Legal Forms

CIVIL CASES For Protection Order under R.A. 9262 For Annulment of Marriage – Psychological Incapacity For Legal Separation For Rescission of Contract with Damages For Declaration of Nullity of Marriage Complaint -Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer and/or Responsive Pleading -Motion for Bill of Particulars -Motion for Judgment on the Pleading Answer -Answer with Affirmative Defenses -Answer with Counterclaim and Crossclaim -Answer with Specific Denial of Document Under oath -Answer with Specific and Affirmative Defense and Counterclaim -Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim Reply Trial Brief -Pre Trial Brief -Arbitration – Compromise Agreement -Position Paper Trial Proper -Judicial Affidavit -Motion for Written Interrogatories -Motion for Deposition of Witness -Question and Answer for Principal Deponent Motions -Motion to Dismiss -Motion for New Trial -Motion for Postponement of Hearing -Manifestation and Motion to Withdraw as Counsel with Substitution of Counsel -Motion for Execution of Judgment -Motion for the Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution -Motion for Extension of Time cum Entry of Appearance -Second Motion for Extension of Time -Final Motion of Extension of Time -Ex-Parte and Non-litigious Motions -Motion to Declare Defendant in Default -Motion to Lift Order of Default

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court Fourth Judicial Region Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno, Complainant -versus-

Civil Case No. 1711 For: Permanent Protection Order under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno, Defendant x---------------------------------------x COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges: 1. Plaintiff is of legal age, and with residence at Doña Aurora St. South Poblacion, Dipaculao, Aurora Province, while defendant is also of legal age and at present residing at Rizal St. North Poblacion, Dipaculao, Aurora Province; 2. Plaintiff is the only daughter of the defendant and is living with her mother and two (2) minor brothers at the aforementioned address; 3. Defendant and his wife, Daisy Rebueno, the mother of plaintiff, are living separately since 2001. Defendant is now living with his mistress 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, due to poverty and since her father had already stopped supporting them, had to discontinue her schooling and helped her mother earn a living; 5. On or about June 2, 2010, defendant asked for some money from Plaintiff for his birthday celebration and when Plaintiff refused to give Defendant what he wanted, the latter harassed and threatened to inflict physical harm upon her. When Defendant was finally able to obtain money from Plaintiff, he slapped her on the face, threatened to inflict more injury upon her if she refused again the next time he asked for some money and then left furiously;

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 Plaintiff’s complaint, enclosed herewith are Plaintiff’s 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 respondent from threatening to commit or committing, personally or through another, physical harm upon the Plaintiff and her family members.; b. Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the Plaintiff, directly or indirectly; c. Directing the respondent 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 respondent 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.

Aurora Philippines, September 17, 2010. Kristopher Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff Address: North Poblacion, Dipaculao Aurora Roll of Attorney No. 11170 IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/1984 at Manila PTR No. 1119427, issued on 05/16/1988 at Manila MCLE Compliance No. I-17245

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, Clea Rebueno, of legal age and with residence at Doña Aurora St., South Poblacion, Dipaculao, Aurora Province, 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 18th day of September 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the municipality of Baler, Aurora this 18th day of September 2010 by Clea Rebueno with Residence Certificate No. 011985 issued at Dipaculao, Aurora on March 27, 2001 and SSS No. 17278 issued at Baler, Aurora on July 17, 2000.

Kristian Vallejos Notary Public Until December 31, 2010 PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 45692 MCLE Compliance No. I-85712

Doc. No. 52 Page No. 17 Book No. 11 Series of 2010 Copy Furnished: Arman Austria Counsel for Defendant

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL I, Stephen Galang, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say: That I am the messenger of Atty. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno in the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, 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. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno 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 25 th day of September 2010, as shown by Registry No. 17 dated September 17, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this September 17, 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

Stephen Galang

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 17th day of September 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.

Kristian Vallejos Notary Public Until December 31, 2010 PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/ Aurora IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 45692 MCLE Compliance No. I-85712 Doc. No. 31 Page No. 6

Book No. 16 Series of 2010

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court Fourth Judicial Region Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno,

Complainant Civil Case No. 1711 For: Permanent Protection Order under RA 9262

-versus-

Eddie Rebueno,

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 of undersigned counsel only on October 8, 2010; 2. Defendant was served with Summons and copy of the Complaint on September 30, 2010 and thus has until October 15, 2010 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. Aurora, Philippines, October 8, 2010.

Arman Austria Counsel for Defendant 1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 53014 IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Aurora PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Aurora MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

NOTICE OF HEARING Atty. Kristopher Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff Address: Quezon St., North Poblacion, Dipaculao Aurora

Sir: Please be informed that the undersigned counsel has set the foregoing motion for hearing on October 14, 2010. At 8:30 am for consideration of the Honorable Court or soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. Arman Austria Counsel for Defendant 1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 53014 IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Aurora PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Aurora MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

COPY FURNISHED: Atty. Kristopher Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL I, Renato Pascua, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno in the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, 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. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno 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 8 th day of October 2010, as shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 2, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 3rd day of October 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

Renato Pascua Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3 rd day of 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.

Kristian Vallejos Notary Public Until December 31, 2010 PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/ Aurora IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 45692 MCLE Compliance No. I-85712 Doc. No. 07 Page No. 6 Book No. 16 Series of 2010

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court Fourth Judicial Region Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno, Complainant -versus-

Civil Case No. 1711 For: Permanent Protection Order under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno, Defendant x---------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS Accused, 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; 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 plaintiff’s 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. Arman Austria Counsel for Defendant 1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 53014 IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Aurora PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Aurora MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

NOTICE OF HEARING Atty. Kristopher Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff Address: Quezon St., North Poblacion, Dipaculao Aurora

Sir: Please be informed that the undersigned counsel has set the foregoing motion for hearing on October 14, 2010. At 8:30 am for consideration of the Honorable Court or soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.

Arman Austria Counsel for Defendant 1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 53014 IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Aurora PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Aurora MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

COPY FURNISHED: Atty. Kristopher Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL I, Renato Pascua, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say: That I am the messenger of Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno in the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, 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. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno 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 8 th day of October 2010, as shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 2, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 3rd day of October 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

Renato Pascua Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3 rd day of 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.

Kristian Vallejos Notary Public Until December 31, 2010 PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/ Aurora IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 45692 MCLE Compliance No. I-85712 Doc. No. 31 Page No. 6 Book No. 16 Series of 2010

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court Fourth Judicial Region Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno,

Complainant Civil Case No. 1711 For: Permanent Protection Order under RA 9262

-versus-

Eddie Rebueno,

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 defendant’s 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. Aurora, Philippines, October 8, 2010

Kristopher Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff Address: Quezon St., North Poblacion, Dipaculao Aurora Roll of Attorney No. 11170 IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/1984 at Manila PTR No. 1119427, issued on 05/16/1988 at Manila MCLE Compliance No. I-17245

NOTICE OF HEARING

Atty. Arman Austria Counsel for Defendant Address: 1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora

Sir: Please be informed that the undersigned counsel has set the foregoing motion for hearing on October 14, 2010. At 8:30 am for consideration of the Honorable Court or soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.

Kristopher Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff Address: Quezon St., North Poblacion, Dipaculao Aurora Roll of Attorney No. 11170 IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/1984 at Manila PTR No. 1119427, issued on 05/16/1988 at Manila MCLE Compliance No. I-17245

COPY FURNISHED: Atty. Arman Austria Counsel for Defendant

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Stephen Galang, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say: That I am the messenger of Atty. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno in the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, 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. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno 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 12 th day of October 2010, as shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 9, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this October 8, 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

Stephen Galang

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 8th day of 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.

Kristian Vallejos Notary Public Until December 31, 2010 PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/ Aurora IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 45692 MCLE Compliance No. I-85712 Doc. No. 31

Page No. 6 Book No. 16 Series of 2010

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court Fourth Judicial Region Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno, Complainant -versus-

Civil Case No. 1711 For: Permanent Protection Order under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno, 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 as birthday gift from her, in no case did he ever harassed, slapped on the face 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.

Aurora, Philippines, October 1, 2010

Arman Austria Counsel for Defendant 1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 53014 IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/ Aurora PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/ Aurora MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

VERIFICATION

I, Eddie Rebueno, of legal age and with residence at Rizal St. North Poblacion, Dipaculao, Aurora Province, 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. Eddie Rebueno Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1st day of October 2010 at Aurora, Philippines, affiant appearing before me with his CTC No. 1879 issued on December 2, 1998 at Aurora, Philippines and SSS No. 00247518 issued on April 12, 1995.

Kristian Vallejos Notary Public Until December 31, 2010 PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 45692 MCLE Compliance No. I-85712 Doc. No. 12 Page No. 5 Book No. 17 Series of 2010

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Renato Pascua, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say: That I am the messenger of Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno in the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, 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. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno 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 8 th day of October 2010, as shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 2, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 3rd day of October 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

Renato Pascua Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of 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.

Kristian Vallejos Notary Public Until December 31, 2010 PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 45692 MCLE Compliance No. I-85712 Doc. No. 12 Page No. 5 Book No. 17 Series of 2010

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court Fourth Judicial Region Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno, Complainant -versus-

Civil Case No. 1711 For: Permanent Protection Order under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno, Defendant x---------------------------------------x ANSWER WITH COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM Defendant, by counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully states: That as a consequence of plaintiff’s 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 attorney’s 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. Aurora, Philippines October 17, 2010

Arman Austria Counsel for Defendant 1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 53014 IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/Aurora PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/Aurora MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING I, Eddie Rebueno, of legal age and with residence at Rizal St., North Poblacion, Dipaculao, Aurora Province, 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. 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 17th day of October 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the municipality of Baler, Aurora this 18th day of September 2010 by Eddie Rebueno with Residence Certificate No. 011985 issued at Dipaculao, Aurora on March 27, 2001 and SSS No. 17278 issued at Baler, Aurora on July 17, 2000.

Kristian Vallejos Notary Public Until December 31, 2010 PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 45692 MCLE Compliance No. I-85712

Doc. No. 52 Page No. 17 Book No. 11 Series of 2010

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL I, Renato Pascua, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say: That I am the messenger of Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno in the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, 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. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno 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 October 2010, as shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 17, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this day of October 17, 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

Renato Pascua Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 17th day of 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.

Kristian Vallejos Notary Public Until December 31, 2010 PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 45692 MCLE Compliance No. I-85712 Doc. No. 12 Page No. 5 Book No. 17 Series of 2010

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court Fourth Judicial Region Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno, Complainant

Civil Case No. 1711 For: Permanent Protection Order under RA 9262

-versus-

Eddie Rebueno, Defendant x---------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND COUNTERCLAIM Defendant, by counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully states: 1. 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. 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 plaintiff’s 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 attorney’s 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.

Aurora, Philippines October 17, 2010

Arman Austria Counsel for Defendant 1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 53014 IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/Aurora PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/Aurora MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING I, Eddie Rebueno, of legal age and with residence at Rizal St., North Poblacion, Dipaculao, Aurora Province, 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. 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 17th day of October 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

Eddie Rebueno Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the municipality of Baler, Aurora this 18th day of September 2010 by Eddie Rebueno with Residence Certificate No. 011985 issued at Dipaculao, Aurora on March 27, 2001 and SSS No. 17278 issued at Baler, Aurora on July 17, 2000.

