
Book No.:
Page No.:
Series of 2013.
Complaint for Unlawful Detainer
BRANCH 30
QUEZON CITY
EMILIA C. GUIDOTTI
Petitioner,
-versus-

Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFFS, through the undersigned counsel, and unto
this Honorable Court most respectfully submit this Complaint
for Unlawful Detainer and in support hereof makes the
following asseveration:
1. Plaintiff herein, single, of legal age and with residence

and postal address at NO. 123, Holy Spirit Drive,
Diliman, Quezon City which may be serve with court
order and other processes;
2. Defendant is a resident of Dollar St., East Fairview,
Quezon City where he may be serve with summons, order
through a Deed of Sale from the original owner, Johanna
Lee. Copy of the Deed of Sale is hereto attached as
Annex A;
4. The parcel of land is situated in the Barrio of East
Fairview, Quezon City, and more particularly described
as follows:
a. A parcel of land (Lot 23, Block 3 of the
subdivision plan, Psd-045647-056708, being a
portion of Lot 1166, Cad-140 Quezon City,
Cadastre LRC Record No.) situated in East
Fairview Quezon City. Bounded on the NE,
along line 1-2 by Lot 22, Blk. 3, on the SE,
along line 2-3 by Road Lot 8; on the SW, along
line 3-4 by Lot 24, Blk. 3, on the NW., along line
4-1 by Legal Eastment 1 all of the subdivision
plan Beginning at a point marked 1 on plan
being N. 60 deg. 01W.,415.66 m. from MBM No.
53, Cad-140 Quezon City Cadastre, thence S 45
deg. 2__E10.00 m to point 2, thence S44 deg
39W,10.00 to point of beginning containing an
area of ONE HUNDRED SQUARE METERS,
more of less. All points referred to are indicated
on the plan and marked on the ground by P.S.
cyl. Conc. Mons. 15 x 60 cm, bearing true, date
of original survey, May 1918 July 1953, and
that of the subdivision survey. May 24-27,
1992 and was approved in August 14, 1992.
5. That on March 2, 2012, Plaintiff entered into a written

contract with defendant whereby the former leased to the
latter the above-described property for the period of FIVE
(5) years for the monthly rental of TEN THOUSAND
PESOS (P10,000.00) copy of which contract of lease is
attached hereto as Annex A.
6. That by virtue of the said contract, Annex A, defendant
took possession of the property in question, and he is
still in possession of the same up to the present time.
7. That the period stipulated in the contract, Annex A has
already expired and still refused to vacate the property, in
spite of repeated demands and a written notice in
advance, copy of which is attached as Annex B;
8. That, as a consequence of defendant's refusal to vacate
plaintiff's property, the latter has suffered, by way of
damages,.
Procedure;
PRAYER
prayed unto this Honorable Court that:
(a) Plaintiff prays for judgment in his favor ordering
defendant to vacate the premises and to return the
possession thereof to plaintiff plus costs, and other
remedies which are just and proper under the
premises.
(b) Pay plaintiff the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(Php50,000.00), as and by way of attorneys fees;
(c) Pay plaintiff the cost of this suit.
(d) Plaintiff prays for such other remedies and reliefs as
may be deemed just and equitable under the premises.
April 3, 2012 at Quezon City.

NOTARY PUBLIC
Roll No. 478090

I, EMILIA C. GUIDOTTI, of legal age, single, after being
duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and says:
this 3rd day of April 2012, Quezon City, Philippines.
EMILIA C. GUIDOTTI
Affiant
Public for and in the Province of Quezon, this 3 rd day of April
2012, at Quezon City.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Roll No. 478090
Doc No.:
Book No.:
Page No.:
Series of 2013.
Complaint for Expropriation
BRANCH 30
QUEZON CITY
QUEZON CITY
-versus-
Plaintif,

For: COMPLAINT FOR EXPROPRIATION
(EMINENT DOMAIN)
MARIANA ESGUERRA,
REYNALDA RAMIREZ,
and RODOLFO LANSIN
Defendants.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the plaintiff by the undersigned attorney,
and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:
i. That plaintiff is a city corporation created by the
laws of the Republic of the Philippines, duly vested
with the power to condemn and expropriate private
property for public use;
ii. That defendants Mariana Esguerra, Reynalda

Ramirez, and Rodolfo Lansin, are all legal age,
Filipino citizens, with postal address at Sitio 2,
Manggahan St., Comonwealth, Quezon City, where
they may be served with summons and other
processes by this Honorable Court;
iii. That for purpose of promoting the physical, moral
and spiritual well-being of the youth in the city, the
city council of Quezon City passed a resolution, to
wit: Resolution No. 143, providing for the
construction of a public playground in the open
area of Manggahan and other adjacent areas;
iv. That for the purpose of the aforementioned
construction and public improvement, it is
necessary for plaintiff corporation to acquire the
certain parcel of land situated in the Barrio of
Isabang, Tayabas, Province of Quezon, Philippines,
and described as follows:
A parcel of land (Lot 23, Block 3 of the
subdivision plan, Psd-045647-056708, being a
portion of Lot 1166, Cad-140 Quezon City, Cadastre
LRC Record No.) situated in the Sitio 2, Manggahan,
Commonwealth, Quezon City. Bounded on the NE,
along line 1-2 by Lot 22, Blk. 3, on the SE, along line
2-3 by Road Lot 8; on the SW, along line 3-4 by Lot
24, Blk. 3, on the NW., along line 4-1 by Legal
Eastment 1 all of the subdivision plan Beginning at a
point marked 1 on plan being N. 60 deg.
01W.,415.66 m. from MBM No. 53, Cad-140 Quezon
City Cadastre, thence S 45 deg. 2__E10.00 m to point
2, thence S44 deg 39W,10.00 to point of beginning
containing an area of ONE HUNDRED SQUARE
METERS, more of less. All points referred to are
indicated on the plan and marked on the ground by
P.S. cyl. Conc. Mons. 15 x 60 cm, bearing true, date
of original survey, May 1918 July 1953, and that of
the subdivision survey. May 24-27, 1992 and was
approved in August 14, 1992.
v. That the sole owner of said parcel of land are

defendants Mariana Esguerra, Reynalda Ramirez,
and Rodolfo Lansin.
vi. That the assessed value of said property is FIVE
MILLION PESOS (P5,000,000.00).
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prays for judgment:
(l) Provisionally adjudging the value of said property in an
amount equal to the assessed value of the same
(m) After said provisional sum is deposited by plaintiff
with the National Treasurer, awarding forthwith the
possession of the land to plaintiff.
(n)After payment by plaintiff of the whole value adjudged
by this court, ordering the transfer to plaintiff of the
title of said property, and for such further relief as may
be called for in the premises.
March 3, 2012 at Quezon City.

NOTARY PUBLIC
Roll No. 478090

I, EMILIA C. GUIDOTTI, representing
Quezon City, of
legal age, single, after being duly sworn to in accordance with
law, depose and says:
EMILIA C. GUIDOTTI
(representative of Quezon City)
March 2012, at Quezon City City, affiant exhibited to me her
Community Tax Certificate No. 998654 issued on December 5,

NOTARY PUBLIC
Roll No. 478090
Doc No.:
Book No.:
Page No.:
Series of 2013.
Complaint for Foreclosure Of Mortgage

BRANCH 30
QUEZON CITY
EMILIA C. GUIDOTTI
Petitioner,
-versus-
CIVIL CASE NO. 98765

For: Complaint for Foreclosure
of Real Estate Mortgage
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states:
1. That plaintiff is of legal age, and a resident of Mabolo
St., E. Rodriguez, Quezon City;
2. That defendant is of legal age, with postal address at
No. 124 Katigbak St., Katipunan, Quezon City;
3. That on March 1, 2012, the defendant, in order to
secure the payment of the sum of THREE MILLION PESOS
(P3,000,000.00), acknowledged to have been received by him
on said date, executed in favor of the plaintiff a first mortgage
on certain real property located in Quezon City, and duly

registered with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, a true
copy of said mortgage contract is hereto attached as Exh. A,
and made an integral part of this complaint;
4. That the terms and condition of said mortgage, as
stated therein, is such, that if within the period of ONE YEAR
from and after the execution of same, the defendant shall pay
or cause to be paid to the plaintiff, his heirs or assigns, the
said sum of THREE MILLION PESOS (P3,000,000.00), together
with the stipulated interest of TEN (10) percent % per annum,
then the said mortgage shall be discharged; otherwise, it shall
remain in full force and effect, to be enforceable in the manner
prescribed by law;
5. That the defendant has not paid or caused to be paid
the mortgage debt of THREE MILLION PESOS (P3,000,000.00)
or any part thereof, in spite of the lapse of the stipulated
period;
6. That the plaintiff has demanded of the defendant to
pay the above sum of THREE MILLION PESOS
(P3,000,000.00), plus the stipulated interest, but said
defendant has failed to pay the same. Copy of the demand
letter is hereto attached as Annex B;
7. That the defendant has also agreed in the mortgage
contract that should the plaintiff foreclose the mortgage, the
latter is entitled to receive the further sum of ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00) TEN percent (10%) of the
total amount due as attorneys fees, expenses and costs;
8. That there are no other persons having or claiming an
interest in the mortgaged property.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed:
a That, upon due hearing, judgment be rendered: (1)
ordering the defendant to pay unto the court within
the reglementary period of ninety days the sum of

THREE MILLION PESOS (P3,000,000.00) together
with the stipulated interest at ten percent (10%) per
annum from and after one year, plus the additional
sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P100,000.00) ten percent (10%) of the total amount
due as attorneys fees, expenses, and costs; (2) and
that in default of such payment, the abovementioned property be ordered sold to pay-off the
debt and its accumulated interest, plus ten percent
(10 %) of the total amount due as attorneys fees,
expenses and costs.
b To issue a decree of foreclosure for the sale at public
auction of the aforementioned parcels of land, for
the disposition of the proceeds thereon in
accordance with law, upon failure of defendant to
fully pay to plaintiff within the period set by law the
sums forth in this complaint.
c That plaintiff be granted such other relief in law and
equity.
March 29, 2012 at Quezon City.

NOTARY PUBLIC
Roll No. 478090

OF NON- FORUM SHOPPING
this 29th day of March 2012, Quezon City, Philippines.
EMILIA C. GUIDOTTI
Affiant
Public for and in the Province of Quezon, this 29 th day of
March 2012, at Quezon City.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Roll No. 478090
Doc No.:
Book No.:
Page No.:
Series of 2013.
Complaint for Preliminary Attachment

BRANCH 30
QUEZON CITY
EMILIA C. GUIDOTTI
Petitioner,
-versus-
CIVIL CASE NO. 98765

For: COMPLAINT WITH PRAYER
FOR PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
COME NOW the plaintiff by the undersigned attorney,
and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:
1. That both the plaintiff and the defendant are of age
and residents of Mo. Ignacia St., Quezon City.
2. That, on April 16, 2011, defendant executed and
signed the following promissory note to wit:
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I HEREBY OBLIGATE

MYSELF TO PAY EMILIA C. GUIDOTTI, THE SUM OF
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P300,000.00) ON OR
BEFORE APRIL 16, 2012.
3. That the aforementioned obligation of defendant is now
overdue but said defendant failed and refused, and still fails
and refuses, to pay said obligation, or any part thereof,
notwithstanding repealed demands.
4.
That said defendant is about depart from the
Philippines with intent to defraud her creditor.
5. That plaintiff hereby alleges under oath that this
obligation of defendant is genuine, and that, therefore, a
sufficient cause of action exists.
6. That there is no other sufficient security for the claim
sought to be enforced by this action.
7. That plaintiff is willing to put up a bond for the
issuance of a preliminary attachment in an amount to be fixed
by the court, not exceeding the sum of THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00) which is the plaintiffs claim
herein.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, pending the
hearing of this case, a writ of preliminary attachment be
issued against the property of the defendant to serve as
security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be
recovered herein; and that after due hearing on the principal
cause of this action, judgment be rendered interest at the
stipulated rate of TEN PERCENT (10%) from THREE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00) plus cost of
this suit.
April 28, 2012 at Quezon City.

NOTARY PUBLIC
Roll No. 478090

this 28th day of April 2012, Quezon City, Philippines.
EMILIA C. GUIDOTTI
Affiant
Public for and in the Province of Quezon, this 28 th day of April

NOTARY PUBLIC

Roll No. 478090
Doc No.:
Book No.:
Page No.:
Series of 2013.
Complaint for Preliminary Injunction
BRANCH 30
QUEZON CITY
EMILIA C. GUIDOTTI
Petitioner,
-versusCIVIL CASE NO. 98765
For: COMPLAINT WITH PRAYER
FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully avers:
1. That plaintiff and defendant are both of legal age and
residents of Bulalacao St., West Fairview, Quezon City.
2. That plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of land situated
at No. 8 Sandejas St., West Fairview, Quezon City, covered by
Transfer Certificate No. 6547 of the Office of the Register of
Deeds of the City of Quezon City and more particularly

described in said certificate of title as follows:
A parcel of land (Lot 23, Block 3 of the subdivision
plan, Psd-045647-056708, being a portion of Lot 1166,
Cad-140 Quezon City, Cadastre LRC Record No.) situated
in No. 8 Sandejas St., West Fairview, Quezon City.
Bounded on the NE, along line 1-2 by Lot 22, Blk. 3, on the
SE, along line 2-3 by Road Lot 8; on the SW, along line 3-4
by Lot 24, Blk. 3, on the NW., along line 4-1 by Legal
Eastment 1 all of the subdivision plan Beginning at a point
marked 1 on plan being N. 60 deg. 01W.,415.66 m. from
MBM No. 53, Cad-140 Tayabas Cadastre, thence S 45
deg. 2__E10.00 m to point 2, thence S44 deg 39W,10.00 to
point of beginning containing an area of ONE HUNDRED
SQUARE METERS, more of less. All points referred to are
indicated on the plan and marked on the ground by P.S.
cyl. Conc. Mons. 15 x 60 cm, bearing true, date of original
survey, May 1918 July 1953, and that of the subdivision
survey. May 24-27, 1992 and was approved in August
14, 1992.
3. That defendant is the owner of a lot, also at Sandejas
St., West Fairview Quezon City, which adjoins the
aforementioned lot of plaintiff.
4. That all the permanent improvements in both parcels
of land were completely destroyed by fire, and at present, both
lots are vacant.
5. That on or about November,2011 defendant started
construction of a building in his lot, the groundwork ad posts
of which building are already up, but which groundwork and
posts extend into the lot of plaintiff, occupying two (5) meters
of the same at the whole extension of the boundary line
between the two lots.
6. That the aforementioned construction continues until
now, notwithstanding objections of plaintiff.
7. That the continuance of the construction

aforementioned during the resent litigation would not only
cause great and irreparable injury, but will also work injustice
to plaintiff, and would complicate, aggravate, and multiply the
issues in this case.
8. That plaintiff hereby applied for a writ of preliminary
injunction to restrain the defendant from the act herein
complained of, and for this purpose hereby offers a bond in
such sum as this Honorable Court may fix.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, after due
notice and hearing, a preliminary injunction be issued
forthwith to restrain defendant from doing the act herein
complained of; namely, to further work in the construction of
his building within the comprehension of five (5) meters
comprised by plaintiff's lot, i.e., the comprehension of five (5)
meters through the whole length of the left-hand lateral of said
construction. ; and that after trial, said injunction be made
permanent, and ordering defendant to remove all the posts
and other construction within plaintiffs lot, and upon
defendant's failure to do so, authorizing plaintiff to order said
removal at defendant's expenses with costs, and with such
further orders that are just and equitable in the premises.
December 1, 2011 at Quezon City
NOTARY PUBLIC
Roll No. 478090

this 1st day of December 2011, Quezon City, Philippines.
EMILIA C. GUIDOTTI
Affiant
Public for and in the Province of Quezon, this 1 st day of
December 2011, at Quezon City.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Roll No. 478090
Doc No.:
Book No.:
Page No.:
Series of 2013.
Special
Proceedings
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

SUPREME COURT
In the matter of the Petition
for Habeas Corpus of
Marife Balangue
Juanito Bauan,
Petitioner,
Sp. Proc. No. 11-1163
HABEAS CORPUS
-versusChief of Police Brian Castro
Police Superintendent Jomar Geron
Defendants,
x--------------------------------------x
PETITION
COMES NOW petitioner, in the above-titled case, through
his undersigned attorney, and to this Honorable Court
respectfully represents:
1. Petitioner Juanito Bauan, is of legal age and a resident of
68 Santol St., Sampaloc, Manila. Petitioner is the
husband of Marife Balangue.
2. That on August 1, 2011, petitioner was taken from her
residence by ten (10) police officers headed by Police
Superintendent Carlos Olivera, and since then confined,
restrained and deprived of her liberty in the Correctional
Institute for Women in Pasay City;
3. That in spite of the fact that petitioner has been confined
for nearly five
months, no formal complaint or
accusation for specific offense has been filed against her
nor any judicial writ or order for her commitment has at

any time been issued so far;
4. That petitioner did not commit any offense for which she
may be arrested or deprived of her liberty by Police
Superintendent Jomar Geron by order and at the behest
of one, Chief of Police Brian Castro, whose office is in
Camp Crame in Quezon City;
5. That there being no Martial Law or State of Emergency,
the
confinement
of
the
petitioner
under
the
circumstances above narrated is utterly illegal.
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that said officers, Police

Superintendent Jomar Geron and Chief of Police Brian Castro,
or who ever acts in their place and stead, be directed to appear
before this Honorable Court and produce the body of
petitioner; and explain forthwith why petitioner should not be
set at liberty without delay.
Manila. February 2, 2012.

204, 2nd F, Cityland Bldg., Makati
City
2009, Manila

PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5,
MCLE Compliance No. 10-0610,
Jan,5,2009

I, JUANITO BAUAN, of legal age and a residence at 68

Santol St., Sampaloc, Manila, after having been sworn, depose
and say:
1. That I am the petitioner in the above-entitled petitioner
2. That I have caused the preparation of said petition
3. That I have read the allegations therein contained, and
4. That I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and to the best of my
knowledge, no such other action or claim pending
court wherein aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading
has been filed.
Witness my hand this 1st day of January, 2012 at Quezon

City Philippines.
JUANITO BAUAN
AFFIANT
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a notary public
in and for JUANITO BAUAN, this day of January 1, 2012, at
City of Manila, Philippines, affiant appearing before me with
the following identification documents:
1. Passport with number E12345 issued on February 14,
2010 at Pasay City
2.
Drivers License with number 12345 issued on

February 7, 2012 at Makati City
and presenting to me a document entitled Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus, and who signed said document in my
presence and sworn as to said document that he understood
the contents thereof and that the same was his free and
voluntary act and deed.

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234578 1/12/08 Mla.
IBP No. 6789 1/2/07 Mla.
ROA 98765
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of .
Petition for Writ of Kalikasan

SUPREME COURT
In the Matter of the Petition
For Writ of Kalikasan
Jenny Baclig,
Petitioner,
G.R. No. 12345
-versusPhilippine Long Distance Telephone

Defendants,
x--------------------------------------x
PETITION
PETITIONER, by counsel and to this Honorable Court
alleges:
1. Petitioner is of legal age and with residence at 20 Diego
Silang St., Pasig.
2. Herein respondent, Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company is the largest telecommunication provider of the
country; and that on the 25th of February 2012, the
company, through the Megalux Construction Company,
started constructing one (1) tall satellite tower within the
PLDT compound in Zamboanga City for purposes of
TV5s broadcast.
3. Under Article II, Section 16 of the Philippine
Constitution; The State shall protect and advance the
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in
accordance with the rhythm and harmony of nature. The
residents, including herein petitioner, are inundated with
the 3 towers around them and to add another one would

surely be detrimental to their health.
4. Moreover, the residents living immediately around the
PLDT compound was able to secure a cease and desist
order from the local city planning department on the
basis
of
Megaluxs
non-compliance
of
a
building/construction permit.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that the respondent and

those acting in its behalf be served by this Honorable Court,
the Writ of Kalikasan or a Temporary Environmental Protection
Order(TEPO) with regards to the construction of the tower
within the PLDT compound in Pasig City.
Pasig City, 3rd May 2012

204, 2nd F, Cityland Bldg., Makati City
PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila

I, JENNY BACLIG, of legal age and a residence at 20 Diego
Silang St., Pasig, after having been sworn, depose and say:
has been filed.
Witness my hand this 3rd day May, 2012 at Quezon City
Philippines.
JENNY BACLIG
AFFIANT
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a notary public in
and for JENNY BACLIG, this day of May 3, 2012, at Pasign
City, Philippines, affiant appearing before me with the
following identification documents:
2010 at Pasay City
2. Drivers License with number 12345 issued on

Kalikasan, and who signed said document in my presence and
sworn as to said document that he understood the contents
thereof and that the same was his free and voluntary act and
deed.

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234578 1/12/08 Mla.
IBP No. 6789 1/2/07 Mla.
ROA 98765
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Data

SUPREME COURT
Bella Santos,
Petitioner,
G.R. No. 12345
For: Writ of Habeas Data
-versusIntelligence Service of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines,
Defendant.
x--------------------------------------x
PETITION
COMES NOW petitioner, in the above-titled case, through
his undersigned attorney, and to this Honorable Court
respectfully represents:
PARTIES
1. Petitioner Bella Santos is a Filipino, of legal age and
residing at 8 Recto Avenue, Manila. She may be served
with notices from this Honorable Court through the
undersigned counsel
2. Public respondent Intelligence Service of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP) is a support unit of the
AFP engaged in intelligence and information gathering. It
may be served orders and processes at AFP-GHQ, Camp
Aguinaldo, Cubao, Quezon City.
MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Petitioner is a lawyer by profession. The petitioner has

been suspected to be a member of the communist-rebel
group, New Peoples Army (NPA).
2. The petitioner was detained in the head Quarters of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines at Camp Aguinaldo,
Cubao Quezon City.
3. The petitioner was released on 25 February 2012.

4. On the night of 12 January 2012, members of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines took the petitioner into their
custody while she was about to leave his office at
Espana, Manila.
5. On the same night, the members of the Intelligence
Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines raid and
took from the petitioners office his correspondences with
her clients and papers pertinent to the cases of those
clients.
6. Upon petitioners release, she sought from the authorities
her correspondences and papers which they returned.
7. However, respondent kept a copy of the data and
information in the correspondences and papers in their
record.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that this Honorable Court
give due course to this petition and issue the writ of habeas
data and rule as follows:
Upon notice and hearing order the respondents to:
a. Produce the information in its possession regarding
the petitioners person, her family, home and
correspondences and;
b. Suppress or destroy the information and its database;

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are
City of Manila, Philippines, May 18, 2012.

PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila

I, BELLA SANTOS, of legal age and a residence at 8 Recto
Avenue, Manila, after having been sworn, depose and say:
has been filed.
Witness my hand this 18th day of May, 2012 at Quezon
City, Philippines.
BELLA SANTOS
AFFIANT
in and for Bella Santos, this day of May 18, 2012, at Quezon
City, Philippines, affiant appearing before me with the
2010 at Pasay City
2. Drivers License with number 12345 issued on

Habeas Data, and who signed said document in my presence
and sworn as to said document that he understood the
contents thereof and that the same was his free and voluntary
act and deed.

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234578 1/12/08 Mla.
IBP No. 6789 1/2/07 Mla.
ROA 98765
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of.
Petition for Guardianship

Branch 14, Makati City
In the matter of the Petition of Guardianship

of the minor Christian Tugade
Sp. Proc. No. 11-1234
Juanito Bauan,
Petitioner,
x--------------------------------------x
PETITION
alleges:
1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, with a residence of
Saint. Andrews Street, Yakal Makati City, and is the
uncle of the minor Christian Tugade, age 10 years old.
Petitioner being the brother of the father of the said
minor.
2. On October 12, 2009, while the minor was in school,
both his father and mother died in fire that razed their
house at Green Meadows St. Bangkal, Makati City.
3. The parents of the minor left properties, both real and
personal, as follows:
4. A parcel of land, with TCT No. 1234 of the Registry of
Deeds of Makati and with an area of 9000 sq. m together
with a residential house located at Brgy. La Paz Makati
City, valued at P150,000,000.00;
5. Cash deposit of P20,000,000.00 in the bank at BPI

Makati Branch with principal office in Ayala, Makati City;
and
6. Insurance proceeds still to be collected, as a result of the
death of the minors parents, in the total sum of
P25,000,000.00 from Federal Insurance Co.
7. The parents of the minor died without any will and
leaving, as only heir, the said minor who thus succeeds
to the whole estate of his parents.
8. The names, ages and residences of the other relatives of
the minor are as follows:
NAMES
VINA RUROT
TINA MORA
LILY BAGUIN
AGE
35
Ana
25
25
ADDRESS
Fabie Street Onyx Sta.
Manila
Tramo St. Lakandula
Pasay City.
Saint Andrews Street,
Yakal, Makati City
9. Letters of guardianship are prayed for by the petitioner,

with whom the minor is at present residing, and as the
minors uncle, he has the best interest of the minor.
10.
Petitioner has independent sources of income, being
in business and President of Excel Asia Global Services,
a multi-million corporation, and earns income well
enough for his family and for the care and needs of the
minor, if need be.
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that after notice and

hearing, he be appointed guardian of the person and estate of
the minor Christian Tugade, and that the corresponding
letters of guardianship be issued in his favour, and for such
relief as are provided for in the Rules of Guardianship of

Minors
Makati, 2nd day of April, 2011

PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila

I, JUANITO BAUAN, of legal age and a residence at Saint
Andrews Street, Yakal, Makati City, after having been sworn,
depose and say:
has been filed.
Witness my hand this 18th day May, 2012 at Makati City,
Philippines.
JUANITO BAUAN
AFFIANT
in and for JUANITO BAUAN, this day of May 18, 2012, at
Makati City, Philippines, affiant appearing before me with the
2010 at Pasay City
2.

and presenting to me a document entitled Petition for

Guardianship, and who signed said document in my presence
and sworn as to said document that he understood the
contents thereof and that the same was his free and voluntary
act and deed.

Notary Public
PTR No. 1234578 1/12/08 Mla.
IBP No. 6789 1/2/07 Mla.
ROA 98765
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of.
Petition for Probate of a Will

Branch 14, Pasay City
In the matter of the Petition for
Approval of Will of Carlos Olivera
Deceased,
SP PRC No. 9545234
GRACE GUINTO
Petitioner,
x--------------------------------------x
PETITION FOR PROBATE OF WILL
alleges:
1. On December 12, 2011 deceased Carlos Olivera died in
the City of Pasay, then residing at R.G. Morales
Condominium Lakadula Street Pasay City, which was his
residence at the time of his death, leaving a will, a true
copy of which is attached thereto as Annex A and made
an integral part hereof.
2. Petitioner is of legal age and with residence at 890
Andula Street Cartimar Pasay City, and is the executor in
said will, and hereby consents to act as such executor.
3. The names, ages, and residences of the heirs and
legatees and devisees of said decedent are as follows:
NAMES
MAGDAYAO SHARON
AGES
5
BALTAZAR GLORIA
48
RESIDENCES
Zone 5, Manila
8594 K. Segundo St.
Fortunata, Pque
4. The deceased left properties, real and personal, with a

total approximate value of P 10,000,000.
5. Petitioner, as named executor, moves and prays that the
letters testamentary, be issued to her; that she is
competent to serve as executor and is ready to give a
hand as required by the Rules of Court.
6. The will has been delivered to the court on December 20,
2011.
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that after due notice,
publication and hearing the aforementioned will of deceased
Niefred Molina be approved, allowed and that letters
testamentary be issued to herein petitioner.
Pasay City, January 22, 2013.

PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila
Petition for Adoption

Branch 14, City of Manila
In the matter of Adoption of Bridget Marie Fontilla
SP Proc. No. 656744223
The Spouses RIZA VINLUAN and

Atty. MARTIN VINLUAN
Petitioners.
x--------------------------------------x
PETITION FOR ADOPTION

PETITIONERS, by counsel and to this Honorable Court,
respectfully alleges;
1. Petitioners are husband-wife of legal age, the husband
being of 35 years of age, while the wife is 32 years of age,
Filipino Citizens, and with residence at Unit 1817 Torre
Lorenzo Condominium, Vito Cruz Avenue, Manila.
2. Petitioners are childless and they are in possession of full
civil capacity and not convicted of any crime involving
moral turpitude; they are emotionally and psychologically
capable of caring for children; they are at least 16 years
older than the person to be adopted; and are in a position
to support and care for the adoptee and of themselves, in
keeping with the means of Section 4 of Republic Act No.
8552, as shown by Certification to that effect, true copy
of which is attached hereto as Annex A.
3. The name of the adoptee is Bridget Marie Fontilla, the
name given her when the adoptee was given to the
petitioners for adoption since the childs birth and has
been taken care of by the petitioners for adoption since
the day until the present, who is now 5 years of age,

giving her all health attention by doctors. The petitioners
have loved the adoptee since then and they have
developed a kind of parental love for the child; and the
adoptee has known petitioners as his parents, calling the
husband as Daddy and the wife as Mommy. The Birth
Certificate, which the mother informed the hospital staff,
shows her to be a baby girl without first name and with
surname Beltran, without any named father, as to the
child was born out of wedlock on August 15, 2004.
4. The adoptee is not disqualified by law to be adopted. The
adoptee has no estate.
5. The first name, surname or names by which the adoptee
is to be known and registered in the Civil registry is
Bridget Marie Fontilla, which is what the adoptee is
known by the petitioners and by the petitioners relatives
and playmates. Attached hereto and made integral parts
hereof are the following:
a. Birth Certificate of the adoptee as Annex A
b. Baptismal Certificate attached as Annex B
6. Written consent of the mother of the adoptee, which she
had it prepared and she executed or signed it after the
adoptees birth; after which she never showed up or even
glanced at her child; hence, the written consent could not
be notarized as she was in a hurry to leave the hospital
telling the petitioner to take good care of the child;
7. The petitioners are childless; they have no legitimate
children;
8. Child Study report on the adopted is attached hereto as
Annex B
9. No child study on the biological parents of the adoptee,
as his mother could no longer be located since the birth
of the child, and the child has no known father.
10.
Home study report on the petitioners as adopters is
made by the court as Annex C.
WHEREFORE, petitioners pray that due notice, publication
and hearing a decree of adoption be issued in favour of
petitioners to the effect that henceforth, the child BRIDGET
MARIE FONTILLA be freed from all legal obligations of
obedience and maintenance with respect to his natural
parents, and be to all legal intents and purposes, the child of
petitioners, and that the surname be changed to VINLUAN,
which is the surname of petitioner spouses.
Manila, January 1, 2013.

PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila
Petition for Change of Name

In the matter of the Change of Name
of Charice Tumambon,
Special Proceeding No. 12345
Charice Tumambon
Petitioner
x--------------------------------------x
PETITION
Petitioner through the undersigned counsel and unto this
1. She has been a bona fide resident of the City of Makati,
Philippines for more than three years prior to the date of
the filing of this petition.
2. That the family name which she carries, namely
Tumambon, is a derivative of the Chinese name of her
ancestry and said name carries in Tagalog language
meaning and connotation which immediately evoke
laughter and abusive comments from those who hear
the same, thereby causing embarrassment to her.
3. Said name has always been a handicap in her social and
business dealings.
4. She intends to get married and judging from her bitter
experience as a child, she does not want that her future
children shall suffer the same humiliation and inferiority
complex which she has suffered on account of that name.
5. It is her desire to change her family name to Concepcion,

this being the family name of her best friend.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered,
petitioner
respectfully prays that the Honorable Court issue judgment
after due notice, publication and hearing an order issuing to
change her name to Katrina Concepcion.
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are
likewise prayed for. Signed on the 7 th of July, 2012, Makati City
Philippines.

PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila

I, Katrina Concepcion, of legal age, Filipino and residing
at 9043 Guadalupe Makati City, Philippines, after being sworn
in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:
1. That we are
petitioner
the
petitioners
in
the
above-entitled
2. That we have caused the preparation of said petition

3. That we have read the allegations therein contained, and
that the same are true and correct of our personal
4. That we have not theretofore commenced any action or
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and to the best of our
therein; and if we should thereafter learn that the same
or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, We
has been filed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this
July 14, 2012, at Makati City, Philippines.
KATRINA CONCEPCION
AFFIANT
and for KATRINA CONCEPCION, this day of July 7, 201, at
Makati City, Philippines, affiant appearing before me with the
2010 at Pasay City
2.

and presenting to me a document entitled Petition for Change

of Name, and who signed said document in my presence and
deed.

PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of.
Petition for Change of Gender

In the matter of the Change of Gender
of Marlene Arnaiz,
Special Proceeding No. 12345
Marlene Arnaiz
Petitioner,
x--------------------------------------x
PETITION
Petitioner through the undersigned counsel and unto this
HonorableCourt, respectfully alleges that:
1. Petitioner is of legal age, single and with residence at 38
Visayas Avenue, Quezon City.
2. Petitioner was born on March 6, 1980 and his fathers
name is Mitchelle Publico, while his mothers name is
Aileen Estrada.
3. During the Petitioners infancy, her female characteristics
were more apparent although her clitoris was enlarged.
As she was growing up she began to gradually develop
male characteristics. Her actions, anatomy, feature, and
mannerisms became unquestionably male.
4. That she did, on the 26th day of October 2011, consulted
Dr. Ibrahim Cortez, M.D., an endocrinologist at
Philippine General Hospital (PGH) and at the age of 20
she was diagnosed with simple virilizing Congenital
Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH). Her facial features, physical
appearance, voice, external genitalia and even preference

for the opposite sex are consistent with being male.
5. The Petitioner on the 3rd day of January 2012 also
consulted Department Urology and Psychiatry of
Philippine General Hospital. Dr. Nat Cansino of the of the
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine
certifies that the Petitioner has been assessed to be
psychologically and emotionally competent to make the
decision to have a legal change in gender status to male.
She is further assessed to have no symptoms of any
psychotic, mood or anxiety disorder, and based on
previous experience, claims to be more comfortable being
referred to as a male.
6. That the entry of her name and gender in her Birth
Certificate is a factor on why she is having a hard time
being employed in typical masculine jobs as her gender
belies her physical appearance and male capabilities. It
is also an impediment to marriage and to her desire to
build her own family. The use of her female name causes
her inconvenience and embarrassment. People taunt her
as they see her as a male but her name is female.
7. That she desires to correct her records to reflect the
correct sex status.
8. That she requests the Court to change her gender status
to that of male as evidenced by the enclosed affidavit and
her signature on this petition.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that after notice,
publication, and hearing, judgment be rendered changing her
sex designation to male.
Quezon City, 3rd May 2012


PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila

I, Marlene Arnaiz, of legal age, Filipino and residing at
9043 Guadalupe Makati City, Philippines, after being sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and say:
1. That we are
petitioner
the
petitioners
in
the
above-entitled
2. That we have caused the preparation of said petition

3. That we have read the allegations therein contained, and
that the same are true and correct of our personal
4. That we have not theretofore commenced any action or
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and to the best of our
therein; and if we should thereafter learn that the same
or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, We
has been filed.
this May 3, 2012, at Makati City, Philippines.
MARLENE ARNAIZ
AFFIANT
in and for Pedro Juan Manuel, this day of May 3, 2012, at
Quezon City, Philippines, affiant appearing before me with the
2010 at Pasay City
2.

and presenting to me a document entitled Petition for

Correction of Entry (Gender), and who signed said document
in my presence and sworn as to said document that he
understood the contents thereof and that the same was his

PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of.
Petition for Correction of Entry

Branch 8, Pasay City
CANCELLATION OF DATE
AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE
IN
THE
LIVE
BIRTH
CERTIFICATE OF MINOR
JESSICA VINLUAN IN THE
LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR
OF
PASAY
CITY
represented by her mother
RIZA VINLUAN.
SP. PROC. NO. 11-0039
FOR: Cancellation of Entry in
the Civil Registry
JESSICA VINLUAN,
Petitioner,
-versusTHE
LOCAL
CIVIL
REGISTRAR
OF
PASAY
CITY
and
NATIONAL
STATISTICS OFFICE,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------x
PETITION
COMES NOW, Petitioner JESSICA VINLUAN represented
by her mother RIZA VINLUAN through the undersigned Public
Attorney and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully

alleges:
1. That Petitioner is a minor, Filipino, duly represented by
her mother RIZA VINLUAN and both presently residing at
Poblacion Norte Mayantoc, Tarlac, where they may be
served with summons and processes of the Court;
2. That Respondents Local Civil Registrar of Pasay and
National Statistics Office are government agencies who
are impleaded hereto as repositories of all public records
relating to the birth of children born in the Philippines
particularly in Pasay City with office address at the
ground floor of Pasay City Hall and East Avenue, Quezon
City, respectively;
3. That petitioner JESSICA VINLUAN was born in Tramo
Pasay City on February 4, 1992 of which her Certificate
of Live Birth is sought to be corrected in this Petition,
attached hereto as ANNEX A and made integral part
hereof;
4. That a perusal of Certificate of Live Birth JESSICA
VINLUAN would show that the entry regarding the Date
and Place of Marriage of Parents is March 10, 1991
Tarlac, a clearly erroneous entry since the fact of the
matter is that the parents of the petitioner particularly
MARTIN VINLUAN and RIZA VINLUAN are NOT
MARRIED;
5. In support herein Petition, MARTIN VINLUAN likewise
attached his Affidavit of Paternity which was notarized by
Consul General Benito B. Valeriano of the Philippine
Consulate General, Dubai, United Arab Emirates and
marked as ANNEX B. Moreover, RIZA VINLUAN
attached a Certification from the National Statistics
Office dated February 14, 2009 certifying that she does
not appear in the Notarial Indices for Marriages based on
the records of 1945-2009 Marriages enrolled in the
database as of January 31, 2009 and hereto attached as
ANNEX C
6. The necessity of cancellation of said entry with the

records of the Office of the Civil Registrar cannot be
understated considering that correction would bar future
complications,
confusion,
misinterpretation,
embarrassment and inconvenience on part of minor
JESSICA VINLUAN.
PRAYER
respectfully prayed that, after due notice and hearing,
judgment to forthwith render ordering the cancellation of the
date and place of marriage in the Certification of Live Birth of
JESSICA VINLUAN and to order the Local Civil Registrar of
Pasay City and directing the National Statistics Office to
CANCEL the said error indicated.
It is likewise prayed for such other relief consistent with
law and equity.
City of Paranaque, March 26, 2012
ERNESTO GUEVARA
Public Attorney II

I, RIZA VINLUAN, of legal age, Filipino, and with address
at Poblacion Norte Mayantoc Tarlac having been sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state, that:
1. I am the Mother of the petitioner in the instant
Petition;
2. I have caused the preparation and filing of the instant
Petition, the contents of which are true and correct
based on personal knowledge and authentic records in
my possession;
3. I hereby certify that I have not commenced any other
action or proceedings involving the same issues in the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, the different
divisions thereof, or in any other court, tribunal or
agency. To the best of my knowledge, no such other
actions or proceedings are pending before the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals, the different divisions
thereof, or in any other court, tribunal or agency for
that matter;
4. I hereby undertake to notify this Honorable Office
within five (5) days from notice, should I learn of
similar action or proceeding filed or is pending before
anybody, court, tribunal above-mentioned.
RIZA VINLUAN
AFFIANT
and for GRACE GUINTO, this day of December 22, 2011, at
Pasay City, Philippines, affiant appearing before me with the
2010 at Pasay City
2.

and presenting to me a document entitled Petition for Change

of Entry, and who signed said document in my presence and
deed.
PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of.
Petition for Probate of a Will

PETITION FOR COMMISSION
AS NOTARY PUBLIC IN THE
CITY OF MAKATI
DAVID SOLOMON
Petitioner,
x--------------------------------------x
PETITION
Petitioner, DAVID SOLOMON, (hereinafter Petitioner)
1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino and holding office at
PBCom Tower, Ayala Avenue corner V.A. Rufino Street,
Makati City.
2. Petitioner is a member of the Philippine Bar having
been admitted to the practice of law on March 29,
2012 as evidenced by a photocopy of his Certificate of
Membership attached hereto and made an integral
part hereof as Annex A.
3. Petitioner has not been accused of any crime involving
moral turpitude before any court or tribunal in the
Philippines.
4. Petitioner is not a member of any subversive
association or any association advocating to overthrow
the existing government.
5. Petitioner is not a government employee nor has he

applied for the same commission in any other
jurisdiction.
6. Petitioner has paid his membership fee with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines as per IBP Official
Receipt No. 892020 dated April 28, 2012, a photocopy
of which is attached hereto as Annex B. He has also
paid the Professional Tax Receipt due his as evidenced
by PTR No. 0123456 dated April 28, 2012 a photocopy
of which is also attached herewith as Annex C.
7. The true impression of Petitioners notarial seal is
attached to this Petition together with the three
specimens of his signature as Annexes D and E
respectively.
WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that he be
commissioned as Notary Public for the City of Makati.
Makati City, 18 March, 2012.

