Sample Legal Forms Civil Cases

 

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 Extension of Time to File Answ Answer er 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 Defendant -Motion to to Declare Lift Order of Defaultin Default

 

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

Clea Rebueno, Complainant Civil Case No. 1711 -versus-

For: under PermaRA nen9262 t Protect ctiion Order

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

PLAINTIFF, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully r espectfully alleges: 1. Pla Plaint intiff iff is of leg legal al age, and wit with h resid residenc encee at Doñ Doñaa Auror Auroraa St. South South Poblacio Poblacion, n, Dipaculao, Aurora Province, while defendant is also of legal age and at present residing at Rizal St. North Poblacion, Dipaculao, Aurora Province; 2. Plain Plaintiff tiff is the onl onlyy daughter daughter of the defendan defendantt and is living wi with th her moth mother er and two (2) minor brothers at the aforementioned address; 3. De Defe fend ndan antt an and d his his wife wife,, Dais Daisyy Re Rebu buen eno, o, the the mo moth ther er of pl plai aint ntif iff, f, are are li livi ving ng se sepa para rate tely ly sin since 20 2001 01.. De Defe fend ndan antt is now li livi ving ng with ith his his mi mist stre ress ss at the 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. Pla Plaint intiff iff,, due to pov povert ertyy an and d sin since ce her fat father her had already already sto stoppe pped d sup suppor portin tingg them, had to discontinue her schooling and helped her mother earn a living; 5. On or abo about ut June 22,, 2010 2010,, defen defendant dant aasked sked fo forr some mon money ey from Plainti Plaintiff ff 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 s ome money and then left furiously;

 

6. Plain Plaintiff tiff since th then en had devel developed oped fea fearr and anxie anxiety ty due to conti continuous nuous ha harassme rassment nt of her father even when she is at work; 7. In suppor supportt of Plainti Plaintiff’s ff’s compla complaint, int, encl enclosed osed here herewith with are Plai Plaintif ntiff’s f’s affida affidavit, vit, 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.

Prohib Pro hibiti ition on of th thee respon responden dentt from from thr threat eateni ening ng to com commit mit or commit committin ting, g, 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 September 17, 2010. Kristopher Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff   Address: North Poblacion, Dipaculao 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  VERIFICAT ION AND CERTIFICAT CERTIFICATION ION AGA AGAINST INST FORU FORUM M SHOPPI SHOPPING NG

 

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 tthe he plaint plaintiff iff in the aabove bove ttitled itled complaint complaint.. 2. That I have ca caused used tthe he pre preparat paration ion of ssaid aid co complai mplaint. nt. 3. That I ha have ve read the aallegat llegations ions the therein rein con contain tained ed and that that the same ar aree true and correct of my personal knowledge or based on authentic records. 4. Tha Thatt I have not there theretof tofore ore commenc commenced ed any actio action n or filed filed any claim invo involvi lving ng 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 complaint or initiatory pleading pleading has been filed.  Witness my hand this 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. 2000.

   

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

 

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

MCLE Compliance No. I-85712

 

 AFFIDAVIT  AFFIDAV IT OF SERV SERVICE ICE BY REG REGISTERED ISTERED MA MAIL IL

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 coun counse sell at hi hiss of offi fice, ce, with with po post stag agee fu full llyy prep prepai aid, d, and and with with inst instru ruct ctio ion n to the 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 17 th 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.

 

  Doc. No. 31 Page No. 6

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

 

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 Protect ctiion Order under RA 9262

-versus-

Eddie Rebueno, Defendant x---------------------------------------x MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER 

DEFEND DEF ENDANT ANT,, by the und unders ersign igned ed cou counse nsel, l, an and d unt untoo thi thiss Hon Honora orable ble Court Court,, most most respectfully states that: 1. Def Defend endant ant en engag gaged ed the serv service icess of unde undersi rsigne gned d couns counsel el only on October October 8, 2010; 2. Def efen enda dant nt was serve erved d with ith Sum ummo mon ns and co cop py of the Compl omplaaint int on September 30, 2010 and thus has until October 15, 2010 within which to submit an Answer or Responsive Pleading; 3. Howe However, ver, due ttoo the pres pressures sures of eq equally ually urg urgent ent professi professional onal w work ork and prior prior commitments, the undersigned counsel will not be able to meet the said deadline; 4. As su such ch,, un unde ders rsig igne ned d coun counse sell is cons constr trai aine ned d to requ reques estt for for an ad addi diti tion onal al 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 c ase further; 5. This Mot Motion ion is not intend intended ed for dela delayy but solel solelyy due to the foregoi foregoing ng reaso reasons. ns.