Kristian Vallejos Notary Public Until December 31, 2010 PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 45692 MCLE Compliance No. I-85712

Doc. No. 52 Page No. 17 Book No. 11 Series of 2010 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Renato Pascua, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say: That I am the messenger of Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno in the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, 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. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno 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 October 2010, as shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 17, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this day of October 17, 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

Renato Pascua Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 17th day of 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.

Kristian Vallejos Notary Public Until December 31, 2010 PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 45692 MCLE Compliance No. I-85712 Doc. No. 12 Page No. 5 Book No. 17 Series of 2010

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court Fourth Judicial Region Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno, Complainant

Civil Case No. 1711 For: Permanent Protection Order under RA 9262

-versus-

Eddie Rebueno, Defendant x---------------------------------------x

REPLY

Clea Rebueno, after being duly sworn, deposes and say: 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 2001 until September 2002 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 John Karash Memorial 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 accused is Annex F, the Medical Certificate executed by Dr. Vladimir Enriquez, 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, Daisy Rebueno and her two (2) co-workers, Aizzan Sabatin and Rozel de Asis, who witnessed the harassment, as Annexes A, B C and D, respectively. 4. That for the abovementioned evidences, accused 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.

Aurora, Philippines, October 16, 2010

Kristopher Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff Address: Quezon St., North Poblacion, Dipaculao Aurora Roll of Attorney No. 11170 IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/1984 at Manila PTR No. 1119427, issued on 05/16/1988 at Manila MCLE Compliance No. I-17245

Copy furnished: Atty. Arman Austria Counsel for Defendant

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Stephen Galang, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno in the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, 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. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno 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 25 th day of October 2010, as shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 20, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this October 16, 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

Stephen Galang

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 16th day of 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.

Kristian Vallejos Notary Public Until December 31, 2010 PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/ Aurora IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 45692 MCLE Compliance No. I-85712 Doc. No. 31 Page No. 6 Book No. 16 Series of 2010

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court Fourth Judicial Region Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno,

Complainant Civil Case No. 1711 For: Permanent Protection Order under RA 9262

-versus-

Eddie Rebueno,

Defendant

x---------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF PLAINTIFF, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully submits this pre-trial brief containing the following: 1.

WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AND

POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY SUCH SETTLEMENT

a. Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable and a reciprocal manifestation of openness from plaintiff, accused is open to the possibility of amicably settling this dispute. b. Pursuant to Sec.1, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, accused 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 accused to plaintiff and, second, a schedule of payments.

2.

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.

3.

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 defendant’s mere denial of the allegations against him may acquit him from the coverage of RA 9262. 4. 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. 5. Plaintiff manifests his intention to resort to discovery procedures. 6. Plaintiff does not intend to amend his complaint. 7. 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. Daisy Rebueno, her mother, who witnessed the commotion on June 2, 2010. c. Aizzan Sabatin and Rozel de Asis, her two (2) co-workers who witnessed the harassment at her working place.

RESPECTFULLY submitted. Aurora, Philippines, October 20, 2010.

Kristopher Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff Address: Quezon St., North Poblacion, Dipaculao Aurora Roll of Attorney No. 11170 IBP No. 111862, issued on 03/04/1984 at Manila PTR No. 1119427, issued on 05/16/1988 at Manila MCLE Compliance No. I-17245

Copy furnished: Atty. Arman Austria Counsel for Defendant

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL I, Stephen Galang, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say: That I am the messenger of Atty. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno in the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, 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. Kristopher Vallejos, counsel for Clea Rebueno 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 25 th day of

October 2010, as shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 20, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this October 16, 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

Stephen Galang

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20th day of 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.

Kristian Vallejos Notary Public Until December 31, 2010 PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/ Aurora IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 45692 MCLE Compliance No. I-85712 Doc. No. 31 Page No. 6 Book No. 16 Series of 2010

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court Fourth Judicial Region Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno, Complainant -versus-

Civil Case No. 1711 For: Permanent Protection Order under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno, 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 court’s order, containing the following: I.

WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AND POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY SUCH SETTLEMENT a. Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable and a reciprocal manifestation of openness from plaintiff, accused is open to the possibility of amicably settling this dispute. b. Pursuant to Sec.1, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, accused 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 accused to plaintiff and, second, a schedule of payments.

II.

SUMMARY OF ADMITTED FACTS AND PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

a. The Accused 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, Accused admit no other facts stated in the Complaint.

III.

ISSUE/S TO BE TRIED Accused 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.

IV.

Whether or not defendant’s acts are indictable under RA 9262.

DOCUMENT/S, EXHIBIT/S, EVIDENCE, OR NUMBER AND NAMES OF WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED, STATING THE PURPOSE THEREOF Accused 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. Analyn Lumahan, who will testify on the fact of defendant’s 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, accused does not intend to avail of discovery at this time;

b. Subject however, to a concrete and reasonable request for discovery from plaintiff, accused reserves the right to resort to discovery before trial.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that the foregoing be taken cognizance of. Aurora, Philippines, October 22, 2010

Arman Austria Counsel for Defendant 1501 Angara St. Baler, Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 53014 IBP No. 521098/1-14-09/Aurora PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/Aurora MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

Copy furnished: Atty. Kristopher Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTERED MAIL

I, Renato Pascua, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say:

That I am the messenger of Atty. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno in the cases entited Clea Rebueno vs. Eddie Rebueno, 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. Arman Austria, counsel for Eddie Rebueno 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 30 th day of October 2010, as shown by Registry No. 17 dated October 22, 2010 of the post office of Dipaculao, Aurora. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 22 nd day of October 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

Renato Pascua Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22nd day of 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.

Kristian Vallejos Notary Public Until December 31, 2010 PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/ Aurora IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/ Aurora Roll of Attorneys No. 45692 MCLE Compliance No. I-85712 Doc. No. 07 Page No. 6 Book No. 16 Series of 2010

Republic of the Philippines Regional Trial Court Fourth Judicial Region Branch 66, Aurora

Clea Rebueno, Complainant -versus-

Civil Case No. 1711 For: Permanent Protection Order under RA 9262

Eddie Rebueno, Defendant x---------------------------------------x

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

This compromise and settlement agreement is made by and between Clea Rebueno, who will be referred to as plaintiff, whose address is Doña Aurora St. South Poblacion, Dipaculao, Aurora Province, and Eddie Rebueno, who will be referred to as defendant, whose address is Rizal St. North Poblacion, Dipaculao, Aurora Province.

The parties stipulate to the following:

1. Plaintiff asserts a claim against defendant based on violation of RA 9262 or AntiViolence Against Women and their Children. 2. An action based on this claim is now pending in the Regional Trial Court of Aurora Province, case number 1711, with plaintiff represented by attorney Kristopher Vallejos, and defendant represented by attorney Arman Austria.

3. Defendant denies any liability in connection with the alleged claim.

4. 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:

a. Defendant will pay to plaintiff P150,000 on execution of this agreement or as the case may be.

b. 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.

c. Each party releases the other from all rights and claims that they may have against the other arising from the dispute described above.

d. This agreement is a compromise of a disputed matter and may not be construed as an admission of any party's liability.

e. This agreement was the result of a negotiated settlement and may not be construed as having been prepared by any one party.

f. In the event any action is instituted to enforce the provisions of this agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to recover attorney fees.

g. This agreement is intended to bind and benefit the parties, their heirs, agents, legal representatives, assigns, and successors in interest.

October 30, 2010

Clea Rebueno Signature of Plaintiff

October 30, 2010

Kristopher Vallejos Signature of Plaintiff's Atty.

October 30, 2010

Eddie Rebueno Signature of Defendant

October 30, 2010

Arman Austria Signature of Defendant's Atty.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT LAS PIÑAS Branch _____

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, -versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. ___________ FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ, Respondent. x------------------------------------x PETITION FOR LEGAL SEPARATION

Petitioner, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen, married under the circumstances hereinafter stated and with residence located at No. 123 Narra St. Brgy. Pamplona 3, Las Piñas City, where she may be served with notices, orders and decision in this case. Petitioner is currently employed as Accounting Staff in the SM Corporation; 2. Respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen, married under the circumstances herein stated and with residence at No. 101 Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City. Summons, notices, and decision in the instant case may be served to the Respondent at the abovegiven addresses. Respondent is a Certified Public Accountant with business office at Room 609 Malvar Building, Malate, Manila. 3. Petitioner and respondent exchanged marital vows on December 13, 1990, at Malate Catholic Church, Malate, Manila. A copy of their Marriage Certificate is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX “A”. Having no pre-nuptial

agreement, the existing property relation between the parties is absolute community of property; 4. On October 19, 1997, petitioner and respondent begot their first child, Mark Patrick G. Dela Cruz. A copy of his Certificate of Live Birth with Registry No. 97-60135 is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX “B”; 5. On January 25, 1999, petitioner gave birth to their second child, Patricia Marie G. Dela Cruz. A copy of the Certificate of Live Birth with Registry No. 99-52696 is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX “C”; 6. On January 28, 2001, Petitioner and respondent acquired property located at No. 101 Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City. A copy of the Deed of Sale and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1126145 is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX “D” and “E”, respectively; 7. Sometime in June 2002, the Petitioner left their conjugal home with their children and lived with her parents because of troubles between the Respondent and herself. Petitioner and Respondent often quarrel about money and the latter’s time for their family.

Respondent seldom give

petitioner money to support their family and he also has more time to mingle with friends rather than spend time with his wife and their children; 8. The Respondent herein committed an act of concubinage as defined in the Revised Penal Code, for which the Petitioner simultaneously filed a criminal case against the former; 9. On or about Ferbruary 2010, Petitioner let the children see and spend time with the Respondent. When they arrived at their house in Golden Subdivision, Las Pinas, they discovered that someone named Juanita Gutierrez living with the Respondent. Mark Patrick told the Petitioner about what they saw. Petitioner immediately confirmed it with the Respondent and he admitted this fact. 10. On October 19, 2010, Mark Patrick’s Birthday, Petitioner went to their conjugal home with the children and she saw Respondent and Juanita in the act of caressing each other. 11. Dianne Francisco, a common friend of the Petitioner and Respondent and also a neighbor of the parties, confided to Petitioner that Juanita is living with

the Respondent since year 2005 and Respondent introduced Juanita to the neighborhood as his new wife. Dianne showed to Petitioner pictures of Respondent and Juanita together in the conjugal home of the parties. Copies of the said pictures are attached hereto and marked as ANNEX “F”. 12. The Petitioner never condoned or committed such act of adultery on the part of respondent; 13. The Petitioner became cognizant of the above cause on February 2010 or within one year up to the filing of this petition and within five years from and after the date when such occurred. 14. The facts of this case render the reconciliation of the parties highly improbable. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after due hearing, a decree of legal separation be issued by this Honorable Court, ordering: (a) That Petitioner be entitled to live separately from the respondent, without dissolution, however, of the marriage bond; (b) That the conjugal partnership be dissolved and liquidated, depriving the Respondent of his share of the conjugal partnership profits and awarding the same to the above-named children; and (c) That the custody of the minor children, Mark Patrick G. Dela Cruz and Patricia Marie G. Dela Cruz, be awarded to the petitioner. Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Las Pinas City, November 01, 2010.

ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES Counsel for the Petitioner Room 709, 1010 Building A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila, 1000 IBM Life Member Roll No. 06571/PPLM PTR No. 9729886J / 01-26-10 / LP Roll of Attorney No. 47765 MCLE Compliance II –0017223 / 03-12-09 Tel. No. 765-4321

VERIFICATION

I, MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino, married, and with residence located at No. 123 Narra St. Brgy. Pamplona 3, Las Piñas City, after having been sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state, that: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case; I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition; I have read and understood the contents thereof; All the allegations therein are true and correct base on my personal knowledge and belief; All the annexes attached therein are faithful reproduction from genuine and authentic documents and records;

CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING 6. 7. 8.

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 court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body; To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body; If I should learn of a similar action or proceeding that is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body, I shall inform this Honorable Court of such fact within five (5) days there from. MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ Petitioner

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 1st day of November, 2010 affiant exhibited to me her SSS I.D. No. 34-085739-0 issued on January 06, 2010 at Las Pinas City, Philippines. ATTY. DANILO R. ASUNCION NOTARY PUBLIC Until Dec. 31, 2010 PTR C.R. No. 7349322 – Mla. 01/02/09 IBM C.R. No. 823599 – Mla. 12/20/09 TIN 313-976-878 ROLL No. 29868-09 Doc. No. 52 Page No. 102 Book No. 10 Series of 2010 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT LAS PIÑAS Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, -versus-

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ, Respondent.

CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015 FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

x------------------------------------x MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

COMES NOW the Respondent by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully avers:

15. That the Petitioner’s Petition for Legal Separation in its paragraph 8 alleges that: “The Respondent committed an act of concubinage as defined in the Revised Penal Code, for which the Petitioner simultaneously filed a criminal case against the former.”; 16. That said allegation is insufficient and defective in that it fails to specify what act committed by the Respondent which constitutes the crime of concubinage that was used as a ground for the Legal Separation; 17. That a more definite statement on the matter as above indicated is necessary in order to enable the respondent to prepare properly his responsive pleading. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that an order be issued by this Honorable Court requiring the Petitioner to make more definite and certain his complaint in the particulars above indicated.

Las Pinas City, December 07, 2010. ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY Counsel for the Respondent Room 515 Oriental Bldg. M.H. Del Pilar St., Malate, Manila IBM Life Member Roll No. 08765/PPLM PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-10 / LP Roll of Attorney No. 65758 MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-10 Tel. No. 987-9898

NOTICE OF HEARING THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court Branch 02, Las Piñas City

ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES Counsel for the Petitioner Room 709 1010 Bldg. A. Mabini St. Ermita, Manila Greetings: Please set the foregoing Motion for Bill of Particulars for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on December 09, 2010 at 2:00 in the afternoon or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT LAS PIÑAS Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, -versus-

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ, Respondent. x------------------------------------x

CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015 FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Respondent Pedro S. Dela Cruz, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

1. Respondent admits paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Petition that he is married to the herein Petitioner, that he is the father of Mark Patrick G. Dela Cruz and Patricia Marie G. Dela Cruz, and that he together with the Petitioner acquired the Property located at No. 101 Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City;

2. Respondent partially admits paragraph 7 of the Petition insofar as the fact that on June 2002, Petitioner left their conjugal home with the children because of the troubles between them, but specifically denies the allegations of the Petitioner that they often quarrel because he seldom gives money to support for their family and that he spend more time with friends rather than his wife and his children. The truth is that Respondent seldom gave money to the Petitioner because the latter usually used his money for her own pleasure and not to support their family. Petitioner spent most of their money in Casino or in playing “mahjong” with her friends. Petitioner is the one who spent more of her time with friends rather than her family, and not the Respondent;

3. Respondent partially admits paragraph 8 of the Petition insofar as the fact that their children went to their conjugal home to visit the respondent and spend time with him, but specifically denies the remaining allegations because the truth is that Juanita Gutierrez is not living at the conjugal home but rather she was only invited by the Respondent for a dinner and also to meet the latter’s children;

4. Respondent admits paragraph 9 of the Petition that the Petitioner together with the children went to their conjugal home to celebrate Mark Patrick’s birthday where Juanita was also invited;

5. Respondent specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 10 because Juanita never lived at the conjugal home and that he never introduced Juanita to anyone as his new wife. In fact, no one in the neighborhood knew Juanita because she seldom go out of the house when she visits the Respondent in the conjugal home;

6. Respondent is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments made in paragraph 11;

7. Respondent specifically denies paragraph 12 because Petitioner knew about Juanita since year 2005, and not only on February 2010.

8. As Affirmative Defenses, the Respondent repleads by reference all the foregoing allegations as may be material and pertinent hereto and further aver that:

a. Petitioner knew about the relationship of Respondent and Juanita since year 2005 but she did nothing to interfere with such. She even calls Juanita “Mare” and they sometimes see each other, together with the children, to have lunch or dinner;

b. Assuming without admitting that Juanita is living with the Respondent since year 2005, the Petition for Legal Separation is still dismissable because of Condonation. Petitioner expressly forgiven the Respondent when they live together at their conjugal home on September 2009 until January 2010. Pictures of the Respondent and Petitioner at their conjugal home were taken during those period. Copies of those pictures are attached herewith as ANNEX “1”;

c. Petitioner left the conjugal home for the second time when they often quarrel because Respondent suspected the Petitioner of being in love with another man named Francis Gonzales;

d. On February 2010, Petitioner started to go out publicly with Francis. She even introduced Francis to their children and to the Respondent as well. Only then when Respondent started again to see and go out with Juanita.

WHEREFORE, Respondent most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that the Petition for Legal Separation be DISMISSED.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Las Pinas City, December 15, 2010

ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY Counsel for the Respondent Room 515, Oriental Building M.H. Del Pilar St., Malate, Manila IBM Life Member Roll No. 08765/PPLM PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-10 / LP Roll of Attorney No. 65758 MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-10 Copy Furnished: OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR Las Pinas City ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES Counsel for the Petitioner Room 709, 1010 Building A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila

VERIFICATION I, PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino, married, and with residence located at No. 101 Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City, after having been sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state, that: 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

I am the Respondent in the above-entitled case; I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Petition; I have read and understood the contents thereof; All the allegations therein are true and correct base on my personal knowledge and belief; All the annexes attached therein are faithful reproduction from genuine and authentic documents and records;

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ Respondent SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this 15 th day of December, 2010 affiant exhibited to me her SSS I.D. No. 28-067548-0 issued on January 19, 2001 at Las Pinas City, Philippines.

ATTY. DANILO R. ASUNCION NOTARY PUBLIC Until Dec. 31, 2010 PTR C.R. No. 7349322 – Mla. 01/02/09 IBM C.R. No. 823599 – Mla. 12/20/09 TIN 313-976-878 ROLL No. 29868-09 Doc. No. 75 Page No. 113 Book No. 10 Series of 2010

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT LAS PIÑAS Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, -versus-

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ, Respondent. x------------------------------------x

CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015 FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

REPLY

Petitioner Mary Claire G. Dela Cruz, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

9. Petitioner denies the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph 2 his Answer that: “Respondent seldom gave money to the Petitioner because the latter usually used his money for her own pleasure and not to support their family. Petitioner spent most of their money in Casino or in playing “mahjong” with her friends. Petitioner is the one who spent more of her time with friends rather than her family, and not the Respondent”. The truth of the matter is that Petitioner seldom goes to Casino and play “mahjong” with her friends and every time she goes there, she use her own money which she have earned from her employment and not of the Respondent’s. In fact, Petitioner is the one who is always there for their children, the one who attends there school programs, the one who sends them to the hospital when they are sick and the one who regularly helps them with their school loads. Those things were never done by the Respondent for their children because he is always out with his friends;

10. Petitioner denies the allegation of the Respondent under paragraph 3 of his Answer that “Juanita Gutierrez is not living at the conjugal home but rather she was only invited by the Respondent for a dinner and also to meet the latter’s children” because when Mark Patrick and Patricia Marie arrived at the conjugal home, they saw Juanita came out from the bathroom and she was only clad with a towel. If it is true that she was only invited for dinner, why didn’t she take a bath on her own house rather than at the house of someone else where she was only a guest?

11. Petitioner likewise denies the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph 5 of his Answer that “no one in the neighborhood knew Juanita because she

seldom go out of the house when she visits the Respondent in the conjugal home” because as confided to the Petitioner by Dianna Francisco, Juanita even attended twice of the homeowners’ meetings of the subdivision where the conjugal home is located;

12. Petitioner partially admits the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph 7 and 8(a) of his Answer insofar as the fact that Petitioner knew Juanita as a friend of the Respondent but she never knew of their illicit relationship until the incident on February 2010;

13. Petitioner specifically denies the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph 8(b) of his Answer that: “the Petition for Legal Separation is still dismissable because of Condonation. Petitioner expressly forgiven the Respondent when they live together at their conjugal home on September 2009 until January 2010”. The truth of the matters is that from June 2002 when Petitioner left their conjugal home, Petitioner never talked to Respondent until September 2009 when Petitioner decided to reconcile with the Respondent but that time Petitioner has no knowledge about Juanita previously living with the Respondent at the conjugal home. It is only on February 2010 when the Petitioner knew about the illicit relationship of the Respondent and Juanita;

14. Petitioner partially admits the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph 8(c) only insofar as to the fact that Petitioner left the conjugal home for the second time when they often quarrel because Respondent suspected the Petitioner of being in love with another man named Francis Gonzales; but it is not true that Petitioner is in love with Francis. The truth is that Francis is only a new officemate and friend of the Petitioner and nothing more than that;

15. Lastly, Petitioner denies the allegations of the Respondent under paragraph 8(d) of his Answer because Petitioner never gone out on a date with Francis.

The truth is that a month after the separation of Petitioner and Respondent, the Petitioner discovered that Juanita is living at the conjugal home.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that the Petition for Legal Separation be GRANTED. Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for. Las Pinas City, January 3, 2011. ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES Counsel for the Petitioner Room 709, 1010 Building A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila, 1000 IBM Life Member Roll No. 06571/PPLM PTR No. 9729886J / 01-26-10 / LP Roll of Attorney No. 47765 MCLE Compliance II –0017223 / 03-12-09 Tel. No. 765-4321 Copy Furnished: OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR Las Pinas City ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY Counsel for the Respondent Room 515, Oriental Building M.H. Del Pilar St., Malate, Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT LAS PIÑAS Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, -versus-

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ, Respondent. x------------------------------------x

CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015 FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER I.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

Petitioner and the Respondent were legally married on December 13, 1990 and begotten with two (2) children, namely: Mark Patrick G. Dela Cruz and Patricia Marie G. Dela Cruz. They were separated in fact for the first time on June 2002, reconciled on September 2009, and separated again on January 2010. Petitioner claims that the Respondent is living at the conjugal home with another woman named Juanita Gutierrez since year 2005. On the other hand, Respondent claims that he never lived with Juanita at the conjugal home but he admits his illicit relationship with the latter.