PTR No. 8012358 Jan. 5, 2009, Manila
Administrative
Proceedings
LABOR PROCEEDINGS
(Complaint)
Department of Labor and Employment
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. IV
Quezon City
MARTIN RODRIGO,
Complainant,
- versus -
NLRC Case No. RAB-C-
0001-12
For Unfair Labor Practice
BALLER RESTAURANT, INC.,
Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
COMPLAINT
COMPLAINANT, through undersigned counsel and to
this Honorable Office, respectfully avers:
1) Complainant Martin Rodrigo (hereafter Complainant Rodrigo)
is of legal age, single, Filipino and a resident of No. 01
Malakas St., Diliman, Quezon City;
2) Respondent Baller Restaurant, Inc. (hereafter BALLER) is a
domestic corporation duly organized and existing under and
by virtue of the laws of the Philippines, with business
address at Suite 02, 3/F Fortune Building, No. 04 Matalino
St., Diliman, Quezon City, where it may be served summons
and any other legal processes at all times material to this
Complaint;
3) On January 03, 2011, complainant Rodrigo was hired as a
waiter by respondent BALLER, and was assigned at the Baller
Restaurant Kamuning branch (hereafter Kamuning branch)
located at No. 6 K-2nd Street Brgy. Kamuning, Quezon City. A
copy of the Certificate of Employment is hereto attached as
Annex A and made an integral part hereof;
4) On June 01, 2011, complainant was elected as an officer of

the Baller Restaurant Labor Union (hereafter BRLU), and as
such was given the right and responsibility to attend regular
union meetings scheduled every Tuesday and Thursday at
six (6) oclock in the evening at the staf house behind the
Kamuning branch;
5) On December 13, 2011, respondent BALLER notified the
complainant by way of an office memorandum that the latter
is being transferred to Baller Restaurant Novaliches branch
located at No. 07 Brgy. Kaligayahan, Novaliches, Quezon
City, efective December 20, 2011. A copy of the
abovementioned office memorandum is hereto attached as
Annex B and made an integral part hereof;
6) As a result of the transfer, complainant was unable to attend
the regular union meetings, and was subsequently
impeached from his office and later expelled from BRLU;
7) In addition, complainant was constrained to institute the
incurring litigation expenses and expenses for attorneys
fees for which respondent should be ordered to pay the
complainant the sum of P30,000.00.
WHEREFORE, complainant respectfully prays that
judgment be rendered ordering respondent to transfer the
complainant to the Kamuning branch, and to pay the same
the sum of P30,000.00 as and for attorneys fees and
expenses of litigation, plus costs.
Complainant further prays for such other reliefs as may
be just and equitable in the premises.
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
23 Don Jose St. Bagong Buhay, Quezon
City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. IV 000600VERIFICATION AND

CERTIFICATION
I, Martin Rodrigo, of legal age and with residence at No.
01 Malakas St., Diliman, Quezon City, after having been duly
1. That I am the complainant in the above entitled
Complaint; I have caused the preparation of
said Complaint; I have read the allegations
therein contained, and that the same are true
and correct of my personal knowledge and/or
based on authentic records;
2. I have not theretofore commenced any action or
filed any claim involving the same issues in any
court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to
the best of my knowledge, no such other action
or claim is pending therein;
3. Should I thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, I shall report the fact within five (5)
days therefrom to the court/office wherein the
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has
been filed.
Witness my hand this 15th of March 2012 at Quezon
City, Philippines.
MARTIN RODRIGO
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a notary
public this 15th day of March 2012 at Quezon City,
Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his Drivers
License No. E12-12-123456 issued on January 02, 2012 at
Quezon City.
Doc. No. 01
Page No. 02
Book No. 03
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Commission Serial No. 123456
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 1234567/03-01-12/Q.C.

IBP No. 123456/03-08-12/Q.C
MCLE Compliance No. IV 000700
LABOR PROCEEDINGS
(Answer)
Quezon City
MARTIN RODRIGO,
Complainant,
- versus -
NLRC Case No. RAB-C-0001-12

FORTUNE RESTAURANT, INC.,

Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
ANSWER
RESPONDENT through undersigned counsel, and in
answer to the Complaint, respectfully states:
8) That it admits that portion of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of
the Complaint regarding the names, residences, status of the
parties and previous and present work assignments of the
complainant;
9) That it is without the knowledge or information to form a
belief as to the truth of the averments made in paragraphs 5
and 8 thereof;
10)
Respondent denies specifically each and every material
allegation made in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and
alleges that it is the prerogative of Baller Restaurant, Inc.
(hereafter BALLER) management to transfer its employees to
another branch when the interests of the company
reasonably demand it;
11)
Assuming, arguendo, that complainant was indeed
impeached from office and expelled from the Fortune
Restaurant Labor Union (hereafter BRLU) due to his transfer
to the Baller Restaurant Novaliches branch (hereafter

Novaliches branch), redress must be sought within the BRLU
in accordance with its constitution and by-laws;
12)
Assuming, further, that the complainant has brought his
case to the proper forum, the herein respondent should not
be held responsible because the transfer was efected by the
Head of the Personnel Department, who signed the office
memorandum, Annex B of the Complaint ;
13)
Assuming, finally, that herein respondent can be held
responsible for the acts of a subordinate official, the
complainant is estopped by reason of his acceptance of the
transfer to the Novaliches branch.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the
Complaint be dismissed for utter lack of merit, with costs
against complainant.
PAOLO RAMOS
1 Marlboro St., East Fairview, Quezon City
PTR No. 8765432/03-05-12/Q.C.
VERIFICATION
I, Gerald Dimayuga, of legal age and with residence at
No. 05 Matimtiman St., Diliman, Quezon City, after having
been duly sworn, depose and say:
4. That I am the President of Baller Restaurant,
Inc., duly authorized by its board of directors in
a board resolution, a certified copy of which is
hereto attached as Annex 1 to represent the
respondent in the above entitled Complaint;
5. That I have caused the preparation of the
foregoing Answer with defenses by my counsel;
and
6. That I have read the allegations therein, and
that the same are true and correct of my
personal knowledge and/or based on authentic
records;
City, Philippines.
GERALD DIMAYUGA
License No. E87-87-876543 issued on February 06, 2012 at
Quezon City.
Doc. No. 02
Page No. 03
Book No. 04
Series of 2012
PAOLO RAMOS
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 8765432/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 765432/03-7-12/Q.C
AFFIDAVIT OF PERSONAL SERVICE

I, Marvin Flores, of legal age and having been duly
That I am the messenger of Atty. Paolo Ramos, counsel
for respondent in the case entitled Martin Rodrigo vs. Baller
Restaurant, Inc., NLRC Case No. RAB-C-0001-12, and that as
such messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party,
the Answer filed in said case, as follows:
Atty. Junbee L. Dagan, counsel for complainant, by
personal service by delivering personally copy of said
pleading upon said lawyer who acknowledged receipt thereof
as shown by his signature or initial in said pleading, this 29 th
day of March 2012.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit
this 29th of March 2012 at Quezon City.
MARVIN FLORES
Philippines, affiant appearing before me with her Drivers
License No. E23-23-23456 issued on May 19, 2011 at Quezon
City.
Doc. No. 03
Page No. 04
Book No. 05
Series of 2012
PAOLO RAMOS
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 8765432/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 765432/03-7-12/Q.C
LABOR PROCEEDINGS
(Position Paper)
Quezon City
MARTIN RODRIGO,
Complainant,
- versus -


Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
P O S I T I O N PA P E R
FOR THE COMPLAINANT
this Honorable Office, and within ten (10) days from the date
of termination of the mandatory conciliation and mediation
conference, respectfully avers:
This is a complaint for unfair labor practice.
14)
Complainant Martin Rodrigo (hereafter Complainant
Rodrigo) was hired as a waiter by Baller Restaurant, Inc.
(hereafter Respondent BALLER) on January 03, 2011, and
was assigned at the Baller tune Restaurant Kamuning branch
(hereafter Kamuning branch) located at No. 6 K-2 nd Street
Brgy. Kamuning, Quezon City. A copy of the Certificate of
Employment is hereto attached as Annex A and made an
integral part hereof;
15)
Baller Restaurant Labor Union (hereafter BRLU) is an
employees union recognized by the respondent corporation
as a legitimate labor organization designated and selected

by employees for purposes of bargaining;
16)
Complainant Rodrigo qualified for union membership on
his first day of service, which was on January 03, 2011,
pursuant to the constitution and by-laws of BRLU, and upon
compliance with the requisites of membership which
includes, among others, the payment of a membership fee,
he was admitted within the union on the same date;
17)
In an election of union officers done by secret ballot
conducted on June 01, 2011, complainant was elected as an
officer of BRLU to serve as such for a period of three (3)
years;
18)
As union officer, he was given the right and
responsibility to attend regular union meetings scheduled
every Tuesday and Thursday at six (6) oclock in the evening
at the staf house behind the Kamuning branch;
19)
On December 13, 2011, respondent BALLER notified the
complainant by way of an office memorandum that the latter
is being transferred to Fortune Restaurant Novaliches branch
(hereafter Novaliches branch) located at No. 07 Brgy.
Kaligayahan, Novaliches, Quezon City, efective December
20, 2011. A copy of the abovementioned office
memorandum is hereto attached as Annex B and made an
20)
Due to the work schedule of the complainant, which is
from nine (9) oclock in the morning to six (6) oclock in the
afternoon, not to mention the distance between the
Novaliches branch and Kamuning branch, complainant was
unable to attend the regular union meetings, as a reason for
which he was impeached from his office and later expelled
from BRLU on February 15, 2012;
21)
Consequently, complainant was constrained to institute
the instant action based on the alleged unfair labor practice
of respondent by way of interference in the formers right to
self-organization, in addition to discrimination.
RE: RESPONDENT BALLER RESTAURANT, INC.
22)
Respondent Baller Restaurant, Inc. (hereafter BALLER)
is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under
and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines. It owns and
operates fifteen (15) Baller Restaurants, including the

previous (Kamuning branch) and current (Novaliches branch)
place of assignment of herein complainant;
23)
Respondent BALLER was established and organized on
July 20, 2006. A copy of its Certificate of Incorporation is
hereto attached as Annex C and made an integral part
hereof.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent committed an unfair labor
practice.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION
According to Article 247 of P.D. 442, as amended,
otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines,
(u)nfair labor practices violate the constitutional right of
workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical to
the legitimate interests of both labor and management,
including their right to bargain collectively and otherwise
deal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom and
mutual respect, disrupt industrial peace and hinder the
promotion of healthy and stable labor-management
relations. xxx
Further, Article 48 of the same Decree provides that it is
unfair labor practice (t)o interfere with, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization
and (t)o discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work, and
other terms and conditions of employment in order to
encourage or discourage membership in any labor
organization. xxx"
The act of respondent of transferring herein
complainant interfered with the latters right to selforganization, in that it made it impossible for the same to
attend the regular union meetings, which it was mandated to
do so by the BRLUs constitution and by-laws as part of his
duties as a union officer. Due to the complainants inability
to attend said meetings, he was unable to discharge his
duties, and he was consequently impeached by his peers,
and later expelled from the BRLU.
Even assuming arguendo that the transfer of personnel
and other personnel movements are the prerogative of the
BALLER management, it must be within the bounds allowed

by law, i.e. there must be valid and just cause. In this case,
the complainant was transferred because of his active
involvement in the BRLU; in fact, at the time of his transfer,
the union officers were deliberating on its proposal for new
wage and employment conditions, workloads and work rules.
In addition, respondent discriminated against the
complainant to influence the union activity of employees.
Several union officers were transferred to other branches of
Baller Restaurant that are far from the Kamuning branch,
where the regular union meetings are held; while non-active
BRLU members were transferred to the Kamuning branch,
which is ideal because of its proximity to the residences of
employees, whereas the other branches are in relatively
remote barangays.
Lastly, respondent is responsible for the transfer, albeit
it was the Head of the Personnel Department (hereafter HPD)
who signed the subject office memorandum that efectively
transferred complainant to the Novaliches branch. The HPD
is under the direct supervision of the BALLER management,
and the former is only acting upon the direct order of the
latter.
Based on the foregoing factual statements, it is very
clear that respondent BALLER committed unfair labor
practice.
WHEREFORE, for and in view of the foregoing, it is
most respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered
ordering respondent to transfer the complainant to the Baller
Restaurant Kamuning branch, and to pay the same the sum
of P30,000.00 as and for attorneys fees and expenses of
litigation, plus costs. Complainant further prays for such
other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the premises.
Quezon City, April 18, 2012.
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Quezon

City
VERIFICATION
7. That I am the complainant in this instant action;
foregoing Position Paper by my counsel; and
records;
Witness my hand this 18th of April 2012 at Quezon City,
Philippines.
MARTIN RODRIGO
public this 18h day of April 2012 at Quezon City, Philippines,
affiant appearing before me with his Drivers License No.
E12-12-123456 issued on January 02, 2012 at Quezon City.
Doc. No. 04
Page No. 05
Book No. 06
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Quezon
City

I, Frederick Amorsolo, of legal age and having been duly
That I am the messenger of Atty. Junbee L. Dagan,
counsel for complainant in the case entitled Martin Rodrigo
vs. Baller Restaurant, Inc., NLRC Case No. RAB-C-0001-12,
and that as such messenger I served upon the counsel of
adverse party, the Position Paper filed in said case, as
follows:
Atty. Paolo Ramos, counsel for respondent, by personal
service by delivering personally copy of said pleading upon
said lawyer who acknowledged receipt thereof as shown by
his signature or initial in said pleading, this 19 th day of April
2012.
this 19th of April 2012 at Quezon City.
FREDERICK AMORSOLO
public this 19th day of April 2012 at Quezon City, Philippines,
E34-34-34567 issued on September 15, 2011 at Quezon City.
Doc. No. 05
Page No. 06
Book No. 07
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-
12/Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. IV
000600
LABOR PROCEEDINGS
(Position Paper)
Quezon City
MARTIN RODRIGO,
Complainant,
- versus -

FORTUNE RESTAURANT, INC.,

Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
FOR THE RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT, through undersigned counsel and to
conference, respectfully states:
24)
operates fifteen (15) Fortune Restaurants, one (1) of which is
located at No. 6 K-2nd Street Brgy. Kamuning, Quezon City
(hereafter Kamuning branch) and another at No. 07 Brgy.
Kaligayahan, Novaliches, Quezon City (hereafter Novaliches
branch);
25)
hereto attached as Annex 1 and made an integral part
hereof;
26)
On December 01, 2011, during a regular meeting of the
officers of BALLER, it was resolved that there should be a
series of personnel movement, i.e. transfers from one branch
to another, in the exigency of the circumstances, considering
that several branches are under-stafed, while others, like
the Kamuning branch, are over-stafed. A copy of the
minutes of the meeting is hereto attached as Annex 2 and
made an integral part hereof;
27)
On December 13, 2011, Complainant was notified by
way of an office memorandum, signed by the Head of the
Personnel Department (hereafter HPD), that the latter is
being transferred to the Novaliches branch efective
December 20, 2011. A copy of the abovementioned office
memorandum is hereto attached as Annex 3 and made an
integral part hereof.
RE: COMPLAINANT MARTIN RODRIGO
28)
Rodrigo) was hired as a waiter by respondent BALLER on
January 03, 2011, and was assigned at the Kamuning branch
located at No. 6 K-2nd Street Brgy. Kamuning, Quezon City. His
work schedule is from nine (9) oclock in the morning to six
(6) oclock in the afternoon;
29)
On December 13, 2011, complainant Rodrigo was
informed by way of office memorandum that he was being
transferred to the Novaliches branch efective December 20,
2011, the same memorandum hereto attached as Annex 3;
30)
On December 20, 2011, complainant Rodrigo started
reporting at the Novaliches branch, and every day thereafter
during his shift until the present date.
ISSUE
practice.
It is within the purview of management prerogative to

transfer employees from one branch to another when the
exigency of circumstances so demands it, which in this case
they do. The Novaliches branch is under-stafed, and as
there was a surplus of waiters in the Kamuning branch, it
was deemed necessary to distribute employees, and one of
those that were chosen, because of his exemplary service,
was herein complainant.
The reason for the transfer is not driven by any illmotive. It is of no moment that complainant is a union
officer. BALLER has recognized the Baller Restaurant Labor
Union (hereafter BRLU) as the bargaining representative of
the employees, and it does not intend to shirk from its
responsibility or duty to bargain. Hence, BALLER acted in
accordance with law when it transferred complainant Rodrigo
to another branch. The presence of mere suspicion that the
respondents conduct was improperly motivated should not
be enough to prove the commission of unfair labor practice,
especially in the absence of facts that would prove ill-motive.
Moreover, it cannot be gainsaid that the transfer is not
the
proximate
cause
of
complainants
supposed
impeachment as a union officer or his alleged expulsion from
BRLU. According to the Complaint, he was impeached and
expelled because of his failure to attend regular union
meetings, not because he was transferred.
Further, the respondent cannot be faulted for the acts
of the HPD, a subordinate official, who also acted with
discretion. In the first place the latter recommended the
employees who were to be transferred. In view of this, it
cannot be said that respondent also discriminated against
the
complainant
as
they
acted
only
upon
the
recommendation of the HPD.
Lastly, complainant is estopped from questioning his
transfer as he assented thereto when he conformed to the
above-mentioned office memorandum, and subsequently
regularly reported for work at the Novaliches branch. If he
had qualms about reporting at said branch, the issue should
have been brought during or immediately after the
efectivity of his transfer.
clear that complainant Rodrigo claim of unfair labor practice
is completely baseless and unfounded and designed for no
other reason than to harass and extort money from the

respondent.
instant Complaint be dismissed for utter lack of merit.
PAOLO RAMOS
PTR No. 8765432/03-05-12/Q.C.
VERIFICATION
records;
Witness my hand this 23rd of April 2012 at Quezon City,
Philippines.
GERALD DIMAYUGA
public this 23rd day of April 2012 at Quezon City, Philippines,
E87-87-876543 issued on February 06, 2012 at Quezon City.
Doc. No. 06
Page No. 07
Book No. 08
Series of 2012
PAOLO RAMOS
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 8765432/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 765432/03-7-12/Q.C

for respondent in the case entitled Martin Rodrigo vs.
Baller Restaurant, Inc., NLRC Case No. RAB-C-0001-12, and
that as such messenger I served upon the counsel of
adverse party, the Position Paper filed in said case, as
follows:
day of April 2012.
MARVIN FLORES
affiant appearing before me with her Drivers License No.
E23-23-23456 issued on May 19, 2011 at Quezon City.
Doc. No. 07
Page No. 08
Book No. 09
Series of 2012
PAOLO RAMOS
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 8765432/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 765432/03-7-12/Q.C
LABOR PROCEEDINGS
(Reply)
Quezon City
MARTIN RODRIGO,
Complainant,
- versus -


Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
R E P LY
this Honorable Office, and within ten (10) days from receipt
of the Position Paper of the adverse party, respectfully avers:
31)
That he acknowledges the admission by the respondent
of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the Complaint regarding the
names, residences, status of the parties and previous and
present work assignments of the complainant;
32)
That he disagrees with the averment of the respondent
in paragraph 2 of the Answer, particularly as to the averment
that they are without knowledge or information to form a
belief as to the membership of complainant in the union and
his subsequent election as a union officer, the truth of the
matter being that management of respondent Baller
Restaurant, Inc. (hereafter Respondent BALLER) is aware of
the activities of the Baller Restaurant Labor Union (hereafter
BRLU);
33)
That he is without the knowledge or information to form
a belief as to the truth of the averments made in paragraphs
3, 4 and 5 thereof;
34)
That he specifically denies the allegation in paragraph 6
of the Answer that he is estopped from instituting the instant
action, the fact of the matter is he accepted the transfer for
fear of being terminated for disobeying the directive
contained in the office memorandum attached as Annex B
to the Complaint.
WHEREFORE, complainant respectfully reiterates its
prayer that judgment be rendered ordering respondent to
transfer the complainant to the Baller Restaurant Kamuning
branch, and to pay the same the sum of P30,000.00 as and
for attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, plus costs.
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
VERIFICATION
13. That I am the complainant in this instant

action;
foregoing Reply by my counsel; and
records;
Philippines.
MARTIN RODRIGO
Doc. No. 08
Page No. 09
Book No. 10
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP
No.
345678/03-08-
12/Quezon City

adverse party, the Reply filed in said case, as follows:
his signature or initial in said pleading, this 26 th day of April
2012.
MARTIN RODRIGO
Doc. No. 09
Page No. 10
Book No. 11
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP
No.
345678/03-08-
12/Quezon City
LABOR PROCEEDINGS
(Rejoinder)
Quezon City
MARTIN RODRIGO,
Complainant,
- versus -

Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
REJOINDER
answer to the Reply, respectfully states:
1)
That they reiterate their averment that they are
without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the
membership of complainant in the union and his subsequent
election as a union officer, contrary to the complainants
averment in paragraph 2 of his Reply, the fact of the matter
being that membership and election of officers are matters
internal to the Baller Restaurant Labor Union (hereafter
BRLU), and not of general knowledge to the Baller
Restaurant,
Inc.
(hereafter
Respondent
BALLER)
management;
2)
That the matters alleged in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5
are reproduced below, viz:
35)
Respondent deny specifically each and every
material allegation made in paragraph 7 of the
complaint, and alleges that it is the prerogative of
Baller Restaurant, Inc. (hereafter BALLER)
management to transfer its employees to another
branch when the interests

reasonably demand it;
of
the
company
36)
Assuming, arguendo, that complainant was
indeed impeached from office and expelled from
the Baller Restaurant Labor Union (hereafter
BRLU) due to his transfer to the Baller Restaurant
Novaliches branch, redress must be sought within
the BRLU in accordance with its constitution and
by-laws;
37)
Assuming, further, that the complainant has
brought his case to the proper forum, the herein
respondent should not be held responsible
because the transfer was effected by the Head of
the Personnel Department, who signed the office
memorandum, Annex B of the Complaint;
3)
That as to the matter of estoppel, which
complainant controverts in paragraph 4 of his Reply, the
same borders on the realm of conjecture and should not be
given credence.
WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully reiterates their
prayer that Complaint be dismissed for utter lack of merit,
with costs against complainant.
PAOLO RAMOS
PTR No. 8765432/03-05-12/Q.C.
VERIFICATION
foregoing Rejoinder with defenses by my
counsel; and
records;
Witness my hand this 2nd of May 2012 at Quezon City,
Philippines.
GERALD DIMAYUGA
public this 2nd day of May 2012 at Quezon City, Philippines,
Doc. No. 10
Page No. 11
Book No. 12
Series of 2012
PAOLO RAMOS
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 8765432/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 765432/03-7-12/Q.C
NOTICE
ATTY. JUNBEE L. DAGAN
23 Don Jose St. Bagong Buhay, Quezon City
Maam:
Please be informed that the undersigned counsel has
set the foregoing motion for hearing on May 08, 2012 at nine
(9) oclock on the morning for the consideration of the
Honorable Court or soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.
ATTY. PAOLO RAMOS


the Motion for Leave and to Admit Attached Rejoinder filed in
as shown by his signature or initial in said pleading, this 3 rd
day of May 2012.
this 3rd of May 2012 at Quezon City.
MARVIN FLORES
public this 3rd day of May 2012 at Quezon City, Philippines,
Doc. No. 11
Page No. 12
Book No. 13
Series of 2012
PAOLO RAMOS
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 8765432/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 765432/03-7-12/Q.C
LABOR PROCEEDINGS
(Sur- Rejoinder)
Quezon City
MARTIN RODRIGO,
Complainant,
- versus -


Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
SUR-REJOINDER
38)
That he reiterates his disagreement with the averment
of the respondent in paragraph 1 of the Rejoinder,
particularly as to the averment that they are without
knowledge or information to form a belief as to the
membership of complainant in the union and his subsequent
election as a union officer, the truth of the matter being that
the management of respondent Baller Restaurant, Inc.
(hereafter Respondent BALLER) is aware of the activities of
the Baller Restaurant Labor Union (hereafter BRLU);
39)
That he is without the knowledge or information to form
a belief as to the truth of the averments made in paragraphs
3, 4 and 5 of the Answer, which are reproduced in paragraph
2 of the Rejoinder;
40)
That he specifically denies the allegation in paragraph 3
of the Answer that he is estopped from instituting the instant
action, the fact of the matter is he accepted the transfer for
fear of being terminated for disobeying the directive
contained in the office memorandum attached as Annex B

to the Complaint.
prayer that judgment be rendered ordering respondent to
transfer the complainant to the Baller Restaurant Kamuning
branch, and to pay the same the sum of P30,000.00 as and
for attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, plus costs.
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
VERIFICATION

action;
foregoing Sur-Rejoinder by my counsel; and
records;
Witness my hand this 09 th of May 2012 at Quezon City,
Philippines.
MARTIN RODRIGO
public this 09th day of May 2012 at Quezon City, Philippines,
Doc. No. 12
Page No. 13
Book No. 14
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP
No.
345678/03-08-
12/Quezon City

adverse party, the Sur-Rejoinder filed in said case, as follows:
his signature or initial in said pleading, this 10 th day of May
2012.
this 10th of May 2012 at Quezon City.
FREDERICK AMORSOLO
Doc. No. 13
Page No. 14
Book No. 15
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP
No.
345678/03-08-
12/Quezon City
LABOR PROCEEDINGS
(Memorandum)

Quezon City
MARTIN RODRIGO,
Complainant,
- versus -


Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
MEMORANDUM FOR COMPLAINANT
COMPLAINANT by counsel and to this Honorable
Office, respectfully submits this Memorandum in the abovetitled case and avers that:
41)
Rodrigo) was hired as a waiter by respondent Baller
Restaurant, Inc. (hereafter BALLER) on January 03, 2011, and
was assigned at the Baller Restaurant Kamuning branch
(hereafter Kamuning branch) located at No. 6 K-2 nd Street
Brgy. Kamuning, Quezon City. A copy of the Certificate of
42)
43)
Complainant Rodrigo qualified for union membership on
his first day of service, which was on January 03, 2011,
pursuant to the constitution and by-laws of BRLU, and upon

44)
conducted on June 01, 2011, complainant was elected as an
officer of BRLU to serve as such for a period of three (3)
years;
45)
46)
On December 13, 2011, complainant was notified by
way of an office memorandum that the latter is being
transferred to Baller Restaurant Novaliches branch (hereafter
Novaliches branch) located at No. 07 Brgy. Kaligayahan,
Novaliches, Quezon City, efective December 20, 2011. A
copy of the abovementioned office memorandum is hereto
attached as Annex B and made an integral part hereof;
47)
48)
the instant action based on the alleged unfair labor practice
of respondent by way of interference in the formers right to
self-organization, in addition to discrimination.
RE: RESPONDENT BALLER RESTAURANT, INC.
49)
Respondent BALLER is a domestic corporation duly
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the
Philippines. It owns and operates fifteen (15) Baller
Restaurants, including the previous (Kamuning branch) and
current (Novaliches branch) place of assignment of herein
complainant;
50)
hereto attached as Annex C and made an integral part

hereof.
ISSUE
practice.
ARGUMENT
relations. xxx
organization. xxx"
The act of respondent of transferring herein
complainant interfered with the latters right to selforganization, in that it made it impossible for the same to
duties as a union officer.
Due to the complainants inability to attend said
meetings, he was unable to discharge his duties, and he was
consequently impeached by his peers, and later expelled
from the BRLU.
by law, i.e. there must be valid and just cause. In the case of
Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc., et al. vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 75704,
July 19, 1989), it was stated thus: As a rule, it is the
prerogative of the company to promote, transfer or even

demote its employees to other position when the interests of
the company reasonably demand it. Unless there are
instances which directly point to interference of the
company with the employees rights to self-organization, the
transfer of an employee should be considered within the
bounds allowed by law xxx.
In this case, the complainant was transferred because
of his active involvement in the BRLU; in fact, at the time of
his transfer, the union officers were deliberating on its
proposal for new wage and employment conditions,
workloads and work rules.
In addition, respondent discriminated against the
complainant to influence the union activity of employees.
Several union officers were transferred to other branches of
Baller Restaurant that are far from the Kamuning branch,
where the regular union meetings are held; while non-active
BRLU members were transferred to the Kamuning branch,
which is ideal because of its proximity to the residences of
employees, whereas the other branches are in relatively
remote barangays.
Lastly, respondent is responsible for the transfer, albeit
it was the Head of the Personnel Department (hereafter HPD)
who signed the subject office memorandum that efectively
transferred complainant to the Novaliches branch. The HPD
is under the direct supervision of the management of
respondent BALLER, and the former is only acting upon the
direct order of the latter. It is often the rule that if the act can
be traced back to the employer, albeit it was done by a
subordinate official, the former must share the responsibility
for the act.
clear that respondent BALLER committed unfair labor
practice,
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, for and in view of the foregoing, it is
most respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered
ordering respondent to transfer the complainant to the Baller
Restaurant Kamuning branch, and to pay the same the sum
of P30,000.00 as and for attorneys fees and expenses of
litigation, plus costs. Complainant further prays for such

JUNBEE L. DAGAN
City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
VERIFICATION
action;
foregoing Memorandum by my counsel; and
records;
Witness my hand this 23rd of May 2012 at Quezon City,
Philippines.
MARTIN RODRIGO
Doc. No. 14
Page No. 15
Book No. 16
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Q.C

000600AFFIDAVIT OF PERSONAL SERVICE
adverse party, the Memorandum filed in said case, as
follows:
his signature or initial in said pleading, this 24 th day of May
2012.
FREDERICK AMORSOLO
Doc. No. 15
Page No. 16
Book No. 17
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Q.C.
LABOR PROCEEDINGS
(Memorandum)
Quezon City
MARTIN RODRIGO,
Complainant,
- versus -


Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT, by counsel and to this Honorable
Office, respectfully submits this Memorandum.
51)
operates fifteen (15) Baller Restaurants, one (1) of which is
located at No. 6 K-2nd Street Brgy. Kamuning, Quezon City
(hereafter Kamuning branch) and another at No. 07 Brgy.
Kaligayahan, Novaliches, Quezon City (hereafter Novaliches
branch);
52)
hereto attached as Annex 1 and made an integral part

hereof;
53)
On December 01, 2011, during a regular meeting of the
officers of BALLER, it was resolved that there should be a
series of personnel movement, i.e. transfers from one branch
to another, in the exigency of the circumstances, considering
that several branches are under-stafed, while others, like
the Kamuning branch, are over-stafed. A copy of the
minutes of the meeting is hereto attached as Annex 2 and
made an integral part hereof;
54)
way of an office memorandum, signed by the Head of the
Personnel Department (hereafter HPD), that the latter is
being transferred to the Novaliches branch efective
December 20, 2011. A copy of the abovementioned office
memorandum is hereto attached as Annex 3 and made an
integral part hereof.
RE: COMPLAINANT MARTIN RODRIGO
55)
Rodrigo) was hired as a waiter by respondent BALLER on
January 03, 2011, and was assigned at the Kamuning branch
located at No. 6 K-2nd Street Brgy. Kamuning, Quezon City. His
work schedule is from nine (9) oclock in the morning to six
(6) oclock in the afternoon;
56)
On December 13, 2011, complainant Rodrigo was
informed by way of office memorandum that he was being
transferred to the Novaliches branch efective December 20,
2011, the same memorandum hereto attached as Annex 3;
57)
On December 20, 2011, complainant Rodrigo started
reporting at the Novaliches branch, and every day thereafter
during his shift until the present date.
ISSUE
practice.
ARGUMENT
It is within the purview of management prerogative to
transfer employees from one branch to another when the
exigency of circumstances so demands it, which in this case

they do. The Novaliches branch is under-stafed, and as
there was a surplus of waiters in the Kamuning branch, it
was deemed necessary to distribute employees, and one of
those that were chosen, because of his exemplary service,
was herein complainant.
The reason for the transfer is not driven by any illmotive. It is of no moment that complainant is a union
officer. BALLER has recognized the Baller Restaurant Labor
Union (hereafter BRLU) as the bargaining representative of
the employees, and it does not intend to shirk from its
responsibility or duty to bargain. Hence, BALLER acted in
accordance with law when it transferred complainant Rodrigo
to another branch. The presence of mere suspicion that the
respondents conduct was improperly motivated should not
be enough to prove the commission of unfair labor practice,
especially in the absence of facts that would prove ill-motive
Moreover, it cannot be gainsaid that the transfer is not
the
proximate
cause
of
complainants
supposed
impeachment as a union officer or his alleged expulsion from
BRLU. According to the Complaint, he was impeached and
expelled because of his failure to attend regular union
meetings, not because he was transferred.
Further, the respondent cannot be faulted for the acts
of the HPD, a subordinate official, who also acted with
discretion. In the first place the latter recommended the
employees who were to be transferred. In view of this, it
cannot be said that respondent also discriminated against
the
complainant
as
they
acted
only
upon
the
recommendation of the HPD.
Lastly, complainant is estopped from questioning his
transfer as he assented thereto when he conformed to the
above-mentioned office memorandum, and subsequently
regularly reported for work at the Novaliches branch. If he
had qualms about reporting at said branch, the issue should
have been brought during or immediately after the
efectivity of his transfer.
clear that complainant Rodrigo claim of unfair labor practice
is completely baseless and unfounded and designed for no
respondent.
RELIEF
instant complaint be dismissed for utter lack of merit.
PAOLO RAMOS
PTR No. 8765432/03-05-12/Q.C.
VERIFICATION
records;
Philippines.
GERALD DIMAYUGA
Doc. No. 16
Page No. 17
Book No. 18
Series of 2012
PAOLO RAMOS
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 8765432/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 765432/03-7-12/Q.C

the Memorandum filed in said case, as follows:
day of May 2012.
MARVIN FLORES
Doc. No. 17
Page No. 18
Book No. 19
Series of 2012
PAOLO RAMOS
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 8765432/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 765432/03-7-12/Q.C
LABOR PROCEEDINGS
(Memorandum)
Quezon City
MARTIN RODRIGO,
Complainant-Appellant,
- versus -


Respondent-Appellee.
x --------------------------------------------- x
MEMORANDUM
COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT, through the undersigned
counsel and to this Honorable Office, most respectfully
submits Memorandum in the above-titled case and avers
that:
THE PARTIES
1)
Complainant-Appellant Martin Rodrigo (hereafter
Appellant Rodrigo) is of legal age, single, Filipino and a
resident of No. 01 Malakas St., Diliman, Quezon City;
2)
Respondent-Appellee
Baller
Restaurant,
Inc.
(hereafter Appelle BALLER) is a domestic corporation duly
Philippines, with business address at Suite 02, 3/F Baller
Building, No. 04 Matalino St., Diliman, Quezon City;
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. On 15 March 2012, herein Complainant-Appellant filed a

Complaint for Unfair Labor Practice against RespondentAppellee;
2. On 28 March 2012, an Answer was filed by the RespondentAppellee;

3. On 18 April 2012 and 23 April 2012, upon the direction of the
Labor Arbiter, the Complainant-Appellant and RespondentAppellee respectively submitted their verified Position
Papers;
4. On 25 April 2012, a date agreed upon during a schedule set
before the Labor Arbiter, a Reply was filed by ComplainantAppellant;
5. On 02 May 2012, a Motion for Leave and to Admit Attached
Rejoinder was filed by Respondent-Appellee;
6. On 09 May 2012, a Sur-Rejoinder was filed by the
Complainant-Appellant;
7. On 23 May 2012 and 28 May 2012, the ComplainantAppellant
and
Respondent-Appellee
submitted
their
respective Memoranda;
8. On 20 June 2012, a Decision was rendered by the Regional
Arbitration Branch No. IV of Quezon City against herein
Complainant-Appellant.
Hence the filing of the instant Memorandum.
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
58)
Appellant Rodrigo was hired as a waiter by Appellee
BALLER on January 03, 2011, and was assigned at the Baller
Restaurant Kamuning branch (hereafter Kamuning branch)
located at No. 6 K-2nd Street Brgy. Kamuning, Quezon City. A
copy of the Certificate of Employment is hereto attached as
Annex A and made an integral part hereof;
59)
Appellee BALLER is a domestic corporation duly
Philippines. It owns and operates fifteen (15) Baller
Restaurants, including the previous (Kamuning branch) and
current (Baller Restaurant Novaliches branch, hereafter
Novaliches branch) place of assignment of herein
complainant;
60)
Appellee BALLER was established and organized on July
20, 2006. A copy of its Certificate of Incorporation is hereto
attached as Annex C and made an integral part hereof.
61)
62)
Appellant Rodrigo qualified for union membership on his
first day of service, which was on January 03, 2011, pursuant
to the constitution and by-laws of BRLU, and upon
63)
conducted on June 01, 2011, Appellant Rodrigo was elected
as an officer of BRLU to serve as such for a period of three
(3) years;
64)
65)
way of an office memorandum that the latter is being
transferred to Novaliches branch located at No. 07 Brgy.
Kaligayahan, Novaliches, Quezon City, efective December
20, 2011. A copy of the abovementioned office
memorandum is hereto attached as Annex B and made an
66)
67)
Consequently, Appellant Rodrigo was constrained to
institute a Complaint based on the alleged unfair labor
practice of respondent by way of interference in the formers
right to self-organization, in addition to discrimination.
III.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
a) Whether or not the Labor Arbiter acted with abuse of

discretion in issuing the assailed Decision dated June 20,
2012; and
b) Whether or not there are serious errors of fact which, if not
corrected, would cause grave or irreparable damage injury to
Appellant Rodrigo.
IV.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

relations. xxx
organization. xxx"
The act of Respondent-Appellee of transferring herein
Appellant Rodrigo interfered with the latters right to selforganization, in that it made it impossible for the same to
duties as a union officer.
Due to Appellant Rodrigos inability to attend said
meetings, he was unable to discharge his duties, and he was
consequently impeached by his peers, and later expelled
from the BRLU.
by law, i.e. there must be valid and just cause. In the case of
Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc., et al. vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 75704,
July 19, 1989), it was stated thus: As a rule, it is the
prerogative of the company to promote, transfer or even
demote its employees to other position when the interests of
the company reasonably demand it. Unless there are
instances which directly point to interference of the
company with the employees rights to self-organization, the
transfer of an employee should be considered within the
bounds allowed by law xxx.
In this case, the Appellant Rodrigo was transferred
because of his active involvement in the BRLU; in fact, at the
time of his transfer, the union officers were deliberating on
its proposal for new wage and employment conditions,
workloads and work rules.
In addition, Respondent-Appellee discriminated against
Appellant Rodrigo to influence the union activity of
employees. Several union officers were transferred to other
branches of Baller Restaurant that are far from the Kamuning
branch, where the regular union meetings are held; while
non-active BRLU members were transferred to the Kamuning
branch, which is ideal because of its proximity to the
residences of employees, whereas the other branches are in
relatively remote barangays.
Lastly, Respondent-Appellee are responsible for the
transfer, albeit it was the Head of the Personnel Department
(hereafter HPD) who signed the subject office memorandum
that efectively transferred complainant to the Novaliches
branch. The HPD is under the direct supervision of the
management of Baller Restaurant, Inc., and the former is
only acting upon the direct order of the latter. It is often the
rule that if the act can be traced back to the employer, albeit
it was done by a subordinate official, the former must share
the responsibility for the act.
clear that Respondent-Appellee committed unfair labor
practice,
V. PRAYER
respectfully prayed that the Decision dated June 20, 2012
finding that herein Respondent-Appellee did not commit
unfair labor practice be REVERSED. Complainant-Appellant

further prays for such other reliefs as may be just and
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
23 Don Jose St. Bagong Buhay,
Q.C.
PTR No. 3456789/03-0112/Q.C.
54678
IBP No. 345678/03-0812/Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. IV 000600VERIFICATION

28. That I am the Complainant-Appellant in this
instant action;
foregoing Memorandum of Appeal by my
counsel; and
records;
Witness my hand this 25th of June 2012 at Quezon City,
Philippines.
MARTIN RODRIGO
public this 25th day of June 2012 at Quezon City, Philippines,
Doc. No. 18
Page No. 19
Book No. 20
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Q.C.

adverse party, the Memorandum of Appeal filed in said case,
as follows:
his signature or initial in said pleading, this 26 th day of June
2012.
this 26th of June 2012 at Quezon City.
FREDERICK AMORSOLO

Doc. No. 19
Page No. 20
Book No. 21
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Q.C.
LABOR PROCEEDINGS
(Motion for Execution Pending Appeal)

Quezon City
MARTIN RODRIGO,
Complainant,
- versus -


Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
MOTION FOR EXECUTION
PENDING APPEAL
RESPONDENT-MOVANT, through undersigned counsel
and to this Honorable Office, respectfully state:
1. This Honorable Office rendered judgment on June 20, 2012,
in favor of respondent dismissing the Complaint for utter
lack of merit, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE,
the
Complaint
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
is
hereby
2. Respondent is willing to post a bond to secure whatever

interest complainant may have, and that his intended
appeal, if carried out, has a nil chance of success because he
has no good and valid claim.
WHEREFORE, respondent-movant pray that a writ of
execution pending appeal be issued for satisfaction of the
judgment rendered in favor of respondent, and for such
PAOLO RAMOS
1 Marlboro St., East Fairview, Quezon

City
PTR No. 8765432/03-05-12/Q.C.
VERIFICATION
foregoing Motion for Execution Pending Appeal
by my counsel; and
records;
Philippines.
GERALD DIMAYUGA
Doc. No. 20
Page No. 21
Book No. 22
Series of 2012
PAOLO RAMOS
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 8765432/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 765432/03-7-12/Q.C
NOTICE
23 Don Jose St. Bagong Buhay,
Quezon City
Maam:
set the foregoing motion for hearing on July 03, 2012 at nine
ATTY. PAOLO RAMOS


the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal filed in said case, as
follows:
day of June 2012.
MARVIN FLORES

Doc. No. 21
Page No. 22
Book No. 23
Series of 2012
ATTY. PAOLO RAMOS

NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 8765432/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 765432/03-7-12/Q.C

Quezon City
ANTONIO MERCED,
Complainant,
- versus -

For Illegal Dismissal
CIRCLE B SHOPPING CENTER, INC.,

Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
COMPLAINT
68)
Complainant Antonio Merced (hereafter Complainant
Merced) is of legal age, single, Filipino and a resident of No.
23 Narra St. Project 3, Quezon City;
69)
Respondent Circle B Shopping Center, Inc. (hereafter
CSC) is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the Philippines, with
business address at Two Beatriz Tower Yakal St. Project 3,
Quezon City, where it may be served summons and any
other legal processes at all times material to this Complaint;
70)
On July 13, 2010, complainant Merced entered into a
fixed five-month contract from July 13, 2010 to December
14, 2010 with herein respondent to work as a stock boy at
the Indigo Shopping Mall, an establishment owned and
operated by respondent CSC, which is located at 143 Batino
St. Project 3, Quezon City. A copy of the Contract of
71)
After the expiration of complainants contract, he reapplied for the same position and subsequently entered into
another fixed five-month contract from January 04, 2011 to
June 07, 2011 at the same establishment. A copy of the

second Contract of Employment is hereto attached as Annex
B and made an integral part hereof;
72)
A month after the expiration of the contract mentioned
in the immediately preceding paragraph, or on July 06, 2011,
herein complainant again re-applied for the same position
and entered into a third fixed five-month contract from July
07, 2011 to December 05, 2011 at the same establishment.
A copy of the third Contract of Employment is hereto
attached as Annex C and made an integral part hereof;
73)
After the expiration of the third contract, complainant
re-applied for the same position, however his contract was
not renewed;
74)
Hence, complainant was constrained to institute the
incurring litigation expenses and expenses for attorneys
fees for which respondent should be ordered to pay the
complainant the sum of P20,000.00.
WHEREFORE, complainant respectfully prays that:
a) Prayer for judgment in favor of
respondent guilty of illegal dismissal;
complainant
finding
b) Prayer for judgment ordering respondent to reinstate the

complainant with full backwages;
c) Prayer for judgment directing respondent to pay the sum of
P20,000.00 as and for attorneys fees and expenses of
litigation, plus costs; and
d) For such other relief consistent with law and equity.
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
23 Don Jose St. Bagong Buhay, Q.C.
PTR No. 3456789/03-0112/Q.C.