 

P R A Y E R 

 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. Pleading. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.  Aurora, Philippines, October 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, 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  AFFIDAV IT OF SERV SERVICE ICE BY REG REGISTERED ISTERED MA MAIL IL

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 3 rd 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.

 

  Doc. No. 07 Page No. 6 Book No. 16 Series of 2010

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

 

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

Clea Rebueno, Complainant Civil Case No. 1711 For: Permanent Protect ctiion Order under RA 9262

-versus-

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

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

 Accused, by counsel and to this 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. Pl Plai aint ntif ifff sinc sincee th then en had had de deve velo lope ped d fear fear and and an anxi xiet etyy du duee to co cont ntin inuo uous us harassment of her father even when she is at work;

2. The foregoing foregoing allegat allegations ions are conclusi conclusions ons of law, which plaintiff plaintiff should clarify and flesh them with facts and specific acts to enable defendant-movant to prepare and file a resp respon onsi sive ve an answ swer er th ther eret etoo wh whic ich h requ requir ires es in info form rmat atio ion n as to the the prec precis isee na natu ture re,, character, scope and extent of plaintiff’s cause of action.

 

 WHEREFORE  WHEREFOR E, 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 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, 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.

           

COPY FURNISHED:  Atty. Kristopher Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff 

 Arman CounselAustria 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

 

 AFFIDAVIT  AFFIDAV IT OF SERV SERVICE ICE BY REG REGISTERED ISTERED MA MAIL IL

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. rd

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this 3  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.

 

  Doc. No. 31 Page No. 6 Book No. 16 Series of 2010

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

 

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

Clea Rebueno, Complainant Civil Case No. 1711 For: Permanent Protect ctiion 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 answ answer er to the comp complai laint nt for Per Perman manent ent Pro Protec tectio tion n Order, Order, def defend endant ant 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 October 8, 2010

Kristopher Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff   Address: QuezonNo. St.,11170 North Poblacion, Poblacion, Dipaculao Aurora Roll of Attorney 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, 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, 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  AFFIDAV IT OF SERV SERVICE ICE BY REG REGISTERED ISTERED MA MAIL IL

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 coun counse sell at hi hiss of offi fice, ce, with with po post stag agee fu full llyy prep prepai aid, d, and and with with inst instru ruct ctio ion n to the 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 8 th 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.

 

  Doc. No. 31

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

 

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 Protect ctiion Order

-versus-

under RA 9262 Eddie Rebueno, Defendant x---------------------------------------x

 ANSWER WITH WITH AFFIR AFFIRMATIVE MATIVE DE DEFENSES FENSES

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. Defe Defendan ndantt admi admits ts the al allegat legations ions un under der pa par. r. 1 and 2 ooff the complain complaintt and th thee 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. Defe Defendan ndantt denies the al allegat legation ion unde underr par. 3 regardi regarding ng the fact tha thatt plaint plaintiff  iff  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. As Assu sumi ming ng argu arguen endo do th that at plai plaint ntif ifff stop stoppe ped d from from goin goingg to sc scho hool ol,, it was was  voluntary on her part and was not premised on his failure to support them as plaintiff claimed. 4. De Defe fend ndan antt de deni nies es unde underr oath oath th that at he hara harasse ssed, d, sla slapp pped ed on the the face face an and d threatened to inflict inflict physical harm upon the plai plaintiff ntiff as alleged under par. 5, 6, and 7 of the complaint. 5. Assum Assuming, ing, arg arguend uendo, o, that defenda defendant nt inde indeed ed aske asked d for some money money from th thee 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  WHEREFOR E, 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 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  VERIFICAT ION

I, Ed Eddi diee Re Rebu buen eno, o, of lega legall ag agee an and d wi with th resi reside denc ncee at Riza Rizall St. St. No Nort rth h Po Pobl blac acio ion, n, Dipaculao, Aurora Province, after having been duly sworn, depose and say:

1. That I am the d defen efendant dant in tthe he above above en entitle titled d answ answer; er; 2. That I h have ave cau caused sed th thee prepa preparati ration on by my co counsel unsel of of said an answer; swer; 3. That I ha have ve read th thee allega allegation tionss therei therein n cont containe ained, d, and tha thatt the same aare re 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 1 st 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.

