Republic of the Philippines


- versus -

Case No. 05-12817-10

I, Miriam Marcos, of legal age, Filipino, married, and a resident
of 116 Sampaloc, Manila, Philippines, after first being duly sworn in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:
1. I admit the fact stated in paragraph four of the counteraffidavit, which stated that the cause of the termination of
the contract was because of the omission of PoeChiz to
deliver its payment to Ro-Ro Academy.
2. I am also well-aware that the non-payment of PoeChiz of
its obligations constitutes a valid ground for the
termination of the contract, due to a material breach of
contact. However, I would like to stress the fact that the
default of PoeChiz in its obligations is not enough reason
to warrant the posting of the malicious advisory in front of
the campus gate, for all the students, teachers, school

but also to stain the reputation of PoeChiz. Such action of PoeChiz has endangered the safety and security of our employees. Clearly. Rest assured that Ro-Ro is and shall take all necessary action to ensure that it will regain full possession of the South Wing of the Conservatory.Assuming without conceding that Ro-Ro has the right to terminate the contract. its intent is not merely to inform the public that the contract between the parties has been terminated. it used malicious words which mislead the public by illustrating PoeChiz as a threat to their safety and security. instead of explaining. then the respondent would not have put the following in the advisory: PoeChiz has in fact padlocked the canteen premises and refused to vacate the same. teachers and students. the purpose of the advisory was to explain the termination. To say that the posting of the said advisory was because of the year-long failure of PoeChiz to settle its obligations and refusal to vacate the premises of the respondent is implausible. It is undeniable on the part of Ro-Ro that this was done consciously and willfully not only to degrade but also to put PoeChiz in shame. However. The posting of the advisory was clearly not made with “good motives”. which RoRo has the utmost duty to uphold at all times. If it was truly made with good motives. these are abusive acts in the exercise of Ro-Ro’s right. 3. it does not follow that by posting it thru an advisory. when Ro-Ro posted the advisory. Again. Clearly. it can put whatever reasons which are unnecessary to its very intent disregarding the effect on how the public would interpret it which might prejudice the reputation of PoeChiz. contrary to what the respondent has said. Rest assured that Ro-Ro shall do all measures .

a normal act contrary to what the respondents are implying by including it in the advisory.” To state these in the advisory made it appear that the complainant was stealing their property. To refute the claim of Ro-Ro Academy that they were imbued with “good motives” when its authorities posted the said protect the employees.1 “POE CHIZ HAS IN FACT PADLOCKED THE CANTEEN PREMISES AND REFUSED TO VACATE THE SAME.” . if Ro-Ro Academy truly intended to show “good motives” on its Advisory. AND STUDENTS…TO PROTECT THE EMPLOYEES. AND STUDENTS FROM ANY DISTURBANCE OR HARM CAUSED BY POECHIZ’ CONTINUED AND UNAUTHORIZED PRESENCE WITHIN OUR CAMPUS. padlocking is an act which shows protection of one’s property. 3. 4. it could have expressed the information otherwise in a respectful approach without imputing the reputation of PoeChiz.2 “…SUCH ACTION OF POECHIZ HAS ENDANGERED THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF OUR EMPLOYEES. the following are intended for the close interpretation of the words and phrases used in the said advisory: 4. TEACHERS. specifically the south wing of the Conservatory. Hence. and students from any disturbance or harm caused by PoeChiz’ continued and unauthorized presence within our campus. TEACHERS. teachers.1 Hence. When the complainant padlocked the canteen premises. the complainants were not given any notice about the termination of the contract. 4. In our defense. the assumption that the contract was still in effect.

5. It is undoubtedly clear that the crime committed by the RoRo Academy through posting the said advisory was libel. its intention was contrary to what has been implied The act of padlocking should not be interpreted as a form of “danger” to the security of the employees. the directors. Instead. and students considering that there is an ongoing dispute between the parties which are not yet settled. this is a clear manifestation as to why the company. the advisory can be interpreted as a warning.Again. If anything. . this statement has made the padlocking of the canteen premises by the complainant seem dangerous when in fact. particularly. officers. Poe-Chiz chose to remain inoperative until there is a final decision regarding the validity of the termination of its contract. In view of the aforementioned close interpretation of the advisory. teachers. and I felt so much disgrace and humiliation over the said advisory.

I am executing this reply-affidavit to attest the truth of the foregoing and to support my complaint for libel case against the respondent. City Prosecutor . Karen Moreno Senior Asst. as there is more than probable cause for its indictment. Jejomar Honasan Managing Partner. BiHon Law Offices Counsel for Complainant Roll No. MIRIAM MARCOS Affiant By: Atty. 41194 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before this 28th of November 2015.CERTIFICATION I therefore most respectfully pray that criminal information for a libel case be now filed against Ro-Ro Academy.