000600

I, Antonio Merced, of legal age and with residence at
No. 23 Narra St. Project 3, Quezon City, after having been
duly sworn, depose and say:
34.
That I am the complainant in the above entitled
Complaint; I have caused the preparation of said
Complaint; I have read the allegations therein
contained, and that the same are true and correct of
my personal knowledge and/or based on authentic
records;
35.
I have not theretofore commenced any action or
tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my
therein;
36.
Should I thereafter learn that the same or similar
action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall
report the fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
court/office wherein the aforesaid complaint or
initiatory pleading has been filed.
City, Philippines.
ANTONIO MERCED
License No. E34-34-345678 issued on January 02, 2012 at
Quezon City.
Doc. No. 01
Page No. 02
Book No. 03
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Q. C.

Quezon City
ANTONIO MERCED,
Complainant,
- versus -

CIRCLE C SHOPPING CENTER, INC.,

Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
ANSWER
answer to the Complaint, respectfully states:
75)
That they admit that portion of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of
the Complaint regarding the names, residences and status of
the parties;
76)
That they are without the knowledge or information to
form a belief as to the truth of the averments made in
paragraph 8 thereof;
77)
That they admit that portion of paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7
of the Complaint regarding the execution of the three (3)
contracts;
78)
And as AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, the respondent
alleges:
a. That for the entirety of the period covered by the
aforementioned three (3) contracts, complainant
Antonio Merced (hereafter Complainant Merced) was
paid the full contract salary, within the time set by
law;
b. That owing to the expiration of the third contract on
December 05, 2011, respondent was released from
his obligation to retain the services of complainant

Merced; and
c. That complainant is estopped from questioning
respondents decision not to re-hire him, as he has
previously agreed to work only on a contractual
basis.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment
be rendered in favor of defendant with respect to herein
Complaint, and for such other relief that may be just and
equitable, premises considered.
MARY GLADYS ALARCON

43 D. Tirona St. Brgy. Milagrosa,
Q.C.
PTR No. 6543217/03-0512/Q.C.
IBP No. 687907/03-7-12/Quezon
City
000764
VERIFICATION
I, Albert Laguna, of legal age and with residence at 446
Yakal St. Project 3, Quezon City, after having been duly
37. That I am the President of Circle B Shopping
Center, Inc., duly authorized by its board of
directors in a board resolution, a certified copy
of which is hereto attached as Annex 1 to
represent the respondent in the above entitled
Complaint;
foregoing Answer with defenses by my counsel;
and
records;
City, Philippines.
ALBERT LAGUNA
License No. E98-98-986532 issued on February 06, 2012 at
Quezon City.
Doc. No. 02
Page No. 03
Book No. 04
Series of 2012
MARY GLADYS ALARCON

NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 6543217/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP
No.
687907/03-7-12/Q.C.

I, James Agustino, of legal age and having been duly
That I am the messenger of Atty. Mary Gladys Alarcon,
counsel for respondent in the case entitled Antonio Merced
vs. Circle B Shopping Center, Inc., NLRC Case No. RAB-C0002-21, and that as such messenger I served upon the
counsel of adverse party, the Answer filed in said case, as
follows:
as shown by her signature or initial in said pleading, this 29 th
day of March 2012.
this 29th of March 2012 at Quezon City.
JAMES AGUSTINO
License No. E87-65-34652 issued on May 19, 2011 at Quezon
City.
Doc. No. 03
Page No. 04
Book No. 05
Series of 2012
MARY GLADYS ALARCON

NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 6543217/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP
No.
687907/03-7-12/Q.C.

Quezon City
ANTONIO MERCED,
Complainant,
- versus -


Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
FOR THE COMPLAINANT
conference, respectfully avers:
This is a complaint for illegal
reinstatement and payment of backwages.
dismissal
with

79)
On July 13, 2010, complainant Antonio Merced
(hereafter Complainant Merced) entered into a fixed fivemonth contract from July 13, 2010 to December 14, 2010
with herein respondent to work as a stock boy at the Indigo
Shopping Mall, an establishment owned and operated by
respondent Circle B Shopping Center, Inc. (hereafter
respondent CSC), which is located at 143 Batino St. Project
3, Quezon City. A copy of the Contract of Employment is
hereto attached as Annex A and made an integral part
hereof;
80)

81)
82)
not renewed;
83)
the instant action based on illegal dismissal by way of the
practice of contractualization
RE: RESPONDENT CIRCLE B SHOPPING CENTER, INC.
1) Respondent CSC is a domestic corporation duly organized
Philippines, with business address at Two Beatriz Tower Yakal
St. Project 3, Quezon City. It owns and operates three (3)
shopping malls, one of which is the 24/7 Shopping Mall
located at 143 Batino St. Project 3, Quezon City;
2) Respondent CSC was established and organized on August
attached as Annex D and made an integral part hereof.
ISSUE
Whether
complainant.
or
not
respondent
illegally
dismissed

Contractualization is a scheme used by employers to
control working conditions and environment, and to avoid
certain obligations that are mandated by law.
Under
Department of Labor and Employment Order No. 18-A, series
of 2011, or the Rules Implementing Articles 106 to 109 of the
Labor Code, as amended, the following, among others, are
prohibited, to wit: xxx (7) Repeated hiring of employees
under an employment contract of short duration xxx and

xxx B. Contracting out of jobs, works or services analogous
to the above when not done in good faith and not justified
by the exigencies of the business.
It is clear that the practice of herein respondent is
prohibited for being detrimental to the welfare of the
working class, which the State afords full protection under
Section 3 of Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. In
Escareal vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 99359, September 02, 1192),
the Supreme Court held that (i)n a host of cases, the Court
has upheld the employees right to security of tenure in the
face of oppressive management behavior and management
prerogative.
Considering that complainant Merced served for fifteen
(15) months, under three (3) five-month contracts, and
performing work that is necessary to the daily operation of
the Indigo Shopping Mall, for all intents and purposes, he
must be considered a regular employee as Article 280 of
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known
as the Labor Code of the Philippines provides xxx an
employment is deemed to be regular where the employee
has been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business of trade of the
employer xxx. Therefore, he is assured of the right of
workers to the Constitutional guaranty of tenure or security
of tenure.
Besides, in Baguio Country Club Corporation vs.
NLRC, et al. (G.R. No. 71664, February 28, 1992), it was
held that (s)uch repeated rehiring and the continuing need
for his service are sufficient evidence of the necessity and
indispensability of his service to the petitioners business or
trade.
clear that respondent CSC illegally dismissed the
complainant when they failed to renew his contract, the
latter already being a regular employee and may only be
removed for cause.
WHEREFORE, for and in view of the foregoing,
complainant respectfully prays that:
e) Prayer for judgment in favor of
complainant
finding
f) Prayer for judgment ordering respondent to reinstate the

g) Prayer for judgment directing respondent to pay the sum of
h) For such other relief consistent with law and equity.
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
Counsel for
Complainant
PTR No. 3456789/03-0112/Q.C.
000600
VERIFICATION
action;
records;
Philippines.
ANTONIO MERCED
public this 18h day of April 2012 at Quezon City, Philippines,
Doc. No. 04
Page No. 05
Book No. 06
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Q.C

I, Shiela Orgua, of legal age and having been duly
counsel for complainant in the case entitled Antonio Merced
counsel of adverse party, the Position Paper filed in said
case, as follows:
Atty. Mary Gladys Alarcon, counsel for respondent, by
day of April 2012.
SHIELA ORGUA
Doc. No. 05
Page No. 06
Book No. 07
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Q.C

Quezon City
ANTONIO MERCED,
Complainant,
- versus -


Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
FOR THE RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT, through undersigned counsel and to
conference, respectfully states:
dismissal
with

84)
Respondent CSC) is a domestic corporation duly organized
shopping malls, one of which is the Indigo Shopping Mall
85)
Respondent CSC was established and organized on
August 03, 2006. A copy of its Certificate of Incorporation is
hereto attached as Annex D and made an integral part
hereof.
86)
(hereafter Complainant Merced) entered into a fixed
five-month contract from July 13, 2010 to December 14,
2010 with herein respondent to work as a stock boy at
the Indigo Shopping Mall, an establishment owned and
operated by respondent Circle B Shopping Center, Inc.
(hereafter respondent CSC), which is located at 143
Batino St. Project 3, Quezon City;
87)
June 07, 2011 at the same establishment;
88)
07, 2011 to December 05, 2011 at the same establishment;
89)
After the expiration of the third contract, the
respondent CSC management decided to exercise its
prerogative not to re-hire the complainant because the
Indigo Shopping Mall is over-stafed, and that the
performance of the latter is not satisfactory.
ISSUE
Whether or not complainant was illegally dismissed.
Admittedly, complainant Merced was hired successively
on three (3) separate occasions under three (3) separate
contracts to work as a stock boy at Indigo Shopping Mall
from sometime in July 2010 until December of 2011.
However, the contracts were each for a fixed period of five
(5) months, upon expiration of which, the employeremployee relationship ceases. Article 1193 of Republic Act
No. 386, as amended, otherwise known as the Civil Code of
the Philippines provides xxx (o)bligations with a resolutory
period take effect at once, but terminate upon arrival of the
day certain. xxx
Considering that the term during which the contract is
to take efect has already expired, respondent is no longer
under the obligation to retain the services of complainant
Merced. Moreover, respondent CSC management decided to

exercise its prerogative not to re-hire the complainant
because the Indigo Shopping Mall is over-stafed, and that
the performance of the latter is not satisfactory.
In addition, assuming, arguendo, that complainant is a
competent stock boy and that his work may be necessary to
the daily operations of the business, however he is estopped
from questioning respondents decision not to re-hire him, as
he has previously agreed to work only on a contractual basis.
Under Article 1431 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
Through estoppel an admission or representation is
rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot
be denied or disproved as against the person relying
thereon. Further, Article 1433 of the same Code provides:
Estoppel may be in pais or by deed.
Complainant benefited from his acceptance of the three
(3) separate contracts, and agreed to work on contractual
basis; he cannot now, therefore, state that he was working in
the capacity of a regular employee and reap the benefits
thereof.
Further, the complainant is not entitled to backwages
as the same was not illegally dismissed.
clear that complainant Merced claim of illegal dismissal is
completely baseless and unfounded and designed for no
respondent.
instant Complaint be dismissed for utter lack of merit.
MARY GLADYS ALARCON
43 D. Tirona St. Brgy. Milagrosa,
Q.C.
PTR No. 6543217/03-05-12/Q.C.
VERIFICATION
Complaint;
records;
Witness my hand this 23rd of April 2012 at Quezon City,
Philippines.
ALBERT LAGUNA
public this 23rd day of April 2012 at Quezon City, Philippines,
Doc. No. 06
Page No. 07
Book No. 08
Series of 2012
MARY GLADYS ALARCON

NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 6543217/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 687907/03-7-12/Q.C

counsel of adverse party, the Position Paper filed in said
case, as follows:
day of April 2012.
JAMES AGUSTINO
Doc. No. 07
Page No. 08
Book No. 09
Series of 2012
MARY GLADYS ALARCON

NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 6543217/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 687907/03-7-12/Q.C

Quezon City
ANTONIO MERCED,
Complainant,
- versus -


Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
R E P LY
this Honorable Office, and within ten (10) days from receipt
of the Position Paper of the adverse party, respectfully avers:
90)
That he acknowledges the admissions made by the
respondent in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Answer;
91)
That he disagrees with the averment of the respondent
in paragraph 2 of the Answer, particularly as to the averment
that they are without knowledge or information to form a
belief of the allegations as contained therein;
92)
That he specifically denies the allegations in paragraph
4 of the Answer, the truth of the matter being:
a. In the case of the statement in paragraph 4 (a) that
full contract salary has been paid, herein
complainant avers that as a regular employee he is
entitled to be paid on a regular basis;
b. As regards the avernment in paragraph 4 (b), herein
complainant alleges that the contract did not expire
but was novate when he became a regular
employee, thus respondent are not released from
their obligation;
c. Finally, with regard to the defense of estoppel, herein

complainant avers that such defense is unavailing in
the instant case for lack of a basis.
prayer for judgment finding respondent guilty of illegal
dismissal, and ordering respondent to reinstate the
complainant with full backwages, and to pay the sum of
litigation, plus costs.
JUNBEE L.DAGAN
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Quezon
City
000600
VERIFICATION
action;
foregoing Reply by my counsel; and
records;
Philippines.
ANTONIO MERCED
Doc. No. 08
Page No. 09
Book No. 10
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Q.C

counsel of adverse party, the Reply filed in said case, as
follows:
day of April 2012.
SHIELA ORGUA
Doc. No. 09
Page No. 10
Book No. 11
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Q.C


Quezon City
ANTONIO MERCED,
Complainant,
- versus -


Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
MOTION TO ADMIT
AT TA C H E D R E J O I N D E R
RESPONDENT-MOVANT, through undersigned counsel
and to this Honorable Office, respectfully states:
93)
On April 30, 2012, the undersigned counsel received a
copy of complainant's Reply;
94)
Admittedly, Administrative Matter No. 99-2-04-SC dated
November 21, 2000 In Re: Dispensing with Rejoinder
provides "(h)enceforth, upon the filing of a Reply (when
required), no REJOINDER shall be required by the Court. xxx"
However, this Honorable Office has, in several cases it
previously heard and decided, admitted a Rejoinder.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays for leave to
admit the attached Rejoinder; and after, grant the prayer
contained therein. All other reliefs, just and equitable, under
the premises are likewise prayed for.
MARY GLADYS ALARCON

43 D. Tirona St. Brgy. Milagrosa, Quezon City
PTR No. 6543217/03-05-12/Q.C.

Quezon City
ANTONIO MERCED,
Complainant,
- versus -


Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
REJOINDER
answer to the Reply, respectfully states:
1)
That they reiterate their averment that they are

without knowledge or information to form a
belief as to the complainants averment in
paragraph 8 of his Complaint;
95) That as to the matter averments of complainant in

paragraph 3 of his reply, herein respondent further
avers:
a. In the case of the statement in paragraph 3 (a) of the
Reply, complainant never became a regular
employee, the truth being he was always under a
contact with a fixed term;
b. In regards to the statement in paragraph 3 (b),
herein respondent stress that there was no novation
of the original agreement;
c. Lastly, as to the matter of estoppel, which was
controverted in paragraph 3 (c) of the Reply,
respondent reiterate that complainant is estopped
from questioning respondents decision not to re-hire
him, as he has previously agreed to work only on a

contractual basis
WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully reiterate its
prayer that Complaint be dismissed for utter lack of merit,
with costs against complainant.
MARY GLADYS ALARCON

43 D. Tirona St. Brgy. Milagrosa, Q.C.
PTR No. 6543217/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 687907/03-7-12/Q.C.
VERIFICATION
Complaint;
foregoing Rejoinder with defenses by my
counsel; and
records;
Witness my hand this 2nd of May 2012 at Quezon City,
Philippines.
ALBERT LAGUNA
public this 2nd day of May 2012 at Quezon City, Philippines,
Doc. No. 10
Page No. 11
Book No. 12
Series of 2012
MARY GLADYS ALARCON

NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 6543217/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 687907/03-7-12/Q.C
NOTICE

23 Don Jose St.
Bagong Buhay, Quezon City
Maam:
set the foregoing motion for hearing on May 08, 2012 at nine
ATTY. MARY GLADYS ALARCON


vs. Circle Shopping Center, Inc., NLRC Case No. RAB-C0002-21, and that as such messenger I served upon the
counsel of adverse party, the Motion for Leave and to Admit
Attached Rejoinder filed in said case, as follows:
as shown by his signature or initial in said pleading, this 3 rd
day of May 2012.
this 3rd of May 2012 at Quezon City.
JAMES AGUSTINO
Doc. No. 11
Page No. 12
Book No. 13
Series of 2012
MARY GLADYS ALARCON

NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 6543217/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 687907/03-7-12/Q.C


Quezon City
ANTONIO MERCED,
Complainant,
- versus -


Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
SUR-REJOINDER
96)
That he reiterates his disagreement with the averment
of the respondent in paragraph 1 of the Rejoinder,
particularly as to the averment that they are without
knowledge or information to form a belief as to the
complainants averment in paragraph 8 of his Complaint;
97)
That he specifically denies the allegations in paragraph
3 of the Rejoinder and reproduces below the averments
made in the Reply, to wit:
98) That he specifically denies the allegations in
paragraph 4 of the Answer, the truth of the
matter being:
a. In the case of the statement in paragraph 4 (a)
that full contract salary has been paid, herein
complainant avers that as a regular employee
he is entitled to be paid on a regular basis;
b. As regards the avernment in paragraph 4 (b),
herein complainant alleges that the contract did
not expire but was novate when he became a
regular employee, thus respondent is not
released from their obligation;
c. Finally, with regard to the defense of estoppel,

herein complainant avers that such defense is
unavailing in the instant case for lack of a basis.
prayer for judgment finding respondent guilty of illegal
dismissal, and ordering respondent to reinstate the
complainant with full backwages, and to pay the sum of
litigation, plus costs.
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
PTR No. 3456789/03-0112/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Quezon
City
000600
VERIFICATION
action;
foregoing Sur-Rejoinder by my counsel; and
records;
Philippines.
ANTONIO MERCED
Doc. No. 12
Page No. 13
Book No. 14
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Q.C

counsel of adverse party, the Sur-Rejoinder filed in said case,
as follows:
day of May 2012.
SHIELA ORGUA
Doc. No. 13
Page No. 14
Book No. 15
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Q.C


Quezon City
ANTONIO MERCED,
Complainant,
- versus -


Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
MEMORANDUM FOR COMPLAINANT
COMPLAINANT by counsel and to this Honorable
Office, respectfully submits this Memorandum in the abovetitled case and avers that:
dismissal
with

99)
3, Quezon City. A copy of the Contract of Employment is
hereto attached as Annex A and made an integral part
hereof;
100)
101)
102)
not renewed;
103)
the instant action based on illegal dismissal by way of the
practice of contractualization.
RE: RESPONDENT CIRCLE B SHOPPING CENTER, INC.
3) Respondent CSC is a domestic corporation duly organized
4) Respondent CSC was established and organized on August
attached as Annex D and made an integral part hereof.
ISSUE
Whether
complainant.
or
not
respondent
illegally
dismissed
ARGUMENT
Contractualization is a scheme used by employers to
control working conditions and environment, and to avoid
certain obligations that are mandated by law.
Under
Department of Labor and Employment Order No. 18-A, series
of 2011, or the Rules Implementing Articles 106 to 109 of the
Labor Code, as amended, the following, among others, are
prohibited, to wit: xxx (7) Repeated hiring of employees
under an employment contract of short duration xxx and
xxx B. Contracting out of jobs, works or services analogous
to the above when not done in good faith and not justified
by the exigencies of the business.
It is clear that the practice of herein respondent is
prohibited for being detrimental to the welfare of the
working class, which the State afords full protection under
Section 3 of Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. In
Escareal vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 99359, September 02, 1192),
the Supreme Court held that (i)n a host of cases, the Court
has upheld the employees right to security of tenure in the
face of oppressive management behavior and management
prerogative.
Considering that complainant Merced served for fifteen
(15) months, under three (3) five-month contracts, and
performing work that is necessary to the daily operation of
the Indigo Shopping Mall, for all intents and purposes, he
must be considered a regular employee as Article 280 of
Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known
as the Labor Code of the Philippines provides xxx an
employment is deemed to be regular where the employee
has been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business of trade of the
employer xxx. Therefore, he is assured of the right of
workers to the Constitutional guaranty of tenure or security
of tenure.
Besides, in Baguio Country Club Corporation vs.
NLRC, et al. (G.R. No. 71664, February 28, 1992), it was
held that (s)uch repeated rehiring and the continuing need
for his service are sufficient evidence of the necessity and
indispensability of his service to the petitioners business or
trade.
clear that respondent CSC illegally dismissed the
complainant when they failed to renew his contract, the
latter already being a regular employee and may only be
removed for cause.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, for and in view of the foregoing,
complainant respectfully prays that:
i) Prayer for judgment in favor of
complainant
finding
j) Prayer for judgment ordering respondent to reinstate the

k) Prayer for judgment directing respondent to pay the sum of
For such other relief consistent with law and equity.
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
VERIFICATION
action;
records;
Witness my hand this 23rd of May 2012 at Quezon City,
Philippines.
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
Doc. No. 14
Page No. 15
Book No. 16
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Q.C

counsel of adverse party, the Memorandum filed in said
case, as follows:
day of May 2012.
SHIELA ORGUA
Doc. No. 15
Page No. 16
Book No. 17
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Q.C
Quezon City
ANTONIO MERCED,
Complainant,
- versus -


Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT, by counsel and to this Honorable
Office, respectfully submits this Memorandum.
dismissal
with

104)
Respondent CSC) is a domestic corporation duly organized
105)
Respondent CSC was established and organized on
August 03, 2006. A copy of its Certificate of Incorporation is
hereto attached as Annex D and made an integral part
hereof.
106)
3, Quezon City;
107)
108)
109)
After the expiration of the third contract,
respondent QCSM management decided to exercise
prerogative not to re-hire the complainant because
Indigo Shopping Mall is over-stafed, and that
the
its
the
the
ISSUE
Whether or not complainant was illegally dismissed.
ARGUMENT
day certain. xxx

thereof.
clear that complainant Meneses claim of illegal dismissal is
respondent.
RELIEF
instant complaint be dismissed for utter lack of merit.
MARY GLADYS ALARCON

PTR No. 6543217/03-05-12/Q.C.

000764VERIFICATION
Complaint;
records;
Philippines.
ALBERT LAGUNA
Doc. No. 16
Page No. 17
Book No. 18
Series of 2012
MARY GLADYS ALARCON

NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 6543217/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 687907/03-7-12/Q.C

counsel of adverse party, the Memorandum filed in said
case, as follows:
day of May 2012.
JAMES AGUSTINO
Doc. No. 17
Page No. 18
Book No. 19
Series of 2012
MARY GLADYS ALARCON

NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 6543217/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 687907/03-7-12/Q.C


Quezon City
ANTONIO MERCED,
Complainant-Appellee,
- versus -


Respondent-Appellant.
x --------------------------------------------- x
MEMORANDUM
RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, through the undersigned
counsel and to this Honorable Office, most respectfully
submits Memorandum in the above-titled case and avers
that:
THE PARTIES
1)
Complainant-Appellee Antonio Merced (hereafter
Appellee Merced) is of legal age, single, Filipino and a
resident of No. 23 Narra St. Project 3, Quezon City;
2)
Respondent-Appellant Circle B Shopping Center,
Inc. (hereafter Appellant CSC) is a domestic corporation duly
V.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
9. On 15 March 2012, herein Complainant-Appellee filed a

Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Reinstatement and
Payment of Backwages against Respondent-Appellant;
10.
On 28 March 2012, an Answer was filed by the
Respondent-Appellant;
11.
On 18 April 2012 and 23 April 2012, upon the direction
of the Labor Arbiter, the Complainant-Appellee and
Respondent-Appellant respectively submitted their verified
Position Papers;
12.
On 25 April 2012, a date agreed upon during a schedule
set before the Labor Arbiter, a Reply was filed by
Complainant-Appellee;
13.
On 02 May 2012, a Motion for Leave and to Admit
Attached Rejoinder was filed by Respondent-Appellant;
14.
On 09 May 2012, a Sur-Rejoinder was filed by the
Complainant-Appellee;
15.
On 23 May 2012 and 28 May 2012, the ComplainantAppellee
and
Respondent-Appellant
submitted
their
respective Memoranda;
16.
On 20 June 2012, a Decision was rendered by the
Regional Arbitration Branch No. IV of Quezon City against
herein Respondent-Appellant.
Hence the filing of the instant Memorandum.
VI.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
110)
3, Quezon City;
111)
112)
113)
After the expiration of the third contract, the
respondent CSC management decided to exercise its
prerogative not to re-hire the complainant because the
Indigo Shopping Mall is over-stafed, and that the
VII. ISSUES OF THE CASE
c) Whether or not the Labor Arbiter acted with abuse of
discretion in issuing the assailed Decision dated June 20,
2012; and
d) Whether or not there are serious errors of fact which, if not
corrected, would cause grave or irreparable damage injury to
Respondent-Appellant.
VIII. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS
day certain. xxx

thereof.
clear that complainant Merceds claim of illegal dismissal is
respondent.
V. PRAYER
respectfully prayed that the Decision dated June 20, 2012
finding that herein Respondent-Appellant illegally dismissed
herein Appellee Merced be REVERSED. RespondentAppellant further prays for such other reliefs as may be just
and equitable in the premises.
MARY GLADYS ALRCON

PTR No. 6543217/03-05-12/Q.C.

000764VERIFICATION
Complaint;
foregoing Memorandum of Appeal by my
counsel; and
records;
Philippines.
ALBERT LAGUNA
Doc. No. 18
Page No. 19
Book No. 20
Series of 2012
MARY GLADYS ALARCON

NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 6543217/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 687907/03-7-12/Q.C

counsel of adverse party, the Memorandum of Appeal filed in
Atty. Junbee L. Dagan, counsel for respondent, by
day of June 2012.
JAMES AGUSTINO
Doc. No. 19
Page No. 20
Book No. 21
Series of 2012
MARY GLADYS ALARCON

NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-08-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 6543217/03-05-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 687907/03-7-12/Q.C


Quezon City
ANTONIO MERCED,
Complainant,
- versus -


Respondent.
x --------------------------------------------- x
MOTION FOR EXECUTION
PENDING APPEAL
COMPLAINANT-MOVANT,
through
undersigned
counsel and to this Honorable Office, respectfully state:
3. This Honorable Office rendered judgment on June 20, 2012,
in favor of complainant, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, this Office finds respondent Circle
B Shopping Center, Inc. guilty of illegal dismissal,
and ordering the same to reinstate the
complainant with full backwages, and to pay the
sum of P20,000.00 as and for attorneys fees and
expenses of litigation, plus costs.
4. Complainant is willing to post a bond to secure whatever
interest respondent may have, and that their intended
appeal, if carried out, has a nil chance of success because
they have no good and valid defense.
WHEREFORE, complainant-movant pray that a writ of
execution pending appeal be issued for satisfaction of the
judgment rendered in favor of complainant, and for such
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
VERIFICATION
64. That I am the complainant in the aboveentitled complaint;
foregoing Motion for Execution Pending Appeal
by my counsel; and
records;
Philippines.
ANTONIO MERCED
Doc. No. 20
Page No. 21
Book No. 22
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Q.C
NOTICE
ATTY. MARY GLADYS ALARCON
43 D. Tirona St. Brgy. Milagrosa
Quezon City
Maam:
set the foregoing motion for hearing on July 03, 2012 at nine

counsel of adverse party, the Motion for Execution Pending
Appeal filed in said case, as follows:
day of June 2012.
SHIELA ORGUA
Doc. No. 21
Page No. 22
Book No. 23
Series of 2012
JUNBEE L. DAGAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
Issued on 03-01-12
At Quezon City
PTR No. 3456789/03-01-12/Q.C.
IBP No. 345678/03-08-12/Q.C
Office of the President
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board

Kalayaan Avenue corner Mayaman Street
Diliminan, Quezon City
Victoria Arellano
Complainant,
-versus-
Case No. 1234567

For: Delivery of Deed of Absolute
Sale and Land Title with Damages
BISTA LAND CO. INC.,

VILLAR PROPERTIES INC
and Manuel Billar
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
Complainant, through counsel and unto this Honorable
Office, respectfully states that:
1. Complainant Victoria Arellano is of legal age, married,
Filipino and residing at No 74 J Bugallon Street.,
Project 4, Quezon City 1110.
2. Respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC. is a corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the Republic
of the Philippines, with office address at 4 th floor Pillar
Building, 4577 Tordesillas, Makati City.
3. Respondent Manuel Billar (respondent Billar) is
respondent BISTA LAND Co. Inc. President, with the
same office address above. Both respondents may be
served with summons and other processes of this
Honorable Office at the said address.
4. Respondent Villar Properties Inc, (respondent Villar)
is a corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with office
address at No 42 Maykaya Street, La Villa Subdivision,
Kalikasan Avenue, Quezon City, represented by
George Hernandez, as its president with the same
office address, where it may be served with summons
and other processes of this Honorable Office.
5. On January 01, 2007, the respondent BISTA LAND CO.

INC. and complainant Arellano. Entered into a Contract
to Sell a 60 square meter lot together with the
improvements thereon consisting of a 24 square
meter house located in Villar Park, San Rafael, Bulacan
more particularly described as:
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-77148
A parcel of land (Lot 50 Blk 7 of the
consolidated subdivision plan Pcs-03-006079 being
a portion of consolidated lots 2-22 blk 3, lots 3049,
blk, 4 lots II-38 blk 5, lots 3-36 blk 6, lots 5-34 blk
7, lots 3-31, blk 8, lot 3-17 blk 9, lots 3-10 blk 10,
lots 1-11 blk 11, lots 1-7 blk 12, lot 10 blk 13 and
blk 14, all of Pcs-031422-004773, L.R.C. Rec No)
situated in the Bo of Capihan, Mun of San Rafael,
Prov of Bulacan and bounded on the NE., along line
1-2 by Road lot 24 of the cons and subd plan; on
the SE., along line 2-3 by lot 1, blk 4, Pcs 031422004773, on the SW along line 3-4 by lot 1; on the
NW, along line 4-1 by lot 49 both blk 7 of the cons
and subd plan. Beginning at a point marked I on
plan being S. 03 deg 48W., 8459.13 from BLLM 1,
Mp., of San Ildefonso S. 14 deg 21W., 6.00 m to pt.
2;S. 75 deg. 39W., 10.00 m to pt., 3 N 14 deg.
21W., 6.00m to pt. 44 IN 75 deg. 39 E., 10.00m to
the point beginning containing an area of SIXTY
(60) square meters.
6. The purchase price of P 500,000.00 was payable in
installments ( See Section1, Annex A).
7. On
January 01, 2007, complainant occupied the
subject house and lot with the knowledge and
conformity of the respondents.
8. On January 10, 2010, complainant completed
payment of the full amount of the purchase price.
Attached as Annex C is a certification dated
September 8, 2010 issued by respondent BISTA LAND
CO. INC. attesting to the full payment.
9. A Deed of Absolute Sale was prepared by Respondent
BISTA LAND. CO. INC. which it refused to sign despite
repeated demands by the complainant. A request for
the delivery of the Certificate of Title was likewise

refused.
10.
Complainant made several oral and written
demands upon respondent Billar to issue a Deed of
Absolute Sale but these were not acted upon by the
latter. Attached hereto as Annex D is a copy of the
written demand made by the complainant on
respondent Billar on October 10, 2011.
11.
Respondent has failed and/or refused all requests
by complainant to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale
and deliver the certificate of title to the property
thereby compelling her to resort to litigation with its
attendant costs and expenses.
12.
On June 15, 2011, complainant went to the
Register of Deeds, Bulacan to have an adverse claim
annotated on the title of the property and discovered
then that the title was registered in the name of the
respondent Villar, which apparently had a joint
venture with respondent BISTA LAND. CO. INC. A copy
of the joint venture agreement is hereto attached as
Annex B-1.
13.
An affidavit of Adverse Claim has been annotated
at the back of TCT No T-77148 on June 15, 2011 per
Entry No. 295492. A copy of the annotation is hereto
attached as Annex B-2.
14.
In his eforts to demand execution of the Deed of
Absolute Sale and delivery of the title, from January
2010 until the present, the complainant incurred costs
amounting to ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS ( P
100,000.00)
by way of actual costs incurred for
transportation and traveling expenses from her
Bulacan residence to the respondents Makati office.
15.
Respondents acted in wanton and fraudulent
manner by making the complainant believe that a
Deed of Sale was forthcoming when she was made to
sign a draft Deed of Sale but which the respondents
unjustifiably refused to execute, as well as by refusing
to deliver title to the said property despite full
payment of the contract price. Moreover, respondents
kept giving various reasons for the failure to issue the
Deed of Absolute Sale and kept referring her to
another entity, the Villar Properties, Inc, who is not a

party to the original contract.
16.
As a result of the refusal of the respondents to
execute a Deed of Absolute Sale and issue a
Certificate of Title to complainant, the latter has been
anxious and sleepless over the possibility of her being
dispossessed,
ejected
and
disfranchised.
The
treatment she received from the respondents as they
evaded her request and she was tossed from one
person to another, from one office to another caused
complainant much mental, emotional and physical
sufering.
17.
Moreover, the complainant, in several instances in
the past, had been threatened to be ejected from the
property by persons who represented themselves as
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents. Since
the complainant neither had the Deed of Absolute
Sale nor the certificate of title of the property, she
lacked evidence to show that she rightfully owned the
property to prevent threats of eviction. Moreover, the
thought of not enjoying the property, which she
purchased from her savings after years of labor,
continues to depress and frustrate her.
18.
By reason of respondents failure to deliver the
title to the property and to execute the Deed of
Absolute Sale, complainant was constrained to
engage the services of a counsel and to incur legal
fees and litigation expenses to protect her interests in
the property subject of this case.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE,
foregoing
premises
considered,
complainant respectfully prays that after due hearing of the
case, the Honorable Office:
Order respondents to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in

favor of complainant over the subject house and lot;
a. Order respondents to deliver the Transfer Certificate

of Title;
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
b. Order the respondents to pay the complainant the

following:
Actual cost in the amount of One hundred thousand pesos
(P 100,000.00);
Moral damages in the amount of One Million Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos ( P 1,500,000.00);
Exemplary damages in the amount of three hundred
thousand pesos ( P 300,000.00)
Nominal fees in the amount of twenty thousand pesos ( P
20,000.00)
Attorneys fee, litigation expenses and costs of suit in the
amount of one hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00).
Such other reliefs as may be deemed justified or

equitable under the premises.
OFFICE OF LEGAL AID (OLA)
First Floor, H Hall
College of Law
Arellano University
Menlo, Pasay City
By:
MARIE ROSE C. CARLOS
PTR No. 1234137/1-05-0
IBP No. 891245/1-10-19/Makati
MCLE Compliance Cert. No.
Exempted


hereby states that she has caused the preparation of this
pleading; she has read and understood its contents; and the
contents thereof are true and correct to the best of her
Undersigned Complainant further states that she has
not commenced any action or any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and , to
the best of her knowledge, no much action or claim has been
filed or is pending, she shall report that fact within five(5)
days therefrom to this Board.
Quezon City, February 5, 2013
VICTORIA ARELLANO
Complainant
February 2013, affiant having exhibited to me her
Community Tax Certificate Number 7777778 issued on
February 6, 2013 at Quezon City.
Notary Public
PTR No. 76543218 1/10/13 Mla.
IBP No. 9879 1/4/10 Mla.
ROA 12345
Doc No ______
Page ________
Book No_____
Series of 2013

VICTORIA ARELLANO
Complainant
HLURB Case No. LSG III-555556
-versusBISTA LAND INC. CO,
VILLAR PROPERTIES INC and
Manuel Billar
Respondents
x--------------------------------------x
ANSWER
Respondents, BISTA LAND CO. INC., and MANUEL
BILLAR, by counsel, respectfully state:
ADMISSIONS
1. Respondents , BISTA LAND CO. INC., and MANUEL
BILLAR admit the allegations in Paragraphs 1,2,3,
and 4 of the Complaint as regards the personal and
juridical circumstances of the parties.
2. Answering Respondents also admit the allegations in
Paragraphs 5,6,7,8 and 9 of the Complaint, as
regards the execution of the Contract to Sell with
Complainant covering the house and lot at issue, the
contract price, occupancy of the property, full payment
thereof, and preparation of the Deed of Absolute Sale
covering the same, with the qualification that the
signatory thereof should be VILLAR PROPERTIES,
INC. ( VILLAR for brevity).
PRAYER
3. BISTA LAND CO. INC., and MANUEL BILLAR
likewise admit the allegations in Paragraphs 11 and
12 of the Complaint that Respondent VILLAR refused
to execute the Deed of Absolute Sale and deliver title of

the property to Complainant.
DENIALS
4.
Answering Respondents have no knowledge or

information sufficient to form as basis for the truth or
falsity of the allegations in Paragraphs 10, 13,
14,15.16,17 and 18 of the Complaint and therefore
deny the same.
By way of Affirmative Defenses BISTA LAND CO .