II.

POSSIBILTY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

Petitioner is not willing to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and/or to enter into a just and equitable amicable settlements in order to expedite and put an end to the instant litigation.

III.

PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

The following are the proposed stipulations of facts: 1. Petitioner and Respondent were legally married on December 13, 1990 and begotten with two (2) children, Mark Patrick and Patricia Marie; 2. Petitioner and respondent acquired a property located at No. 101 Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City, as their conjugal home; and 3. Petitioner and Respondent are separated in fact since June 2002. IV.

ADMITTED FACTS

Petitioner’s allegations in her Complaint and Reply constitute her only admissions and nothing more.

V.

STATEMENTS OF THE ISSUE

The sole issue to be resolved is whether or not Petitioner is entitled to a Decree of Legal Separation on the ground of sexual infidelity of the Respondent?

VI.

APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

The following are the applicable laws and jurisprudence: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Pertinent provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines; Pertinent provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines; Pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code, particularly on Concubinage; Other applicable laws and jurisprudence.

VII.

DOCUMENTARY OR EXHIBITS TO BE PRESENTED

In support of their claims, plaintiffs will present the following documentary evidence: 1. Exhibit A – Marriage Contract dated December 13, 1990 to prove the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent; 2. Exhibit B – Certificate of Live Birth of Mark Patrick G. Dela Cruz to prove that he is a son of Petitioner and Respondent; 3. Exhibit C – Certificate of Live Birth of Patricia Marie G. Dela Cruz to prove that she is a daughter of Petitioner and Respondent; 4. Exhibit D – Deed of Sale to prove that Petitioner and Respondent acquire the property located at No. 101 Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City; 5. Exhibit E - Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1126145 to prove that the said property if registered under the names of the Petitioner and Respondent; 6. Exhibit F – Pictures of Respondent and Juanita inside the conjugal home to prove that they were living there together; 7. Petitioner reserve the right to present additional documentary exhibits in the course of the proceedings.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the foregoing Pre-trial Brief be admitted.

Las Pinas City, February 16, 2011. ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES Counsel for the Plaintiffs Room 709, 1010 Building A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila, 1000 IBM Life Member Roll No. 06571/PPLM PTR No. 9729886J / 01-26-10 / LP Roll of Attorney No. 47765 MCLE Compliance II –0017223 / 03-12-09 Tel. No. 765-4321 Copy furnished:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR Las Pinas City ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY Counsel for the Respondent Room 515, Oriental Building M.H. Del Pilar St., Malate, Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT LAS PIÑAS Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, -versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015 FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ, Respondent. x------------------------------------x PRE-TRIAL BRIEF FOR THE RESPONDENT VIII. BRIEF STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES Respondent were legally married to the Petitioner on December 13, 1990 and have two (2) children, namely: Mark Patrick G. Dela Cruz and Patricia Marie G. Dela Cruz. They were separated in fact since June 2002 but reconciled on September 2009 until January 2010 when they separated again for the second time.

Petitioner alleges that the Respondent is living with Juanita Gutierrez at the conjugal home since year 2005. On the other hand, Respondent claims that he never lived with Juanita at the conjugal home but admits the relationship with the latter.

IX.

POSSIBILTY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

Respondent is not willing to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and/or to enter into just and equitable amicable settlements in order to expedite and put an end to the instant litigation.

X.

PROPOSED STIPULATION OF FACTS

The following are the proposed stipulations of facts: 4. Petitioner and Respondent were legally married on December 13, 1990 and begotten with two (2) children, Mark Patrick and Patricia Marie; 5. Petitioner and respondent acquired a property located at No. 101 Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City, as their conjugal home; and 6. Petitioner and Respondent are separated in fact since June 2002. XI.

ADMITTED FACTS

Respondent’s allegations in his Answer constitute her only admissions and nothing more.

XII. STATEMENTS OF THE ISSUE The sole issue to be resolved is whether or not Petitioner has a sufficient cause of action against the Respondent?

XIII. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE The following are the applicable laws and jurisprudence: 5. 6. 7. 8.

Pertinent provisions of the Family Code of the Philippines; Pertinent provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines; Pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code, particularly on Concubinage; Other applicable laws and jurisprudence.

XIV. DOCUMENTARY OR EXHIBITS TO BE PRESENTED

In support of their claims, plaintiffs will present the following documentary evidence: 8. Exhibit 1 – Marriage Contract dated December 13, 1990 to prove the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent; 9. Exhibit 2 – Certificate of Live Birth of Mark Patrick G. Dela Cruz to prove that he is a son of Petitioner and Respondent; 10. Exhibit 3 – Certificate of Live Birth of Patricia Marie G. Dela Cruz to prove that she is a daughter of Petitioner and Respondent; 11. Exhibit 4 – Deed of Sale to prove that Petitioner and Respondent acquire the property located at No. 101 Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City; 12. Exhibit 5 - Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1126145 to prove that the said property if registered under the names of the Petitioner and Respondent; 13. Exhibit 6 – Pictures of Petitioner and Respondent at the conjugal home to prove that they lived again as husband and wife from September 2009 to January 2010; 14. Respondent reserve the right to present additional documentary exhibits in the course of the proceedings.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the foregoing Pre-trial Brief be admitted. Las Pinas City, February 18, 2011.

ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY Counsel for the Respondent Room 515, Oriental Bldg. M.H. Del Pilar St., Malate, Manila IBM Life Member Roll No. 08765/PPLM PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-10 / LP Roll of Attorney No. 65758 MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-10 Tel. No. 987-9898 Copy Furnished: OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR Las Pinas City ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES Counsel for the Petitioner Room 709, 1010 Building A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila, 1000

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12 DEXTER CAGUI,

Plaintiff,

- versus -

Civil Case No. 01 Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages

ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully state: 1. Plaintiff DEXTER CAGUI, Filipinos, of legal age, and resident of 6f Makati Executive Center, 114 Leviste St., Salcedo Village, Makati City. Dexter is a surgeon at Makati Medical Center; 2. Respondent ALMARIO JANDAYAN, INC. is, and at all times herein mentioned, was a Corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines with principal offices located at 12th Floor Pearlbank Center, 106 Valero St., Salcedo Village, Makati; 3. On or about April 17, 2009, Plaintiff and Respondents entered into a written contract by the terms of which plaintiff was to purchase five ABC Diesel Engines, all of 16 horsepower, for 165,500 each from Respondent corporation (contract attached as Exhibit 1-A); 4. The Respondent had warranted and assured the Plaintiff 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. Plaintiff further charged that on June 28, 2009, 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. Plaintiff, then on September 10, 2009, 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 Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff with legal interest from September 10, 2009. 2. That the Respondent be required to compensate the Plaintiff of actual, moral and exemplary damages, plus attorneys fees and other litigation expenses incurred in connection therewith; Plaintiff, likewise pray for such other reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable under the premises.

Makati City, October 20, 2010

IRISH TOM TOLENTINO Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

)

City of Manila ) S.c.

I, DEXTER CAGUI, 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 plaintiff 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 plaintiff 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 October 21, 2010 at Makati City, Philippines.

DEXTER CAGUI Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 27th day of October, 2010, by the affiant who exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at Paranaque City, Philippines on January 6, 2010.

IRISH TOM TOLENTINO Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12 DEXTER CAGUI, Plaintiff, - versus ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. Respondent.

Civil Case No. 01 Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER

RESPONDENT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

1.

Respondent engage the services of the undersigned counsel only on December 10, 2010;

2.

Respondent was served with Summons and copy of the complaint on November 26, 2010 and thus has until December 11, 2010 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 scheduled deadline;

4.

As such, the undersigned counsel is constrained to request for an additional period of Five (5) days from today within which to submit Respondent’s Answer or Responsive Pleading. Moreover, this additional time will also allow the undersigned to interview the available witness and study the case further;

5.

This Motion is not intended for delay but solely due to the foregoing reasons.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Respondent most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that he be given an additional period of Five (5) days from today within which to submit an Answer or other Responsive Pleading.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, Philippines, December 13, 2010. JOY MARIE R. GABOR Counsel for the Plaintiff

VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

COPY FURNISHED: ATTY. IRISH TOM TOLENTINO Counsel for the Plaintiff S215 Makati Executive Center, 114 Leviste St., Salcedo Village, Makati City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12 DEXTER CAGUI,

Plaintiff,

- versus -

Civil Case No. 01 Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages

ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

RESPONDENT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers that: 1. That the plaintiff’s complaint in paragraphs 5 alleges: On September 10, 2009, plaintiff notified the Respondent and demanded rescission of the contract of sale sought for the return of the price of the engine x x x x (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 palintiff; 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 plaintiff 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 compalint.

Makati City, Philippines, December 13, 2010. JOY MARIE R. GABOR Counsel for the Plaintiff

VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

COPY FURNISHED: ATTY. IRISH TOM TOLENTINO Counsel for the Plaintiff S215 Makati Executive Center, 114 Leviste St., Salcedo Village, Makati City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12 DEXTER CAGUI,

Plaintiff,

- versus -

Civil Case No. 01 Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages

ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

PLAINTIFF, 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 Respondent’s knowledge. It amounts to a general denial that would entitle the plaintiff to judgment on the pleadings. 2. Moreover, attached to the complaint, as actionable document is the contract of sales signed by the plaintiff 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 plaintiff on judgment on the pleadings. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that judgment on the pleadings be rendered in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the rescission of the contract of sale and the restitution of the consideration paid for by the plaintiff. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for. IRISH TOM TOLENTINO Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12 DEXTER CAGUI,

Plaintiff,

- versus -

Civil Case No. 01 Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages

ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. Respondent. x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff was indeed entitled to the sought rescission of the contract of sale entered into with the Respondent; without said allegation of the ultimate fact, plaintiff’s demand for rescission would be without legal basis and consequently, plaintiff have no cause of action against Respondent; 4. 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; 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 plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff; 7. As consequence of plaintiff’s 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 attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses; WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully prays that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit, with cost against the plaintiff.

Respondent further prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the premises. Makati City, Philippines, December 14, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

)

City of Manila

) S.c.

I, JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA, 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 Respondent corporation’s duly authorized representative; 2. That after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses, and the allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based of authentic records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this October 4, 2010 at the City of Makati, Philippines. JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of December, 2010, by the affiant who exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at City of Manila, Philippines on January 6, 2010.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12 DEXTER CAGUI,

Plaintiff,

- versus -

Civil Case No. 01 Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages

ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. Respondent. x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff was indeed entitled to the sought rescission of the contract of sale entered into with the Respondent; without said allegation of the ultimate fact, plaintiff’s demand for rescission would be without legal basis and consequently, plaintiff have no cause of action against Respondent; 4. 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; 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 plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff; 7. As consequence of plaintiff’s 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 attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses;

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

1. To the extent plaintiff’s 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 follo0ws: a. Dismissing the plaintiff’s 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. Makati City, Philippines, December 14, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010 VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) City of Manila

) S.c.

I, JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA, 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 Respondent corporation’s duly authorized representative; 2. That after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses, and the allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based of authentic records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this October 4, 2010 at the City of Makati, Philippines. JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA Affiant SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 14 th day of December, 2010, by the affiant who exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at City of Manila, Philippines on January 6, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010 Doc. No.: 454; Page No.: 24; Book No. VII Series of 2010.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12 DEXTER CAGUI, Plaintiff, - versus REMY MURALAGI and ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. Respondent.

Civil Case No. 01 Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS CLAIM

COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff was indeed entitled to the sought rescission of the contract of sale entered into with the Respondent; without said allegation of the ultimate fact, plaintiff’s demand for rescission would be without legal basis and consequently, plaintiff have no cause of action against Respondent; 4. 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; 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 plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff; 7. As consequence of plaintiff’s 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 attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses;

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM By way of compulsory counterclaim, answering Respondent alleges: 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 Respondent has besmirched the Respondent corporation’s reputation which should be compensated by way of suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses;

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 MURALAGI 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 Respondent not having benefited whatsoever from the transactions entered into between Respondent MURALAGI and the plaintiff. WHEREFORE, premises considered answering Respondent respectfully prays to the Honorable Court to render judgment as follows: 1. By dismissing the complaint against answering Respondent; 2. Answering Respondent prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable under the premises. Makati City, Philippines, December 14, 2010. JOY MARIE R. GABOR Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

)

City of Manila

) S.c.

I, JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA, 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 Respondent corporation’s duly authorized representative; 2. That after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses, and the allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based of authentic records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this October 4, 2010 at the City of Makati, Philippines. JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of December, 2010, by the affiant who exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at City of Manila, Philippines on January 6, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010 Doc. No.: 454; Page No.: 24; Book No. VII Series of 2010.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12 DEXTER CAGUI, Plaintiff, - versus REMY MURALAGI and ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. Respondent.

Civil Case No. 01 Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH SPECIFIC DENIAL OF DOCUMENT UNDER OATH

COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff was indeed entitled to the sought rescission of the contract of sale entered into with the Respondent; without said allegation of the ultimate fact, plaintiff’s demand for rescission would be without legal basis and consequently, plaintiff have no cause of action against Respondent; 4. 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; 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 plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff; 7. As consequence of plaintiff’s 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 attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses;

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM By way of compulsory counterclaim, answering Respondent alleges: 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 Respondent has besmirched the Respondent corporation’s reputation which should be compensated by way of suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses;

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 MURALAGI 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 Respondent not having benefited whatsoever from the transactions entered into between Respondent MURALAGI and the plaintiff. WHEREFORE, premises considered answering Respondent respectfully prays to the Honorable Court to render judgment as follows: 1. By dismissing the complaint against answering Respondent; 2. Answering Respondent prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable under the premises. Makati City, Philippines, December 14, 2010. JOY MARIE R. GABOR Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

)

City of Manila

) S.c.

I, JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA, 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 Respondent corporation’s duly authorized representative; 2. That after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses, and the allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based of authentic records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this October 4, 2010 at the City of Makati, Philippines. JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of December, 2010, by the affiant who exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at City of Manila, Philippines on January 6, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010 Doc. No.: 454; Page No.: 24; Book No. VII Series of 2010.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12 DEXTER CAGUI,

Plaintiff,

- versus -

Civil Case No. 01 Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages

REMY MURALAGI and ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AND COUNTER CLAIM

COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff was indeed entitled to the sought rescission of the contract of sale entered into with the Respondent; without said allegation of the ultimate fact, plaintiff’s demand for rescission would be without legal basis and consequently, plaintiff have no cause of action against Respondent; 4. 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; 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 plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff; 7. As consequence of plaintiff’s 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 attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses;

SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES At the time the Contract of Sales was entered on April 17, 2009, Respondent made it clear to the plaintiff that it officially transacts business only through direct sales duly authorized by the Respondent corporation: A. Respondent MURALAGI was not duly authorized direct sales agent of answering Respondent B. And that transactions entered into in behalf of the answering Respondent by MURALAGI are unauthorized, plaintiff have no cause of action against answering Respondent. COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM By way of compulsory counterclaim, answering Respondent alleges: 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 Respondent has besmirched the Respondent corporation’s reputation which should be compensated by way of suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses;

WHEREFORE, premises considered answering Respondent respectfully prays to the Honorable Court to render judgment as follows: 3. By dismissing the complaint against answering Respondent; 4. Answering Respondent prays for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable under the premises. Makati City, Philippines, December 14, 2010. JOY MARIE R. GABOR Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

)

City of Manila

) S.c.

I, JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say: 3. That I am the Respondent corporation’s duly authorized representative; 4. That after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses,

and the allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based of authentic records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this October 4, 2010 at the City of Makati, Philippines. JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCULA Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of December, 2010, by the affiant who exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at City of Manila, Philippines on January 6, 2010.

JOY MARIE R. GABOR Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010 Doc. No.: 454; Page No.: 24; Book No. VII Series of 2010.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12 DEXTER CAGUI, Plaintiff, - versus -

Civil Case No. 01 Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages

ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

REPLY

PLAINTIFF, 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 Respondent’s knowledge. It amounts to a general denial that would entitle the plaintiff to judgment on the pleadings. 2. Moreover, attached to the complaint, as actionable document is the contract of sales signed by the plaintiff 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 plaintiff on judgment on the pleadings. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, 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 Complait Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for. IRISH TOM TOLENTINO Counsel for the Plaintiff

VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12 DEXTER CAGUI,

Plaintiff,

- versus -

Civil Case No. 01 Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages

ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. Respondent. x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PLAINTIFF’S PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

PLAINTIFF, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits the following Pre-trial Brief in compliance with the order of the Court dated January 4, 2011. A. Possibility of Amicable Settlement Plaintiff hereby manifest that he is open to amicable settlement on matters other than rescission of the contract of sale; B. Brief Statement of Plaintiff The complaint filed is founded on the basic legal maxim that no one shall be enriched at the expense of another. The Respondent’s breach of contract has not only caused monetary loss but likewise resulted to the plaintiffs 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 plaintiff and Respondent corporation may be rescinded. E. Documents for Markings - Contract of Sale - Invoices (delivery and official receipts) - Receiving Papers F. Witnesses - Plaintiff himself - Trucking Services representative (who made the delivery) G. Trial Dates - Subject to available dates of the Honorable Court

Respectfully submitted

Makati City, November 26, 2010

IRISH TOM TOLENTINO Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

COPY FURNISHED: JOY MARIE R. Gabor Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12 DEXTER CAGUI,

Plaintiff,

- versus -

Civil Case No. 01 Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages

ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. Respondent. x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ARBITRATION – COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

Plaintiff DEXTER CAGUI, filed this complaint against Respondent ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. for rescission of the written contract of sale entered into between them. Plaintiff 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:

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT Comes Now, the parties plaintiff DEXTER CAGUI and Respondent ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. and unto this Honorable Court respectfully submit this compromise agreement: 1. Respondent corporation acknowledges its obligation to the plaintiff for a total amount of Php827,500 plus 6% PA interest from January 1, 2010; 2. Respondent promises and undertakes to pay the aforementioned amount to the plaintiff in 3 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 plaintiff Baco De Oro Account (No. 138008888 BDO Valeoro,Makati) until full payment and in accordance with the following schedule: February 20, 2011 Php292,383.33 March 31, 2011

Php292,383.33

April 30, 2011

Php292,383.33

4. The if the Respondent fails to comply with one (1) installment, the obligation shall become due and demandable;

5. That the plaintiff 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 therof.

Makati City, January 17, 2011

______________________ DEXTER CAGUI Plaintiff

_____________________ JAIME POCIUNCULA (ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO.) Respondent

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT National Capital Judicial Region Branch 100, Manila City

ALVIN G. MARASIGAN, Plaintiff,

-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. 556987

ROSEMARIE B. SANTOS, Defendant.

x---------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER Defendant Rosemarie Santos through the undersigned counsel respectfully submits the following position paper and states that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This action for annulment filed by plaintiff Alvin Marasigan for his marriage with defendant Rosemarie B. Reyes on April 19, 2005 was filed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 100 on the following grounds:

1. Fraud on account of the defendant’s pregnancy with a child not of the plaintiff’s. 2. The plaintiff’s consent having been obtained by force and intimidation 3. Failure in obtaining consent of the plaintiff’s parents.

The plaintiff also prays for support and moral damages on account of the foregoing allegations.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Defendant Rosemarie B. Santos, daughter of Lawyer-Businessman Felipe Valdez Santos, was eighteen (18) years old when she married herein plaintiff Alvin Marasigan who was then twenty (20) years old and was about to enter the law school. The ceremony was held on April 19, 2005 at the Manila City Hall officiated by Manila Mayor Lito Atienza.

Prior to the said marriage, Santos and Marasigan 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 loud environment, they drove to a motel and spent the night together. That night has since started the malady of their lives.

Defendant Santos found out her pregnancy a month before her graduation at the St. Paul’s University – Manila as a Broadcast Journalism student. EXHIBIT A is the original copy of the pregnancy test done by Dr. Erlinda Colayco, an OB-Gyne of Delos Santos Hospital, on the defendant stating that as of March 20, 2005, the defendant is carrying a four-week old baby in her womb. The plaintiff however questions his paternity over the child.

In a cross examination with the plaintiff, (TSN, July 20, 2007, p. 16), he alleged that on February 22, 2005, he was approached by two bodyguards of the defendant’s father, Atty. Felipe Santos, accordingly informing him of the ‘misfortune’ that he would be in should he not marry the defendant. A revolver was accordingly shown to him when

the bodyguards sensed his hesitation. Two days after the incident, the plaintiff allegedly approached personally the defendant’s father invoking his incapability to enter into marriage. However, Atty. Santos accordingly told him to ‘expect to die’. The defendant denies the accusations stating that her father, who is a church pastor, could not do such a ‘horrible’ act. Further, Santos maintains that neither did her father intervene in her personal choices including her personal life. The defendant added that her father only knew of Marasigan when both of them already decided to get married, abandoning the contention that Atty. Santos forced Marasigan to marry her.

Moreover, the plaintiff contends that he failed to obtain his parent’s consent when he married defendant Santos as they were in the United States. Due to the fraud referred to in the preceding paragraph, the plaintiff was forced to seek help from an elderly couple by the name of Claudio Gunda and Rosita Ramirez-Gunda who operate a gotohan near his residence to pretend to be his parents thus making it appear that their marriage was valid. The court has established the correctness of the accusation through the examination conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation on the thumb mark made by the couple on the subject marriage contract compared to that of thumb marks of the real parents of plaintiff Marasigan (EXHIBIT D). The court no longer required the couple to testify in court as the evidence was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUES The court defined the following issues which the defendant prays to result in the annulment of his marriage with defendant Santos: 1. Fraud on account of the defendant’s pregnancy with a child not of the plaintiff’s. 2. The plaintiff’s consent having been obtained by force, intimidation and undue influence. 3. Failure in obtaining consent of the plaintiff’s parents.