 

  Doc. No. 12 Page No. 5 Book No. 17 Series of 2010

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

 AFFIDAVIT  AFFIDAV IT OF SERV SERVICE ICE BY REG REGISTERED ISTERED MA MAIL IL

 

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 3 rd day of October 2010 at Aurora, Philippines.

Renato Pascua Affiant

 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN  to before before me tthis his 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  

  Until Notary Public 31, 2010 December   PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora   IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/Aurora 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 Protect ctiion Order under RA 9262

-versus-

Eddie Rebueno, Defendant x---------------------------------------x  ANSWER WITH CO COMPULSORY MPULSORY C COUNTERCL OUNTERCLAIM AIM

Defendant, by counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully states: That as a consequence of plaintiff’s clearly unfounded claims, which forced defend def endant ant to litiga litigate te and protec protectt his inter interest estss and to secu secure re the services 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  WHEREFOR E, defendant prays that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.

 Aurora, Philippines October 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 521098/1-14-09/Aurora PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/Aurora 304701/1-14-09/Aurora MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

 

 VERIFICATION  VERIFICAT ION AND CERTIFICAT CERTIFICATION ION AGA AGAINST INST FORU FORUM M SHOPPI SHOPPING NG

I, Ed Eddi diee Re Rebu buen eno, o, of lega legall age age an and d wi with th resi reside denc ncee at Riza Rizall St., St., No Nort rth h Po Pobl blac acio ion, n, Dipaculao, Aurora Province, after having been duly sworn, depose and say: 1. That I am the d defend efendant ant in th thee abo above ve ti titled tled ccompla omplaint. int. 2. That I have ca caused used tthe he pre preparat paration ion of ssaid aid co complai mplaint. nt. 3. That I ha have ve read the aallegat llegations ions the therein rein con contain tained ed and that that the same ar aree true and correct of my personal knowledge or based on authentic records. 4. Tha Thatt I have not there theretof tofore ore commenc commenced ed any actio action n or filed filed any claim invo involvi lving ng 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 complaint or initiatory pleading pleading has been filed.  Witness my hand this 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. 2000.

   

Kristian Vallejos   Notary Public Until December 31, 2010   PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora 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  AFFIDAV IT OF SERV SERVICE ICE BY REG REGISTERED ISTERED MA MAIL IL

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 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora   IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/Aurora 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 Protect ctiion Order under RA 9262

-versus-

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

 ANSWER WITH SP SPECIAL ECIAL AND AFFIRMAT AFFIRMATIVE IVE DEFENS DEFENSE E AND COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant, by counsel and to this Honorable Court respectfully states: 1. Defe Defendan ndantt denie deniess the alleg allegatio ation n under pa par. r. 3 regard regarding ing the fa fact ct that pla plainti intiff  ff  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. As Assu sumi ming ng argu arguen endo do th that at plai plaint ntif ifff stop stoppe ped d from from goin goingg to sc scho hool ol,, it was was  voluntary on her part and was not premised on his failure to support them as plaintiff claimed. 3. Tha Thatt as a con conseq sequen uence ce of plain plaintif tiff’s f’s clear clearly ly unfou unfounde nded d cla claims, ims, whi which ch forced 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 prays that the complain complaintt be dismissed for lack of merit.

 Aurora, Philippines October 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 521098/1-14-09/Aurora PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/Aurora 304701/1-14-09/Aurora MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

 VERIFICATION  VERIFICAT ION AND CERTIFICAT CERTIFICATION ION AGA AGAINST INST FORU FORUM M SHOPPI SHOPPING NG

I, Ed Eddi diee Re Rebu buen eno, o, of lega legall age age an and d wi with th resi reside denc ncee at Riza Rizall St., St., No Nort rth h Po Pobl blac acio ion, n, Dipaculao, Aurora Province, after having been duly sworn, depose and say: 1. That I am the d defend efendant ant in th thee abo above ve ti titled tled ccompla omplaint. int. 2. That I have ca caused used tthe he pre preparat paration ion of ssaid aid co complai mplaint. nt. 3. That I ha have ve read the aallegat llegations ions the therein rein con contain tained ed and that that the same ar aree true and correct of my personal knowledge or based on authentic records. 4. Tha Thatt I have not there theretof tofore ore commenc commenced ed any actio action n or filed filed any claim invo involvi lving ng 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 complaint or initiatory pleading pleading has been filed.  Witness my hand this 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. 2000.