INC., and MANUEL BILLAR hereby state:
5. The Joint Venture Agreement (Annex B-1 to B-7 of the
Complaint) entered into BISTA LAND CO. INC
(Developer) and VILLAR (Land Owner) on May 8, 2007,
provides, among others, that:
2.2 The DEVELOPER, in addition to the above
shall provide and exercise general management
over the project, its development, promotion,
advertisement, marketing and sales.
XXX
2.5 The housing units in this venture are solely
and exclusively the DEVELOPERs for which the
LAND OWNERS is not liable. This condition shall be
stated in the Contract of Sale. ( Item II of Joint
Venture Agreement, underscoring supplied)
XXX
3.1 For and in consideration of the amounts
received from the DEVELOPER and the interest of
the DEVELOPER in the accomplishment of his
authority, the LAND OWNER hereby waives all
rights to appoint another attorney, or to do and
perform by himself the powers and authority
herein conferred, and to revoke the authority
except for causes mentioned herein, in a manner
that is binding even after the death to his heirs,
executors or administrators and designates and
appoints the DEVELOPER as Attorney-in-fact with
full power and authority to take full possession of
the subject realty, exercise all acts necessary to
survey, subdivide and develop the property in

accordance with the existing standards, deal with
and follow up application and papers or
permits/certifications/licenses with the Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board, Bureau of Lands,
National
Water
Resource
Board,
Local
Governments, Land Registration Commission,
Manila Electric Company and other agencies
concerned; engage the services of brokers ( Item
III of Joint Venture Agreement, underscoring
supplied)
XXX
4.2 All Certificate of Title on lots shall be in
the name and possession of the LANDOWNER until
they have sold, subject to the annotation of this
agreement. ( Item IV of Joint Venture Agreement,
underscoring supplied)
XXX
6.2 The DEVELOPER shall sell all the lots in the
project within three(3) years from the execution of
this agreement. ( Item VI of Joint Venture
Agreement, underscoring supplied)
XXX
6. From the foregoing, it is clear that BISTA LAND CO.
INC. as Developer has authority to sell the lot at issue
to Complainant, although title ownership and
possession thereof remain with VILLAR.
7. Conformably with the terms of the Joint Venture
Agreement, BISTA LAND CO. INC. prepared the Deed
of Absolute Sale of the lot at issue in favor of the
Complainant for the signature of VILLAR but the latter
refused to sign the same to the damage and prejudice
of Complainant and BISTA LAND CO. INC.
8. Respondent MANUEL BILLAR is just the President of
BISTA LAND CO. INC. She has a personality diferent
and distinct from the corporation. Under the law, she
could not and cannot be personally liable for any
corporate acts.
9. BISTA LAND CO INC has also remitted to VILLAR the
latters share in the sales proceeds of this transaction.
10.
Thus under the premises, Complainant has no
cause of action against the BISTA LAND CO INC. nor
MANUEL BILLAR. Complainants recourse is solely

against Respondent VILLAR.
PRAYER
Complaint against BISTA LAND CO. INC. and MANUEL
BILLAR
be dismissed for lack of cause of action and
judgment be rendered for Complainant ordering VILLAR
PROPERTIES, INC, to execute the Deed of Absolute Sale
covering the lot at issue and deliver title thereof to and in
favor of Complainant.
Relief and remedies just and equitable under the
premises are also prayed for.
Counsel for BISTA LAND CO. INC.
and Manuel Billar
Business Center, Queen Hotel
Mahirap Road,
PTR No. 84836278/1-18-13
84553
IBP No. 834265/3-18-13/Makati
Exempted
Copy Furnished:
First Floor, H Hall
College of Law
Arellano University
Menlo, Pasay City
MA. CRISTINA M. BANAAG
The President/General Manager
Villar Properties Inc.,
No 42 Maykaya Street, La Villa Subdivision
Kalikasan Avenue, Quezon City
EXPLANATION
The foregoing Answer is served by registered mail on
the parties through counsel due to the voluminous works in
the office and the number of pleadings, letters and
documents being handles and served by the law firm which
caused a shortage in messengerial services and which
makes the service by registered mail more convenient and
practical.

City of Makati
) S.S.
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST
FORUM SHOPPING
I, JOHN KING, of legal age, Filipino, married, after
having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby
depose and states: THAT1. I have been duly authorized by the Board of Directors to
represent the BISTA LAND CO. INC in filing and
causing the preparation of the foregoing ANSWER, as
evidence by a Secretary Certificate ( A copy of which is
hereto attached), once of the respondents in HLURB
Case Number LSG III-555556 in the case VICTORIA
ARELLANO vs BISTA LAND CO. INC, MANUEL
BILLAR and VILLAR PROPERTIES INC., pending
before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board,
Diliman, Quezon City;
2. I read all the contents and allegations therein and
vouched that these are true and correct to the best of
my personal knowledge and information, or based on
authentic records;
3. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding
in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other
tribunal or agency. If there such action or proceeding
Appeals or any other tribunal or agency, or may have
been terminated which may subsequently come to my
knowledge, I undertake to inform this Honorable Court
of the same within five(5) days from the knowledge
thereof;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature
this 5th day of February 2013 in the City of Makati,
Philippines.
JOHN KING
Affiant
February 2013 in the City of Makati, Philippines, affiant
having exhibited to me her Community Tax Certificate
Number 537459385 issued on January 1, 2013 at Quezon
City.
MARIE ROSE C.CARLOS

Notary Public
IBP 876543 12/8/10
PTR 543256 1/10/13
Roll No. 98790
Doc No_____
Page ______
Book No ___
Series of 2013.
SECRETARYS CERTIFICATE
I, GLEN HARRIS., of legal age, Filipino, married and
duly elected, qualified and incumbent Corporate Secretary of
BISTA LAND CO. INC. with business address at 4 th floor Pillar
Building, 4577 Tordesillas, Makati City, a corporation duly
Philippines, do hereby certify that:
At regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation duly convened and held on June 12, 2004, at
which meeting a quorum was present, acted throughout and
voted, the following resolution was approved and that said
resolution is in full force and efect of the sate hereof:
RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED to
authorize JOHN KING as the Special Assistant to the
President, (1) to represent and act as an agent of the
Corporation in cases filed for or against in I courts,
prosecutors offices, or quasi-judicial bodies; and to
sign and execute and deliver in connection therewith
the necessary pleadings, motions, verifications,
affidavit of merit, certificate of non forum shopping and
other instruments necessary for such action or
proceedings; and (2) to represent the company during
pre-trial conference, enter into amicable settlement;
make admissions or stipulations of facts and
documents; and act for it in all such other matters as
may aid in the prompt disposition of all cases filed
against it or in its behalf.
WITNESS THE SIGNATURE of the undersigned as such
officer of the Corporation and its corporate seal hereunto
affixed on this 5th day of February 2013.
GLEN HARRIS
Corporate Secretary
June 2005 in the City of Makati, Philippines, affiant having
exhibited to me her Community Tax Certificate Number
7654389 issued on February 5, 2013 at Makati City.
MARIE ROSE C.CARLOS

Notary Public
IBP 564321 12/8/10
PTR 543320 1/20/13
Roll No. 78654
Doc No_____
Page ______
Book No ___
Series of 2013.

VICTORIA ARELLANO
Complainant
-versusBISTA LAND CO. INC, VILLAR
PROPERTIES INC and
Manuel Billar
Respondents
x--------------------------------------x
REPLY
Complainant Victoria Arellano (Complainant), by
counsel, and by way of consolidated reply the Answer (with
counterclaim)
of
Respondent
Villar
Properties,
Inc
( Respondent Villar) dated 25 April 2007 and Answer of
Respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC. (Respondent BISTA LAND
CO. INC.) dated 10 June 2007, respectfully denies all the
allegations stated in said Answers which contradict or are
inconsistent with the allegations of the Complaint dated 11
March 2005( Complaint), the truth being those alleged in
the said Complaint dated 11 March 2007.
1. Contrary to the claim of Respondent Villar, the
Complainant has sufficient cause of action to bring the
instant suit.
2.1 A cause of action has been defined as an act
or omission by which a party violates a right
of another ( Rule 2, Section2, 1997 Rules of
Court).
2.2 Applying in the foregoing, it is clear, and
there is sufficient evidence to proved, that in
fact, both the respondents, in gross and
evident bad faith, failed and continue to fail
to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of
the Complainant and to deliver the Transfer
Certificate of Title over the house and lot
subject
of
the
Complaint,
despite
Complainants having efected full payment

of the subject house and lot. Such continued
failure by the respondent to fulfill their
obligations constitutes the act or omission
contemplated and required of every cause of
action.
2. Contrary to its claim, Respondent Villar is a party to the
Contract to sell entered into by Respondent BISTA LAND
CO. INC. and Complainant.
a. In the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 08
May 1992, entered into by Respondent Villar and
Respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC., which
Respondent Villar admitted in paragraph 6 of its
Answer, Respondent Villar has authorized BISTA
LAND CO. INC. to sell the lots and collect
payments from the buyers.
b. The said JVA provides among other things, that :
2.2 The DEVELOPER, in addition to the
above shall provide and exercise general
management over the project, its
development,promotion, advertisement,
marketing and sales.
XXX
2.5 The housing units in this venture
are
solely
and
exclusively
the
DEVELOPERs for which the LAND
OWNERS is not liable. This condition
shall be stated in the Contract of Sale. (
Item II of Joint Venture Agreement,
XXX
3.1 For and in consideration of the
amounts received from the DEVELOPER
and the interest of the DEVELOPER in
the accomplishment of his authority, the
LAND OWNER hereby waives all rights to
appoint another attorney, or to do and
perform by himself the powers and
authority herein conferred, and to
revoke the authority except for causes
mentioned herein, in a manner that is
binding even after the death to his heirs,
executors
or
administrators
and
designates and appoints the DEVELOPER

as Attorney-in-fact with full power and
authority to take full possession of the
subject
realty,
exercise
all
acts
necessary to survey, subdivide and
develop the property in accordance with
the existing standards, deal with and
follow up application and papersor
permits/certifications/licenses with the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board,
Bureau of Lands, National Water
Resource Board, Local Governments,
Land Registration Commission, Manila
Electric Company and other agencies
concerned; engage the services of
brokers ( Item III of Joint Venture
XXX
4.2 All Certificate of Title on lots
shall be in the name and possession of
the LANDOWNER until they have sold,
subject to the annotation of this
agreement. ( Item IV of Joint Venture
XXX
6.2 The DEVELOPER shall sell all the
lots in the project within three(3) years
from the execution of this agreement.
(Item VI of Joint Venture Agreement,
XXX
c. The above cited provisions show that the two
respondents entered into a contract of agency.
Qui facit per alium facit per se. He who acts
though another acts himself ( Rallos vs Felix Go
Chan and Sons Realty Corporation, 18 SCRA 251
(1978) . In acting for the principal, the agent by
legal fiction becomes the principal authorized to
perform all acts which the latter would have him to
do. Necessarily, Respondent Villar is a party to the
said Contract to Sell.
3. Contrary to the claim of Respondent Villar, Complainant

is a buyer in good faith. By virtue of the JVA, both
Respondents represented themselves to the to the
public that they have the legal capacity to enter into
the Contract to Sell with Complainant as well as other
buyers of housing units located at Villar Park
Subdivision. If Respondent Villar would argue that
Complainant is a buyer in bad faith, then it should have
undertaken several actions against all lot owners,
similarly situated as herein Complainant, for purposes
of taking possession of their units.
4. The denial of Respondent Villar in paragraph 4 of its
Answer that it did not give its conformity to occupy the
subject house and lot is contrary to facts and evidence.
a. Upon executing the Contract to Sell on 15 January
2010, Complainant has immediately occupied the
subject house and lot with the knowledge and
conformity of the respondents. Complainant has
been in continuous possession of the property for
the past eight (8) years. He has been adding
improvements to the property to make it livable.
Further, the Respondents accepted payments from
Complainant. Attached hereto as Annexes A to HH
are receipts issued by Respondent BISTA LAND CO.
INC. on the payments made by the Complainant.
b. Respondent Villar claims he was ignorant of the
fact that Victoria Arellano had been occupying the
subject house and lot. This is belied by the
following:
i. Guards on duty in the subdivisions
guardhouse have been regularly seeing the
Complainant as there is no other way to enter
and to exit the subdivision, but there was not
an instance that she was reprimanded or
even questioned. It is ridiculous to claim that
the said guards have never seen nor reported
the presence of the Complainant since the
subdivision has very few occupants.
ii. At one instance, Complainant was even
approached by two (2) persons who identified
themselves as agents of Respondent Villar for
an ocular inspection of Complainants
property.
5. The allegation of Respondent Villar in paragraph 11 of

its Answer that Respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC. not
only exceeded the authority given to it, but it even
went as far as falsifying its Contract to Sell, disguising
itself as the owner in fee simple of parcel land it sold to
Complainant, is clearly an afterthought.
a. As can be seen from the communications between
Respondent Villar and Respondent BISTA LAND CO.
INC. ( Annexes A, A-1, A-2,A-3 of Respondents
Villars Answer) and the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217 in the case
of Villar Properties, Inc, BISTA LAND CO. INC.
Corporation, Civil Case Nor Q-98-33682 ( Annex G
of Respondent Villars Answer), this ground of
falsifying the Contract to Sell allegedly committed
by Respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC. was never
raised by Respondent Villar. Its belated allegation
now is clearly a vain attempt to exculpate itself
from its contractual obligation to herein
Complainant.
6. The allegation of Respondent Villar in paragraph 17 of
its Answer that on 10 June 2011, the Regional Trial
Court has already rendered a decision in favor of
Respondent Villar and against Respondent BISTA LAND
CO. INC. terminating the JVA and ordering Respondent
BISTA LAND CO. INC. to deliver possession of the Villar
Park Subdivision together with all the improvements
thereon, is misleading.
a. The said case was appealed to the Court of
Appeals, ( Villar Properties, Inc vs BISTA LAND CO.
INC., CAGR No 67584) and is still pending up to
now. This only shows that the JVA is still subsisting
absent final determination of the merits of the
appeal by the Court of Appeals.
b. Furthermore, Complainant is not privy of the JVA.
The
controlling
document
evidencing
Complainants right over the property she bought
from Respondents is the Contract to Sell, which
was never sought to be invalidated by both
respondents.
7. Finally, there is no merit to Respondent Villars claim
that Complainant is a litigant in bad faith. Complainant
is only availing herself of remedies provided by law in
order to enforce his rights under the Contract to Sell

and under the law. Complainant should be penalized for
this.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE,
it is respectfully prayed in the
Complaint be granted in favor of Complainant, and that the
counterclaim interposed by Respondent Villar be dismissed
for lack of merit.
Relief and remedies just and equitable under the
premises are also prayed for.
OFFICE OF LEGAL AID(OLA)
First Floor, Malcolm Hall
College of Law
University of the Philippines
By:
Notary Public
IBP 564321 12/8/10
PTR 543320 1/20/13
Roll No. 78654
Copy Furnished:
ATTY ARNIE B. BILLAR
BISTA LAND CO. INC and
Manuel Billar
Mahirap Road,
IBP No. 834265. Lifetime Member
PTR No. A-84836278
01-05-13 Quezon City
ATTY AGNES CHU
Tan Law Office
Counsel for Respondent Villar Properties, Inc

No 30 Jose Avenue, Jose Compound
Nora Vista, Quezon City
ATTY REY LANGIT
Housing and Land Use Arbiter
Housing and Land Use regularoty Board- Legal Services
Group
EXPLANATION
The foregoing Reply is served by registered mail on the
parties through counsel due to the voluminous works in the
office and the number of pleadings, letters and documents
being handles and served by the law firm which caused a
shortage in messengerial services and which makes the
service by registered mail more convenient and practical.

VICTORIA ARELLANO
Complainant
-versusBISTA LAND CO INC., VILLAR
PROPERTIES INC and Manuel Billar
Respondents
x--------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
Respondent, Villar Properties Inc,
through
the
THE PARTIES
1. Complainant VICTORIA ARELLANO who is allegedly of
legal age, Filipino, married and a resident of No 74 J
Bugallon Street., Project 4, Quezon City .
2. Respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC hereinafter referred
to respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC for brevity. It
is a corporation duly formed and organized under
existing laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with
office address at 4th floor Pillar Building, 4577
Tordesillas, Makati City.
3. Respondent, Manuel Billar, hereinafter referred to as
respondent Billar , is the President of co-respondent
BISTA LAND CO. INC. who holds office at the same
address of her co-respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC.
4. Respondent Villar Properties, Inc, hereinafter referred to
as VPI for brevity, is a corporation duly formed and
organized under existing laws of the Republic of the
Philippines, with principal office address at at No 42
Maykaya Street, La Villa Subdivision, Kalikasan Avenue,

Quezon City.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. VPI is the successor-in-interest of all the rights,
ownership and interest over three(3) parcels of land
located at San Rafael, Bulacan and covered by Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. RT-7654, RT-8768 and RT-8769
of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan. Spouses Danding
Aquino and Mary Corn and Spouses Juan Tagle and
Nanette Tagle are the predecessor-in-interest of VPI.7
2. On May 8, 2000, VPI entered into a Joint Venture
Agreement with BISTA LAND CO. INC. over the
described parcels of land whereby the latter was
contracted to develop said properties into a mixed-use
commercial and residential subdivision to be completed
by May 9, 1995. The deadline was extended to May 9,
1997 in an Addendum to the Joint Venture Agreement
3. In the Joint Venture Agreement (marked as Annex B-1 of
the Complaint) it was agreed upon, among others, that
BISTA LAND CO. INC. would (a) develop the said
properties into a mixed-use commercial and residential
subdivision; (b) secure permits from the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board for the development of the
property into a commercial and residential subdivision;
() advertise, promote and sell the subdivision lots
subject to the condition that 1. The pricing of lost
shall be determined jointly by landowner (VPI)
and developer (BISTA LAND CO. INC.); 2. All
Certificates of Title to the lots shall be in the
name and possession of the landowner until they
are sold.
4. Respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC., in EXCESS OF ITS
AUTHORITY, had been selling the subdivision lots at
prices it unilaterally fixed, that is, without the
approval of the herein respondent VPI. Morever, BISTA
LAND CO. INC. failed to complete the development of
the properties in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Joint-Venture Agreement.
5. On July 22, 2003, VPI wrote BISTA LAND CO. INC to stop
selling the subdivision lots at prices the latter had
unilaterally fixed. This letter of demand was followed by
a series of similar letters dated August 15, 2003,
September 30, 2003 and August 15, 2004, insisting on
VPIs original demand to stop selling the subdivision
until mutual agreement on the price was reached.
Copies of these demand letters are attached and
marked as Annexes A, A-1, A-2, and A-3 of the
VPI answer with counter and cross claim.
6. Instead of complying with the demand of VPI to stop the
sale of the subdivision lots until mutual agreement on
the price was reached, BISTA LAND CO. INC., in bad
faith, continued to sell lots at prices unilaterally
determined and by way of compounding, its violation,
BISTA LAND CO. INC. represent itself as owner and as
such entered into Contracts to Sell to the herein
complainant Victoria Arellano on Janaury 15, 2002
without making VPI a party to it, neither communicating
to the latter that it entered into a contract with the
complainant, thus VPI has absolutely no knowledge of
said Contract to Sell.
7. Meanwhile, even before the filing of the herein
complaint, by reason of the unauthorized acts of BISTA
LAND CO. INC., and for its gross violation of the Joint
Venture Agreement, VPI filed an action against BISTA
LAND CO. INC. for Termination of Contract , Recovery of
Property, plus damages with a prayer for a Temporary
Restraining Order in favor of VPI; and a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 217. As [rayed for, the Court
issued the Temporary Restraining Order (Annex G of
BPI Answer) followed by the Preliminary Injunction
( Annex F, BPI Answer) enjoining BISTA LAND CO.
INC., its agents , representatives or any person acting
for and in its behalf from selling and or advertising the
sale of the remaining unsold lots in the Villar Park
Subdivision.
8. On June 12, 2003, said Regional Trial Court rendered a
decision in favor of VPI and against BISTA LAND CO.
INC., terminating the Joint Venture Agreement and
among others, ordering BISTA LAND CO. INC. to deliver
possession of the Villar Park Subdivision together with
all the improvements thereon. Said decision was

marked as Annex G, VPI Answer.
9. BISTA LAND CO. INC., in contempt of the said Court
Order,
continuously
collected
payments
from
Complainant without authority from VPI to the latters
prejudice.
10.
In the complaint, Victoria Arellano averred that the
subject matter OF THE Contract to Sell is 60 meter lot
together with its improvements consisting of the house,
which property is located in Villar Park, San Rafael,
Bulacan covered by Transfer Certificate of Ttile No T77148. Complainant attached the Contract to Sell and
TCT No T-77148 as Annexes A and B of his
complaint.
11.
Complainant Victoria Arellano further averred that
the contract price of the property subject matter of the
Contract to Sell was FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P 500,000.00) payable on installment basis. On the day
she contracted the Contract to Sell she occupied the
subject house and lot with the knowledge of the
respondents.
1. Complainant Victoria Arellano further averred that on
January 8, 2008, she made the full payment of the
Contract Price, she was issued by respondent BISTA LAND
CO. INC. the corresponding Certification to this efect
(paragraph 8, complaint). Consequently BISTA LAND CO.
INC. prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale but refused to0
sign despite his repeated demands. Complaints request
for delivery of title over the property in question was
refused by respondent (paragraph 9, complaint).
Complainant by reason of the above, made several oral
and written demands upon respondent Billar to issue a
Deed of Absolute Sale, but these were not acted upon.
Complainant attached in the complaint the demand letter
as her Annex D (paragraph 10, complainant).
2. When the respondent has failed and or refused all
requests by complainant to execute a Deed of Sale and
deliver the certificate of title to the property, it compelled
the complainant to resort to litigation, (paragraph 11,
complaint), thus, on June 15, 2008, she went to the
Register of Deed of Bulacan to have her adverse claim
annotated at the tile covering the property in question,
only then, that she discovered that the title of the
property was registered in the name of respondent VPI,

apparently with Joint Venture Agreement with the corespondent BISTA LAND CO. INC.. Complainant attached
the Joint Venture Agreement as Annex B-1 of the
complaint (paragraph 11, complaint). On June 15, 2008 as
per Entry No. 295492, she succeeded to annotate her
adverse claim at the back of the Ttile No T-77148 and
made the same as Annex B-2 of her complaint
(paragraph 14, complaint).
3. In her efort to demand execution of the Deed of Absolute
Sale and delivery of her title, from January 2005 to the
present complainant incurred expenses in the amount of
one hundred thousand pesos (P 100,000.00) as actual cost
(paragraph 14, complaint). She further charged
respondents BISTA LAND CO. INC. and Billar to have acted
in wanton and fraudulent manner by making complainant
believe that the Deed of Absolute Sale was forthcoming
hence she was made to sign a Draftt Deed of Absolute
Sale, but which respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC. and Billar
unjustly refused to execute as well as delivering to her
favor the title despite her full payment. Moreover,
respondents BISTA LAND CO. INC. and Billar kept on
referring to her to another entity, which is the respondent
VPI who (sic) is not a party to the original
contract(paragraph 15, complaint)
4. As a result of the respondents refusal to execute Deed of
Absolute Sale and issue Certificate of Title, subjected the
complainant to sufer sleepless nights and anxiety for fear
of being dispossess, disenfranchised and being ejected
from the premises in question. The treatment she received
from the respondents from being tossed from one entity to
another subjected complainant to mental and physical
sufering (paragraph 16, complaint). She was likewise the
victim of harassment by person representing themselves
as members of the National Bureau of Investigation trying
to evict her from the premises and because she has no
Deed of Absolute Sale or Transfer Certificate to show to
this people she lacked the necessary evidence. Further,
she fails to enjoy the property she purchased from her
savings continue to depress and frustrate her (paragraph
17, complaint), but of the failure to Execute the Deed of
Absolute Sale and the Failure to deliver the title of the
property, complainant was construed to engage the
services of a counsel, thus, incurring legal fees and
litigation expenses aside from the actual moral, exemplary

and nominal damages, she was praying in the complaint.
5. In answer to the complaint, respondent VPI, by way of
negative defenses, set forth the claims that it has no
the truth and falsity of the complaint in paragraphs
5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 and 13, for reasons that it is not a party
to the Contract to Sell, much more involved in the
transaction in any or all stages of execution up to its
consummatories.
6. Respondent VPI, further set forth the Affirmative Defenses
of that the complaint state no cause of action against it,
for simple reason that it is not a party to the Contract to
Sell, neither does it has any knowledge or participation in
all stages of its execution.
7. Respondent VPI likewise invoked that the complainant is a
buyer in bad faith for failing to observe his primary duty of
demanding from BISTA LAND CO. INC. to show her a copy
of TCT No. T-77148 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan for
her to know and confirm that indeed the property she is
buying as warranted in first paragraph of Contract to Sell
was indeed titled and for her to know who was the
registered owner as appearing in the title. This simple
requirement of law is the basic duty or obligation of the
buyer under the principle of caveat emptor or let the
buyer beware, which duty or obligation was simply
brushed aside by the complainant when she entered into
a contract to sell with co-respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC.
and Billar. The failure of the complainant to perform her
mandated obligation in law, simply showed her gross
negligence and at the same time a buyer in bad faith,
thus, she has no recourse to the herein respondent VPI
which is not a party to the contract, neither had any
knowledge or information to the Contract to Sell subject
matter of the complaint.
8. Respondent VPI likewise raised the defense that the herein
complainant was a litigant in bad faith, for she was
expressly informed through several communications and
letters that aside from being not a party to the Contract to
Sell and absolutely without any knowledge or information
in all the stages of the transaction she entered with BISTA
LAND CO. INC. and Billar, the Joint Venture Agreement, by
virtue of the unauthorized acts of BISTA LAND CO. INC.
and the repeated gross violations such as Joint Venture

Agreement was rescinded by the Honorable Court. These
matters were brought to the concrete attention of the
complainant in response to the several letters she sent to
diferent offices including the person of Mrs Angel B.
Luver, Regional Officer of the HLURB.
These letters of the respondent VPI informing
complainant of its absolute innocence and being not
a primary to the contract, therefore, cannot be made
liable to her was not only the subject VPI letters
marked as Annexes B, C, C-1 and C-2 of its
Answer, but respondent VPI exhaustively explained in
paragraphs 13,14,15,16,17,18 and 19, why VPI
cannot be made liable to the demands of the
complainant to execute the Deed of Absolute Sale
and for the Delivery of the Title, involving the
damages she is claiming in the complaint.
9. In the answer filed by the respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC.
and its co-respondent Billar, they admitted the personal
circumstances of the complainant and all the respondents
in the complaint.
10.
Respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC. and Billar likewise
admitted complainants allegations in the complaint as to
the execution of the Contract to Sell, complainants
outright possession of the premises, full payment of the
contract price, the preparation of the Deed of Absolute
Sale and their refusal to demand the same. They further
admitted even their refusal to deliver the title despite
repeated demands by the complainant.
11. Respondent VPI interposed a Cross-Claim against their
co-respondents BISTA LAND CO. INC. and Billar as the
parties which caused all these fraudulent representations
and having acted their authority and in gross violation of
the Joint Venture Agreement, the former prays that in the
event the former will be made liable to the complainant,
then, these respondents will be jointly ordered to
reimburse for whatever liability respondent VPI will be
made to answer for the complaint.
12.
Respondents BISTA LAND CO. INC. and Billar
interposing the
negative defenses of having no
the truth or falsity of paragraphs 10,11,12,13,14 and 15 of
the complaint, thus, denies the same.
13. By way of Affirmative Defenses, respondent BISTA LAND

CO. INC. and Billar invoked that their signing of the
Contract to Sell is within its authority. BISTA LAND CO. INC.
prepared the Deed of Absolute Sale, but respondent Villar
refused to sign the same, thus, prejudicing both the
complainant and BISTA LAND CO. INC. that respondent
Billar cannot be held liable in her personal capacity as she
has a personality separate and distinct from the
corporation. The BISTA LAND CO. INC. remitted to VPI, the
latter share representing the proceeds in the transaction.
That under these affirmative defenses they set forth,
complainant has no recourse against respondent BISTA
LAND CO. INC. and Billar but solely against the respondent
VPI.
14. In the consolidated Reply of the complainant, she
insists that she has sufficient action against the
respondent VPI by defining what is a cause of action and
out of the same, she concluded that she has sufficient
cause of action.
15. Complainant insists that respondent VPI is a party to a
Contract despite being not a party to it by rationalizing
that the former is a party to a Contract despite being not a
party to it by rationalizing that the former is a party to
Joint Venture Agreement, thus, there exists a contract of
Agency between respondent VPI and its co-respondent
BISTA LAND CO. INC.. That respondent VPI claims that
respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC. exceeded its authority in
entering into the Contract to Sell with the complainant is
an after though raised in vain attempts to exculpate
liability.
16. Respondent VPI in its Rejoinder contended that the
complainants acts of raising the existence of the Joint
Venture Agreement between respondents VPI and BISTA
LAND CO. INC. will dawn to her cause because that would
mean complainants full awareness of the stipulations and
covenants and the limits of their relationship, thus, with
more reason that she became a buyer in bad faith,
because by just simply reading the Joint Venture
Agreement, it will outrightly dive the complainant a
concrete information that the registered owner of the
property is VPI, therefore, the stipulation in paragraph 1 of
the complaint expressly stating that BISTA LAND CO. INC.
was the owner of TCT No T-77148 was a stipulation
attended with fraud for it is insidious words or

machination calculated to inveigle the complainant to
believe that BISTA LAND CO. INC. is the owner of the
property it is selling, thus, with the corresponding legal
authority to sell the same. This fraudulent stipulation had
complainant simply exercised her obligation of demanding
from respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC. the copy of the title,
subject matter of the Contract to Sell would outrightly
informed her that the Contract to Sell she was entering
with respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC. is a fraudulent
contract from its inception, as it misrepresents that it is
the registered owner of the lot it was selling. For failing to
exercise this simple duty under the principle of caveat
emptor, complainant is a buyer in bad faith, thus, he has
no recourse against the herein respondent VPI.
17. Respondent VPI likewise interposed the defense that
VPI cannot be made liable under the contract of agency,
complainant being aware of the stipulation and covenants
in the Joint Venture Agreement, it follows that when
respondents entered into a Contract to Sell, representing
itself as an owner, which complainant readily agreed and
signed, that is a tantamount that the latter is fully aware
of respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC. misrepresentations,
therefore, complainant aside from being a buyer in bad
faith, is in estopped to assert that she is praying in the
complaint against the innocent party, the respondent VPI.
18. Respondent VPI further asserts in the Rejoinder that
complainants actuation of signing the Contract to Sell,
notwithstanding its concrete knowledge from the
stipulation provided therein that respondent BISTA LAND
CO. INC. is not the owner would made him a conspirator to
the fraudulent action of respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC.
and its President, thus, under the principle of pari delicto,
complainant has no recourse in law as she becomes
conspirator of this fraud.
THE CASE
1. On March 18, 2010 complainant Victoria Arellano
through counsel filed before the Honorable Office a
Motion/Application to Establish Status of complainant as
indigent litigant. Attached to the Motion are the
Affidavit of the complainant and that of one Joan Naoe,
person both attesting that the combined income of the
complainant and that of her immediate family would
not exceed the amount of four thousand pesos (P

4,000.00) Certification and Indigency signed by Luz
Villalobos, as Barangay Secretary attesting the
complainant is an indigent was also attached to the
motion.
2. On even date March 18, 2010 in a complaint for
Delivery of Deed of Absolute Sale and Land Title and
with Damages, Victoria Arellano, filed before this
Honorable Office, impleading as party respondents
BISTA LAND CO. INC., VPI and Billar.
3.
On March 31, 2010, undersigned as counsel for

respondent VPI received respondent BISTA LAND CO.
INC. and that of its co-respondent Billars Answer
through counsel dated June 15, 2010.
4. On May 5, 2010, respondent VPI filed this Answer with

Counterclaim and Crossclaim against its co-respondent
BISTA LAND CO. INC. and its President Manuel Billar.
5. On June 22, 2010, undersigned as counsel for
respondent VPI, received respondent BISTA LAND CO.
INC. and that of its co-respondent Billars Answer
through counsel dated June 16, 2010.
6. Issues having been joined the case was set for
Preliminary Conference by the Honorable Hearing
Officer but no amicable settlement or stipulation of
facts were agreed, thus, such preliminary conference
was terminated and the parties were required to submit
their respective Position Paper and Draft Decision within
the reglementary period.
ISSUES
a. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT IS A BUYER
IN BAD FAITH?
b. CONNECTED TO THE ABOVE, WHETHER OR NOR
COMPLAINANT HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
VPI?
c. WHETHER OR NOT VPI CAN BE BOUND BY THE
ACTIONS OF CO RESPONDENT BISTA LAND CO.
INC.?
d. WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT IS A LITIGANT IN
BAD FAITH?
e. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT BISTA LAND CO.

INC. AND IS CO-RESPONDENT BILLAR ARE GUILTY
OF FRAUD?
1 WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINANT IS A BUYER IN BAD
FAITH?
2 CONNECTED TO THE ABOVE, WHETHER OR NOR
COMPLAINANT HAS A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST VPI?
3 WHETHER OR NOT BPI CAN BE BOUND BY THE ACTIONS
OF
CO-RESPONDENT BISTA LAND CO. INC.?
4 WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT IS A LITIGANT IN BAD
FAITH?
5 WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT BISTA LAND CO. INC.AND
IS CO-RESPONDENT BILLAR ARE GUILTY OF FRAUD?
Grounds Number 1 to 4 being interrelated to one
another, for purposes of clarity and brevity, respondent VPI
will discuss them jointly.
The greatest
revelation which
constitute as the
complainant damming admission against her interest that
indeed respondent VPI is not a party to the Contract to Sell
(Annex A, Complainant), neither has knowledge or
participation in all stages of its execution is that what he
declared in paragraph 15 of her verified complaint alleging
that:
15. Respondents acted in wanton and fraudulent
manner by making the complainant believe that a
Deed of Sale was forthcoming when she was made
to sign a draft
Deed of Sale but which the
respondents unjustifiably refused to execute, as
well as by refusing to deliver title to the said
property despite full payment of the contract
price. Moreover, respondents kept giving various
reasons for the failure to issue the Deed of
Absolute Sale and kept referring her to another
entity, the Villar Properties, Inc, who is not a
party to the original contract.
If the afore-quoted be read in conjunction with
paragraphs 5,8,9,10,11 and 12 of her complaint it will lead
into the conclusion that the complaint was remised if not
grossly negligent in entering into the Contract of Sell with

respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC. and Billar for complainant
simply failed to perform her minimal obligation of simply
demanding the copy of the Transfer Certificate Title Number
T-77148 from respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC.. Has she
complied, her minimal obligation in law, she should have
known from the very beginning even before she signed the
Contract to Sell that the registered owner is respondent VPI
and that the relationship between respondent VPI and BISTA
LAND CO. INC. were governed by a Joint Venture Agreement,
no less annotated in the Title itself, that commands every
interested person to read all stipulations and covenants
provided thereat so that they will be informed of what acts
parties the respondents BISTA LAND CO. INC. and its corespondent are allowed, then even before she entered into
the Contract to Sell, complainant should have become aware
that BISTA LAND CO. INC. has exceeded its authority in
misrepresenting that it is the owner of the property it is
setting.
Deduced from the complainants own declaration in her
own complaint, complainant simply failed to demand and
read the Transfer Certificate of Title No T-77148, thus, he
failed to know the registered owner and those covenants and
stipulations provided in the Joint Venture Agreement no less
annotated at the back of the title, which failure on her part,
elicits no favorable reward in law, given the fundamental
jurisprudence laying the principle that:
The rule of caveat emptor requires the
purchases to be aware of the supposed
title of the vendor and he who buys
without checking the vendors title
takes
all
the
risks
and
losses
consequent to such failure. (Samson v.
CA, 238 SCRA 397)
For failing to simply comply the minimal requirements
of the principle known as caveat emptor or let the buyer
beware, certainly the law did not consider the complainant
as negligent or remiss in entering into the Contract to Sell
only but such failure of her to comply what is required of her,
by law, renders complainant a buyer in bad faith consonant
to the ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court:
It is well settled rule that a purchaser
cannot close his eyes to facts which
should put a reasonable man upon his

guard, and then claims that he acted in
good faith under the belief that there
was no defect in the title of the vendor.
His mere refusal to believe that such
defect exists, or his willful refusal of his
eyes to the possibility of the existence
of a defect in his vendors title, will not
make him an innocent purchaser for
value, it is afterwards develops that the
title was in fact defective. And it
appears that he had such notice of the
defect as would have lead to its
discovery had he acted with that
measure of precaution which may
reasonably be required of a prudent
man in a like situation (Leung Yee v.
Strong Machinery Co. 37 Phil 644; RFC v
Javillonar, 107 Phil 664, Manacop v. Cansino,
111 Phil 166)
Being a buyer in bad faith, certainly, she has no
recourse against the herein respondent VPI not only because
it is not a party to the Contract to Sell, or had any
participation on it directly but simply because jurisprudence
declared such that:
By legal presumption, he is bound to
know that which he has failed to find
out due to his inaction. Thus, one who
builds a house on anothers registered
land believing this to be his own
registered lot, because he did not
investigate properly, is held to be
builder in bad faith. He is deemed to
have a presumptive knowledge on the
pertinent Torrens Title covering the
particular land, the area involved, and
the extent of its boundaries (Santos v.
Olarre, 76 O.G. 4 January 28, 1980, CA)
No less the complainant admitted in paragraph 15 of
her complaint that herein respondent VPI is not a party to
the contract. From this admission alone, the case against
respondents VPI is dismissible on ground that the complaint
states no cause of action, this was the basic principle laid by
the Honorable Supreme Court holding that:
It is a basic principle in law that

contracts can bind only the parties who
entered into it, it cannot favor or
prejudice a third person (Visayan Surety
& Insurance Corporation vs Court of Appeals,
364 SCRA 631)
Thus, it become elementary in law that only parties to
the contract can be impleaded in the complaint pursuant to
the teachings of the Honorable Supreme Court that:
Since a contract may be violated only
by the parties thereto, as against each
other, in an action upon that contract,
the real parties in interest, either as
plaintiff or a defendant, must be parties
to said contract (Marimperio Compania
Saviera SA v Court of Appeals, G.R. No L40234, 156 SCRA 368; Kilosbayan v Morato,
supra)
It being absolutely clear that respondent VPI is not a
party to the contract yet complainant insists in dragging its
innocent being, jurisprudence mandates that the case
against it should be dismissed for reason that:
Every action must be prosecuted and
defended in the name of the real partyin-interest, that is, the one who
prosecutes or defends and is benefitted
or injured. If the suit is not brought in
the name of or against the real party-ininterest, a motion to dismiss may be
filed on the ground that the complain
states no cause of action (Travel Wide v
Court of Appeals, G.R. 77356, 199 SCRA 205)
The dragging of respondent VPI in this case is tainted
with deliberate malice on the part of the complainant for
starting with her failure to comply her obligation as provided
in the principle of caveat emptor before she filed this case,
she was well informed of the respondent VPI absolute she
was well informed of the respondent VPIs absolute
innocence of not being a party to the Contract to Sell. Most
importantly complainant was likewise informed that its corespondent BISTA LAND CO. INC. and its President coAdvance Legal Writing | Page | 1379
respondent Billar did not only exceed their authority but a

decision has been rendered by the court rescinding the Joint
Venture Agreement and yet despite receipts of those letters
of respondent VPI, thus, establishing concrete knowledge on
the part of the complainant that is not a party to the
contract, and that respondent LSDC has exceeded
its
authority, still complainant with malice in order purely to
harass and vex herein respondent, insisted on filing this
malicious case, thusly, entitling the herein respondent for
award of all the damages it is praying in its Counterclaim, in
addition to the outright dismissal of this case.
In fact complainant started to be litigant in bad faith
when he filed this case as an indigent party in order to be
exempt of the required when under the circumstances she is
not entitled to it.
This is so, because it is absolutely unbelievable if not
downright contrary to human reason and experience to
believe that a complainant can aford to buy house and lot
for investment paying its installment without fail, thusly,
resulting for the complainant to own two (2) houses one in
Bulacan and one in Project 4, Quezon City but out of bare
say so allegations and on the basis of an affidavit which the
law consider to be hearsay of not lacking in detail to qualify
or indigent litigant, misrepresented that he and his
immediate family combined income did not reach Four
Thousand Pesos (P4,000), thus, was exempt to pay the
required filing fee.
Respondent VPI prays before the Honorable Office that
under the circumstances, complainant is not an indigent
party, thus, must be assessed the required filing fee and
made to pay the same, otherwise, herein respondent VPI
demand for the dismissal of the complaint for not paying the
filing fee, a jurisdictional requirement before the Honorable
Office can acquire jurisdiction over the case.
The invocation by the complainant of the principle of
Contract of Agency will not be apply to the case at bar.
Firstly, to a buyer in bad faith, he is presumed to know
that respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC.
exceeded
its
authority in entering into a Contract to Sell, that is why the
law is clear that complainant stands to lose at his peril the
property he bought meaning he has no recourse against the
herein respondent VPI.
Further, having known that respondent BISTA LAND CO.