ARGUMENTS

I

The court has established the fact that defendant Santos was known in the same university for her playfulness with her male buddies. The university’s Guidance Counselor has testified the numerous instances when the defendant’s attention was called due to her alleged obvious misconduct of consistently going out with various male acquaintances as complained by the latter’s respective girlfriends (TSN, July 13, 2007, p.4). Said accusation was not denied by defendant Santos.

Defendant Santos also admitted in court that in her past experiences, some has already confronted her affront regarding her playful deeds. In fact, defendant Santos also admits the truthfulness of the plaintiff’s allegation that they were not even lovers when they first had sex. However, it has to be pointed out that during the cross examination with the plaintiff by the undersigned, the former admitted that he already knew Santos by name and he has already heard so much about her playful reputation.

Alvin Marasigan on direct-examination (TSN, July 20, 2007, p. 10 to 12).

ATTY. QUIRANTE: Q

Do you know Rosemarie Santos even before you met in the class party?

A

No.

Q

Can you tell this court how you approached her?

A

She looked beautiful that night. When I got the chance of getting near her, I immediately did.

Q

So you were attracted to her. Did you have the hint that she would not decline your conversation with her?

A

Yes. My friends assured me I wouldn’t get rejected.

Q

So your friends knew her.

A

Yes.

Q

Did you not have any boy talk with your friends regarding Rosemarie?

A

Yes we did but I did not know her personally.

It had long been held in Carris v. Carris, 24 N.J. Eq. 516 that where a man has had sexual intercourse with his wife before the marriage, and she is pregnant at the time of marriage, although he may not be the author of the pregnancy, the marriage will not be annulled. It is only but proper to abandon the defense of fraud on the regard both the husband and the wife were parties to premarital immortality. Clearly, the issue of paternity over the couple’s child is not up to resolve the allegation of fraud as cited in Art. 46, Family Code. Whether or not the child is that of Alvin Marsigan could not be a valid ground to annul his marriage with herein defendant. The defendant however insists the paternity of Marasigan. Nonetheless, the petitioner failed to satisfactorily prove his denial on his paternity over the child for not presenting a more technical, accurate and reliable evidence despite the wide array of scientific avenues of proving or disproving paternity.

II

Plaintiff Marasigan alleged that if it were not for the force and intimidation applied to him compelling him to marry Rosemarie Santos, the marriage would not have occurred. This issue is clearly of no moment because the petitioner dismally proved with

sufficient bases that indeed he was forced or intimidated prejudicing his consent over the marriage.

Marasigan brought to the court Allan Colandog, his friend who was accordingly with him when the guards approached him and as witness Colandog put it, “forced” him to marry Rosemarie. Further, Colandog testified that the guards showed Marasigan their respective revolvers when the latter manifested his refusal to the marriage. Marasigan was too affected, avers Colandog, that he shivered in fear when the guards disappeared. He further recapped that Marasigan got affected to the point that he missed one of his series of interviews at the University of Santo Tomas as an applicant for admission at the University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law (TSN, July 13, 2007, p. 17).

The defendant, despite his denial to the aforementioned facts, first chose not to present any further evidence to contradict the allegations that have affected her family to the point of separating herself voluntarily under the guardianship of her parents by living alone in a condominium unit in Quezon City. Santos was evidently too emotional in her cross examination.

Rosemarie Santos on cross-examination (id, at p. 24).

ATTY AFABLE

Q

Did your father force or intimidate Alvin to marry you?

A

No

Q

Then what can you say about the petitioner’s allegation that he was forced and intimidated prior to the marriage ceremony?

A

I’m so tired of his allegations. These things destroyed my family that I no longer know how to restore our broken ties. Go on, tell this court every single lie and I will not negate them. You can even incarcerate me right now.

Q

Calm down Ms. Santos. So you are not presenting any evidence to contradict the allegations?

A

No.

Vitiated consent by force and intimidation is a valid ground for annulment as stated in Art. 45, Family Code. The present family code limits the cases which would constitute fraud sufficient for annulment of marriage to those enumerated in Article 46 (Anaya v. Palaroan, 36 SCRA 97).

However, the petitioner failed to prove in this court the existence of such force and intimidation when he failed to negate the single evidence that herein defendant later presented. EXHIBIT G and E submitting Atty. Santos’ passport and Certificate of Appearance respectively, indicating that he was in a business conference at Istanbul, Turkey on February 19 to 25, 2005, making it impossible for him to meet the petitioner on February 22, 2005. Marasigan also failed to establish the viability of his allegation that the guards showed him their guns when the said guards were on leave due to their employer’s absence (see copy of employees’ logbook EXHIBIT F).

Given that these allegations are true, the most that the court can discern over the actions of the plaintiff prior to the marriage is his reluctance to the marriage. In which case, as interestingly held in Vales v. Villa, 35 Phil 789 that there must, then, be a distinction to be made between a case where a person gives his consent reluctantly and even against his good sense and judgment, and where he, in reality, gives no consent at all, as where he executes a contract or performs an act against his will under a pressure which he cannot resist. It is clear that one acts as voluntarily and independently in the

eye of the law when he acts reluctantly and with hesitation as when he acts spontaneously and joyously. Legally speaking he acts as voluntarily and freely when he acts wholly against his better sense and judgment as when he acts in conformity with them. Between the two acts there is no difference in law.

Very clearly, the petitioner is just shopping for grounds to annul his marriage with the plaintiff.

III

It is also stated in Art. 45, Family Code

Article 45. 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; (emphasis supplied).

xxx xxx xxx

True enough, the petitioner was above 18 but below 21 during the marriage. The court very well established that the petitioner seek help from the Gunda couple for the consummation of the marriage ceremony. The defendant herself knew that the Gunda couple was not Marasigan’s parents because she knew that the former’s parents have been in the United States for so long and that they cared so much for Alvin that they would not miss their son’s marriage without first knowing her would-be wife. The

defendant is definitely of the same stand that they were both not in legal age when they contracted the marriage and that only her father consented.

The issue now turns out to be whether they were still cohabiting at the time when Alvin turned 21, in squaring off with the qualification in paragraph 1 of Art. 45, Family Code.

As the defense easily established, the couple were still cohabiting as the plaintiff told the court.

Alvin Marasigan on direct-examination (TSN, July 20, 2007, p. 21).

ATTY QUIRANTE

Q

By the way Alvin, when did Rosemarie live your home to live alone in a condominium?

A

A month ago or so?

Q

Are you sure?

A

Well we lived in the same house but we were not at peace with each other.

Marasigan turned 22 on January 1, 2007. At the time of the interrogation he was already 22 and seven months. Clearly, if Rosemarie left their home a month before said interrogation, they were still cohabiting when petitioner Marasigan turned 21. Therefore, Art. 45 of the Family Code could not be invoked by the petitioner in annulling their marriage.

This malady has gone through a weary race. Contrary to what the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity (Art. 68, Family Code). The sanction therefore is the “spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and not any legal mandate or court order” to enforce consortium (Tsoi v. Lao-Tsoi, 334 Phil 294, citing Cuaderno v. Cuaderno, 120 Phil. 1298)

At any rate, it is being implored that this journey of diametrically opposed marriage be settled in its most peaceful way. That what damage this has caused to the emotions of the parties be repaired and their affection restored.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE premises considered, Defendant respectfully prays that plaintiff’s action for annulment de denied for the grounds he presented are bereft of merit.

Other relief just and equitable under the premises is also prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Manila City, March 10, 2008.

GLEN ARROYO QUIRANTE Counsel for Defendant P. Burgos St., Manila PTR No. 6347124, 2/24/2008, Manila City IBP No. 812332, 4/13/2008, Pasig City Roll of Attorney No. 43789

Copy Furnished: Atty. Florie Gama Afable Garcia Macalintal and Associates Counsel for Plaintiff 3rd Floor, Orcel Bldg., Quezon Avenue, Quezon City

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Fourth Judicial Region Branch 85 Lipa City MARTONI F. REYES, Petitioner,

SP. PROC NO. 09-0281 For: Declaration of Nullity Of Marriage

-versus-

SUSAN L. REYES Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

OFFER OF TESTIMONY. The testimony of petitioner, MARTONI F. REYES is being offered to prove the material allegations in the petition regarding his marriage to SUSAN L. REYES, and the circumstances before, during and after their marriage and the subsequent separation of the parties. To prove that petitioner, Guido F. Reyes failed to comply with his marital obligation to live together, observe mutual love and respect and render mutual help and support. To prove that petitioner consulted a clinical psychologist to help him in determining whether he has psychological incapacity to assume the essential marital obligation. To identify some documents necessary in the prosecution of this petition. How are you related to the petitioner? A. I am the petitioner sir. Where are you residing? A. I am a resident of Blk 4, Lot 10 Adelina Homes Subd., Lipa City, Batangas. Do you know Susann Reyes? A.Yes sir. Why do you know her? A.She is my wife sir. When and where were you married to Susan L. Reyes? A.The report of marriage sir. When and where did you meet Susa L. Reyes? A.I met her sometime in 1993 in the State of Bahrain, we were both Overseas Filipino Contract Workers.

How would you describe your first meeting with Susa L. Reyes? A.I saw her as one I could be with to while away from the boredom of working in Bahrain. What did you do if any? A.After a few days i courted her, but i wasn’t actually serious with her. How did you court her? A.I personally visited her or i would call her on the phone to profess my love. So what happened next? A.We started dating and soon we began to engage in premarital sex. However, I treated her as a playmate only, i was not serious with her, all I wanted was her body. What else happened? A.Every time we have concluded our trysts, I would distance myself and not call her for days, and when I feel the urge again I would call her and we will have sex. That was my routine and to me, Susan L. Reyes was only one of my conquests and when I grew tired, I would have to discard her like an old toy, and for no reason I began dreading the times she called. After having sex with the respondent, what happened, if any? A.Susan L. Reyes became pregnant. What was your reaction? A.I got mad about it so without any further words I hung up the phone. What happened next if any? A.I just decided to marry Susan. Do you love Susan by that time? A.No sir. So why did you marry Susan? A.Because I don’t want to inconvenience the parties concerned. After the marriage ceremony, what happened next? A.After the marriage ceremony, we each went on our own ways. What happened after that? A.When my contract ended in mid 1994, I went back to the Philippines without Susan’s knowledge. Susan was already six months pregnant. While in the Philippines, did you meet Susan? A.Yes sir, but only once. Will you please tell us the incident? A.In 1996, Susan, our child and Susan’s family were able to trace my whereabouts and came to our house in Batangas. For the first time i saw my child. What was your reaction? A.I did not feel anything special. So you were not happy to see Susan and your Son. A.I was not happy sir.