INC. exceeded its authority in entering into the Contract to
Sell but complainant proceeded to enter into such contract,
under the principle of estoppel, he is barred from filing the
action against the respondent VPI pursuant to the provision
of the law, which reads:
Art .1898.If the agent contracts in the
name of the principal, exceeding the
scope of his authority, and the principal
does not ratify the contract, it shall be
void if the party with whom the agent
contracted is aware o fthe limits of the
powers granted by the principal. In this
case, however, the agent is liable if he
undertook to secure the principals
ratification.(n)
It is also provided in Article 1317 of the Civil Code that:
Art.1317.No one may contract in the
name of another
without being
authorized by the latter, or unless he
has
by law right to represent him
Clear therefore, that the source of the complaint
against respondent VPI is void and/or unenforceable in law,
being an innocent party, not being a primary to the Contract.
Complainants claim in paragraph 7 that he occupied and
possessed the premises right of the day of the execution of
the Contract to Sell, reflects his personality to have an
unlawful inclination because in the Contract to Sell, by law,
the buyer is entitled only to possession if and
when he has fully paid the price. Thusly, his possession from
January 18, 2002 up to January 10, 2007 is in the category of
a usuper as intruder, thusly, not entitled to protection of law
and cannot therefore source of damages.
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS BISTA LAND CO.
INC. AND ITS CO-RESPONDENT BILLAR ARE GUILTY OF
FRAUD.
In representing to be the owner of the Transfer
Certification of Title No. T-77148, so as to inveigle and/or
duped the complainant to enter into Contract with it and
thereafter collected the installment payments the actuation
of the respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC. and its President, coAdvance Legal Writing | Page | 1381
respondent Manuel Billar amounted not only to Civil Fraud,

but likewise to a Criminal Act, amounting to Estafa. The
misrepresenting committed by respondent BISTA LAND CO.
INC. and its President co- respondent Manuel Billar
amounted to Civil Fraud, because it four squared with the
definition of fraud as held in the case of Sierra vs.CA, 211
SCRA 785 which reads:
There is fraud when, through insidious
words or
machinations of one of the
contracting parties, the other is induced to
enter into a contract which without them, he
would not have agreed to. The fraud is
serious when it is sufficient to impress, or
to lead an ordinary prudent person into
error; that which cannot deceive a prudent
person cannot be a ground for nullity.
The fraud committed by the respondents BISTA LAND CO.
INC. and its President co-respondent Manuel Billar , is
classified as dolo causante pursuant to the literal provision of
Article 1338 which reads:
Art.1338.There is fraud when, through
insidious words
or machinations of
one of the contracting parties, the 0ther
is induced to enter into a contract
which, without
them, he would not
have agreed to.(1269)
Consequently, this kind of fraud, renders respondent
BISTA LAND CO. INC. and its president Billar both in her
official and personal capacity, jointly and severally liable to
the respondent VPI pursuant to the ruling that:
Fraud may be dolo causante or dolo
incidente. Causal fraud referred to in
Article 1338 of the Civil Code refers to
those deceptions or misrepresentations
of a serious
character employed by
one party and without which the other
party would not have entered into the
contract. Incidental fraud, referred to in
Art.1344 of the Civil Code, refers to
those which are not serious in character
and without which the other would still
have entered into the contract. Dolo
causante determines or is the essential
cause of the consent, while dolo
inscidente
refers only
to some particular or accident of the
obligation. The effects of dolo causante
are the nullity of the contract and the
indemnification of damages, and olo
incidente also obliges the person
employed it to pay damages.(Geraldez
v. CA, 230 SCRA 32)
Based on the foregoing, respondent BISTA LAND CO.
INC. and its President co-respondent Billar in the remotest
possibility that herein respondent be made liable to the
complainant they will be order to restitute and/or reimburse
respondent VPI for whatever judgment the Honorable Office
will render in this case as prayed in its cross claim.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, respondent reiterates the prayer set
forth in the Answer.
Other relief and remedies, equally lawful, just and
equitable in the premises are similarly prayed for.
Quezon City, Philippines. February 5, 2013.

Villar Properties, Inc
PTR No. 4563747/1-15-13
IBP
No.
892342/2-1713/Makati
Exempted
Copy Furnished:
ATTY ANTON HUEY
OFFICE OF LEGAL AID(OLA)
College of Law
(Personal Service)
ATTY REY LANGIT
Housing and Land Use Arbiter

Housing and Land Use regularoty Board- Legal Services
Group
(Personal Service)
Manuel Billar
Mahirap Road,
(Personal Service)

City of Quezon City
) S.S.
FORUM SHOPPING
I, ALICE RIVERA, of legal age, Filipino, after having
been duly sworn to an oath, in accordance with law, do
hereby depose and state that:
1. I am the duly authorized officer of Villar Properties, Inc,
one of the respondents in the above entitled case.
2. I have read the said Position Paper and the allegations
therein are tur and correct of my personal knowledge
and based on the documents available on me.
3. The respondents have not initiated any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals or any other court, tribunal
or agency and that to the best of my knowledge, no
such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals or any Division thereof or any
other tribunal or agency.
4. Should I learn that similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any tribunal or agency, I undertake
to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this
Court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this verification
and certification this 5th day of February 2013.
ALICE RIVERA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this 6th of
February 2013 in the City of Quezon, Philippines, affiant
having exhibited to me her Community Tax Certificate
Number 23456789 issued on January 8, 2013 at Quezon
City.
PTR No. 4563747/1-15-13

IBP No. 892342/1-17-13/Makati
Exempted
Doc No_____
Page ______
Book No ___
Series of 2013.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HLURB REGIONAL OFFICER

HLURB ARBITER
FEBRUARY 5, 2013
CASE:
Denzel Perry vs. ESHA
ISSUES:
Whether Denzel Perry may inspect the books and

records of ESHA even when it is not during office
hours.
FACTS:
-Denzel Perry is a member of ESHA.
-Denzel Perry on July 6, 2011 8:50am, visited ESHA office to
inspect the books and records of the association.
-Denzel Perry was debied his right to inspect under Sec.74
and Sec. 75 of the Corporation Code because office hours
was from 9:00am to 5:00pm because it was not yet 9:00am.
- Denzel Perry was thrown out of the office by ESHA security
personnel
ANALYSIS:
-Denzel Perry had a right to see books and records and ESHA
had a duty to show books and records.
CONCLUSION:
-ESHA should not disallow Denzel Perry to see books and
records for the reason only that it was not yet 9:00am since
it was already 8:50am which is close to 9:00am.
RECOMMENDATION:
-ESHA should be given order to allow Denzel Perry to see
books and records.

MALACAANG
In Re: Enteng Subdivison
Homeowners Association Inc.
(ESHA),
Defendant.
x--------------------------------------x
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF HLURB REGIONAL
OFFICER
Notice is hereby given that a decision was reached in
the above referenced matter on the date over and in Quezon
City and a copy the decision is attached to the appeal.
The appellant alleges that there is an error in the
decision of the HLURB REGIONAL OFFICER and is appealing
said decision on the following grounds:
a. That the regional officer committed grave abuse of
discretion in the misapprehension of facts in finding
that complainant could not sleep if he did not inspect
books and records as a valid urgent reason;
i. That the regional officer committed grave abuse of
discretion in concluding that defendants office should
be open twenty four hours since it is a homeowners
association office; and
b. Based on the facts, the decision of the regional officer
should be remanded for further proceedings
February 5, 2013, Quezon City, Philippines.
Enteng Subdivision
Homeowners Assoc. Inc.
VICTORIA ARELLANO
Complainant
-versusAdvance Legal Writing | Page | 1388
BISTA LAND CO. INC., BILLAR

PROPERTIES INC and
MANUEL BILLAR
Respondents
x--------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM
PETITIONER
VICTORIA
ARELLANO,
by
counsel,

1. This is an appeal from the 20 July 2010 Decision
of the Housing and Land Use Arbiter, only
insofar as the amount of damages awarded to
petitioner is concerned. Said decision awarded
to petitioner a total amount of Two Hundred
thousand pesos (P200,000)
This case a quo involves a complaint filed by
VICTORIA ARELLANO (ARELLANO) on 11 March 2009
against BISTA LAND CO. INC. (respondent BISTA
LAND CO. INC.), its president Manuel Billar
(respondent BILLAR ) and respondent Villar Properties
Inc. (respondent VPI), for execution of Absolute Deed
of Sale of a 60 square meter lot together with the
improvements thereon consisting of a 24 square meter
house located in Villar Park, San Rafael, Bulacan
described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-77148,
the delivery of Transfer Certificate of Title and
damages.
2. On 15 January 2000, the respondent BISTA
LAND CO. INC. and petitioner VICTORIA
ARELLANO, entered into a Contract to Sell
involving a house and lot (covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-77148) located in Villar
Park, San Rafael, Bulacan. Under the term and
conditions of the contract, the purchase price of
P185,000.00
was payable in twenty (20)
consecutive quarterly installments of P6,500.00,
in addition to
reservation fee.
the
down
payment
and
3. On 15 January 2000, the same day, petitioner

ARELLANO occupied the subject house and lot
with the knowledge and conformity of the
respondents.
4. On 9 January 2003, petitioner ARELLANO
completed the payment of the full amount of
the purchase price, as shown by Certification
dated 9 September 2000 issued by respondent
BISTA LAND CO. INC. Respondent BISTA LAND
CO. INC. prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale but
refused to sign despite repeated demands by
petitioner ARELLANO. Respondent BISTA LAND
CO. INC. also refused requests for delivery of
title.
5. On 12 June 2003 the petitioner went to the
Register of Deeds, Bulacan to have an adverse
claim annotated on the title of the property and
discovered then that the title was registered in
the name of respondent VPI, which apparently
had a joint venture with respondent BISTA LAND
CO. INC..
6. On 12 June 2003, as per Entry No. 295492,
ARELLANOs Adverse Claim was been annotated
on TCT No. T-77148.
7. Petitioner ARELLANO made several oral and
written demands upon respondents BISTA LAND
CO. INC., its president BILLAR and VPI, but was
referred back and forth from the office of
respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC. and the office
of VPI. He later found out that there was a
dispute between VPI and BISTA LAND CO. INC.
regarding the Joint Venture Agreement they
entered into.
8. Despite
petitioner
ARELLANOs
repeated
demands, both respondents BISTA LAND CO.
INC. and VPI failed to sign a Deed of Absolute
Sale and to transfer title to the property in the
name of the petitioner.
9. After years of demanding execution of the Deed

of Sale and transfer of title to him, petitioner
ARELLANO instituted a complaint before the
Housing and Land Regulatory Board on 11
March 2010.
STATEMENT OF ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS
10. On 11 March 2010, petitioner ARELLANO filed
the instant complaint against respondents for
execution of Absolute Deed of Sale of a 60
square
meter
lot
together
with
the
improvements thereon consisting of a 24 square
meter house located in Villar Park, San Rafael,
Bulacan described in Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-77148, the delivery of Transfer Certificate
of Title and damages.
11. On 25 April 2010 respondent VPI filed its
Answer (with Counter Claim and Cross Claim)
asserting that:
a. The complaint states no cause of action against
VPI because VPI was not a party to the contract
and did not have any knowledge or participation
over the execution of the same;
b. the complainant is a buyer in bad faith;
c. the complainant is a litigant in bad faith;
d. VPI is not legally bound by the acts of respondent
BISTA LAND CO. INC. that were beyond the
authority given to it by VPI; and
e. BISTA LAND CO. INC. unilaterally determined the
prices of the lots it sold, contrary to the JointVenture Agreement it entered into with VPI.
12. On 10 June 2010 respondent BISTA LAND CO.
INC. and BILLAR filed their Answer asserting
that:
a. According to their Joint Venture Agreement, BISTA
LAND CO. INC. as developer had the authority to
sell the lot although title, ownership and
possession remained with VPI;
b. BISTA LAND CO. INC. prepared a Deed of Absolute
Sale of said lot in favor of ARELLANO but VPI
refused to sign the same;
c. MANUEL BILLAR is merely the president of BISTA

LAND CO. INC. and has a personality separate and
distinct from that of the corporation;
d. BISTA LAND CO. INC. remitted to VPI the latters
share in the proceeds of the sale; and
e. Petitioner ARELLANO has no cause of action
against BISTA LAND CO. INC. and BILLAR, and that
petitioners recourse is solely against respondent
VPI.
13. On 7 July 2010, petitioner ARELLANO, through
counsel, filed his Consolidated Reply to the
respective Answers of respondents VPI, BISTA
LAND CO. INC. and BILLAR.
14. On 20 August 2010, the preliminary
conference of this case was terminated and all
parties were ordered to submit their respective
Position Papers and Draft Decisions within thirty
(30) days.
15. On 20 July 2011 a decision was reached by
Housing and Land Use Arbiter ATTY. LEONARD
JACINTO A. SORIANO. Said decision contained
the following rulings:
a. The respondents VPI and BISTA LAND CO. INC. are
solidarily liable to execute the deed of sale and
deliver the title in favor of the complainant over
subject property.
b. Complainant is entitled to damages and cost of suit.
c. Respondents BISTA LAND CO. INC. and BILLAR to pay
the amount of P40,000 as moral damages P60000
and P40,000 as exemplary damages.
d. Respondents VPI to pay the amount of P40,000 as
moral damages and P60000 and P40,000 as
exemplary damages.
16. Petitioner, through counsel, received his copy
on 15 August 2010.
GROUND FOR APPEAL/ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE ARBITER ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER
VICTORIA ARELLANO IS ENTITLED TO A REDUCED
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES.
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION
The Arbiter erred in finding that

petitioner VICTORIA ARELLANO
is entitled to a reduced amount of
damages.
17. The petitioner in his complaint prayed for
actual, moral, exemplary and nominal damages
as well as for attorneys fees and the costs of
litigation. However, in the assailed decision, the
full amounts of said damages were not awarded
to him. With all due respect, this constitutes
grave error.
18. First, the ARELLANO is entitled to actual
damages in the amount of One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,o00) as transportation
expenses. Petitioner spent said amount for
transportation from his house in Bulacan to
respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC. office in
Makati in his efforts to secure a Deed of
Absolute Sale and title to the house and lot he
paid for from respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC.
from the time of refusal until the submission of
his complaint to the HLURB. That Petitioner has
spent this amount cannot be denied by
respondent BISTA LAND CO. INC., as it was its
indifference to petitioners valid demands that
forced petitioner to repeatedly incur said
expenses.
19. Second, petitioner ARELLANO is also entitled
to moral damages in the amount of One Million
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000).
Article 2217 of the Civil Code states that:
Moral damages include physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation and similar injury. Though incapable of
pecuniary computation, moral damages may be
recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendants wrongful act or omission. (Emphasis
ours)
The respondents acts of refusing to sign the Deed
of Absolute Sale and transfer title of petitioner
ARELLANO despite the fact he diligently paid all 20
instalments and completed the full purchase price
agreed upon cause the latter to sufer mental anguish,

serious anxiety and sleepless nights, fearing that he
would be rendered homeless despite the fact he spent
5 years paying for the small house and lot.
Furthermore, on several occasions the petitioner was
threatened to be ejected from the house and lot by
persons representing themselves to be agents of the
National Bureau of Investigation. Not having a Transfer
Certificate of Title or the Deed of Absolute Sale to show
that he indeed was the owner of the house and lot he
was occupying, and had in fact paid the full price for it,
petitioner was constantly in fear of being evicted. As a
result of such fear, he spent most of his time in the past
few years defending the home he spent years paying
for by engaging both respondents BISTA LAND CO. INC.
and VPI. Both respondents as earlier stated, spent that
amount of time sending the petitioner back and forth
between their offices.
20. With all due respect, the award of moral
damages of P40,000 each from respondents
BISTA LAND CO. INC. and BILLAR, and VPI, do
not even come close to approximating the
mental anguish, serious anxiety and sleepless
nights sufered by petitioner. This Honorable
Board should take judicial notice that the
acquisition of a house and lot is every Filipinos
dream. Petitioner struggled for five years to be
able to fulfil that dream, yet upon full payment
of the same, was not immediately able to
peacefully enjoy the same due to the failure
and/or respondents to comply with their
fundamental obligation to execute a Deed of
Absolute Sale to complete the transfer of the
said house and lot.
21. Third, the petitioner ARELLANO is entitled to
exemplary damages in the amount of Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000). Article
2229 of the Civil Code states that:
Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by
way of example or correction for the public good,
in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages. (Emphasis ours)
Furthermore, Article 2232 of the Civil Code states that:
In contracts and quasi contracts, the court may

award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in
a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner. (Emphasis ours)
The respondents acts of refusing to sign the Deed
of Absolute Sale and transfer title to petitioner
ARELLANO despite complete payment of the agreed
purchase their sending the Petitioner back and forth
between their offices when he demanded for the
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale and the transfer
of title are nothing but oppressive. In this case the
awarding of exemplary damages will serve as a
reminder and warning to abusive subdivision
developers who act in a similar manner.
22. Again, the amount awarded by the Housing
and Land Use Arbiter a quo is grossly
inadequate to serve as a warning to
unscrupulous developers who, after receiving
the full purchase price from the buyer, suddenly
become indiferent to the purchasers interests
and virtually force said purchaser to have to
litigate to enforce what should be a basic and
fundamental right to force the seller to
complete the documentation required for the
sale.
23. Fourth, the petitioner is entitled to nominal
damages in the amount of Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P20,000) in vindication of petitioners
right to the house and lot he lawfully purchased
from the respondent LA VILLAMOR which was
clearly violated when respondent refused to
sign the Deed of Absolute Sale or transfer title
to petitioner despite his constant demands.
24. Finally, the petitioner ARELLANO is entitled to
attorneys fees and the costs of litigation in the
amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000) as he was forced to hire the services
of counsel and incur litigation expenses by
reason of the Respondents refusal to fulfill their
obligation to him.
25. Thus, all told, the assailed Decision should be
modified such as to award to petitioner the
correct amount of damages as prayed for in the

Complaint.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that his
Honorable Office amend or modify The Decision dated on
20 July 2006 in HLURB Case No. LSG-III-REM-098374-0345,
and order respondents to pay the petitioner VICTORIA
ARELLANO the following:
12. Actual costs in the amount of One Hundred
Thousand Pesos(P100,000)
13. Moral Damages in the amount of One Million Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos(P1,500,000)
14. Exemplary Damages in the amount of Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000)
15. Nominal fees in the amount of Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P20,000)
16. Litigation Expenses and costs of suit in the amount
of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000)
Other relief and remedies, equally lawful, just and
equitable in the premises are similarly prayed for.
Quezon City, Philippines. February 5, 2013.
College of Law
By:
PTR No. 7847637/1-16-13
IBP No. 456765/1-20-10/Makati
Exempted
Copy Furnished:
Manuel Billar
Mahirap Road,
IBP No. 834265. Lifetime Member
PTR No. A-84836278
01-05-13 Quezon City
(Personal Service)
ATTY AGNES CHU
Tan Law Office
Counsel for Respondent Villar Properties, Inc
No 30 Jose Avenue, Jose Compound
Nora Vista, Quezon City
(Personal Service)

City of Quezon City
) S.S.
FORUM SHOPPING
I, VICTORIA ARELLANO , of legal age, Filipino, after
having been duly sworn to an oath, in accordance with law,
do hereby depose and state that:
1. I have read said Memorandum of Appeal and that the
contents of such are true and correct of my personal
knowledge and based on documents available to me.
2. Undersigned Complainant further states that she has
not commenced any action or any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
agency and , to the best of her knowledge, no much
action or claim has been filed or is pending, she shall
report that fact within five(5) days therefrom to this
Board.
3. I have not initiated any other action or proceeding
Court of Appeals or any other court, tribunal or agency
and that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals or any Division thereof or any other tribunal or
agency.
4. Should I learn that similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any tribunal or agency, I undertake
to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this
Court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this

verification and certification this 5th day of February 5, 2013.
VICTORIA ARELLANO
Petitioner

February 2013, affiant having exhibited to me her
Community Tax Certificate Number 6786567 issued on
January 9, 2013 at Quezon City.
PTR No. 4563747/1-15-13
IBP No. 892342/2-17-12/Makati
Exempted
Doc No_____
Page ______
Book No ___
Series of 2013.
BI FORM: MCLRepublic of the

Department of
2. BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION
Intramuros,
08-01
Philippines
Justice
Manila
CRR
No. ______________
In re:
Petition for Re-acquisition
and/orPassport
Retention of Philippine Citizenship under
size
Republic Act No. 9225
x----------------------------------------------------------x
colored
(Note: Indicate N/A if not applicable. Do not leave
any space blank. Print all information LEGIBLY.
Petitions not properly accomplished will not be acted
upon.)
PETITION
I, (Full name of petitioner) ANGELICA NITURA, also
known as (a.k.a) BULICLIC, of legal age, single, a citizen
of the United States of America and a resident of 18-C
Times St., West Triangle, Quezon City with contact no.
02-373-5555, after being sworn to in accordance with
law, hereby declares under oath that:
1. I am a former natural-born Philippine citizen, born on
June 28, 1985 at New York, USA to (Fathers Name)
RUBEN NITURA, (Fathers citizenship at the time of
petitioners birth) FILIPINO citizen, and (Mothers
Name) ELISA DOMINGO NITURA, (Mothers citizenship at
the time of petitioners birth) FILIPINO citizen;
2. I lost my Philippine citizenship where I became a
citizen of the United States of America on June 28, 1985.
Presently, I became a holder of American passport with
No. xxx-012345-00 issued on January 15, 2005 at New
York, USA;
3. I took my oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines on February 15, 2010 at Manila, Philippines;
4. (If petitioner is registered alien with the Bureau of
Immigration [BI]) I am a holder of Alien Certificate of
Registration (ACR) No. 12345-00 and Immigrant
Certificate of Residence/Certificate of Residence for

Temporary Visitors (ICR/CRTV) No. 012-123456-789-00;
5. (If with Dependent[s]) Included in this petition is/are
my unmarried child/children below eighteen (18) years
old, namely:
Name
Relationship Date of Birth Age
____________N/A_________________________ _____________________
_____
__
__
_
____________N/A_________________________ _____________________
_____
_
__
_
____________N/A_________________________ _____________________
_____
_
__
_
(Note:
Kindly accomplish BI BORM: MCL-08-02
(Supplement) for each dependent to be attached to this
petition)
6. I am freely and voluntarily filing this petition to
reacquire my Philippine citizenship knowing fully well
its concomitant rights and obligations;
1. This petition with the BI is being filed in accordance
with Republic Act No. 9225 and its implementing
rules and regulations.

respectfully prayed that this petition for Re-acquisition
and/or Retention of Philippine Citizenship under
Republic Act No. 9225 be GRANTED .
BAR CODE
ANGELICA NITURA
(Signature over printed name of

the Petitioner)
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT FOR SALE
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION
Manila
CHECKLIST OF DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS FOR

APPLICATION FOR INCLUSION OF DEPENDENT/S
UNDER RETENTION/RE-ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE
CITIZENSHIP PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9225
(R.A. 9225)
1. Duly Accomplished Verified Petition (R.A. 9225
Form No. 2)
2. Proof of payment of application fee original
receipt/s
3. Two (2) pieces passport size colored pictures
over royal blue background;
4. Photocopy of the Order of Reacquisition/Retention of Citizenship of ParentPetitioner
5. Photocopy of Identification Certificate or
Certificate of Re-acquisition/Retention of
Philippine Citizenship (CRPC) of ParentPetitioner
ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
IMMIGRATION REGISTERED ALIENS:
BUREAU
OF
6. Original
ICard
or
Alien
Certificate
of
Registration;
7. Original Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR)
or Certificate of Residence for Temporary Visitor
(CRTV)
8. Two (2) pieces self-addressed stamped envelope
(legal size)
Note: All Applications must be properly

fastened in a legal size folder.
CERTIFICATION
This is
requirements
submitted.
to
of
certify that the documentary

________________________ have been
Lawyer of the day:

_______________________
Printed name/ Signature
____________________
Date
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT FOR SALE

Manila
CHECKLIST OF DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS
FOR PETITION FOR INCLUSION OF DEPENDENT(S)
under Section 4 of REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9225
FOR PETITIONER/PRINCIPAL
1. Duly-accomplished Verified Petition (BI
FORM:MCL-08-03);
2. Proof of payment of application fee Original
Receipts;
3. Photocopy of Order of Approval of the Original
Petition;
4. Photocopy of Petitioners Certificate of Reacquisition/
Retention of Philippine Citizenship;
FOR DEPENDENT(S)
5. Two (2) pieces passport size colored pictures
over royal blue background;
6. Photocopy of Dependents Birth Certificate;
7. Photocopy of Dependents foreign passport;
Note: All Applications must be properly fastened in a
legal size folder.
CERTIFICATION
This is
requirements
submitted.
to
of
certify that the documentary

________________________ have been
Lawyer of the day:

_________________________
Printed name/ Signature
____________________
Date

BRANCH 1, MANILA
Plaintif,
- versus CRIMINAL CASE No.123
For: Frustrated Murder
KARLON PAMBID,
Accused.
x -------------------------------x
URGENT MOTION
FOR ISSUANCE OF HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER
COMES NOW, the plaintif, by undersigned private
counsel with the conformity of the public prosecutor and
unto this Honorable Court, respectfully moves for issuance of
a Hold Departure Order (HDO) against the accused, and
alleges that:
1. The accused has applied for employment abroad in an
employment agency in Timog Avenue, Quezon City, and
such application is now currently under process. Copies
of accuseds application form and his resume submitted
to said agency are hereto attached as Annexes A and
B respectively;
2. The accused has used, and is currently using, the name
KARLON PANTE in his application where in fact his real
name is KARLON PAMBID;
3. In adopting an alias, the accuseds act of applying for
an employment abroad is definitely regarded as being
done in bad faith considering that a criminal case
against him is pending before this Honorable Court;
4. The application is done for the purpose of absconding
and thereby evading prosecution for his ofense;
5. A Watch List Order (WLO) against the accused has
already been issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ)
upon application of the plaintif. Copy thereof is hereto

attached as Annex C;
6. Preventing the accused from leaving the country is
proper considering that the crime charged against him
is a serious ofense;
7. All precautions should be observed to ensure proper
dispensation of justice.
prayed that a Hold Departure Order be immediately issued
against the accused.
Private Counsel for Plaintif
18-C Times St., West
Triangle, Quezon City
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10
PTR No. 1234567; 01/10/10 Quezon City
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/10
MCLE Exemption No. III 888888; 3/18/12;
Quezon City
CONFORME:
STEVE PASTOR
Public Prosecutor
NOTICE OF HEARING
Atty. Maria Cristina M. Banaag
333 Maharlika St., South Triangle, Quezon City
GREETINGS:
Please take notice that the foregoing Urgent Motion for
Issuance of Hold Departure Order shall be submitted for the
consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on Friday,
January 21, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. or as soon as counsel and
matter may be heard.
18-C Times St., West Triangle, Quezon City
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10

Roll No. 12345; 5/05/10
Quezon City
EXPLANATION OF SERVICE
The above Urgent Motion for Issuance of Hold
Departure
Order
was
not
served
personally
to
respondent/counsel for respondent and service by registered
mail was resorted to due to distance and lack of the
undersigneds personnel thereby rendering personal service
thereof inconvenient and impracticable.
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/10
Quezon City
COPY FURNISHED:
333 Maharlika St., South Triangle, Quezon City
BRANCH 1, MANILA
Plaintif,
- versus CRIMINAL CASE No.123
For: Violation of Sec. 3601
of the Tarif and Customs

Code
JOHN PAUL COLAGO,
Accused.
x -------------------------------x
A HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER
Undersigned State Prosecutor, unto this Honorable
Court most respectfully moves for the issuance of a hold
departure order (HDO) in the above-entitled case, further
stating that:
a) Accused stands charged of an ofense that is of
paramount importance to the government in view of its
far-reaching deleterious efect on the national economy.
b) In order not to frustrate the ends of justice, as when the
accused seeks refuge in another country to escape
prosecution and there enjoy the fruits of his crime, it is
imperative that a hold departure order be issued
directing the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Immigration to prevent the former from leaving the
country during the pendency of the instant case.
c) The instant motion is filed pursuant to Department of
Justice Circular No. 38 dated August 15, 1995 which
directs prosecutors to move for the issuance of a hold
departure order in specific cases, including violations of
the Tarif and Customs Code. It is not intended to delay
the proceedings or infringe upon the accuseds right to
travel but for the reason stated above.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Court that the instant motion be granted and that a hold
departure order be issued in the above-entitled case
directing the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration to
prevent the accused, John Paul Colago, from leaving the
country during the pendency of the instant case.
Manila, Philippines. February 5, 2013 .
State Prosecutor
NOTICE AND COPY FURNISHED:
Counsel for Accused
Unit 2213, Kassel Condominium, Pasay City
HAKONE RELEZA
Private Prsecutor
123 Burgudy Tower, Lacson St., Sampaloc, Manila
THE BRANCH CLERK
RTC Branch 1, Manila
GREETINGS:
Please take notice that on February 15, 2013 at 9:00
a.m. or soon thereafter, undersigned Prosecutor shall submit
the foregoing motion for the consideration of this Honorable
Court.
State Prosecutor
EXPLANATION
Due to the distance and lack of personnel to efect
personal service, the foregoing Motion is being served upon
the adverse parties via registered mail.
State Prosecutor
February 18, 2013

HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA
Secretary
Padre Faura, Manila
Dear Maam:
The undersigned is the counsel of CORRINE MENDOZA,
accused in the case entitled People of the Philippines vs.
Mendoza for the crime of murder filed before the RTC,
Branch 33, Manila Docket No. 1234567. In this connection, I
would like to request from your good office for the issuance
of the ALLOW DEPARTURE ORDER (ADO) for the purpose
medical checkup.
Pursuant to Department Order No. 41, series of 2010,
the following documents are hereto attached in support of
my application:
Annex A- Affidavit stating clearly the purpose,
inclusive of the period of the intended travel, with an
undertaking to immediately report to the DOJ upon
return;
Annex B- Authority to travel or travel clearance from
the court or appropriate government agency or
investigating prosecutor in charge of the subject case.
Hoping for your favorable and prompt response in this
matter. Thank you.
NICOLETTE S. BAMBAO
Counsel for Private Complainant
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10 Quezon City
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/10
Quezon City
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 18th day
of July, 2012, at Manila, Philippines. I hereby certify that I
have personally examined the above-named person who
exhibited to me her letter-application for the issuance of

ALLOW DEPARTURE ORDER (ADO).
Administering Officer
February 18, 2013

Secretary
Padre Faura, Manila
Dear Maam:
The undersigned is the counsel of CORRINE MENDOZA,
accused in the case entitled People of the Philippines vs.
Mendoza for the crime of murder filed before the RTC,
Branch 33, Manila Docket No. 1234567. In this connection, I
would like to request from your good office for the
CANCELLATION OF THE HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER
issued against my client by the department on January 28,
2013 on the ground that:
1. The WLO had expired;
2. My client was allowed by the court to leave the country
during the pendency of the case;
3. My client was acquitted of the charge.
my application:
Annex A- certified true copy of the WLO/ Order of
the Court allowing the departure/ Order of acquittal.

matter. Thank you.
NICOLETTE S. BAMBAO
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/10
Quezon City
of February ,2013, at Manila, Philippines. I hereby certify that
I have personally examined the above-named person who
ALLOW DEPARTURE ORDER (ADO).
February 18, 2013

Secretary
Padre Faura, Manila
Dear Maam:
The undersigned counsel would like to request for the
issuance of a WATCHLIST ORDER (WLO) against Ms.
CORRINE MENDOZA who is presently charged of murder
which case is filed and pending before the RTC, Branch 33,
Manila, under Honorable Presiding Judge Ma. Gracia Patricia
Bolos. The case is entitled People of the Philippines vs.
Mendoza and docketed as Criminal Case No. 1234567.
the application for WLO:
Annex A- certified true copy of the information filed
in court.
Annex B- certified true copy of the prosecutors
resolution.
Annex C- certification from the Clerk of Court
(stating that the case is still pending).
Annex D- certified true copy of the complaint filed
before the Office of the Prosecutor.
matter. Thank you.
NICOLETTE S. BAMBAO
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/10
Quezon City

of February 2013, at Manila, Philippines. I hereby certify that
I have personally examined the above-named person who
WATCHLIST ORDER (WLO).

Supreme Court
MANILA
JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO,
Petitioner,
-versusSC G.R.
No._______________
FOR: CERTIORARI &
PROHIBITION UNDER
RULE 65, WITH
PRAYER FOR
ISSUANCE OF A
TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
[TRO] AND/OR A WRIT
OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
SEC. LEILA M. DE LIMA, in her capacity as SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RICARDO V. PARAS III, in his
capacity as Chief State Counsel, Department of
Justice, and RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., in his capacity as
COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION,
Respondents.
X-X
We will be filing one case after the other. We will
start in November. President Benigno Aquino III, quoted
from Manila Standard Today, September 29, 2011.
With regards to filing of charges, the best information
or the latest information that I have is by November we
will be filing charges. President Benigno Aquino III,
statement before the Foreign Correspondents Association of
the Philippines, October 2011.
Maybe Secretary Leila de Lima was just trying to
downplay, but those orders have already been given,
the statement has been made, and as public officials, we
intend to follow and comply with the orders of the
President. Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda, when
asked about the November deadline to file charges against
the Arroyos.[1]
PETITION
Petitioner JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, thru counsel,
hereby states, that:
I. PREFATORY
A. Petitioner challenges the constitutionality, legality, and
validity of Department of Justice Watchlist Order No.
2011-573 dated October 27, 2011, In re: Issuance
of Watchlist Order against Benjamin Abalos, Sr.,
et al., as far as it applies to herein Petitioner, (the
Watchlist Order for brevity) (a copy thereof is
attached hereto as Annex A), as well as that of
Department of Justice Circular No. 41 (the Circular
for brevity).
II. THE PARTIES
B. Petitioner JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO is a taxpayer and
private citizen. He is Filipino, of legal age, married, with
business and postal address at LTA Bldg., No. 118 Perea
St., Legaspi Village, Makati City, Metro Manila, where he
may be served with orders, notices and other processes
of this Honorable Court, and with email address at
ltainc@yahoo.com. Petitioner is directly afected by the
Watchlist Order and by the Circular.
C. Respondent SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA
[Respondent De Lima] is being impleaded in her official
capacity as SECRETARY of the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
She holds office at the Department of Justice, Padre
Faura St., Ermita, Manila, where she may be served
with orders, notices and other processes of this
Honorable Court.
D.Respondent RICARDO V. PARAS III [Respondent
Paras] is being impleaded in his official capacity as
CHIEF STATE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. He
holds office at the Department of Justice, Padre Faura
St., Ermita, Manila, where he may be served with
orders, notices and other processes of this Honorable
Court.
E. Respondent RICARDO A. DAVID, JR. [Respondent
David] is being impleaded in his official capacity as
COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION and holds
office at 2nd Floor, Bureau of Immigration Bldg.,

Magallanes Drive, Intramuros, Manila, where he may be
served with orders, notices and other processes of this
Honorable Court.
III. NATURE OF THE PETITION
F. This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court seeking to nullify and set aside the
Watchlist Order, as well as the Circular, for having been
issued in gross violation of the specific provision of the
1987 Constitution and with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
G.This is also a Petition for Prohibition against
Respondents in view of the flagrant unconstitutionality,
illegality and nullity of the Watchlist Order and the
Circular so that they may not be enforced at all by
Respondents or the latter may cease and desist from
continuing to enforce them.
H.Petitioner has no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, as such Watchlist
Order and Circular were issued in flagrant violation of
the 1987 Constitution.
I. Public statements from Respondent De Lima as well as
her actuations indicate bias and prejudgment which
would render any attempt to seek reconsideration of
the Watchlist Order futile, apart from the fact that the
issue raised herein is purely legal in nature. Hence,
Petitioner has opted not to file anymore a motion for
reconsideration with the Department of Justice and
invokes jurisprudential rulings exempting the filing of a
motion for reconsideration in similar cases as a prerequisite to the filing of petitions under Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
IV. TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION
J. It must be highlighted that from the date of issuance of
the Watchlist Order, which was on October 27, 2011 up
to the filing of this Petition, the said sixty [60] day
reglementary period provided for under Rule 65 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure has not yet expired.

Hence, this Petition is timely filed.
V. BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS
K. At the outset, Petitioner would like to manifest that
prior to the issuance of the Watchlist Order No. 2011573 dated October 27, 2011, respondent De Lima has
never officially communicated or notified the Petitioner
of any complaint filed or pending against him. Most of
the antecedent facts pertaining to the acts of
respondent De Lima reached the attention of the
Petitioner through various newspaper and other media
reports.
In other words, respondent De Lima
deliberately and in bad faith prevented the Petitioner
from defending himself or availing of the due process
clause protection guaranteed by the Constitution by
withholding information from the petitioner.
L. Based on newspaper reports published on October 4 to
5,
2011,
Petitioner
received
information
that
respondent De Lima and Chairman Sixto Brillantes, Jr.
(Chairman of the Commission on Elections) called a
Press Conference on or about October 3, 2011, where
both officials presented to the public a witness who
falsely implicated the Petitioner to an alleged election
ofense during the 2007 Senatorial Elections.
Respondent De Lima praised this alleged witness
and issued a statement portraying the Petitioner
as guilty of having committed an election
ofense.
M.
In the said news articles, Petitioner learned that
respondent De Lima has ordered her Department to
start processing her star witness application to be
placed under her Departments Witness Protection
Program (WPP) and to be granted immunity from
criminal prosecution. The same news articles reported
that respondent De Lima was already placing her star
witness under provisional admission to the WPP.
N.All this time, respondent De Lima or her subordinates
never furnished the Petitioner with a copy of this star
witnesss sworn statements allegedly implicating the
Petitioner to an election ofense. Thus, Petitioner was
prevented from presenting his side to respondent De
Limas accusations, or from availing of the due process

clause protection guaranteed by the Constitution.
O.In subsequent news reports, the Official Spokesperson
of President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, Atty. Edwin
Lacierda, supported the public announcements made
by respondent De Lima portraying the Petitioner as
guilty of having committed an election ofense. Atty.
Lacierda even referred to the Rules of Evidence in
supporting the testimony of respondent De Limas star
witness. Atty. Lacierda was also reported to have
issued a comment that the New Bilibid Prisons was
being reformed (sic) in reply to a question whether
petitioner and his wife will be given Very Important
Person (VIP) treatment if they are detained in
connection with the alleged election ofense during the
2007 Senatorial Elections.
P. On October 13, 2011, Petitioner read in the newspapers
that President Aquino publicly announced on
October 12, 2011 that criminal charges would be
filed against the Petitioner and his wife by
November this year. In the same news reports,
respondent De Lima was quoted to have reiterated her
commitment to her immediate superior, President
Aquino, to file charges against the Petitioner and his
wife. Respondent De Lima was also reported to have
said that it is possible that the Petitioner and his wife
will be spending Christmas in prison over criminal
charges to be filed against them in connection with
2007 Senatorial elections.
Q.Despite the numerous news reports from major
newspapers, television and radio stations of her
statement against the Petitioner, respondent De Lima
did not send any official communication or notice at all
to the Petitioner prior to the issuance of the herein
challenged Watchlist Order.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE
R. Following the surfacing of alleged witnesses claiming
knowledge on the alleged occurrence of poll fraud
during the 2004 and 2007 elections, a Department of
Justice (DOJ) Fact-Finding Committee was constituted
through Department Order No. 675.DOJ Assistant
Secretary Zabedin M. Azis was named chairman. The

other members included Malabon-Navotas City
Prosecutor Jorge G. Catalan, Jr., Muntinlupa City
Prosecutor Edward M. Togonon and NBI lawyers Cesar
Bacani and Dante Jacinto. The fact-finding team was
given 45 days to conclude its evidence gathering.[2]
This fact-finding committee found no factual
basis to include herein Petitioner for any possible
criminal accountability. Hence, in efect cleared
herein Petitioner of any involvement in alleged poll
frauds. In its 81-page initial report, the committee
saw no basis to include herein Petitioner for
preliminary investigation.[3]
SEPARATE PIMENTEL
COMPLAINT FOR POLL FRAUD
S. On October 17, 2011, Senator Aquilino Koko Pimentel
III (Senator Pimentel III), in an apparent attempt to
thwart the findings of the fact-finding committee,
filed a separate complaint before the joint DOJ-Comelec
Committee for electoral sabotage, to include herein
Petitioner.[4] The basis for the inclusion of herein
Petitioner by Senator Pimentel was apparently the
affidavit executed by former ARMM Governor Zaldy
Ampatuan (Ampatuan), who was implicated in the socalled Maguindanao massacre.[5] In turn, the basis of
Ampatuans
statement
was,
apparently,
his
communication with his father, Andal Ampatuan, Sr.
Thus, as far as the affidavit-complaint of Senator
Pimentel III is concerned, with respect to herein
Petitioner, the allegations are mere hearsay, and,
in fact, are double hearsay.
Senator Pimentel III does not have any
personal knowledge of what he complained about
against herein Petitioner.
To repeat for emphasis: Senator Pimentel III
does not have any personal knowledge of what
he complained about against herein Petitioner. In
addition to the clear absence of factual basis, the
allegations in Senator Pimentels complaint before the
joint DOJ-Comelec committee is clearly hearsay. What
then would be the factual basis for a Watchlist
Order? Can a rumor be the basis of a Watchlist Order?
Senator Pimentel III, in contrast to the DOJ FactFinding committee, did not conduct any fact-finding.
Instead, he merely relied on newspaper reports and on
the sole, unsubstantiated, and suspicious statement of
Zaldy Ampatuan. Note that the allegations of Zaldy
Ampatuan were already given zero credibility by the
DOJ fact-finding committee.
T. Surprisingly, Respondent Paras, without giving the
Petitioner an opportunity to publicly respond and to
defend himself, and a mere ten days after the filing of a
complaint by Senator Pimentel III before his former
legal counsel, respondent De Lima, issued the Watchlist
Order No. 2011-573, placing Petitioner in the watchlist
of the Bureau of Immigration, thus impairing the
constitutional right of Petitioner to free, unrestrained
and unhampered travel to and from the Philippines.
Suspiciously, respondent Paras did not even see
it proper to await the result of the preliminary
investigation being conducted by his colleagues
in the DOJ.
VI. GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION
A. THE WATCHLIST ORDER COLLIDES WITH ARTICLE
III, SECTION 6 OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
GUARANTEEING THE LIBERTY OF TRAVEL
B. THE WATCHLIST ORDER IS VIOLATIVE OF THE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS PUBLIC
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
PORTRAYING THE PETITIONER AS GUILTY OF
COMMITING
THE
CRIME
OF
ELECTORAL
SABOTAGE.
C. THE WATCHLIST ORDER IS VIOLATIVE
PETITIONERS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
OF
D.THE WATCHLIST ORDER IS A NULLITY FOR HAVING

BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT AUTHORITY
E. DOJ CIRCULAR NO. 41, PARTICULARLY SECTION 2
THEREOF, HAS NO STATUTORY BASIS AND
MOREOVER IS ILLEGAL FOR VIOLATING THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987
F. DOJ CIRCULAR NO. 41 CONSTITUTES

DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER
UNDUE
VII. ARGUMENTS
1. THE
WATCHLIST
ORDER
COLLIDES
WITH
ARTICLE III, SECTION 6 OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION GUARANTEEING THE LIBERTY OF
TRAVEL
U.The Watchlist Order, as well as the Circular, are
violative of Article III, Section 6 of the 1987
Constitution, which provides:
Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing
the same within the limits prescribed by law shall
not be impaired except upon lawful order of the
court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may
be provided by law. (Boldface for emphasis)
The Watchlist Order
V. For reference and convenience, the full text of the
Watchlist Order is hereinbelow quoted en toto
(emphasis supplied):
Republika ng Pilipinas
KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN
Manila
Watchlist Order (WLO)
No. 2011-573
IN RE: Issuance of WLO against
BENJAMIN ABALOS, SR. et al.
xx
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 2 (c ) of Department Circular No. 41
dated May 25, 2010 (Consolidated Rules and Regulations
Governing the Issuance and Implementation of Hold
Departure Orders, Watchlist Orders, and Allow Departure
Orders), this Office, after careful evaluation, finds the
Application for the Issuance of WLO against the following
meritorious;
1. BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, a.k.a. BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, Sr.
Address: c/o Wackwack Golf and Country Club
Mandaluyong City and/ or
19 Kanlaon St., Mandaluyong City
1. MICHAEL C. ABAS
Address: Region 9, COMELEC Director
No. 12, Blk. 5, Dadiangas Heights Subd.
General Santos City
1. COL. REUBEN BASIAO
Address: c/o Intelligence Service, Armed Forces (ISAFP)
Camp Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo
Quezon City
1. JOHN DOE, a.k.a. MAYOR JOEY LEABAN
Quezon City
1. JOHN DOE, a.k.a. CAPT. PETER REYES
Quezon City
1. ATTY. JAIME Z. PAZ

Address: Unit 6-A Tower 2, Governors Place
Shaw Blvd., Mandaluyong
1. ATTY. ALBERTO C. AGRA
Address: No. 12 Fourth St. Ignatius Village
Quezon City
1. ROMY DAYDAY
Quezon City
1. JEREMY JAVIER
Quezon City
1. ATTY. LILIAN A. SUAN-RADAM
Address: Poblacion, Kidapawan, Cotabato City
1. ATTY. YOGIE MARTIRIZAR
Address: Brgy. R.H. Mother, Cotabato City
1. MA. GLORIA M. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
Address: Room MB-2, House of Representatives
Quezon City
1. DATU ANDAL AMPATUAN, Sr.
Address: c/o Camp Bagong Diwa
Bicutan City
1. LINTANG H. BEDOL
Address: Catalunan Grande, Davao City
1. NORIE K. UNAS
Address: Brgy. R.H. Mother
Cotabato City
1. JOHN DOE, a.k.a. BUTCH
Address: unknown
1. NICODEMO T. FERRER
Address: 8 Unit D St. Benedict St., Paradise Village
Project 8, Quezon City
1. ESTELITA B. ORBASE
Address: Lot 25 Blk 2 San Antonio Village, Malagapas
Cotabato City
1. ELISA A. GASMIN
Address: Poblacion 6, Midsayap, Cotabato City
1. ELSA Z. ATINEN
Address: No. 1, 3rd Road Peafrancia Subd.
Rosary Heights, Cotabato City
1. SALIAO S. AMBA
Address: Mother Poblacion Sharif Aguak Maguindanao
1. MAGSAYSAY B. MOHAMAD
Address: Lambayong, Sultan Kudarat
1. SALONGA K. EDZELA
Address: Sultan Sabarongis, Tamontaka Datu Odin Sinsuat
Sharif Aguak, Maguindanao
1. RAGAH D. AYUNAN
Address: Purok Ayunan Katanganan Mother
Cotabato City
1. SUSAN U. CABANBAN
Address: Palileo St., Nuro Upi, Maguindanao
1. RUSSAM H. MABANG
Address: Kabuntalan Maguindanao
1. ASUNCION CORAZON P. RENIEDO
Address: Poblacion Magpet, Cotabato
1. NENA A. ALID
Address: 55 Rosal St., R.H. 7, Cotabato City
1. MA. SUSAN L. ALBANO
Address: #002 San Isidro St., Rosary Heights, Cotabato City
1. ROHAIDA T. KHALID
Address: 354 San Pablo Village, Cotabato City
1. ARAW M. CAO
Address: Acacia St., San Pablo Village, Cotabato City
1. JEEHAN S. NUR, a.k.a. JEEHAN SALAZAR NUR
Address: 5th Road, SPDA Village

Datu Odin Sinsuat, Sharif Kabunsuan
1. ALICE A. LIM
Address: #2, Angel Bacani St., Notre Dame Ave.
R.H. 2, Cotabato City
1. NORIJEAN P. HANGKAL
Address: #044 Purok Buliao 2, M.B. Poblacion
Cotabato City
1. CHRISTINA ROAN M. DALOPE
Address: #05 Ortueste St., Rosary Heights #6
Cotabato City
1. MACEDA L. ABO
Address: Blk. 8 Lot 3 Federville Subd., Malagapas
Cotabato City
Ground for WLO Issuance: Pendency of the case, entitled
DOJ-COMELEC Fact Finding Committee v. Benjamin Abalos
Sr., et al.: for Electoral Sabotage/ Omnibus Election Code
docketed as DOJ-COMELEC Case No. 001-2011
1. MA. GLORIA M. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
Address: Room MB-2, House of Representatives
Quezon City
1. JOSE MIGUEL TUASON ARROYO
Address: L.T.A. Bldg. 118 Perea St.
Makati City
1. BONG SERRANO
Address: Office of the City Administrator
Office of the City Mayor
Pasay City
1. GABBY CLAUDIO
Address: c/o Yulo Carpio & Bello Law Offices
4th Floor, La Paz Centre
Salcedo cor. Rufino Sts., Legaspi Village
Makati City
1. BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, a.k.a. BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, Sr.
Address: c/o Wackwack Golf and Country Club
Mandaluyong City and/ or
19 anlaon St., Mandaluyong City
1. NICODEMO T. FERRER
Address: 8 Unit D St. Benedict St., Paradise Village
Project 8, Quezon City
1. MICHAEL C. ABAS
Address: Region 9, COMELEC Director
No. 12, Blk. 5, Dadiangas Heights Subd.
General Santos City
1. BAN BASIAO
Quezon City
1. JOHN OLIVER LEABAN
Quezon City
1. PETER REYES
Quezon City
1. JAIME Z. PAZ
Address: Unit 6 A Tower, Governors Place
Shaw Blvd., Mandaluyong
1. ATTY. ALBERTO C. AGRA
Address: No. 12 Fourth St. Ignatius Village
Quezon City
1. ANDREI BON TAGUM
Address: No. 12-C Malamig St.
Teachers Village West
Quezon City
1. ROMY DAYDAY
Quezon City
1. JEREMY JAVIER
Quezon City
Ground for WLO Issuance:

Pendency of the case,
entitled Aquilino Pimentel III v. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et
al, for Electoral Sabotage docketed as DOJ-COMELEC Case
No. 002-2011.
Accordingly, the Commissioner of Immigration, Manila,
is hereby ordered to INCLUDE in the Bureau of Immigrations
Watchlist, the names of the above-mentioned persons.
This Order is valid for a period of sixty (60) days from the
date of its issuance unless sooner terminated or otherwise
extended.
SO ORDERED.
(Oct 27 2011)
RICARDO V. PARAS III
Chief State Counsel
Copy furnished: x x x
Impairment of Right to Travel
W.
The Watchlist Order issued upon Petitioner most
certainly is an infringement and a wanton violation of
his constitutional Freedom of Movement[6], and
more specifically of his Liberty of Travel (or Right to
Travel) guaranteed under Article III, Section 6 (2 nd
sentence) of the 1987 Constitution, which most
eloquently states:
Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may
be provided by law.
X. To be placed in a watchlist order is an impairment of
ones right to travel.
Y. As if adding insult to injury, inclusion in a watchlist
order means that the traveler must first seek the prior
permission of the Secretary of Justice before one can
exercise his constitutional right to travel or that his
travel must be delayed involuntarily.[7] The mere
imposition of this requirement upon a hapless citizen,
such
as
Petitioner,
constitutes
a
degrading
impairment of ones constitutional right to travel. This
prior requirement or forceful delay before Petitioner can
travel outside the Philippines, is a clear impairment of

his right to travel and which is expressly prohibited
by Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution.
Z. Indeed, to be given the right to travel but with the
requirement that he must first seek the permission of a
stranger or to first await the passage of time in order to
exercise it is like a promise to the ear to be broken to
the hope, a teasing illusion like a munificent bequest in
a paupers will.[8]
AA.
Pursuant to the 2nd sentence of Article III, Section
6, the Liberty of Travel (Right to Travel) may only be
impaired in the interest of national security,
public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.
AB.
Thus, there are only three (3) grounds by which
the Liberty of Travel may be validly curtailed, to wit:
1. In the interest of national security;
2. In the interest of public safety; and
3. In the interest of public health.
While national security has been rarely defined in
jurisprudence, such term has been usually identified
with state secrets regarding military, diplomatic
afairs.[9] In Chavez v. PCGG[10], national security
matters include state secrets regarding military
and diplomatic matters, as well as information on
inter-government exchanges prior to the conclusion of
treaties and executive agreements. Clearly, the
accusation being hurled against herein Petitioner has
no semblance at all with national security matters.
Public safety, on the other hand, pertains to issues
relating to saving a life, prevent serious injury, or
neutralize a substantial threat to property.[11]
Clearly, there are no public safety issues relating to
herein Petitioner.
Public health pertains to the the practice of
preventing disease and promoting good health
within groups of people, from small communities to
entire countries.[12] Herein Petitioner is not being
accused of spreading any disease or is he accused of
hindering good health.
AC.
Assuming the presence of these three (3) grounds,
notwithstanding, such impairment must be exercised
as may be provided by law. As explained by the
constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.:
As to the liberty of travel, under the 1987 law it
may be impaired even without court order, but the
appropriate executive officer is not armed with
arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. He can
impose limits only on the basis of national security,
public safety, or public health and as may be provided
by law, a limitive phrase which did not appear in the
1973 text.
Impairment of this liberty, moreover, must be
subject to judicial review as even emergency measures
taken by the executive are subject to judicial review.
The Constitution itself sets down the measure of
allowable impairment: necessity in the interest of
national security, public safety, or public health as well
as explicit provisions of statutory law or the Rules of
Court. x x x. [13]
No Legal Grounds
AD.
In the present case, and as applied to Petitioner,
none of the three (3) grounds enumerated by the
Constitution are present. The grounds stated in the
Circular do not exist in the Constitution. Does the
Circular intend to supplant the Philippine Constitution?
AE.
Clearly, none of the grounds stated in the
Watchlist Order would satisfy the constitutional
requirements of national security, public safety, or
public health.
AF.
Curiously, one may ask if the Secretary of
Justice has been given by Congress or by the
President unbridled discretion on such a
fundamental constitutional right and upon the
most flimsy of grounds that it can be wielded
motu proprio?[14]
Absurdities of the Watchlist Order
AG.
Significantly, the Watchlist Order contains patent
absurdities such as requiring prior permission before
Petitioner could travel outside the country. Interestingly,
it may be queried, from whom should Petitioner
seek prior permission? Should Petitioner seek
permission from the Secretary of Justice? But the
Department of Justice has not found any
probable cause for which to charge herein
Petitioner. As of the filing of this Petition, the
Preliminary Investigation has not yet even terminated.
And clearly, Petitioner does not have any pending
criminal case.
AH.
More absurdly, should Petitioner seek permission
from Senator Aquilino Pimentel III whose complaint is
based on double hearsay?
AI.
Also, there has been no iota of evidence or any
indication that Petitioner will escape from any
pending proceeding. The realm of speculation has taken
over the realm of reason and facts.
AJ.
Verily, the Watchlist Order has absurdities which
Petitioner will have to deal with, a situation that is
legally obnoxious and deplorable.
Illegal Prior Restraint
AK.
The Constitution speaks of the right to travel being
impaired. The impairment of this right can take on
various forms. Thus, being required to seek prior
permission from an absolute stranger, in this case
the occupant of a public office called the Secretary of
Justice, constitutes an impairment of this constitutional
right.
AL.
A right, especially one expressly mandated and
authorized by the Constitution, should be freely
exercised without prior restraint and without the need
of asking permission from another individual. A prior
permission is impairment undoubtedly for such
permission can be denied whimsically or its granting
can even be delayed intentionally and with malice.
AM.
The Watchlist Order is, therefore, nothing but a
thinly
veiled
scheme
to
impair
Petitioners
constitutional right to travel.
Judicial Notice
AN.
Petitioner requests that the Watchlist Order and
Circular be taken judicial notice of under Rule 129,
Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court. Section 1 of Rule
129 provides:
Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court shall take
judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence,
of the existence and territorial extent of states, their
political history, forms of government and symbols of
nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution
and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the
legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the
Philippines, the laws of nature, the measurement of time,
and the geographical divisions.
AO.
The Circular and the Watchlist Order are
undoubtedly official acts of the executive department.
Hence, judicial notice thereof is mandatory.
AP.
Petitioner also requests that the news events
herein cited be also taken judicial notice of.
B.
THE WATCHLIST ORDER IS VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL
PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION IN
VIEW OF THE VARIOUS PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS OF
THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE PORTRAYING THE
PETITIONER AS GUILTY OF COMMITTING THE CRIME OF
ELECTORAL SABOTAGE.
AQ.
It is of public knowledge that respondent De Lima
was once the election lawyer of senatorial
candidate Pimentel III. This fiduciary relationship
between respondent De Lima and complainant Pimentel
III smacks of connivance against herein Petitioner. And
in an apparent attempt to create the semblance of
fairness and objectivity, it was the Chief State Counsel
Paras who was made to sign the Watchlist Order, when
said respondent Paras clearly has no authority to
issue any Watchlist Order. Indeed, we are witnessing
a mockery of due process.
AR.
The request to place Petitioner in a watchlist and
the compliance therewith by the Secretary of Justice
clearly show a biased and ill-motivated behavior.
Indeed, it is an implementation of a supposed DOJ
circular with an evil eye and uneven hand.[15]
AS.
The answers to these questions show that there
was no determinable and reasonable standard by
which the Watchlist Order was issued. The sole and only
basis was a mere allegation made by Governor Zaldy
Ampatuan, which was picked up by complainant
Aquilino Pimentel. Clearly, this is insufficient basis to
impair a citizens constitutional right to travel.
C.
THE WATCHLIST ORDER
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
No Pending Case
INFRINGES
PETITIONERS
AT.
It cannot be denied that to be placed in the DOJ
watchlist implies something derogatory. It implies that
the person placed in the watchlist has committed
something terribly wrong. Indeed, it can never be
said that to be placed in the DOJ watchlist is something
to be proud of or something to be proclaimed as a
badge of honor.
AU.
A review of the Circular clearly shows that the
antecedents to a Watchlist Order pertain to the
commission of some wrongdoings and an initiatory
pleading had already been filed either at the
prosecution or first-court level. Thus:
Section 2. Watchlist Order. - The Secretary of Justice
may issue a WLO, under any of the following instances:
a. Against
the
accused,
irrespective
of
nationality, in criminal cases pending trial
before the Regional Trial Court. The application
under oath of an interested party must be
supported by (a) certified true copy of an
Information filed with the court, (b) a
certified true copy of the Prosecutors
Resolution; and (c) a Certification from the Clerk
of Court concerned that criminal case is still

pending.
b. Against the respondent, irrespective of
nationality, in
criminal
cases pending
preliminary investigation, petition for review,
or motion for reconsideration before the
Department of Justice or any of its provincial or
city prosecution offices. The application under
oath of an interested party must be supported
by (a) certified true copy of the complaint
filed, and (b) a Certification from the
appropriate prosecution office concerned that
the
case
is
pending
preliminary
investigation, petition for review, or motion for
reconsideration, as the case may be. x x x.
D.
THE WATCHLIST ORDER IS A NULLITY FOR HAVING
BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT AUTHORITY
AV.
In addition to the clear absence of factual basis for
the issuance of a Watchlist Order, it is glaringly clear
that the DOJ official who issued the challenged
Watchlist Order is without any authority to do so.
Department Circular No. 41 clearly empowers only the
Secretary of Justice and not the Chief State Counsel.
Hence, the issuance by respondent Paras, the Chief
State Counsel, of the Watchlist Order is a clear nullity
for it was issued in clear usurpation of the alleged
duties of the Secretary of Justice. Moreover, it is not
among the duties of the Chief State Counsel to issue
Watchlist Orders.[16]
E.
DOJ CIRCULAR NO. 41, PARTICULARLY SECTION 2
THEREOF, HAS NO STATUTORY BASIS AND MOREOVER
IS ILLEGAL FOR VIOLATING THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE OF 1987
AW.
Section 2 of DOJ Circular No. 41 dated May 25,
2010, Re: Consolidated Rules and Regulations
Governing the Issuance and Implementation of Hold
Departure Orders, Watchlist Orders, and Allow
Departure Orders was issued in gross violation of Article
III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution and is, therefore,
unconstitutional.
Moreover, it is also illegal for violating the

Administrative Code of 1987. Section 50 (1), Chapter 11
(Administrative Issuances), Book IV (The Executive
Branch) of the Administrative Code of 1987 which
provides:
Sec. 50. General Classification of Issuances. The
administrative issuances of Secretaries and heads of
bureaus, offices or agencies shall be in the form of
circulars or orders:
b. Circulars shall refer to issuances prescribing
policies, rules and regulations, and procedures
promulgated pursuant to law, applicable to
individuals
and
organizations
outside
the
Government and designed to supplement
provisions of the law or to provide means for
carrying them out, including information relating
thereto;
Section 2 of DOJ Circular No. 41 states:
may issue a WLO, under any of the following
instances:
1. Against the accused, irrespective of nationality, in
criminal cases pending trial before the Regional
Trial Court. The application under oath of an
interested party must be supported by (a) certified
true copy of an Information filed with the court, (b)
a certified true copy of the Prosecutors
Resolution; and (c) a Certification from the Clerk of
Court concerned that criminal case is still pending.
2. Against the respondent, irrespective of nationality,
in
criminal
cases
pending
preliminary
reconsideration before the Department of Justice
or any of its provincial or city prosecution offices.
The application under oath of an interested party
must be supported by (a) certified true copy of the
complaint filed, and (b) a Certification from the
appropriate prosecution office concerned that the
case is pending preliminary investigation, petition
for review, or motion for reconsideration, as the
case may be.
3. The Secretary of Justice may likewise issue a WLO

against any person, either motu proprio, or upon
the request of any government agency, including
commissions, task forces or similar entities
created by the Office of the President, pursuant to
the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A.
No. 9208) and/or in connection with any
investigation being conducted by it, or in the
interest of national security, public safety or public
health.
AX.
Clearly,
circulars
issued
by
Department
Secretaries must be in furtherance of a law, and may
not be a replacement of a law or a provision for a
missing law.[17] A Department Secretary may not
legislate. In issuing Section 2 (c), the Secretary of
Justice gave herself a power which the
Constitution does not grant her and which she is
not authorized by any law.
AY.
The Secretary of Justice is not authorized by
any law to issue watchlist orders, much less to
issue watchlist orders whimsically motu proprio.
The Administrative Code of 1987 does not authorize the
Secretary of Justice to issue watchlist orders. Thus, the
Administrative Code of 1987 provides:
Title III
JUSTICE
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is the declared policy of
the State to provide the government with a principal law
agency which shall be both its legal counsel and prosecution
arm; administer the criminal justice system in accordance
with the accepted processes thereof consisting in the
investigation of the crimes, prosecution of ofenders and
administration of the correctional system; implement the
laws on the admission and stay of aliens, citizenship, land
titling system, and settlement of land problems involving
small landowners and members of indigenous cultural
minorities; and provide free legal services to indigent
members of the society.
Section 2. Mandate. - The Department shall carry out the
policy
declared
in
the
preceding
section.
Section 3. Powers and Functions. - To accomplish its

mandate, the Department shall have the following powers
and functions:
56.
Act as principal law agency of the government and
as legal counsel and representative thereof, whenever
so required;
57.
Investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute
ofenders and administer the probation and correction
system;
58.
Extend free legal assistance/representation to
indigents and poor litigants in criminal cases and noncommercial civil disputes;
59.
Preserve the integrity of land titles through proper
registration;
60.
Investigate and arbitrate untitled land disputes
involving small landowners and members of indigenous
cultural communities;
61.
Provide immigration and naturalization regulatory
services and implement the laws governing citizenship
and the admission and stay of aliens;
62.
Provide legal services to the national government
and its functionaries, including government-owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and
63.
Perform such other functions as may be
provided by law.
Nowhere in this law, quoted above, is the
Secretary of Justice authorized to issue watchlist
orders whimsically motu proprio. More glaringly,
under Section 3 (8) quoted above, the Secretary of
Justice may only perform other acts as may be
provided by law.
AZ.
The same can be said with respect to the Bureau
of Immigration, which is also not authorized to issue
any watchlist orders. Thus, the Administrative Code of
1987 provides:
CHAPTER 10
Section 31. Bureau of Immigration. - The Bureau of
Immigration is principally responsible for the administration
and enforcement of immigration, citizenship and alien
admission and registration laws in accordance with the
provisions of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as

amended (C.A. No. 613, as amended). The following units
shall comprise the structural organization of the Bureau:
a. Office of the Commissioner and Associate
Commissioners;
b. Board of Commissioners composed of the
Commissioner as Chairman and two (2) Associate
Commissioners as members; and
c. Boards of Special Inquiry which are authorized to
be organized in the Commission pursuant to the
provisions of the Immigration Act of 1940, as
amended.
Subject to the provisions of existing law, the
Secretary is hereby authorized to review, revise
and/or promulgate new rules and regulations to
govern the conduct of proceedings in the Board of
Commissioners and the Boards of Special Inquiry,
including the determination of the size and
number of the support staf to be assigned
thereat.
The Bureau shall be headed by a Commissioner
assisted by two Associate Commissioners, all of
whom shall be appointed by the President upon
the recommendation of the Secretary.
The Commissioner and the two Associate
Commissioners shall compose the Board of
Commissioners, a collegial body hereby granted
exclusive jurisdiction over all deportation cases. The
Board shall also have appellate jurisdiction over
decisions of the Boards of Special Inquiry and shall
perform such other functions as may be provided by
law.
Each Board of Special Inquiry shall be composed of
a Chairman and two members who shall be appointed
by the Secretary upon the recommendation of the
Commissioner.
Likewise, the appointment of all the other personnel of
the Bureau including the designation of Acting
Immigration Officers shall be vested in the Secretary
upon the recommendation of the Commissioner
BA.
In other words, there simply is no statutory
basis for the issuance of watchlist orders.
54. It should be noted that while the Supreme Court saw it as

proper to restrict and limit the exercise of the authority to
issue Hold Departure Orders through the issuance of SC
Circular No. 39-97, citing the right and liberty of an
individual to travel, the Department of Justice has done
exactly the opposite with respect to watchlist orders.[18]
The DOJ liberalized the issuance of watchlist orders
such that it may now be issued whimsically, arbitrarily
and wantonly under the sweeping term motu proprio. It
is a power given by the Secretary of Justice to the
Secretary of Justice. This is executive power running
amuck.
F.
DOJ CIRCULAR NO. 41 CONSTITUTES UNDUE
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER
BB.
Assuming that DOJ Circular No. 41 emanated from
a legislative delegation of power, which however clearly
does not, Circular No. 41 would be struck down for
being an undue delegation of legislative power. As
explained by Justice Isagani Cruz:[19] Assuming that
the delegation of legislative power comes under any of
the permissible exceptions, there is still the question of
whether or not the delegation has been validly made.
To be valid, the delegation itself must be
circumscribed by legislative restrictions, not a
roving commission that will give the delegate
unlimited legislative authority. It must not be a
delegation running riot and not canalized within
banks that keep it from overflowing. Otherwise, the
delegation is in legal efect an abdication of legislative
authority, a total surrender by the legislature of its
prerogatives in favor of the delegate.
Thus, jurisprudence has established the two Tests
of Delegation. The Completeness Test and the
Sufficient Standard Test. The Completeness Test
provides that:
Ideally, the law must be complete in all its
essential terms and conditions when it leaves the
legislature so that there will be nothing left for the
delegate to do when it reaches him except enforce
it. If there are gaps in the law that will prevent its
enforcement unless they are first filled, the
delegate will then have been given the
opportunity to step into the shoes of the

legislature and to exercise a discretion essentially
legislative in order to repair the omissions. This is
invalid delegation.
The Sufficient Standard Test, on the other hand,
provides that:
Even if the law does not spell out in detail
the limits of the delegates authority, it may still
be sustained if the delegation of legislative power
is made subject to a sufficient standard. A
sufficient standard is intended to map out
the boundaries of the delegates authority
by defining the legislative policy and
indicating the circumstances under which it
is to be pursued and efected. The purpose of
the sufficient standard is to prevent a total
transference of legislative power from the
lawmaking body to the delegate.
A simple perusal of Circular No. 41 would show
that it fails in meeting the two Tests of Delegation. The
Circular is not complete and it has no sufficient
standards. Section 2 of the Circular provides:
may issue a WLO, under any of the following instances:
a. Against the accused, irrespective of nationality, in
criminal cases pending trial before the Regional
Trial Court. The application under oath of an
interested party must be supported by (a) certified
true copy of an Information filed with the court, (b)
a certified true copy of the Prosecutors
Resolution; and (c) a Certification from the Clerk of
Court concerned that criminal case is still
pending.
b. gainst
the
respondent,
irrespective
of
nationality,
in
criminal
cases
pending
preliminary investigation, petition for review, or
motion for reconsideration before the Department
of Justice or any of its provincial or city prosecution
offices. The application under oath of an interested
party must be supported by (a) certified true copy
of the complaint filed, and (b) a Certification
from the appropriate prosecution office concerned
that
the
case
is
pending
preliminary
reconsideration, as the case may be. Indeed, the
issuance of Watchlist Orders for those undergoing
preliminary investigation has no standard at all.
Should
everyone
undergoing
investigation be placed in the Watchlist?
preliminary
Among those undergoing preliminary investigation,

who should be placed in the Watchlist and who should
not? Who decides who should be placed in the
Watchlist and with what criteria?
Is the gravity of the ofense relevant? If yes, are all
those undergoing preliminary investigation for
murder or syndicated estafa placed in the Watchlist?
Clearly, there is no standard. It is therefore simply
running riot. It is a roving commission randomly
picking out its targets. The clear absence of standards makes
it a convenient weapon against political opponents.
VIII. POTENTIAL MOOTNESS:
POSSIBLE EVASION OF REVIEW
1. Since what is being challenged in this case is the
constitutionality of a Department Circular and a
Watchlist Order, there is a strong possibility that the
challenge herein can be rendered moot through the
expediency of simply withdrawing Watchlist Order,
ignoring in the process the fact that the Constitution
has been wantonly violated. Based on respondent De
Limas past acts, there is a real danger that respondent
De Lima may be tempted to deliberately render this
case moot so that another violation can be similarly
committed in the future. In other words, there is a
possibility of the respondents evading review. This
Petition is only a signature away from being rendered
moot. But the violation to the Constitution cannot, in
any way, be trivialized.
2. To render a previous, similar petition by herein
Petitioner moot is precisely what respondent De Lima
did in an earlier case, docketed as S.C. G.R No. 197854,
entitled Jose Miguel T. Arroyo vs. Sec. Leila De
Lima, in her capacity as Secretary, Department of

Justice, and Ricardo A. David, Jr. in his capacity
as Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration. This
case involved the same Petitioner and respondents
herein pertaining to the same question of the
Constitutionality of Department of Justice Circular No.
41-2010 and the issuance of a similar Watchlist Order.
After this Honorable Court, in that previous case
resolved to issue on August 23, 2011 a Temporary
Restraining Order against the enforcement of Watchlist
Order No. 2011-410 dated August 04, 2011, respondent
De Lima withdrew the said Watchlist Order and filed
a /manifestation and Motion (dated September 01,
2011) to dismiss the previous petition on the ground
that the issue has been allegedly rendered moot and
academic by her act of withdrawing the said Watchlist
Order.
3. In explaining her act of filing the Manifestation and
Motion (to Dismiss) to ABS-CBN, respondent De Lima
said that her Department was reviewing Department
Circular No. 41-2010 with the end of view of amending
the same by eliminating or modifying the objectionable
portions of said Circular.
4. In Public Interest Center, Inc. et al. v. Elma et al. (G.R.
No. 138965, June 30, 2006), the petition was also
rendered moot when the resolution of the case was
overtaken by supervening events. Respondent Elma,
who was an appointee of former President Joseph
Estrada, had already been replaced both as PCGG
Chairman and as CPLC, by the appointees of President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Hence, there was no longer
an actual controversy that had to be resolved.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled:
However, this case raises a significant legal
question as yet unresolved whether the PCGG
Chairman can concurrently hold the position of
CPLC. The resolution of this question requires the
exercise of the Courts judicial power, more
specifically its exclusive and final authority to
interpret laws. Moreover, the likelihood that the
same substantive issue raised n this case will be
raised again compels the Court to resolve it. The
rule is that courts will decide a question
otherwise moot and academic if it is capable

of repetition, yet evading review.
Supervening events, whether intended or
accidental, cannot prevent the Court from
rendering a decision if there is a grave violation of
the Constitution. Even in cases where supervening
events had made the cases moot, this Court did
not hesitate to resolve the legal or constitutional
issues raised to formulate controlling principles to
guide the bench, bar, and public (emphasis
supplied).
In Rufino et al. v. Endriga et al. (G.R. No. 139554,
July 21, 2006), the issue of mootness was also
discussed:
However, there are times when the
controversy is of such character that to prevent its
recurrence, and to assure respect for constitutional
limitations, this court must pass on the merits of a
case. This is one such case.
xxx
However, the constitutional question that
gave rise to these issue will continue to spawn the
same controversy in the future, unless the
threshold constitutional question is resolved - the
validity of Section 6 (b) and (c ) of P.D. 15 on the
manner of filling vacancies in the CCP Board. While
the issues may be set aside in the meantime, they
are certain to recur every four years, especially
when a new President assumes office, generating
the same controversy all over again. Thus, the
issues raised here are capable of repetition yet
evading review if compromises are resorted every
time the same controversy erupts and the
constitutionality of Section 6 (b) and (c ) of P.D. 15
is not resolved.
The Court cannot refrain from passing upon
the constitutionality of Section 6 (b) and (c ) of P.D.
15 if only to prevent a repeat of this regrettable
controversy and to protect the CCP from being
periodically wracked by internecine politics. Every
President who assumes office naturally ants to
appoint his or her own trustees to the CCP Board.
A frontal clash will thus periodically arise between

the Presidents constitutional power to appoint
under Section 16, Article VII of the 198i7
Constitution and the CCP trustees power to elect
their fellow trustees under Section 6 (b) and (c ) of
P.D. 15.
This Court may, in the exercise of its sound
discretion, brush aside procedural barriers and
take cognizance of constitutional issues due to
their paramount importance. It is the Courts duty
to apply the 1987 Constitution in accordance with
what it says and not in accordance with how the
Legislature or the Executive would want it
interpreted. This court has the final word on what
the law means. The Court must assure respect for
the constitutional limitations embodied in the
1987 Constitution.
5. . In view of the previous act of respondent De Lima in
withdrawing Watchlist Order No. 2011-410 dated
August 04, 2011 in G.R. No. 197854, there is a strong
possibility that the respondent De Lima will again
prevent the Petitioner from seeking adequate relief and
remedy from this Honorable Court. Nevertheless,
because a basic Constitutional Right is being violated
by the respondents herein, there is a compelling reason
for this case to be ruled upon notwithstanding its
mootness, should it occur. The most compelling reason
of which is that the issue raised herein is capable of
repetition, yet evading review.
IX. ALLEGATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE PRAYER FOR

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER/
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
6. Petitioner repleads, reiterates, and incorporates by way
of reference, all the foregoing allegations in support of
his prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction.
7. Petitioner as a taxpayer and private citizen is entitled to
the
reliefs
prayed
for
in
declaring
the
unconstitutionality, illegality, and nullity of Watchlist
Order No. 2011-573 dated October 27, 2011, In
re: Issuance of Watchlist Order against Benjamin