What else happened? A.Susan tried to extend her hand in reconciliation but I refused it. Why did you refuse? A.Because I had already made a decision not to live with her, because it would be unfair both to me and Susan as we would be living a lie. What happened next? A.They left without any further conversation. Before filing this case, did you consult anyone? A.Yes sir. Whom did you consult? A.Besides my lawyer, I consulted a clinical psychologist. Who was that clinical psychologist? A.Dr. Nedy Tayag. What did Dr. Tayag do if any? A.She performed various psychological tests. After those psychological tests, what happened? A.Dr. Tayag prepared a written report. What is that written report? A.It is a report on the psychological condition of Guido Reyes. What does it contain? A.My background data and brief marital history. What else? A.The tests results and evaluation and remarks. A.You mentioned remarks, what were her remarks? She mentioned that after a thorough analysis of the facts and other relevant date, Dr. Tayag is of the strong opinion that the eventual failure of our relationship was after all, brought about by my own misguided notions and apparent unpreparedness as well as immaturity towards assuming the shoes of a married man. I apparently lacked appropriate insight on my behaviour and deemed to be psychologically incapacitated to properly perform, or even come close to being the husband that i was supposed to be. On the clinical point of view, I am deemed suffering from a distant form of personality flaw, which have deterred me both from appropriately living up to my marital vows and fulfilling my paternal obligations. My behavioural manifestations suggest the presence of Personality Disorder, Narcissistic type, as characterized by the reckless disregard for the feelings and needs of another person. 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 16th day of February 2009 at Batangas City.

MARTONI F. REYES Affiant Driver’s License No.:DO1-05-006787

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6th day of June 2007 in Lipa City, Batangas.

JAYSON BARRETO CAGTAHAN Counsel for the Accused Camia Street, City Park Subdivision Sabang 4217 Lipa City Roll of Attorneys 67167 PTR No. 9828287/LIpa City/1-5-2009 IBP No. 25633/1-05-2009 MCLE Compliance No. II-0008371

Doc No. ________ Page No.________ Book No._______ Series of 2007.

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Fourth Judicial Region Branch 85 Lipa City CLAIRE REPADAS CUNANAN, Petitioner,

CIVIL CASE NO. 09-0281

-versus-

324 CONTRACTORS, INC., Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x MOTION FOR WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES NOW COMES the plaintiff in the above entitled case, moves for a rule on the defendant, 324 Contractors, Inc., to answer under oath the following interrogatories: 1. Did 324 Corporation prior to 1st day of October, 2008, enter into a contract with Habaji Coporation for the servicing, repairing, or inspecting of all or any of the bar fixtures sold to its customers, any or all parts of which were purchased from the defendant, 324 Contractors, Inc? 2. Was such contract, if any, in writing? 3. Was the said contract in force on the 1st day of October, 2008? 4. Did Habaji Corporation at any time prior to the 1st day of October, 2008 purchase from 324 Contractors, Inc any of the bar fixtures with which the restaurant and tavern operated by Lito Garcia at 336 Camo Street, was equipped prior to the day aforesaid, including a cooler for the purpose of keeping beef cold and fresh for consumption? 5. Did Habaji Corporation operate its inspection, service and repair department under the name of the Corporation? 6. What was the relationship, if any, between the aforesaid Habaji Corporation and Huson Corporation? 7. Did Habaji Corporation by any of its employees, inspect, service, and made repairs on a certain cooler machine in the tavern aforesaid on the 1st day of October 2008, and at any other time between that date and the 2nd day of November, 2008?

8. Were Habaji Corporation and Huson Corporation both located at 224 Street on the 2nd day of November, 2008? AFFIDAVIT WILBUR IAN Q. BABULA, being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes and says that he is one of 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, 324 Contractors, Inc. Affiant is informed and believes that the said bar fictures were inspected, altered, and repairs attempted to be made by one of the servants and agents of the defendant, Habaji Corporation, and that said work was done by said Habaji Corporation, by virtue of a certain contract with 324 Corporation; that the said defendant in its answer has denied that it had any such contract with the defendant, the Habaji Corporation, and that the said fixtures were inspected, altered, or repaired by its servant or agent, that a same denial has also been made in the answer of the defendant, Habaji Corporation.

Affiant further says that the evidence required by the answers of the interrogatories herewith presented, and the list of wsorn documents, are necessary and material in the trial of said cause.

WILBUR IAN BABULA & Associates 2nd Flr. JR Business Complex, Ayala Highway Mataas na Lupa, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 By : WILBUR IAN BABULA PRT # 0577210 / 01-02-08 / Lipa City IBO # 65347 / 01-03-08 / Batangas City ROLL No. 43990

Republic of the Philippines Department of Justice Prosecutor’s Office Lipa City ROSARIO B. CHAVER, Petitioner,

SP. PROC CASE NO.2007-009 FOR: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

-versus-

Alejandro Guevarra, Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x MOTION FOR THE TAKING OF DEPOSITION OF WITNESS

PETITIONER ROSARIO B. CHAVER, by and through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully manifests: 1. That last November 11, 2009, MARIETA GLOBO ECACA, witness for the herein plaintiff, arrived for a one-month vacation from Qatar 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 Qatar on December 13, 2007, and, is uncertain as to when departure on December 13, 2009.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honourable Court that an Order be taken before the Branch Clerk of Court of this Court preferably on December 12, 2009 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon. Other relief and remedies, just and equitable in the premises, are likewise prayed for. City of Tanauan for Lipa City, December 7, 2009. JAYSON BARRETO CAGTAHAN Counsel for the Accused Camia Street, City Park Subdivision Sabang 4217 Lipa City Roll of Attorneys 67167 PTR No. 9828287/LIpa City/1-52009 IBP No. 25633/1-05-2009 MCLE Compliance No. II0008371

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.

JASON BARRETO CAGTAHAN

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12 DEXTER CAGUI, Plaintiff, - versus ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. Respondent.

Civil Case No. 01 Complaint for Rescission of Contract with Damages

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW the Respondent, ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO., through the undersigned counsel, appearing especially and solely for this purpose, and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully moves for the dismissal of the Complaint on the following ground that THE HONORABLE COURT HAS NOT ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDING PARTY. DISCUSSION A cursory reading of the Summons and Return of Service would readily show that the copies of the Summons dated December 8, 2010 and the Complaint and its corresponding annexes were allegedly delivered and tendered upon the Movant ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. through a certain Maria Clara alleged to be the authorized personnel of ALMARIO JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO., Makati City on December 11, 2010. Copies of the said Summons and Return of Service that form part of the records on the case are hereto pleaded as integral part of this Motion; Said service of Summons, however, constitutes an improper service of summons amounting to lack of jurisdiction over the person of the herein Movant Corporation since the summons was improperly served upon a person who is not one of those persons named or enumerated in Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure upon whom service of summons shall be made; The material provision on the service of summons provided for in Section 11 of Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure reads as follows: "Section 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 ours) It bears no further emphasis that the service of the summons was done on a person who is not included in the exclusive enumeration provided for under the said Section, as service was done only on an alleged authorized personnel of the Movant Corporation; This new revision of the Rules of Court for the service of summon is a clear departure from the old rule as stated in Section 13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which provided that:

"SECTION 13.Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. - If the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly registered, service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors." It must be equally noted that the changes in the new rules are substantial and not just general semantics as the new rules restricted the service of summons on persons clearly enumerated therein. In effect, the new provision makes it more specific and clear such that in the case of the word "manager", it was made more precise and changed to "general manager", "secretary" to "corporate secretary", and excluding therefrom agent and director; The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to accept summons for a domestic corporation or partnership is under the new rules, limited and more clearly specified, departure from which is fatal to the validity of the service of the summons and resulting in the failure of the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent corporation. PRAYER WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Complaint with respect to the Movant Corporation be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for. IRISH TOM TOLENTINO Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

COPY FURNISHED: JOY MARIE R. Gabor Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 12 IRISH DELA CRUZ-CAGUI, Petitioner, - versus -

Civil Case No. 01 Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

DEXTER CAGUI

Respondent.

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

PETITIONER Irish Dela Cruz, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, alleges: 1. Petitioner is of legal age and with residence at 6933 Washington St., Pio Del Pilar, Makati City, while her husband, respondent Dexter Cagui, is also of legal age and at present is residing in 6f Makati Executive Center, 114 Leviste St. Salcedo Village, Makati. 2. On October 20, 2008, petitioner and respondent got married at the Lourdes Church Retiro, Quezon City. 3. They lived at 6933 Washington St., Pio Del Pilar, Makati City and petitioner noticed that he gave so many excuses why he would not have sex with her. At one time, while she and her husband were sleeping, petitioner held his penis to determine whether he would have an erection, but he resisted. For about one year since their marriage, he never had any sex with her, which was the reason for many of their quarrels. Such quarrels led him to frequently leave the conjugal home, and when he would return at an unholy hour at night, he was drunk and would immediately go to sleep. 4. Petitioner had been convincing her husband to go to a physician for consultation and, if required, for treatment, but he refused. Petitioner instead went to see and consult a psychiatrist about the problems of her husband, and the doctor psychiatrist informed her that respondent was suffering from psychological incapacity. 5. In the more than one year of their marriage, respondent did not have any sex with her, nor would he even allow petitioner to touch his private parts, nor to kiss him, to such an extent that their lives became so unbearable that constrained her to file the instant petition for declaration of nullity to void marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code. 6. It has been held that the prolonged refusal of a spouse to have sexual intercourse with the other spouse is a sign of psychological incapacity.

WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that judgment be rendered, declaring petitioner’s marriage to respondent as null and void, and for such other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the premises.

Makati City September 19, 2010

IRISH TOM TOLENTINO Counsel for the Plaintiff VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, IRISH DELA CRUZ-CAGUI, 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 Petitioner in the above-entitled case; 2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing petition; 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 Petitioner 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 October 21, 2010 at Makati City, Philippines.

IRISH DELA CRUZ Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 27th day of September, 2010, by the affiant who exhibited me to his Community Tax Certificate No. 17418658 issued at Paranaque City, Philippines on January 6, 2010.

IRISH TOM TOLENTINO Counsel for the Petitioner VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

COPY FURNISHED: JOY MARIE R. Gabor Counsel for the Respondent VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

AFFIDAVIT OF PERSONAL SERVICE

I, Nelson Villena, of legal age and having been duly sworn depose and say: That I am the messenger of Atty. Irish Tom Tolentino, counsel for petitioner in the case Civil Case No.01 (Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage), and that such messenger I served upon the counsel of adverse party and other parties, the petition filed in said case, as follows: Atty. Joy Marie Gabor, counsel for respondent Dexter Cagui, by personal service by delivering personally copy of said petition upon said lawyer who acknowledge receipt thereof as shown by her signature or initial on the said pleading, this 27 th of September 2010.

IN WITNESS WHEROF, I have signed this affidavit this 28 th day of September 2010 at Makati City, Philippines.

NELSON VILLENA Affiant

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT LAS PIÑAS Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, -versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015 FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ, Respondent. x------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Petitioner, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully moves to set aside its judgment rendered therein, and to grant a new trial on the following grounds:

16. A decision was rendered by this Honorable Court which plaintiff received on June 12, 2011, dismissing her petition;

17. Petitioner has discovered new evidence to prove that Respondent committed sexual infidelity by living with Juanita Gutierrez at the conjugal home of the parties herein. Mark Patrick, while playing around the room of the Respondent, found the Company ID of Juanita in San Gabriel Corporation where she is currently working as a Marketing Assistant. Mark Patrick showed the said ID to the Petitioner and the latter found out that Juanita is using the address of the conjugal home as her residence. A copy of the Company ID of Juanita is hereto attached as ANNEX “A”.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the judgment rendered be set aside and a new trial be granted.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Las Pinas City, June 24, 2011

ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES Counsel for the Petitioner Room 709, 1010 Building A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila, 1000 IBM Life Member Roll No. 06571/PPLM PTR No. 9729886J / 01-26-10 / LP Roll of Attorney No. 47765 MCLE Compliance II –0017223 / 03-12-09 Tel. No. 765-4321

NOTICE OF HEARING THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court Branch 02, Las Piñas City ATTY. DEIZRELLE SAN JOSE Counsel for the Respondent Room 143 McArthur Building Ayala Avenue, Makati City Greetings: Please set the foregoing Motion for New trial for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on June 30, 2011 at 2:00 in the afternoon or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard.

ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. ZAMORA

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT LAS PIÑAS Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, -versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015 FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ, Respondent. x------------------------------------x MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT OF HEARING

COMES NOW the Respondent by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges that:

18. The continuation of the trial of this case was set by this Honorable Court on April 15, 2011 at 8:30 am, as agreed upon by the parties; 19. However, while the undersigned counsel agreed to such setting, he inadvertently overlooked that he has already committed to appear before in Criminal Case No. 10-1042 entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Jessie Gomez, et. al.” pending Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court, Manila City, which is also set on April 15, 2011 at the same time; 20.The undersigned humbly apologizes to this Honorable Court and to adverse counsel for the mixed up in his schedule.

WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that the hearing on April 15, 2011 be re scheduled to another date convenient to this Honorable Court, preferably on April 22 or 29, 2011 at the same time.

Las Pinas City, April 08, 2011.

ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY Counsel for the Respondent Room 515, Oriental Bldg. M.H. Del Pilar St., Malate, Manila IBM Life Member Roll No. 08765/PPLM PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-10 / LP Roll of Attorney No. 65758 MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-10 Tel. No. 987-9898

NOTICE OF HEARING THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court Branch 02, Las Piñas City ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES Counsel for the Petitioner Room 709 1010 Bldg. A. Mabini St. Ermita, Manila Greetings: Please set the foregoing Motion for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof. ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

LAS PIÑAS Branch 02

MARY CLAIRE G. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, -versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. LP-10-0015 FOR: LEGAL SEPARATION

PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ, Respondent. x------------------------------------x MANIFESTATION AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW WITH SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

COMES NOW the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states that: 1. As of this date, the undersigned counsel has withdraw as counsel of the Respondent in the above-entitled case for all legal purpose; 2. The undersigned counsel will be substituted by Atty. Deizrelle San Jose with office address at Room 143 McArthur Building, Ayala Avenue, Makati City;

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed to this Honorable Court that all notices, orders, and decision in the instant case be furnished to Atty. Deizrelle San Jose at her above-given office address.

Las Pinas City, April 15, 2011.

ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY Counsel for the Respondent Room 515, Oriental Bldg. M.H. Del Pilar St., Malate, Manila IBM Life Member Roll No. 08765/PPLM PTR No. 9867669J / 01-28-10 / LP Roll of Attorney No. 65758 MCLE Compliance II –0018556 / 03-12-10 Tel. No. 987-9898 With the consent of: PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ Respondent

NOTICE OF HEARING THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court Branch 02, Las Piñas City ATTY. MARIE FAITH I. REYES Counsel for the Petitioner Room 709 1010 Bldg. A. Mabini St. Ermita, Manila Greetings: Please set the foregoing Motion for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof. ATTY. FRANCE DANIEL REY

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MUNTINLUPA BRANCH 98

DONABEL P. RAMA Plaintiff, -versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. 954768 FOR: SPECIFIC

PERFORMANCE PILAR B. PILAPIL Defendant. x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x MOTION FOR EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges: 1. The decision in favour of the plaintiff has become final and executor since more than fifteen (15) days from defendant’s receipt thereof on September 15, 2009 had already lapsed without a defendant’s 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, September 30, 2009. ATTY. RAQUEL DEJARME Counsel for the Plaintiff The Clerk of Court Municipal Trial Court Muntinlupa Sir: Please submit the foregoing for the approval of the Court upon receipt thereof, notice and hearing not being required.

ATTY. RAQUEL DEJARME

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 10, PASAY CITY

NITA V. CRUZ

Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 01-2345 For: Damages

-versusVINCENT S. CASTRO Defendants. 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: 1. On October 21, 2003, this Honorable Court rendered its decision granting the petitioner’s petition for the issuance of writ of execution; 2. To implement the Decision, this Honorable Court cause the issuance of the writ of execution dated October 28, 2003; 3. 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 October 21, 2003; 4. 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, 2005

OLIVER C. LOZANO, JR. Counsel for Defendant 13 Leveriza St., Pasay City IBP No. 37468598 PTR No. 8373613

NOTICE OF HEARING THE Branch Clerk of Court

RTC, NCJR, Branch 10 Pasay City Greetings: Please submit the foregoing motion to the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof, for its consideration and approval without further oral arguments. OLIVER C. LOZANO Counsel Copy Furnished: Tolentino Gonzales & Villanueva Law Offices Suite 705 Don Santiago Building 2345 Taft Avenue, Ermita, Manila 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. OLIVER C. LOZANO Counsel

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Regional Office No. 3 Capitol Compound, City of San Fernando 2000, Pampanga

ABAD, EDUARDO P. Guagua Water District San Nicolas, Guagua, Pampanga

RE: Administrative Complaint 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 November 11, 2009 was received on November 19, 2009 by the office of the said General Manager directing him to comment within five (5) days from receipt thereof ending November 24, 2009 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; WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the undersigned counsel be granted time of another five (5) days from November 24, 2009 up to November 28, 2009 within which to prepare and submit subject comment. Guagua for City of San Fernando, Pampanga, November 23, 2009.

With my conformity:

EDUARDO P. ABAD General Manager 2009

Respectfully submitted Ex parte: RIC M. CRUZ Assisting Counsel Guagua, Pampanga PTR O/R No. 2167795 01-28IBP O/R No. 75776 01-28-2009 Pampanga Chapter MCLE Compliance No. III-529

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Manila GINA PARENO Plaintiff, -versus-

CIVIL Case No.1 For Sum of Money

TITO SOTTO Defendant. x-------------------------------------------------x SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DEFENDANT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that: 1. Defendant engaged the services of undersigned counsel only on November 17, 2009; 2. Defendant was served with Summons and copy of Complaint on November 3, 2009 and thus has until November 18, 2009 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 would not be able to meet the said decline; 4. As such, undersigned counsel, through an urgent motion for extension of time was constrained to request for an additional period of five days from November 19, 2009 to November 24, 2009 within which to submit Defendant’s Answer or Responsive Pleading. Such motion was granted though a resolution by the court; 5. 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; 6. Moreover, this additional time will also allow the undersigned to interview the available witness and study this case further; 7. This Second Motion is not intended for delay but solely due to the foregoing reasons.

WHEREFORE, Defendant most respectfully prays of this 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.

Manila, November 24, 2009 Atty. Jun Yee Counsel for Defendant ABC Bldg., Rizal Avenue, Manila PTR No. 3395523 IBP No.: 34482 Roll No. 3495430

Copy furnished: Atty. Wenceslao Gonzales Counsel for Complainant XYZ Bldg. Juan Luna St. Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Manila GINA PARENO Plaintiff, -versus-

CIVIL Case No. 1 For Sum of money

TITO SOTTO Defendant. x--------------------------------------------x FINAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, mostly respectfully states that: 1. He is the counsel for the Defendant in the above captioned case for sum of money; 2. Defendant engaged the services of undersigned counsel only on November 17, 2009; 3. Defendant was served with Summons and copy of the Complaint on November 3, 2009 and thus has until November 18, 2009 within which to submit an Answer or Responsive Pleading; 4. Defendant was twice given extension of time to prepare and answer the complaint. The first time extension of five days was given on November 19, 2009 to end on November 24, 2009. 5. 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 voluminous and pressing work load on equally important cases of the undersigned counsel, additional time of five days was also allowed by the Court with no opposition form the opposing party. Said extension was from November 25, 2009 to November 30, 2009; 6. Good cause exist to justify the additional requested extension of three more days as counsel for the defendant had to undergo a minor dental surgery during the previously requested extension;

WHEREFORE, with indulgence form the Court, counsel for the defendant most humbly request that a final extension of three days to prepare the answer be granted. Manila, November 30, 2009 Atty. Jun Yee Counsel for Defendant ABC Bldg., Rizal Avenue, Manila PTR No. 3395223 IBP No. 34482 Roll No. 3495430

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT National Capital Judicial Region Branch 01, Manila Francis Magalona, Plaintiff, -versus-

Civil Case No. 00001

Doris Begornia, Defendant x---------------------------x MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT DEFAULT Plaintiff, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states 1. 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 March 20, 2009; 2. Upon verification however, the records show that Defendant Doris Begornia has failed to file her Answer within the reglamentary period specified by the Rules of Court despite the service of summons and the complaint; 3. As such. It is respectfully prayed that Defendant Doris Begornia 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 Doris Begornia be declared in default pursuant to the Rules of Court and that the Honorable Court proceed to render judgment as the complaint may warrant. Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for. City of Manila, Phlippines, April 15, 2009. Al C. Batonghinog Counsel for Plaintiff Roll No. 123 IBP No. 4567, issued on October 31, 2008 PTR No. 00001, issued at Makati City

Notice of Hearing:

The Clerk of Count Branch 01, Manila Greetings: Please set the foregoing Motion to Declare Defendant in Default on April 30, 2009 at 9:00 o’clock in the morning or at any time convenient to the calendar of the Honorable Court. Thank You.

Copy Furnished: Atty. Rolando Balasabas Counsel for Defendant No. 13, UN Avenue Manila City

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT National Capital Judicial Region Branch 01, Manila Francis Magalona, Plaintiff, -versus-

Civil Case No. 00001

Doris Begornia, 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. City of Manila; March 20, 2009

Rolando Balasabas Counsel for Defendant Roll No. 321 IBP No. 7654 issued on October 31, 2005 PTR No. 000001, issued at Manila City

Notice of Hearing:

The Clerk of Court Branch 01, Manila Greetings: Please set the foregoing Motion to Declare Defendant in Default on April 30, 2009 at 9:00 o’clock in the morning or at any time convenient to the calendar of the Honorable Court. Thank you.

Copy Furnished: Atty. Al C. Batonghinog Counsel for Plaintiff Cubao, Quezon City