Abalos, Sr. et al. and for it being issued with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and part of such relief consists in
restraining the commission or continuance of the acts
complained of, until they are permanently enjoined.
1. The commission and continuance of the acts
complained of would definitely work injustice and cause
irreparable damage to herein Petitioner, unless
otherwise restrained.
2. Petitioner is willing to post a bond in an amount fixed by
this Honorable Court to cover any form of damages any
party/ies may sustain with the issuance of the
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or injunction
should this Honorable Court finally decide that
Petitioner is not entitled thereto.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed for that
upon filing of this Petition, this Honorable Court issue a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction enjoining all respondents, their agents,
representatives, employees and subordinates from further
implementing the challenged Watchlist Order No. 2011-573
dated October 27, 2011, In re: Issuance of Watchlist Order
against Benjamin Abalos Sr. et al. as well as the Department
of Justice Circular No. 41.
It is likewise prayed that the instant Petition be set at
the convenience of the Honorable Court, for oral argument
so that all the issues, of constitutional importance, be
properly ventilated and debated upon.
After submission of requisite pleadings and/or
memoranda,
judgment
be
rendered
declaring
the
unconstitutionality, illegality, nullity of Watchlist Order No.
2011-573, dated October 27, 2011, In re: Issuance of
Watchlist Order against Benjamin Abalos Sr. et al. and
Department of Justice Circular No. 41.
Petitioner prays for such other reliefs just and equitable
under the premises.
EXPLANATION
Due to lack of available office/ messengerial personnel,

service of the Petition to the other parties by registered mail
was resorted to.
Pasig City for Manila, February 5, 2013.
By:
NICOLETTE S. BAMBAO
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/10
Quezon City
(per A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC)
Copy furnished:
Sec. Leila M. De Lima
Padre Faura St.,
Ermita, Manila
Ricardo A. David, Jr.
Commissioner
2nd Floor, Bureau of Immigration Bldg.
Magallanes Drive, Intramuros,
Manila
Ricardo V. Paras III,
Chief State Counsel,
Padre Faura St.,
Ermita, Manila
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village,
Makati City
EXPLANATION
Due to lack of available office/ messengerial personnel,
services of the Petition to the other parties by registered
mails were resorted to.
_____________________________________________
Counsel
[1] Noy himself ordered raps filed vs GMA, Philippine Daily

Inquirer, October 14, 2011.
[2] As stated in the joint order by the DOJ and Comelec
released on August 15, the fact-finding team will have the
following duties:
a. Gather and document reports, intelligence information,
and investigative leads from official as well as unofficial
sources and informants;
b. Conduct interviews, record testimonies, take affidavits of
witnesses, and collate material and relevant
documentary evidence, such as, but not limited to, election
documents used in the 2004 and 2007 national elections. For
security reasons, or to protest the identities of informants,
the Fact-finding Team may conduct interviews or document
testimonies discreetly;
c. Assess and evaluate affidavits already executed and other
documentary evidence submitted or may be submitted to
the Fact-finding Team and/or the Committee;
d. Identify the ofenders, their ofenses and the manner of
their commission, individually or in conspiracy, and the
provisions of election and general criminal laws violated,
establish evidence for
individual criminal and administrative liability and
prosecution, and prepare the necessary documentation such
as complaints and charge sheets for the initiation of
preliminary investigation
proceedings against said individuals to be conducted by the
Committee;
e. Regularly submit to the Committee, the Secretary of
Justice and the Chairman of the Comelec periodic reports
and recommendations, supported by real, testimonial and
documentary evidence, which may then serve as the
Committees basis for immediately commencing appropriate
preliminary investigation proceedings;
f. Upon the termination of its investigation, make a full and
final report to the Committee, the Secretary of Justice, and
the Chairman of the Comelec.
[3] http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl111184.htm
[4]
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/77901/sen-pimentel-fileselection-fraud-raps-vs-arroyo-couple-et-al
[5] http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/23504/zaldy-ampatuan-saysgloria-arroyo-cheated
[6] The U.S. Supreme Court has, in Corfield v. Coryell (6 Fed.
Cas 546 [1823]), recognized freedom of movement as a
fundamental Constitutional right. Freedom of movement
has been defined as the right of free ingress into other
States, and egress from them (Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168
[1869]). The right to travel refers to the right to move from

one place to another (Mirasol, et al. v. Department of Public
Works and Highways, G.R. No. 158793, June 8, 2006, 490
SCRA 318). In Kant Kwong v. Presidential Commission on
Good Government (G.R. No. 79484, December 7, 1987), the
Supreme Court En Banc held: The right to travel and to
freedom of movement is a fundamental right guaranteed by
the 1987 Constitution and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights to which the Philippines is a signatory. That
right extends to all residents regardless of
nationality. And everyone has the right to an efective
remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts
violating the fundamental rights granted him by the
Constitution or by law.
[7] Under the BIDs Rules and Guideline In Handling
Travelers Under Watchlist (November 19, 1999):
1. A passenger whose name is in the Bureaus Watchlist
shall be allowed to depart after the lapse of five (5)
days from his first attempt, provided no Hold Departure
Order is issued;
1. The head Supervisor and/or Alien Control Officer shall
immediately notify the requesting person/agency of
the attempt to leave by the person whose name
appears in the watchlist and the said requesting
person/agency has only five (5) days to secure a Hold
Departure Order (HDO) from the Department of
Justice or the Courts; otherwise, after five (5) days
and there is no HDO issued, the passenger shall be
allowed to leave.
[8] De la Camara vs. Enage, 41 SCRA 1, 9-10 (1971).
[9] Almonte v. Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286
[10] G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1998, 299 SCRA 744.
[11] People v. Panah, 35 Cal. 4th 395 (2005).
[12] American Public Health Association, http://www.apha.org
[13] Bernas, S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of
the Philippines A Commentary, 2003 ed., p. 367.
[14] As stated by Justice William O. Douglas in Kent v. Dulles
(357 U.S. 116): Since we start with an exercise by an
American citizen of an activity included in constitutional
protection, we will not readily infer that Congress gave the
Secretary of State unbridled discretion to grant or
withhold it. If we were dealing with political questions
entrusted to the Chief Executive by the Constitution we
would have a diferent case. But there is more involved
here.
[15] Yick Wong v. Hopkins, 118 US 356.
[16] According to the website of the Department of Justice

the function of the Chief State Counsel is: Legal Staf
(Office of the Chief State Counsel)
Assists the Secretary of Justice in the performance of his
functions as Attorney-General of the Philippines and as exofficio legal adviser of government-owned or controlled
corporations or enterprises and their subsidiaries. This
includes evaluation and rendition of opinion upon request
in writing on any question of law from the President, heads
of executive departments, bureaus and offices, and any
government-owned
or
controlled
corporation;
and
processing, evaluation and action on all applications for
recognition, visa, citizenship, refugee and other immigration
matters. (http://www.doj.gov.ph/?page=3&ID2=4&ID3=1).
[17] See China Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,
265 SCRA 327 [1996]; Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Placer Dome Technical Services (Phils.), G.R. No. 164365,
June 8, 2007, 524 SCRA 271.
[18] Circular 39-97 states: In order to avoid the
indiscriminate
issuance of Hold-Departure Orders
resulting in inconvenience to the parties afected, the
same being tantamount to an infringement on the right
and liberty of an individual to travel and to ensure that
the Hold-Departure Orders which are issued contain
complete and accurate information, the following guidelines
are hereby promulgated: Thus, numerous judges have been
sanctioned for the indiscriminate issuances of HDOs:
Mondejar v. Judge Buban, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1349, 12 July
2001; Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Mendoza,
340 SCRA 285, 288 [2000];Hold-Departure Order dated 22
December 1998 issued by Acting Judge Madronio, Jr., 323
SCRA 345, 348 [2000]; Hold-Departure Order dated 20
November 1998 issued by Judge Abalos, 319 SCRA 131, 134
[1999]; Hold-Departure Order dated 29 January 1999 issued
by Judge Adaoag, 315 SCRA 9, 12 [1999]; Hold-Departure
Order dated 10 February 1999 issued by Judge Barot, 313
SCRA 44, 46 [1999]; Hold-Departure Order dated 13 April
1998 issued by Judge Nartatez, 298 SCRA 710, 712 [1998].
[19] Isagani A. Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p. 97-99, 1987
ed.

PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS COMMISSION
CITY OF MANILA
IN RE: ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 735
FOR:
UNPROFESSIONAL and/or
DISHONORABLE CONDUCT
ROBERT T. HERRERA,
Respondent.
x---------------------------x
COMPLAINT
Plaintif avers that:
1. The Philippine Maritime Authority sent a verification
request to the STCW Division of the Professional
Regulation Commission to determine the authenticity of
the documents (Endorsement Certificate and Certificate
of Competency in particular) submitted by a number of
applicants, one of them is the respondent, applying at
their office. The STCW immediately made a verification
of data of those applicants.
2. It was found out that both COC and EC indicate that
the capacity of respondent is Chief Engineer when in
fact he was just a registered Third Engineer at that
time.
3. The STCW initiated the filing of this case against
respondent and a Formal Charge for Unprofessional
and/or Dishonorable Conduct was sent to him.
PRAYER

prayed of this Honorable Commission to hold respondent
guilty as charged.
February 5, 2013, Manila, Philippines.
Special Prosecutor
Roll No. 65874
IBP Member No. 258963;
1/9/10; Quezon City
PTR No. 5891263; 4/30/13; Quezon City
MCLE Compliance: 09-6528
Admitted to the Bar in March 2010
Copy Furnished:
Robert T. Herrera
No. 65-A Sto. Domingo Street,
Banawe, Quezon City
RICHARD C. GUEVARRA
Affiant
VERIFICATION
I, under oath, aver that:
1. I am the plaintif in the afore-entitled case;
2. I caused the preparation of the Complaint;
3. I read it and its contents are true of our own knowledge.
RICHARD C. GUEVARRA
Affiant
February 2013 at Manila. I hereby certify that I have
examined the Complainants and that I am fully satisfied that
they have voluntarily executed and understood the contents
of their Complaint.
NICOLETTE S. BAMBAO
Notary Public
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/10
Quezon City
CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
Under oath, the undersigned hereby certify that they
have not earlier commenced a similar action against the
defendants for the same cause with any other court, tribunal
or quasi-judicial agency.
RICHARD C. GUEVARRA
Affiant
I hereby certify that I have examined the Complainants
and that I am fully satisfied that they have voluntarily
executed and understood the contents of their Complaint.
NICOLETTE S. BAMBAO
Notary Public
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/10
Quezon City

CITY OF MANILA
FOR:
ROBERT T. HERRERA,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------x
ANSWER
Now come the defendants, by the undersigned counsel,
in the above-entitled case to this Commission most
respectfully allege:
1. Respondent admits paragraph 1 however, claims that
someone who has malicious thoughts against him
fabricated the said spurious COC and EC and sent the
same to the Philippine Maritime Authority without his
knowledge.
2. Respondent admits paragraph 2 likewise argues why he
should misrepresent himself as Chief Engineer when he
can already perform the duties as Acting Chief Engineer
although he was just a registered Third Engineer at that
time.
3. The respondent denies paragraph 3 and further avers
that he did not commit an unprofessional and/or
dishonorable conduct.
By way of counterclaim, defendant alleges:
(1)
That by virtue of this unwarranted and malicious
act initiated by the plaintif, defendants were forced to
engage counsel in the sum of P500,000.00.
complaint be dismissed and defendants be awarded the
amount of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
5 February 2013, City of Manila, Philippines
MARIA CRISTINA M. BANAAG

Attorney for Defendant
365 Reina Regente St. Binondo, Manila
Philippines
PTR No.: 236985; 28 March 2013, Manila
IBP No. 67899; April 14, 2010, Manila
Serial No. of Commission: HJY7877968LKJ
PROOF OF SERVICE
VERIFICATION
1. I am the plaintif in the afore-entitled case;
2. I caused the preparation of the Complaint;
3. I read it and its contents are true of our own knowledge.
EDWIN G. ANTIQUINIA
Affiant
of their Complaint.
Notary Public
PTR No. 3685276 1/20/13 Mla
IBP No. 358749 1/2/10 Mla.
ROA 96851

EDWIN G. ANTIQUINIA
Affiant

Notary Public
PTR No. 3685276 1/20/13 Mla
IBP No. 358749 1/2/10 Mla.
ROA 96851

CITY OF MANILA
FOR:
ROBERT T. HERRERA,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------x
REPLY
1. Respondent lacks proof upon his allegation that
someone who has malicious thoughts against him
fabricated the said spurious COC and EC and sent the
same to the Philippine Maritime Authority without his
knowledge.
2. Respondents argument is baseless and unfounded,
hence should be disregarded.
3. The respondent in the spirit of justice and fairness
should be filed unprofessional and/or dishonorable
conduct.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully
complaint be filed upon the defendant.
prayed
that
the
Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

5 February 2013, City of Manila, Philippine

Special Prosecutor
Roll No. 65874
1/9/13; Quezon City
PTR No. 589126 4/30/13; Quezon City
Admitted to the Bar in March
2010
Copy Furnished:
Robert T. Herrera
Banawe, Quezon City
RICHARD C. GUEVARRA
Affiant
VERIFICATION
1.
2.
3.
I am the plaintif in the afore-entitled case;

I caused the preparation of the Complaint;
I read it and its contents are true of our own knowledge.
RICHARD C. GUEVARRA
Affiant
of their Complaint.
MARIE ROSE C.
CARLOS
Notary Public
PTR No. 3685276 1/20/13 Mla
IBP No. 358749 1/2/10 Mla
ROA 96851

RICHARD C. GUEVARRA
Affiant
MARIE ROSE C.
CARLOS
Notary Public
PTR No. 3685276 1/20/13 Mla
IBP No. 358749 1/2/10 Mla
ROA 96851

CITY OF MANILA
FOR:
ROBERT T. HERRERA,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
COMES NOW, the Special Prosecutor to this Honorable
Board, most respectfully avers:
AMICABLE SETTLEMENT
The Special Prosecutor cannot enter into an amicable
settlement due to public interest and policy.
PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS
The Special Prosecutor proposed the following stipulation of
facts:
1 That
respondent
submitted
his
Certificate
of
Competency with Certificate No. E1-0002587 and
Endorsement Certificate with Endorsement No. 0115263 to the Panamanian Maritime Authoritys Regional
Office for Asia in Manila for employment purposes;
2 That both certificates have anomalies in the entry of his
capacity as Chief Engineer when in fact he was only a
registered Third Engineer then;
3 That respondent was only issued by the Professional
Regulation Commission with STCW 95 Certificate of
Competency as Officer In Charge of an Engineering
Watch and an Endorsement Certificate No 01-15263
under Regulation III/1 issued on October 17, 2002 and
will expire on September 12, 2006.
4 That respondent submitted the certificates to the
Panamanian
Maritime
Authority
with
the
abovementioned dates of issuance and expiration but
with diferent capacity as Chief Engineer.
ISSUES
Whether or not respondent committed Unprofessional
and/or Dishonorable Conduct in relation to Sec. 24 and Sec.
35 ( c ) of R. A. 8544, otherwise known as the Philippine

Merchant Marine Officers Act of 1998?
EXHIBITS
7. Exhibit A
The incident report dated June
2006
prepared by evaluator Jose Manuel F. Reyes
Purpose To prove that on August 2007, Philippine
Maritime Authority Regional Office for Asia in Manila
requested for verification of Authenticity of Certificates
presented by respondent Robert Herrera.
Exhibit A-1 The signature over the printed
name of the evaluator who prepared the incident
report
Exhibit A-2 The signature over the printed
name of the OIC of the STCW Division Mr. Fred Lapid.
2. Exhibit B A copy of the Endorsement
Certificate (EC) which respondent submitted to the
Philippine Maritime Authority.
Purpose To prove the existence of falsified EC in
the name of Robert T. Herrera which he submitted to
Panamanian Maritime Authority.
Exhibit B-1 The Endorsement Certificate No.
01-15263 printed in the fraudulent EC.
Purpose To prove the existence of a copy of
fraudulent EC No. 01-15263 for Chief Engineer Office
when in fact no such EC was released by the
Professional Regulation Commission in favor of the
respondent.
Exhibit B-2 Signature of the holder of the
Endorsement Certificate.
Purpose To prove that respondent signed the said
3.
Exhibit C A copy of the Certificate of

Competency (COC) which respondent submitted to the
Purpose To prove the existence of falsified COC in
the name of Robert T. Herrera which was submitted to
Exhibit C-1 The Certificate No. E1-0002587
printed in the falsified COC.
Purpose To prove the existence of a copy of
falsified COC with Certificate No. E1-0002587 for Chief
Engineer Officer although no such COC was issued by

the Professional Regulation Commission in favor of the
respondent.
Exhibit C-2 Signature of the holder of the
Purpose To prove that respondent signed the said
4. Exhibit D A copy of Certification from the
STCW Division dated October 25, 2006.
Purpose To prove that according to the records of
the Commission, Mr. Robert T. Herrera is a registered Third
Engineer with Certificate of Registration No. E3-0002587
dated September 28, 1988 and NOT as Chief Engineer. To
prove further that STCW 95 COC as OIC of an Engineering
Watch and EC No. 01-21216 issued on November 2002 will
expire on November 16, 2006.
5. Exhibit E A
copy
of
the
Permanent
Examination and Registration Record Card of the
respondent.
Exhibit E-1 The signature of Robert T. Herrera.
Purpose To determine the real signature of
Robert Herrera
6. Exhibit F The Formal Charge dated August
22, 2007 addressed to Mr. Robert T. Herrera from the
Chairman of the Board of Marine Engine Officers.
Purpose To prove that the Chairman of the Board
of Marine Engine Officers formally charged Robert T.
Herrera for Dishonorable Conduct. To prove further that
respondent was duly informed of the charge against
him before the Board of Marine Engineer Officers.
1. Exhibit G The summons sent to Mr. Robert T.
Herrera dated September 3, 2009
2. Exhibit H A copy of the registry return card of
the Formal Charge and summons.
Purpose To prove that respondent Robert T.
Herrera was fully notified of the charge against him by
the Board of Marine Engine Officers.
Exhibit H-1The date of the delivery of the
Formal Charge.
Exhibit H-2 The signature of the recipient of
the Formal Charge.
The Special Prosecutor reserves the right to present

additional document as the need arises.
WITNESSES
1. Mr. Fred Lapid
OIC, STCW Certificate Section
Professional Regulation Commission
2. Mr. Jose Manuel Reyes
Evaluator
Professional Regulation Commission
The Special Prosecutor reserves the right to present
additional witnesses as the need arises.
TRIAL DATES
The Special Prosecutor respectfully submits her
available trial dates on consultation with the Respondents
Counsel during the scheduled Pre-Trial Conference and on
the course of the hearings of this case but always subject to
the calendar of this Honorable Board.
Manila, February 5, 2013
Special Prosecutor
Roll No. 65874
1/9/10; Quezon City
PTR No. 5891263;
4/30/13; Quezon City
2010
Copy Furnished:
Robert T. Herrera
Banawe, Quezon City
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure)
Due to distance and lack of office personnel, a copy of this
pleading instead of personal service, was served to
respondent by registered mail.
RICHARD C. GUEVARRA
Affiant
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, RICHARD C. GUEVARRA, of legal age, married, Filipino,
after being duly sworn in accordance with law, do hereby
depose and state:
That on ____________, I served a copy of the foregoing
Formal Ofer of Documentary Evidence, pursuant to the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, by registered mail to respondent
due to distance and lack of messengerial services to efect a
personal service as evidenced by the hereto attached
Registry Receipt, and with instruction to the postmaster to
return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if
undelivered.
RICHARD C. GUEVARRA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day
of ________ 2013. Affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax
Certificate No. 10519687 issued on September 26, 2012 at
the City of Manila and his employment Identification Card
bearing his photograph and signature pursuant to Section
12, Rule II of the Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended by
A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.
Doc. No. ______
Page No. ______
Book No.______
Series of 2013.

CITY OF MANILA
FOR:
ROBERT T. HERRERA,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
The Prosecution, through the undersigned special
prosecutor, respectfully avers:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
The present case was filed against respondent when
the STCW Division of the Professional Regulation Commission
found that the Certificate of Competency (COC) 23 and
Endorsement Certificate (EC)24 which respondent submitted
to the Philippine Maritime Authority were spurious and
falsified. Both COC and EC indicate that the capacity of
respondent is Chief Engineer when in fact he was just a
registered Third Engineer at that time.
This act of falsifying public documents is a clear indication of
unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct as a registered
professional.
THE PARTIES
1. The Prosecution, through the undersigned prosecutor,
with postal address at 67 Santol Street, Sampaloc,
Manila, where it may be served with processes of this
Commission.
2. Respondent Robert T. Herrera (hereafter respondent) is
of legal age, married, Filipino, and with postal address
at No. 65-A Sto. Domingo Street, Banawe, Quezon City
23
ANNEX A
24
ANNEX B
where he may be served with processes of this

Commission.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE CASE
The Philippine Maritime Authority sent a verification
request to the STCW Division of the Professional Regulation
Commission to determine the authenticity of the documents
(Endorsement Certificate and Certificate of Competency in
particular) submitted by a number of applicants, one of them
is the respondent, applying at their office. The STCW
immediately made a verification of data of those applicants.
It was found out that the documents (EC and COC) submitted
by respondent are spurious and falsified as his capacity
indicated therein is Chief Engineer when in fact he was
merely a Third Engineer then.
The STCW initiated the filing of this case against
respondent and a Formal Charge25 for Unprofessional and/or
Dishonorable Conduct was sent to him. Respondent was
previously declared in default for not submitting an Answer
within the reglementary period. However, on November 25,
2008, respondent filed his Verified Answer/Counter Affidavit
to the Amended Formal Charge26 vehemently denying that
he was the author of the said spurious COC and EC.
During the pre-trial conference on January 16, 2009,
both the prosecution and respondent, agreed to submit the
case for decision based on position paper.
ISSUES
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF
UNPROFESSIONAL AND/OR DISHONORABLE
CONDUCT.
ARGUMENTS
Respondent falsified his Certificate of Competency
and Endorsement Certificate
25
ANNEX C
26
ANNEX D
Respondent claimed that someone who has malicious

thoughts against him fabricated the said spurious COC and
EC and sent the same to the Philippine Maritime Authority
without his knowledge. This argument is bereft of merit.
After careful perusal of both EC and COC, the signature of
respondent appears on both documents. The fact that his
signature appeared thereon could only mean that he is
aware of the existence of such documents as he in fact
signed the same. The prosecution is certain that the
signatures appearing on both spurious EC and COC are
respondents signature because when such signatures were
compared with the respondents signature in his Permanent
Examination and Registration Record Card 27, they are
completely identical.
Respondent likewise argued that why should he
misrepresent himself as Chief Engineer when he can already
perform the duties as Acting Chief Engineer although he was
just a registered Third Engineer at that time. Such argument
is misplaced. The issue in this case is the act of falsifying a
public document and not as to what extent a registered Third
Engineer could do. Even if the respondent can perform the
duties of Acting Chief Engineer, the fact of falsifying a public
document remains. Still the respondent committed an
unprofessional and/or dishonorable conduct.
Further, respondent did not name a particular person
who has intention to malign his reputation by making such
spurious documents. Respondent did not profer any proof to
support his claim that he was not aware of the existence of
such spurious documents and someone who has malicious
thought against him furnished such documents. All that
respondent has to ofer are his bare allegations. His
arguments are too general and in fact vague. It is a basic
rule of evidence that a party must prove his own affirmative
allegations.28
Considering that respondents contentions are bereft of any
evidentiary support, one might conclude that respondent
himself made such falsified EC and COC.
It is also worthy to take note that in falsifying public
and/or official documents, damage or prejudice to third
27
ANNEX E
28
Geraldez vs. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 320.
persons or intent to cause it is not essential. As held in

People vs. Po Giok To:29
The reason for the distinction is that in the
falsification of a public document by public officials
or by private persons, it is unnecessary that there
be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a
third
person,
for
the
reason
that,
in
contradistinction to private documents, the
principal thing punished is the violation of public
faith and the destruction of the truth as therein
solemnly proclaimed.
The respondent was not able to defeat the presumption
that one in possession of a falsified document is the author
thereof.
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof
required is substantial evidence which is defined in
Section 5, Rule 133 as:
SECTION 5. Substantial Evidence. In
cases filed before administrative or quasijudicial bodies, a fact may be deemed
established if it is supported by substantial
evidence, or that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
The presence of the spurious documents submitted by
respondent and his unsupported denials could be considered
as substantial evidence to prove that that respondent has
indeed committed unprofessional and/or dishonorable
conduct.
prayed of this Honorable Commission to hold respondent
guilty as charged.
29
G.R. No. L-7236, April 20, 1955.
February 5, 2013, Manila, Philippines.

Special Prosecutor
Roll No. 65874
1/9/10; Quezon City
PTR No. 5891263;
4/30/13; Quezon City
2010
Copy Furnished:
Robert T. Herrera
Banawe, Quezon City
EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure)
Due to distance and lack of office personnel, a copy of
this pleading instead of personal service, was served to
respondent by registered mail.
RICHARD C. GUEVARRA
Affiant
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, RICHARD C. GUEVARRA, of legal age, married, Filipino,
after being duly sworn in accordance with law, do hereby
depose and state:
That on ____________, I served a copy of the foregoing
Formal Ofer of Documentary Evidence, pursuant to the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, by registered mail to respondent
due to distance and lack of messengerial services to efect a
personal service as evidenced by the hereto attached
Registry Receipt, and with instruction to the postmaster to
return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days if

undelivered.
RICHARD C. GUEVARRA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day
of ________ 2013. Affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax
Certificate No. 10519687 issued on September 26, 2012 at
the City of Manila and his employment Identification Card
bearing his photograph and signature pursuant to Section
12, Rule II of the Rules on Notarial Practice, as amended by
A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.
Doc. No. ______
Page No. ______
Book No.______
Series of 2013.
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF PANSOL LOYOLA TRICYCLE OPERATORS AND
DRIVERS ASSOCIATION(PLTODA)
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
The undersigned incorporators, all of legal age and a
majority of whom are residents of the Philippines, have this
day voluntarily agreed to form a stock corporation under the
laws of the Republic of the Philippines;
AND WE HEREBY CERTIFY:
FIRST: That the name of said corporation shall be PANSOL
LOYOLA TRICYCLEOPERATORSAND DRIVERS
ASSOCIATON (PLTODA), INC. or CORPORATION;
SECOND: That the purposes for which such corporation is
incorporated are primarily to operate and drive a common
pool of Tricycles plying the Katipunan, Pansol and Xavierville
area as defined by the LTFRB and secondarily to govern and
limit unlicensed plying of said route.
THIRD: That the principal office of the corporation is located
in the City/Municipality of Quezon City, Province of Metro
Manila, Philippines;
FOURTH: That the term for which the said corporation is to
exist is 25 years from and after the date of issuance of the
certificate of incorporation;
FIFTH: That the names, nationalities and residences of the
incorporators of the corporation are as follows:
NAME
Miguel DeChavez
Ryan Tan
Joseph Sy
Ty Tang
NATIONALIT
Y
Filipino
Filipino
Filipino
Chinese
Joseph Yeo
Filipino
RESIDENCE
6 Cubarbias St. QC.
42 Purdue St. QC.
9 Alhambra Ave. QC
Rm 16A Burgundy
Palace, QC
8 Xavierville Rd. QC
SIXTH: That the number of directors of the corporation shall

be five (5); and the names, nationalities and residences of
the first directors or trustees of the corporation are as

follows:
NAME
Miguel DeChavez
Ryan Tan
Joseph Sy
Ty Tang
NATIONALIT
Y
Filipino
Filipino
Filipino
Chinese
Joseph Yeo
Filipino
RESIDENCE
6 Cubarbias St. QC.
42 Purdue St. QC.
9 Alhambra Ave. QC
Rm 16A Burgundy
Palace, QC
SEVENTH: That the authorized capital stock of the

corporation is TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
(P2,500,000.00) PESOSin lawful money of the Philippines,
divided into 25,0000 shares with the par value of One
Hundred (P100.00) Pesos per share.
Name of
Subscriber
Nationali
ty
No. of
Shares
Subscrib
ed
5000
Amount
Subscribed
Miguel
Filipino
P500,000
DeChavez
Ryan Tan
Filipino
5000
P500,000
Joseph Sy
Filipino
5000
P500,000
Ty Tang
Chinese
5000
P500,000
Joseph Yeo
Filipino
5000
P500,000
EIGHTH: That at least twenty five (25%) per cent of the
authorized capital stock above stated has been subscribed
as follows:
NINTH: That the above-named subscribers have paid at least
twenty-five (25%) per cent of the total subscription as
follows:
Name of
Subscriber
Miguel
DeChavez
Ryan Tan
Joseph Sy
Amount
Subscribed
5000
Total Paid-In
5000
5000
P500,000
P500,000
Ty Tang
Joseph Yeo
5000
5000
P500,000
P500,000
P500,000
TENTH: That _Eduardo Capistrano_ has been elected by

the subscribers as Treasurer of the Corporation to act as
such until his successor is duly elected and qualified in
accordance with the by-laws, and that as such Treasurer, he
has been authorized to receive for and in the name and for
the benefit of the corporation, all subscription (or fees) or
contributions or donations paid or given by the subscribers
or members.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We have hereunto signed these
Articles of Incorporation, this 6th day of August 2012 in the
City/Municipality of Pasay, Province of Metro Manila, Republic
of the Philippines.
SGD. Incorporators
(Names and signatures of the incorporators)
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

_____Jack Black______
______Barat Obama________
(Notarial Acknowledgment)
TREASURERS AFFIDAVIT
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF PASAY) S.S.
PROVINCE OF METRO MANILA)
I, Eduardo Capistrano, being duly sworn, depose and say:
That I have been elected by the subscribers of the
corporation as Treasurer thereof, to act as such until my
successor has been duly elected and qualified in accordance

with the by-laws of the corporation, and that as such
Treasurer, I hereby certify under oath that at least 25% of
the authorized capital stock of the corporation has been
subscribed and at least 25% of the total subscription has
been paid, and received by me, in cash or property, in the
amount of not less than FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00)
PESOS, in accordance with the Corporation Code.
SGD. Ed Capistrano
(Signature of Treasurer)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, for

and in the City/Municipality of Pasay Province of Metro
Manila, this 6thday of August 2012; by All Parties Present with
Resident Certificate No. 1 issued at Manila on August 1,
2012.
NOTARY PUBLIC
December 8, 2012
Doc. No. __0243__;
Page No. ___125__;
Book No. ____2___;
Series of 2012 (7a)
OF PANSOL LOYOLA TRICYCLE OPERATORS AND
DRIVERS ASSOCIATION(PLTODA)
FIRST: That the name of said corporation shall be PANSOLLOYOLA TRICYCLE
OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATON (PLTODA), INC. or
CORPORATION;
SECOND: That the purposes for which such corporation is
incorporated are primarily to operate and drive a common
pool of Tricycles plying the Katipunan, Pansol and Xavierville
area as defined by the LTFRB and secondarily to govern and
limit unlicensed plying of said route.
in the City/Municipality of Quezon City, Province of Metro
NAME
NATIONALITY
RESIDENCE
Miguel De
Chavez
Ryan Tan
Filipino
6 Cubarbias St.
QC.
42 Purdue St. QC.
Joseph Sy
Filipino
Ty Tang
Chinese
Filipino
9 Alhambra Ave.
QC
Rm 16A Burgundy
Palace, QC
Joseph Yeo
Filipino
8 Xavierville Rd.
QC

follows:
NAME
NATIONALITY
RESIDENCE
Miguel De
Chavez
Ryan Tan
Filipino
6 Cubarbias St.
QC.
42 Purdue St. QC.
Joseph Sy
Filipino
Ty Tang
Chinese
Joseph Yeo
Filipino
Filipino
9 Alhambra Ave.
QC
Rm 16A Burgundy
Palace, QC
8 Xavierville Rd.
QC

Name of
Nationali
Subscriber
ty
Miguel De
Chavez
Filipino
No. of
Shares
Subscribed
5000
Amount
Subscribed
Ryan Tan
Filipino
5000
P500,000
Joseph Sy
Filipino
5000
P500,000
Ty Tang
Chinese
5000
P500,000
Joseph Yeo
Filipino
5000
P500,000
P500,000

as follows:
follows:
Name of
Subscriber
Miguel De
Chavez
Ryan Tan
Joseph Sy
Amount
Subscribed
P500,000
Total Paid-In
P500,000
P500,000
P250,000
P250,000
Ty Tang
Joseph Yeo
P500,000
P500,000
P250,000
P250,000
P250,000
TENTH: That _Joseph Yeo_ has been elected by the

subscribers as Treasurer of the Corporation to act as such
until his successor is duly elected and qualified in
or members.
of the Philippines.
SGD. Incorporators

________Randy Orton______
______Nina Unlay________
I, Joe Yeo, being duly sworn, depose and say:
SGD. Joe Yeo
Manila, this 6th day of August 2012; by All Parties Present
with Resident Certificate No. 1 issued at Manila on August 1,
2012.
NOTARY PUBLIC
December 8, 2012
Doc. No. __0243__;
Page No. ___125__;
Book No. ____2___;
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF GWAPITOS AND

POGITOS TRANSPORT COMPANY (GWAPOTRANSPORT)
FIRST: That the name of said corporation shall be
GWAPITOS
AND
POGITOS
TRANSPORT
COMPANY
(GWAPOTRANSCO), INC. or CORPORATION;
SECOND: That the purpose for which such corporation is
incorporated is to operate a number of Buses plying the Sta.
Cruz, Zambales to Caloocan, Metro Manila and vice versa
route as allowed by the Franchise issued by the LTFRB.
in the City/Municipality of Caloocan City, Province of Metro
NAME
NATIONALITY
RESIDENCE
Robb Stark
Filipino
33 Delcano St. QC.
John Snow
Filipino
42 Mangyan St. QC.
Loras Tyrell
Filipino
Bartolome Uy
Filipino
Jorah Andal
Filipino
91 Alhambra Ave.
QC
77 Capistrano Rd.
QC
53 Xavierville Rd.
QC

follows:
NAME
NATIONALITY
RESIDENCE
Robb Stark
Filipino
33 Delcano St. QC.
John Snow
Filipino
42 Mangyan St. QC.
Loras Tyrell
Filipino
Bartolome Uy
Filipino
Jorah Andal
Filipino
91 Alhambra Ave.
QC
77 Capistrano Rd.
QC
53 Xavierville Rd.
QC

as follows:
Name of
Nationali
Subscriber
ty
Robb Stark
Filipino
No. of
Shares
Subscribed
5000
Amount
Subscribed
John Snow
Filipino
5000
P500,000
Loras Tyrell
Filipino
5000
P500,000
Bartolome
Uy
Jorah Andal
Filipino
5000
P500,000
Filipino
5000
P500,000
P500,000

follows:
Name of
Subscriber
Robb Stark
Amount
Subscribed
P500,000
Total Paid-In
John Snow
P500,000
P250,000
Loras Tyrell
P500,000
P250,000
Bartolome Uy
P500,000
P250,000
Jorah Andal
P500,000
P250,000
P250,000
TENTH: That _Jorah Andal__ has been elected by the

or members.
of the Philippines.
SGD. Incorporators

________Maria Mercedes___
________
___Angelica Arca
as Treasurer of the Corporation to act as such until his

successor is duly elected and qualified in accordance with
the by-laws, and that as such Treasurer, he has been
authorized to receive for and in the name and for the benefit
of the corporation, all subscription (or fees) or contributions

or donations paid or given by the subscribers or members.
of the Philippines.
SGD. Incorporators

________Randy Orton______
______Nina Unlay________
I, Jorah Andal, being duly sworn, depose and say:

SGD. Jorah Andal

2012.
NOTARY PUBLIC
December 8, 2012
Doc. No. __0243__;
Page No. ___125__;
Book No. ____2___;
Series of 2012 (7a)
OF F&P TRANSPORT COMPANY
FIRST: That the name of said corporation shall be F&P
TRANSPORT, CO. INC. or CORPORATION;
incorporated primarily to ply our taxi franchise as provided
by the LTFRB in Metro Manila and the surrounding

municipalities. In addition, we F&P will also provide special
service or excursion type conveyance services to the
commuting public.
in the City/Municipality of Pasay City, Province of Metro
NAME
NATIONALITY
RESIDENCE
Arya Stark
Filipino
8 New York St. QC.
Selmy Barristan
Filipino
25 15th Avenue. QC.
Khalid Hassan
Filipino
Krystal Uy
Filipino
91 Alhambra Ave.
QC
7 Nagtahan Rd. QC
Jorah Andal
Filipino

follows:
NAME
NATIONALITY
RESIDENCE
Arya Stark
Filipino
8 New York St. QC.
Selmy Barristan
Filipino
Khalid Hassan
Filipino
25 15th Avenue.
QC.
91 Alhambra Ave.
QC
7 Nagtahan Rd.
QC
53 Xavierville Rd.
QC
Krystal Uy
Filipino
Jorah Andal
Filipino

as follows:
Name of
Subscriber
Nationalit
y
Arya Stark
Filipino
No. of
Shares
Subscribed
2000
Selmy
Barristan
Khalid Hassan
Filipino
2000
Amount
Subscribe
d
P20,000,00
0
P2,000,000
Filipino
1000
P1,000,000
Krystal Uy
Filipino
1000
P1,000,000
Jorah Andal
Filipino
1000
P1,000,000

follows:
Name of
Subscriber
Robb Stark
John Snow
Loras Tyrell
Amount
Subscribed
P20,000,000
P2,000,000
P1,000,000
Total Paid-In
Bartolome Uy
Jorah Andal
P1,000,000
P1,000,000
P500,000
P500,000
P12,500,000
P1,500,000
P500,000
TENTH: That _Jorah Andal__ has been elected by the

or members.

of the Philippines.
SGD. Incorporators

________ Diale Tan_____
_____ Laila Delima________
I, Jorah Andal, being duly sworn, depose and say:

SGD. Jorah Andal

2012.
NOTARY PUBLIC
December 8, 2012
Doc. No. __0243__;
Page No. ___125__;
Book No. ____2___;
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF
ZAMBALES NAVIGATON INC
FIRST: That the name of said corporation
ZAMBALES NAVIGATON INC. or CORPORATION;
shall
be

incorporated primarily to operate and maintain the M/V
Salve Regina and such other vessels as we may later
acquire to carry passengers to International Destinations
pursuant to our Certificate of Public Convenience and in
accordance with such Municipal and International Laws as
may be provided. We may also ofer chartered cruises using
such vessels as may come in to our possession.
in the City/Municipality of Iba, Province of Zambales,
Philippines;
NAME
NATIONALITY
RESIDENCE
Julia Montes
Filipino
8 Tampo St. Botolan.
Carmina Topacio
Filipino
10 24th Avenue. Iba.
Nino Unlay
Filipino
15 Granda Ave. Sta

Cruz
7 Lambigan Rd.
Masinloc
Crisostomo
Rosar
Filipino
Joan Diaz
Filipino
53 Govic Highway. Iba

follows:
NAME
Julia Montes
Carmina Topacio
Nino Unlay
NATIONALITY
Filipino
Filipino
Filipino
Crisostomo
Rosar
Joan Diaz
Filipino
Filipino
RESIDENCE
15 Granda Ave. Sta
Cruz
7 Lambigan Rd.
Masinloc

corporation is FIVE HUNDRED MILLION FIVE HUNDRED
THOUSAND (P500,000,000.00) PESOSin lawful money of
the Philippines, divided into 25,0000 shares with the par
value of One Hundred (P100.00) Pesos per share.
as follows:
Name of
Nationali
Subscriber
ty
Julia Montes
Filipino
No. of
Shares
Subscribed
3000
Amount
Subscribed
Carmina
Topacio
Nino Unlay
Filipino
100,000
P100,000,000
Filipino
50,000
P50,000,000
Crisostomo
Rosar
Filipino
25,000
P25,000,000
Joan Diaz
Filipino
25,000
P25,000,000
P300,000,000

follows:
Name of
Subscriber
Julia Montes
Carmina
Topacio
Nino Unlay
Crisostomo
Rosar
Joan Diaz
Amount
Subscribed
P300,000,000
P100,000,000
Total Paid-In
P50,000,000
P20,000,000
P25,000,000
P10,000,000
P25,000,000
P10,000,000
P300,000,000
P25,000,000
TENTH: That _Nino Unlay__ has been elected by the

or members.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto signed these
Articles of Incorporation, this 9th day of July 20, 2012 in the
City/Municipality of Iba, Province of Zambales, Republic of
the Philippines.
SGD. Incorporators

__Edcel Lagman_____
__Ninoy Aquino________
I, Nino Unlay, being duly sworn, depose and say:
SGD.Nino Unlay

2012.
NOTARY PUBLIC
December 8, 2012
Doc. No. __0243__;
Page No. ___125__;
Book No. ____2___;
Series of 2012 (7a)
TI UMOC SHIPPING LINES INC
FIRST: That the name of said corporation shall be TI UMOC
SHIPPING LINES INC. or CORPORATION;
incorporated primarily to operate and maintain ocean going
cargo vessel to carry goods to international and local
destinations pursuant to our Certificate of Public
Convenience and in accordance with such Municipal and
International Laws as may be provided. We may also ofer
direct chartering services to clients should the need arise.
in the City/Municipality of Iba, Province of Zambales,
Philippines;
NAME
NATIONALITY
Dondon Pador
Filipino
Carmina Topacio
Filipino
Nino Unlay
Filipino
Bhem Silverio
Lorenzo Torres
Filipino
Filipino
RESIDENCE
15 Granda Ave. Sta
Cruz
7 Deloso Rd. Masinloc


follows:
NAME
NATIONALITY
Dondon Pador
Filipino
Carmina Topacio
Filipino
Nino Unlay
Filipino
Bhem Silverio
Lorenzo Torres
Filipino
Filipino
RESIDENCE
15 Granda Ave. Sta
Cruz

corporation is ONE BILLION FIVE HUNDRED MILLION
(P1,500,000,000.00)) PESOSin lawful money of the
Philippines, divided into 15,0000 shares with the par value
of One Hundred (P100.00) Pesos per share.

as follows:
Name of
Nationali
Subscriber
ty
No. of
Amount
Shares
Subscribed
Subscribed
Julia Montes
Filipino
3000
P300,000,000
Name of FilipinoAmount
Paid-In
Carmina
100,000 Total
P100,000,000
Subscriber
Subscribed
Topacio
Julia
P300,000,000
P300,000,000
NinoMontes
Unlay
Filipino
50,000
P50,000,000
Carmina
P100,000,000
P25,000,000
Crisostomo
Filipino
25,000
P25,000,000
Topacio
Rosar
Nino Unlay
P50,000,000
P20,000,000
Joan Diaz
Filipino
25,000
P25,000,000
Crisostomo
P25,000,000
P10,000,000
Rosar
Joan Diaz
P25,000,000
P10,000,000
follows:
TENTH: That _Nino Unlay_ has been elected by the

or members.
Articles of Incorporation, this 12th day of July, 20, 2013 in the
City/Municipality of Iba, Province of Zambales, Republic of
the Philippines.
SGD. Incorporators

__Joseph Andal__
__Gloria Arroyo__
CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF IBA) S.S.

PROVINCE OF ZAMBALES)
I, Nino Unlay, being duly sworn, depose and say:
SGD. Nino Unlay
and in the City/Municipality of Manila Province of Metro
with Resident Certificate No. 2 issued at Quezon City on
August 1, 2012.
NOTARY PUBLIC
December 8, 2012
Doc. No. __0243__;
Page No. ___125__;
Book No. ____2___;
Series of 2012 (7a)
LUIS WARREN SCHOOL OF LAW
day voluntarily agreed to form a for profit law school under
the laws of the Republic of the Philippines;
FIRST: That the name of said corporation shall be LUIS
WARREN SCHOOL OF LAW LWSL, Inc.;
SECOND: That the purposes for which such corporation are
incorporated are primarily to operate the Luis Warren School
of Law and educate future lawyers. The LWSL will also
conduct programs necessary and desirable to support the
growth and development of the legal profession. As such it
may conduct Bar Review Programs, Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) and, in the future, ofer Masters
Degrees in Law. As a for profit institution it may invest
available funds in allowable investments with a view towards
expanding its means to finance operations.
in the Eastwood City City/Municipality of Quezon City,
Province of Metro Manila, Philippines;
certificate of incorporation; Subject to renewal
NAME
Luis Warren Jr.
Ryan Tan
Joseph Sy
Ty Tang
NATIONALITY
RESIDENCE
Filipino
6 Cubarbias St. QC.
Filipino
42 Purdue St. QC
Filipino
9 Alhambra Ave. QC
Chinese
Rm
16A
Burgundy
Palace
Joseph Yeo
Filipino

be 5; and the names, nationalities and residences of the first
directors or trustees of the corporation are as follows:
NAME
Luis Warren Jr.
Ryan Tan
Joseph Sy
Ty Tang
Joseph Yeo
NATIONALITY
RESIDENCE
Filipino
6 Cubarbias St. QC.
Filipino
42 Purdue St. QC
Filipino
9 Alhambra Ave. QC
Chinese
Rm
16A
Burgundy
Palace
Filipino

corporation
is
TWO
MILLION
FIVE
HUNDRED
(P2,500,000.00) PESOS in lawful money of the Philippines,
divided into 25,0000 shares without par value.
as follows:
Name of
Subscriber
Nationalit
y
No. of
Shares
Subscribed
5000
Amount
Subscribe
d
P500,000
Luis Warren Jr.
Filipino
Ryan
Tan
Name
of
Subscriber
Joseph Sy
LuisTyWarren
Tang Jr.
Ryan Tan
Joseph Yeo
Joseph Sy
Ty Tang
Joseph Yeo
Filipino
Amount 5000 TotalP500,000
Paid-In
Subscribed 5000
Filipino
P500,000
5000
P500,000
Chinese
5000
P500,000
5000
P500,000
Filipino
5000
P500,000
5000
P500,000
5000
P500,000
5000
P500,000

follows:
TENTH: That _Joseph Yeo_ has been elected by the

or members.
City/Municipality of Pasay Province of Metro Manila, Republic
of the Philippines.
SGD. Incorporators

__Jack Black_
__Barat Obama_
PROVINCE OF QUEZON CITY)
I, Joseph Yeo, being duly sworn, depose and say:

SGD. Joseph Yeo
and in the City/Municipality of Pasay of Metro Manila, this 6 th
day of August 2012; by All Parties Present with Resident
Certificate No. 2 issued at Quezon City on August 1, 2012.
NOTARY PUBLIC
December 8, 2012
Doc. No. __0243__;
Page No. ___125__;
Book No. ____2___;
Series of 2012 (7a)
MARK ANTHONY MALCAMPO SCHOOL OF LAW

day voluntarily agreed to form a non-stock non-profit law
school under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines;
FIRST: That the name of said corporation shall be MARK
ANTHONY MALCAMPO SCHOOL OF LAW (MAMS-LAW), Inc.;
SECOND: That the purposes for which such corporation are
incorporated are primarily to operate the Mark Anthony
Malacampo School of Law as a non-stock non-profit law
school and educate future lawyers. The MAMS-Law will also
conduct programs necessary and desirable to support the

growth and development of the legal profession. As such it
may conduct Bar Review Programs, Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) and, in the future, ofer Masters
Degrees in Law. As a for profit institution it may invest
available funds in allowable investments with a view towards
expanding its means to finance operations.
As a non-stock, not-for-profit organization intended for

educations purposes the Foundations income is exempt
from payment of income tax as set forth in Section 30(e) of
the NationalInternal Revenue Code (NIRC) as amended by
Executive Order (E.O.) 273
in the Noveliches, Quezon City, Province of Metro Manila,
Philippines;
NAME
Arya Stark
Selmy Barristan
Khalid Hassan
Krystal Uy
Jorah Andal
NATIONALITY
Filipino
Filipino
Filipino
Filipino
Filipino
RESIDENCE
8 New York St. QC.
25 15th Avenue QC
15th Grand Ave. QC
7 Nagtahan Rd. QC

be 5; and the names, nationalities and residences of the first
directors or trustees of the corporation are as follows:
NAME
Arya Stark
Selmy Barristan
NATIONALITY
Filipino
Filipino
RESIDENCE
8 New York St. QC.
25 15th Avenue QC
Khalid Hassan
Krystal Uy
Jorah Andal
Filipino
Filipino
Filipino
15th Grand Ave. QC

7 Nagtahan Rd. QC
SEVENTH: That the authorized capital of the corporation is

TWO
MILLION
FIVE
HUNDRED
THOUSAND
(P2,500,000.00) PESOS in lawful money of the Philippines,
As this is a non-stock corporation said capital is not divided
into shares.
(Modify Nos. 8 and 9 if shares are with no par value. In case
the corporation is non-stock, Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the above
articles may be modified accordingly, and it is sufficient if
the articles state the amount of capital or money contributed
or donated by specified persons, stating the names,
nationalities and residences of the contributors or donors
and the respective amount given by each.)
EIGHTH: That capital has already been contributed by the
incorporators as follows;
Name of
Subscriber
Arya Stark
Nationality
Filipino
Amount
Contributed
P500,000
Selmy Barristan
Filipino
P500,000
Khalid Hassan
Filipino
P500,000
Krystal Uy
Filipino
P500,000
Jorah Andal
Filipino
P500,000
TENTH: That Krystal Uy has been elected by the subscribers

as Treasurer of the Corporation to act as such until his
successor is duly elected and qualified in accordance with
the by-laws, and that as such Treasurer, he has been
of the Philippines.
SGD. Incorporators

__Jack Black___
__Barat Obama_____
I, Krystal Uy, being duly sworn, depose and say:

Treasurer, I hereby certify under oath that Two Million Five
Hundred Thousand (P2,500,000) Pesos has been contributed
by the corporators towards the foundation of the MAMS-Law.
SGD. Krystal Uy

2012.
NOTARY PUBLIC
December 8, 2012
Doc. No. __0243__;
Page No. ___125__;
Book No. ____2___;
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OFCHURCH OF THE

DROWNED GOD
day voluntarily agreed to form a corporation sole for
religious purposes under the laws of the Republic of the
Philippines;
FIRST: That the name of said corporation shall be Church of
the drowned God Inc.;
incorporated is primarily to promote the worship of the
Drowned God in the Philippines. It will establish temples,
seminaries and novitiates in the country with a view of
bringing the drowned gods mysteries to the people.
As part of its goal of propagating the faith in the Drowned
God it will collect tithes from the faithful and invest these in
allowable investments to help finance the operations of the
church.
As a non-stock, not-for-profit organization intended for
religious purposes the Church must obtain exemption from
taxation for its religious operations.
As a corporation sole, it will administer the properties of the
Church and hold it in trust in times of transition.
THIRD: That the principal office of the church is located in
the Mineski Grounds, Taft Avenue. Manila, Province of Metro
incorporators of the corporation sole is as follows;
NAME
Theon Greyjoy
QC.
NATIONALITY
Westrosi
RESIDENCE
8 New York St.
SIXTH: That the Drowned Priest Theon Greyjoy has obtained

permission from the Drowned Master to establish his
missionary post in the Philippines. As such he has received
an initial capitalization for the corporation sole in the amount
of FIFTY MILLION (P50,000,000) PESOS from the
International Church of the Drowned God.
SEVENTH: That capital is held in trust by Drowned Priest
Theon Greyjoy until such funds can be deposited in local
banks in the name of the churchs corporation sole.
Eigth: That _Sister Krystal Uy_ has been appointed by the as

Treasurer of the Corporation to act as such until her
successor is duly appointed and qualified in accordance with
the by-laws, and that as such Treasurer, she has been
of the Philippines.
SGD. Incorporators

__Jack Black___
__Barat Obama_____
I, Krystal Uy, being duly sworn, depose and say:

Treasurer, I hereby certify under oath that Two Million Five
Hundred Thousand (P2,500,000) Pesos has been contributed
by the corporators towards the foundation of the MAMS-Law.
SGD. Krystal Uy

2012.
NOTARY PUBLIC
December 8, 2012
Doc. No. __0243__;
Page No. ___125__;
Book No. ____2___;
BY-LAWS OF
CHURCH OF THE DROWNED GOD
ARTICLE I
Offices
Section 1
Principal Office. The principal office of the

Church of the Drowned God shall be located
in the city of Manila, NCR
Section 2
Other-Offices. The church may establish other

temples and offices as the need arises
ARTICLE II
Board of Elders
Section 1
General Powers. The spiritual and temporal

afairs of the church shall be managed by the
Drowned Priest and his selected acolytes
Section 2
Number, Term and Qualifications. The High

Drowned Priest shall be prequalified by the
international church of the Drowned God. He
shall hold office until death. Upon which he
shall be replaced by the most senior of his
fellow Drowned Priests or if none may be
found by a senior acolyte.
ARTICLES OF COOPERATION OF THE

ARELLANO LAWYERS AND WORKING STUDENTS
COOPERATIVE
We, the undersigned, Filipino citizens and residents of the
Philippines, have on this day voluntarily associated ourselves
for the purpose of forming a primary credit cooperative
under the laws of the Philippines, more particularly R.A.
9520.
ARTICLE I
NAME OF COOPERATIVE
That the name of the cooperative shall be Arellano Lawyers
and Working Students Cooperative (A-LaWS Cooperative).
ARTICLE II
OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSES
That the objectives and purposes for which this cooperative
is formed are:
1. To be a socio-civil organization that will provide
necessary and desirable support to working students
and future Arellano Lawyers.
2. To create funds and grant loans to members for
educational and providential purposes;
3. To promote the upliftment of the quality of life of its
members through mutual and cooperative assistance;
4. To ensure financial and organizational stability through
good governance and prudent management of
financial, human and other resources guided by the
Arellano values;
5. To assist members in preparing for the bar exams and
for the start of their legal careers
6. To collect, invest and reinvest all monies and income
coming to it, while they are not loaned out to members,
and hold the same for the benefit of the Cooperative;
7. To work with the cooperative movement, nongovernment and government organizations/entities in
the promotion and development of cooperatives and in
carrying out government policies;
8. To undertake other activities for the efective and

efficient implementation of the provisions of the
Cooperative code. In the furtherance of and not in
limitation of the general powers conferred by the laws
of the Philippines and the objectives and purposes set
forth, this cooperative shall have the following powers:
a. To draw, make, accept, endorse, guarantee,
execute and issue promissory notes, mortgages,
bills of exchange, drafts, warrants, certificates and
all kinds of obligations and instruments in
connection with and in furtherance of its business
operations;
b. To issue bonds, debentures and other obligations
of the cooperative, to contract indebtedness and
to secure the same with a mortgage or deed of
trust, or pledge or lien on any or all of the real and
personal properties of the cooperative;
c. To acquire facilities, either by or through
construction,
purchase,
lease,
bequest
or
donation.
For the purpose of attaining or furthering any or all of the
objectives and purposes herein stated to do any other act
and to exercise any other power which a natural person
could do and exercise and which now or hereafter may be
authorized by law.
ARTICLE III
AREA OF OPERATION
That the area of operation of this Cooperative shall be Pasay,
Its
principal office shall be located or established at Suite 2601
Arellano University School of Law Menlo St. Cor. Avenue,
Manila.
ARTICE IV
TERM OF EXISTENCE
That the term for which this cooperative shall exist is fifty
(50) years. The 50 years will commence after the 6th day of
August 2012, and unto the last day of its first fifty (50) years
of existence.
ARTICLE V
NAMES, CITIZENSHIP AND ADDRESSES OF
COOPERATORS
That the names, citizenship and addresses of
cooperators are as follows:
NAME
CITIZENSHIP
Atrillano, Irwin
Filipino
Barrios, Noelle
Filipino
Federis,
Melissa
Trina Filipino
Galvez, Kelvin,
Filipino
Perez, Tomas, Jr.
Filipino
the
POSTAL
ADDRESS
1650
Calixto
Dyco, Paco Mla.
East Ave. Philam
Homes, Q.C.
6
Bataca
St.
Cubao.
Quezon
City
859 Gaudellia st,
Malate Mla.
374 Adelida St.,
San Miguel, Mla.
ARTICLE VI
COMMON BOND OF MEMBERSHIP
That the common bond of membership of this cooperative is
institutional and the field of membership shall be open to all
bonafide working students and alumni of Arellano University
School of Law. These are members, who can make use of its
services, are in agreement with its purposes and its by-laws.
Membership may be opened to students of the Arellano
University School of Law that formally signified to be
associated with the A-LAWS as approved by the Board of
Directors and the General Assembly.
Provided that the prospective members shall:
1. Pledge to undertake the responsibilities of members;
2. Complete the prescribed pre-membership cooperative
education program;
3. Use or anticipate to use the services of the cooperative
more particularly the savings and loaning services and
other allied services relative thereto; and
4. Provided that no member shall be accepted if he/she is
already a member of an existing cooperative of the
same kind operating in the same area. 4
ARTICLE VII
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
That the number of directors of this Cooperative shall be five
(5) and the names, citizenship, residences of the directors
who are to serve until their successors are elected and
qualified as provided in the by-laws are:
NAME
CITIZENSHI
POSTAL
P
ADDRESS
Atrillano, Irwin
Filipino
1650 Calixto
Dyco, Paco Mla.
Barrios, Noelle
Filipino
East Ave. Philam
Homes, Q.C.
Federis, Trina
Filipino
6 Bataca St.
Melissa
Cubao. Quezon
City
Galvez, Kelvin,
Filipino
859 Gaudellia st,
Malate Mla.
Perez, Tomas, Jr.
Filipino
374 Adelida St.,
San Miguel, Mla.
ARTICLE VIII
CAPITALIZATION
That the authorized share capital of the cooperative is SIX
HUNDRED THOUSAND (Php600,000) PESOS and said
capital is divided into SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND
(600,000) shares with a par value of One Peso (Php1).
ARTICLE IX
SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL AND PAID-UP
That the authorized share capital of which has been actually
subscribed is FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P 500,000) PESOS
and the amount paid on such subscription is two-hundred
fifty thousand Pesos (P250,000) and that the following
members have subscribed and paid for the number of shares
and amount of share capital set out after their respective
names:
Name
Shares
Shared Paid
Subscribed
Atrillano, Irwin
P100,000
P50,000
Barrios, Noelle
P100,000
P50,000
Federis, Trina
P100,000
P50,000
Melissa
Galvez, Kelvin,
Perez, Tomas, Jr.
P100,000
P100,000
P50,000
P50,000
BE IT KNOWN THAT:
Noelle Barrios has been elected/appointed as Treasurer of
the cooperative to act as such until her successor is duly
elected/appointed and qualified in accordance with the bylaws and that as such Treasurer, she has been authorized to
receive for the cooperative and to issue receipts in the name
of the Cooperative for all subscriptions/shares paid in by the
subscriber-members.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this
16thday of September, 2012 at the City of Manila.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Atrillano, Irwin
Barrios, Noelle.
Federis, Trina Melissa
Galvez, Kelvin,
Perez, Tomas, Jr..
SGD
SGD
SGD
SGD
SGD

Irish Canamales
Signed
Ealden Brion
Signed 6
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
) S.S.
PROV/CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF MANILA)
Before
me,
a
Notary
Public
in
and
for
the
Province/City/Municipality of Manila, personally appeared on
this 16th day of September, 2012, the following persons with
their respective Residence Certificate as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
NAME
Atrillano, Irwin
Barrios, Noelle
Federis, Trina Melissa
Galvez, Kelvin
Perez, Tomas, Jr.
RESIDENCE
San Juan, Rizal
Manila
Makati
Manila
Manila
All known to me and to me known to be the same persons

who executed the foregoing Articles of Cooperation and who
acknowledged to me that the same is their free act and
voluntary deed
NOTARY PUBLIC
Signed
Until Dec. 31, 2012
Doc. No. 250
Page No. 41
Book No. XXXIII
Series of 1963
Doc. No. _________
Page No. _________
Book No. _________
Series of __________
Notice of Special Shareholders Meeting

To the shareholders of Happy Hands Massage Parlor Inc.
A special meeting of shareholders will be held as follows;

1. DATE: August 29, 2012
2. TIME: 9AM
3. PLACE:
Isabella Function Room, Max restaurant, P.
Noval Branch, QC
4. PURPOSE: To discuss the possibility of a potential merger
with Happy Feet Spa Inc. and other related purposes
5. This special meeting has been called by our President in
view of the these new development.
Dated: August 1, 2012
By: Laurence Delfin

Printed Name of Secretary: Laurence Delfin
Secretary of: President Yap Chen
Proof of Service
I hereby certify that being a person over 18 years of age, I
duly served a copy of this notice of special stockholders
meeting in person or by registered mail with return receipt
requested.
On the person named herein on August 2, 2012
SGD. Michel Joe Sanchez
AMENDMENT TO ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

Of HAPPY HANDS SPA INC.
A Corporation established in August 6, 2012.
We, the stockholders of HAPPY HANDS SPA INC. hereby
resolve and confirm On August 5, 2012 the following:
1. Article Seven of the current articles of incorporation are
amended to read:
That the authorized capital stock of the corporation is
TWENTY MILLION (P20,000,000.00) PESOS in lawful
money of the Philippines, divided into 20,000 shares with a
par value of ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) PESOS per
share
2. All other sections of the attached Articles of Incorporation
of Happy Hands Spa Inc. remain in full force and efect.
The undersigned have duly executed this amendment to the
articles of incorporation on the date first written above:
Stockholder Name:
Signature:
Gabe Lim
SGD
Antonio Militante
SGD
Peter June Simon
SGD
Jeremy Uy
SGD
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING OF THE BOARD OF

DIRECTORS OF TI UMOC SHIPPING LINES INC
The last meeting of the stockholder of the above named
corporation for the dissolution of the corporation was held
on: August 6,2013 at Ti Umoc Beach Resort, Botolan
Zambales
Dondon Pador
Carmina Topacio

Nina Unlay
15 Lopez Ave. Sta Cruz
Bhem Silverio
Lorenzo Torres
Present was:
Dondon Pador
Carmina Topacio

Nina Unlay
Bhem Silverio
Lorenzo Torres
1. The meeting was called to order. It was determined

that a quorum was present either in person or by proxy,
and the meeting could conduct business.
The following stockholders were present:

Names of Directors:
Nina Unlay
Dondon Pador
Bhem Silverio
Lorenzo Torres
Carmina Topacio
2. The Secretary determined and reported that notice of
the meeting had been properly given or waived by
directors in accordance with the bylaws.
3. A motion was made and carried, that the Secretary was
ordered to attach the documentation or the appropriate
affidavit of mailing of notice or waiver of notice to the
meeting minutes. If no notice is attached, all directors
agreed that proper notice of the meeting had been
given.
4. There was presented to the meeting:
a. A copy of the affidavit of total loss of the M/V Jannary
b. The letter from Maglente Insurance Corp explaining
why they were not liable for the loss
c. The demand letter from the Iba RTC in relation to
alleged criminal conduct of the corporation in
relation to the sinking of the M/V Jannary
d. The latest Income Statement of the Corporation
showing its irretrievable financial position
e. An earlier resolution calling for stockholders meeting
to discuss the closure of the Corporation
5. The directors ratified and approved all documents
presented.
6. Upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously
carried, it was resolved that the loss of the M/V Jannary
meant that the business of the Ti Umoc Shipping was
irretrievable lost and the stockholders are unable to
infuse enough fresh capital for the purchase of a new
Ocean going ship.
carried, it was resolved that the stockholders of the
corporation are to begin the dissolution and winding up
of corporate business. Corporate assets are to be
liquidated and after settlement of existing liabilities
stockholders will receive a pro-rated share of the
remaining cash in proportion to their stockholdings.
There was no further business, and upon motion made,
seconded, and unanimously carried, it was
RESOLVED, that all the items and documents have been

examined by all directors, and are approved and adopted,
and that all actions taken thus far have been ratified and
approved by the directors of the Corporation.
There being no further business, upon motion made and
carried, the meeting was adjourned.
Dated:
August 6, 2013
Secretary:SGD Bhem Silverio
Witness:
____________________
Signature
____________________
Signature
____________________
Signature
____________________
Signature
____________________
Signature
__________________________
Printed Name
__________________________
Printed Name
__________________________
Printed Name
__________________________
Printed Name
__________________________
Printed Name
MINUTES OF FIRST MEETING OF THE BOARD OF

DIRECTORS OF TI UMOC SHIPPING LINES INC
The first meeting of the board of directors named in the
articles of incorporation or initial resolutions of the
incorporator of the above named corporation was held on:
August 6, 2012 at Ti Umoc Beach Resort, Botolan Zambales
Dondon Pador
Carmina Topacio

Nina Unlay
Bhem Silverio
Lorenzo Torres
Present was:
Dondon Pador
Carmina Topacio

Nina Unlay
Bhem Silverio
Lorenzo Torres
Nina Unlaywas requested to be the temporary Chairman of

the meeting.
Lorenzo Torres was requested to be the temporary Secretary
of the meeting.
1. The meeting was called to order. It was determined
that a quorum was present either in person or by proxy,
and the meeting could conduct business.
The following directors were present:
Names of directors:
Nina Unlay
Dondon Pador
Bhem Silverio
Lorenzo Torres
Carmina Topacio
2. The Secretary determined and reported that notice of
the meeting had been properly given or waived by
directors in accordance with the bylaws.
3. A motion was made and carried, that the Secretary was
ordered to attach the documentation or the appropriate
affidavit of mailing of notice or waiver of notice to the
meeting minutes. If no notice is attached, all directors
agreed that proper notice of the meeting had been
given.
4. There was presented to the meeting:
a. A copy of the articles of incorporation
b. A copy of the by-laws of the corporation adopted
by the incorporator
c. Resolutions of the incorporator
d. Bill of sale of issued shares of stock
e. Stock certificates
f. The corporate record book
5. The directors ratified and approved all documents
presented.
carried, it was resolved that the persons listed on the
articles of incorporation as officers would act as the
initial officers of the corporation until another directors
meeting was held. If no officers were listed on the
articles of incorporation or certificate of incorporation,
the following persons were appointed as officers:
Carmina Topacio
Nina Unlay
Dondon Pador
Lorenzo Torres
Nina Unlay
Bhem Silverio
President
Vice President
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Treasurer
Secretary

carried, it was resolved that the monthly wages or
salaries of the following officers were fixed at the
following rates:
P120,000.00
P80,000.00
P120,000.00
P100,000.00
P90,000.00
P75,0000.00
President
Vice President
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Treasurer
Secretary

carried, it was resolved that the officers of this
corporation are authorized and directed to pay all fees
and expenses needed to the incorporator and other
organizations for the organization of this corporation.
carried, it was resolved that the officers of this
corporation were authorized and directed to open a
bank account at Bank of Zambales, at the Iba branch,
and to deposit all funds of the corporation into this
account, including the proceeds from issuing shares to
shareholders.
10.
The following persons or entities were issued
common shares. The numbers of share(s), name(s) of
shareholder, and property or money given to the
corporation in exchange for share(s) of the corporation
are set forth:
Shareholde
r
Dondon
Pador
Carmina
Topacio
Nina Unlay
Bhem
Silverio
Lorenzo
Torres
Money
Property
Share
P300,000,00 Property M/V 300,000

0
Jannary
shares
P100,0000,0
100,000
00
P50,0000,00
50,000
0
shares
P25,0000,00
25,000
0
shares
P25,0000,00
25,000
0
shares
11.
Upon motion duly made, seconded and
unanimously carried, it was resolved that the joint and
individual acts of the incorporator(s) listed on the
articles of incorporation or certificate of incorporation,
were taken on behalf of the corporation, are approved,
ratified, and adopted as acts of the corporation.
12.
The following other business was transacted:
There will be a grand celebration on August 25, 2012 when

the M/V Jannary makes its maiden voyage to Hanoi.
Stockholders and their guests are invited to attend the event
where a bufet dinner and entertainment will be served. The
Governor of Zambales has agreed to be guest of honor for
this special event.
There was no further business, and upon motion made,
seconded, and unanimously carried, it was
RESOLVED, that all the items and documents have been
examined by all directors, and are approved and adopted,
and that all actions taken thus far have been ratified and
approved by the directors of the Corporation.
There being no further business, upon motion made and
carried, the meeting was adjourned.
Dated:
Secretary:
Witness:
____________________
Signature
____________________
Signature
____________________
Signature
____________________
Signature
____________________
Signature
__________________________
Printed Name
__________________________
Printed Name
__________________________
Printed Name
__________________________
Printed Name
__________________________
Printed Name
DIRECTORS
RESOLUTION
DESIGNATING
FIRMS
DEPOSITARY, SIGNATORY TO NOTES, CHECKS ETC. FOR
TI UMOC SHIPPING LINES INC.
RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby declares that
our Treasurer, Nina Unlay and President, Dondon Pador, shall
be the joint signatories to corporate checks, promissory
notes and other financial instruments.
RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby nominates the
Bank of Zambales with its main branch in Iba, Zambales as
the primary depositary of corporate funds.
The undersigned, Bhem Silverio, certifies that she is the duly
elected Secretary of this Corporation, and that the above is a
true and correct copy of the resolution that was duly adopted
at a meeting of the Board of Directors, which was held in
accordance with Philippine law and the Bylaws of the
Corporation.
Dated:
Secretary:
SGD Nina Unlay
SGD Carmina Topacio
SGD Dondon Pador
Director
Director
Director
DIRECTORS RESOLUTION DESIGNATING FIRMS

DEPOSITARY, SIGNATORY TO NOTES, CHECKS ETC. FOR
TI UMOC SHIPPING LINES INC.
RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby declares that
our Treasurer, Nina Unlay and President, Dondon Pador, shall
be the joint signatories to corporate checks, promissory
notes and other financial instruments.
RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby nominates the
Bank of Zambales with its main branch in Iba, Zambales as
the primary depositary of corporate funds.
The undersigned, Bhem Silverio, certifies that she is the duly
elected Secretary of this Corporation, and that the above is a
true and correct copy of the resolution that was duly adopted
at a meeting of the Board of Directors, which was held in
accordance with Philippine law and the Bylaws of the
Corporation.
Dated:
Secretary:
SGD Nina Unlay
SGD Carmina Topacio
SGD Dondon Pador
Director
Director
Director
1. Stockholder's Resolution Declaring Dissolution of the

Firm
2. Stockholders Resolution on Amendment of Articles of

Incorporation (Increase in Capital Stock)
ARTICLES OF COOPERATION OF THE

ARELLANO CREDIT COOPERATIVE
We, the undersigned, Filipino citizens and residents of the
Philippines, have on this day voluntarily associated ourselves
for the purpose of forming a primary credit cooperative
under the laws of the Philippines, more particularly R.A.
9520.
ARTICLE I
NAME OF COOPERATIVE
That the name of the cooperative shall be Arellano Credit
Cooperative.
ARTICLE II
OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSES
That the objectives and purposes for which this cooperative
is formed are:
1. To inculcate a culture of thrift and assist members to
attain financial stability through periodic savings and
financial discipline among members;
2. To create funds and grant loans to members for
productive and providential purposes;
3. To promote the upliftment of the quality of life of its
members through mutual and cooperative assistance;
4. To ensure financial and organizational stability through
good governance and prudent management of
financial, human and other resources guided by the
Arellano values;
5. To continually expand and improve services to
members through the use of modern technology and
availment of external resources;
6. To collect, invest and reinvest all monies and income
coming to it, while they are not loaned out to members,
and hold the same for the benefit of the Cooperative;
7. To work with the cooperative movement, nongovernment and government organizations/entities in
the promotion and development of cooperatives and in

carrying out government policies;
8. To undertake other activities for the efective and
efficient implementation of the provisions of the
Cooperative code. In the furtherance of and not in
limitation of the general powers conferred by the laws
of the Philippines and the objectives and purposes set
forth, this cooperative shall have the following powers:
a. To draw, make, accept, endorse, guarantee,
execute and issue promissory notes, mortgages,
bills of exchange, drafts, warrants, certificates and
all kinds of obligations and instruments in
connection with and in furtherance of its business
operations;
b. To issue bonds, debentures and other obligations
of the cooperative, to contract indebtedness and
to secure the same with a mortgage or deed of
trust, or pledge or lien on any or all of the real and
personal properties of the cooperative;
c. To acquire facilities, either by or through
construction,
purchase,
lease,
bequest
or
donation.
For the purpose of attaining or furthering any or all of the

objectives and purposes herein stated to do any other act
and to exercise any other power which a natural person
could do and exercise and which now or hereafter may be
authorized by law.
ARTICLE III
AREA OF OPERATION
That the area of operation of this Cooperative shall be
Manila, Its principal office shall be located or established at
2601 Taft Avenue, Manila.
ARTICE IV
TERM OF EXISTENCE
That the term for which this cooperative shall exist is fifty
(50) years. The 50 years will commence after the 16 thday of
September 2063, the last day of its first fifty (50) years of
existence.
ARTICLE V
NAMES, CITIZENSHIP AND ADDRESSES OF
COOPERATORS
That the names, citizenship
cooperators are as follows:
NAME
and
CITIZENSHIP
Atendido, Eulogio
Filipino
Astrea, Vicentia, Jr.
Filipino
Barrios, Noelle
Filipino
Balane, Guadalupe
Filipino
Canamales, Eusebia, Filipino

Jr.
addresses
of
the
POSTAL
ADDRESS
1247
Calixto
Dyco, Paco Mla.
140 West Ave.
Philam
Homes,
Q.C.
1862
Dominga
St. Pasay City
859
Estrada,
Malate Mla.
374 Adela St.,
San Miguel, Mla.
ARTICLE VI
COMMON BOND OF MEMBERSHIP
That the common bond of membership of this cooperative is
institutional and the field of membership shall be open to all
bonafide employees of Arellano University School of Law.
These are employees, who can make use of its services, are
in agreement with its purposes and its by-laws. Membership
may be opened to employees of other Arellano schools that
formally signified to be associated with the AUSL as
approved by the Board of Directors and the General
Assembly.
Provided that the prospective members shall:
a. Pledge to undertake the responsibilities of members;
b. Complete
the
prescribed
pre-membership
cooperative education program;
c. Use or anticipate to use the services of the

cooperative more particularly the savings and
loaning services and other allied services relative
thereto; and
d. Provided that no member shall be accepted if he/she
is already a member of an existing cooperative of the
same kind operating in the same area.
ARTICLE VII
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
That the number of directors of this Cooperative shall be five
(5) and the names, citizenship, residences of the directors
who are to serve until their successors are elected and
qualified as provided in the by-laws are:
NAME
CITIZENSHIP
Atendido, Eulogio
Filipino
Filipino
Barrios, Noelle
Filipino
Balane, Guadalupe
Filipino
Canamales, Eusebia, Filipino

Jr.
POSTAL
ADDRESS
1247
Calixto
Dyco, Paco Mla.
140 West Ave.
Philam
Homes,
Q.C.
1862
Dominga
St. Pasay City
859
Estrada,
Malate Mla.
374 Adela St.,
San Miguel, Mla.
ARTICLE VIII
CAPITALIZATION
That the authorized share capital
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
capital is divided into SIX
(600,000) shares with a par value
of the cooperative is SIX

(Php600,000) and said
HUNDRED THOUSAND
of One Peso (Php1).
ARTICLE IX
SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL AND PAID-UP
That the authorized share capital of which has been actually
subscribed is FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P 500,000)
PESOS and the amount paid on such subscription is twohundred fifty thousand Pesos (P250,000) and that the
following members have subscribed and paid for the number
of shares and amount of share capital set out after their
respective names:
Name
Atendido, Eulogio
Barrios, Noelle
Balane, Guadalupe
Canamales, Eusebia,
Jr.
Shares
Subscribed
P100,000
P100,000
P100,000
P100,000
P100,000
Shared Paid
P50,000
P50,000
P50,000
P50,000
P50,000
BE IT KNOWN THAT:
Noelle Barrios has been elected/appointed as Treasurer of
the cooperative to act as such until her successor is duly
elected/appointed and qualified in accordance with the bylaws and that as such Treasurer, she has been authorized to
receive for the cooperative and to issue receipts in the
name of the Cooperative for all subscriptions/shares paid in
by the subscriber-members.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this

16thday of September, 1963 at the City of Manila.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Atendido, Eulogio
Barrios, Noelle,
Balane, Guadalupe,
Canamales, Eusebio, Jr.
SGD
SGD
SGD
SGD
SGD
Irish Canamales
Signed
Ealden Brion
Signed
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
) S.S.
PROV/CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF MANILA)
Before
me,
a
Notary
Public
in
and
for
the
Province/City/Municipality of Manila, personally appeared on
this 16th day of September, 2012, the following persons with
their respective Residence Certificate as follows:
NAME
RESIDENCE
1. Atendido, Eulogio
San Juan, Rizal
2. Astrea, Vicentia, Jr.
Manila
3. Barrios, Noelle
Makati,
4. Balane, Guadalupe
5. Canamales, Eusebio, Jr.
Manila
Manila
All known to me and to me known to be the same persons

who executed the foregoing Articles of Cooperation and who
acknowledged to me that the same is their free act and
voluntary deed
NOTARY PUBLIC
Signed
Until Dec. 31, 2012
Doc. No. 250
Page No. 41
Book No. XXXIII
Series of 1963
Doc. No. _________
Page No. _________
Book No. _________
Series of __________

Legal and Judicial Forms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal and Judicial Forms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Demand

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 1

FRIENDLY DEMAND LETTER

Peter Paul O. Calusa

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 2

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 3

geographic distances which inhibit networking with other

Peter Paul O. Calusa

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 4

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 5

Would you please bring the amount of the check, plus

If you have any questions, you can contact me at the

Peter Paul O. Calusa

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 6

We have tried many suggestions for extending the

Peter Paul O. Calusa

Blk. 1 Lot 29, The Legian,

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 8

1. To make the necessary renovation or maintenance to

Peter Paul O. Calusa

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 9

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 10

Should you fail to settle this matter within thirty (30)

Peter Paul O. Calusa

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 11

My client is demanding for the amount of Five Hundred

Very truly yours,

Atty. Peter Paul O. Calusa

PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER (R.A. 9262)

Republic of the Philippines)

2 That Pedro Santos currently resides at our conjugal

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 14

REGINA DELA CRUZ

PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER (R.A. 9262)

Republic of the Philippines)

I, Pedro Santos, of legal age, married, Filipino and with

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 16

7. That on last evening of the trilogy, my defensive stance

ATTY. JAIME I. CORDEZ JR.

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 17

PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER (R.A. 9262)

Republic of the Philippines

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 18

2. That the argument raised by the respondent in the

REGINA DELA CRUZ

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 19

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 25th day of

ATTY. JAIME I. CORDEZ JR.

PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER (R.A. 9262)

Republic of the Philippines

I.S. No. B-456 789

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 21

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 28th day of

ATTY. JAIME I. CORDEZ JR.

PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER (R.A. 9262)

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 22

Republic of the Philippines

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 24

PERMANENT PROTECTION ORDER (R.A. 9262)

Republic of the Philippines

I.S. No. B-456 789

Advance Legal Writing | Page | 25