 

Kristian Vallejos   Notary Public Until December 31, 2010   PTR No. 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora 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  AFFIDAV IT OF SERV SERVICE ICE BY REG REGISTERED ISTERED MA MAIL IL

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 0478257/1-25-09/Aurora   IBP No. 779524/1-25-09/Aurora 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 Protect ctiion Order under RA 9262

-versus-

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

REPLY 

Clea Rebueno, after being duly sworn, deposes and say: 1. Th That at I am the plai plaint ntif ifff in th thee Civi Civill Ca Case se for for se seek ekin ingg for for Perm Perman anen entt Protection Order under RA 9262; 2. That th thee allega allegation tionss of Defend Defendant ant in his an answer swer und under er par. 2 are bas baseless, eless, the truth being that from June 2001 until September 2002 before she st stop oppe ped d fr from om go goin ingg to scho school ol,, it wa wass her her moth mother er wh whoo paid paid for for he herr educational expenses as evidenced by Annex E, the Official Receipts issued  by Father John Karash Memorial High School and not Defendant as he ssoo claimed;

 

3. That th thee allega allegations tions un under der par. 4 are n not ot true, in fact fact atta attached ched herewit herewith h to su supp ppor ortt my alle allega gati tion onss agai agains nstt the the ac accu cuse sed d is Anne Annexx F, the the Me Medi dica call 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. defendant. Also attached herew herewith ith are the Affidavits 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. respectively. 4. Th That at fo forr th thee ab abov ovem emen enti tion oned ed ev evid iden ence ces, s, ac accu cuse sed d ca cann nnot ot claim claim la lack ck of  knowledge of the accusations against him.

 WHEREFORE,  WHEREFOR E, 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 October 16, 2010

Kristopher Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff   Address: Quezon St., North Poblacion, 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  AFFIDAV IT OF SERV SERVICE ICE BY REG REGISTERED ISTERED MA MAIL IL

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 coun counse sell at hi hiss of offi fice, ce, with with po post stag agee fu full llyy prep prepai aid, d, and and with with inst instru ruct ctio ion n to the 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 16 th 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  

  Doc. No. 31 Page No. 6 Book No. 16 Series of 2010

       

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

 

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

Clea Rebueno, Complainant Civil Case No. 1711 -versus-

For: under PermaRA nen9262 t Protect ctiion Order

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: following: 1.

WI WILL LLIN INGN GNES ESSS TO TO ENT ENTER ER IN INTO TO AN AMIC AMICAB ABLE LE SE SETT TTLE LEME MENT NT AND AND

POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY SUCH SETTLEMENT

a. Subj Subject ect to a concret concretee propo proposal sal tha thatt is fair an and d reaso reasonabl nablee 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.

SUMM SUMMAR ARY Y OF ADMI ADMITT TTED ED FA FACT CTSS A AND ND PR PROP OPOS OSED ED ST STIP IPUL ULAT ATIO ION N OF OF F FAC ACTS TS

a. The Pla Plainti intiff ff only adm admits its to tho those se facts st stated ated in their their coun counter ter aff affidavi idavit, t, etc., i.e. their personal circumstances.  b. Subject to a concrete propo proposal sal for stipulation of additional 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. Plain Plaintiff tiff subm submits its tha thatt the follo following wing iss issues ues put fo forwar rward d by plain plaintiff tiff are subject to proof : a.1 Whether or not tthe he acts of harassment and tthreat hreat 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. Plain Plaintiff tiff inte intends nds to presen presentt the followi following ng documen documents, ts, in connec connection tion wit with h which plaintiff requests from defendant their admission of their execution and due authenticity: a. Of Offi fici cial al R Rec ecei eipt pt.. Purpos Pur pose: e: To prove prove tha thatt def defend endant ant del delibe iberat rately ely dep depriv rived ed pla plaint intiff iff an and d 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. Plain Plaintiff tiff man manifest ifestss his inte intentio ntion n to resort to d discov iscovery ery procedure procedures. s. 6. Plain Plaintiff tiff do does es not inte intend nd to amend amend h his is complaint complaint.. 7. Plain Plaintiff tiff in intend tendss to pr presen esentt the ffollow ollowing ing wi witness tnesses: es:

 

a. Pla Plaint intiff iff hims himself elf,, who wil willl tes testif tifyy on the true circu circumst mstanc ances es leading leading to the filing of this suit.  b. Daisy Rebueno, her mot mother, her, who witnessed th thee commotion on June 2, 22010. 010. c. Aizza Aizzan n Saba Sabatin tin and R Rozel ozel de Asi Asis, s, her tw twoo (2) co-wo co-workers rkers who who wit witnesse nessed d the harassment at her working place.

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

Kristopher Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff   Address: Quezon St., North Poblacion, 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  AFFIDAV IT OF SERV SERVICE ICE BY REG REGISTERED ISTERED MA MAIL IL

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 coun counse sell at hi hiss of offi fice, ce, with with po post stag agee fu full llyy prep prepai aid, d, and and with with inst instru ruct ctio ion n to the 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.

            Doc. No. 31 Page No. 6 Book No. 16 Series of 2010

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

 

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

Clea Rebueno, Complainant -versus-

Civil Case No. 1711 For: Permanent Protect ctiion 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.

WI WILL LLIN INGN GNES ESSS TO TO ENT ENTER ER IN INTO TO AN AMIC AMICAB ABLE LE SE SETT TTLE LEME MENT NT AND AND POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY SUCH SETTLEMENT a. Subj Subject ect to a concret concretee propo proposal sal tha thatt is fair an and d reaso reasonabl nablee 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. II.

SU SUMM MMAR ARY YO OF F ADM ADMIT ITTE TED DF FAC ACTS TS AND AND PRO PROPO POSE SED D STI STIPU PULA LATI TION ON OF FACTS

a. The Accu Accused sed onl onlyy admit admitss to those fa facts cts stat stated ed in their their count counter er affid affidavit, avit, etc., i.e. their personal circumstances.  b. Subject to a concrete propo proposal sal for stipulation of additional additional facts from plaintiff during pre-trial or even thereafter, Accused admit no other facts stated in the Complaint.

III.

ISSUE/S T TO O BE BE T TR RIED  Accused submit that the following following issues put forward by plaintiff plaintiff are subject to proof : a. Whet Whether her or no nott the pi pieces eces of ev eviden idence ce prese presented nted bbyy defen defendant dant  

are admissible on the ground that they are relevant.

 b. Whether or not defen defendant dant had deliberat deliberately ely deprived plaintiff and her mother of the financial support they needed so that he may be indicted under RA 9262. c. Whet Whether her or n not ot def defenda endant’s nt’s aacts cts ar aree indi indictab ctable le under under RA 9262. 9262.

IV. IV.

DO DOCU CUME MENT NT/S /S,, EX EXHI HIBI BIT/ T/S, S, E EVI VIDE DENC NCE, E, O OR R NU NUMB MBER ER AND AND N NAM AMES ES O OF F  WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED, PRESENTED, STATING THE PURPOSE THEREOF  Accused or Defense intends to to present the following witnesses: witnesses: a. Defen Defendant dant h himsel imself, f, who w will ill test testify ify on the the true ccircums ircumstanc tances es leading to the filing of this suit against him;  b. Analyn Lumaha Lumahan, n, who will testify on the fact fact of defendant’s continuous financial support to plaintiff.

 

c. We rese reserve rve th thee right to pr present esent other other evide evidence nce ne necessar cessary, y, material or relevant to the case.  V.

A MANIFESTATION OF THEIR HA HAVING VING AVAILED OR THEIR INTENTION TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF DISCOVERY PROCEDURES OR REFERAL TO COMMISSIONERS a. Consi Considerin deringg the relativel relativelyy simple iss issues ues pres presente ented, d, accuse accused d does not intend to avail of discovery at this time;

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

 WHEREFORE, Defendants Defendants pray that the foregoing bbee taken cognizance of.  Aurora, Philippines, October 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 521098/1-14-09/Aurora PTR No. 304701/1-14-09/Aurora 304701/1-14-09/Aurora MCLE Compliance No. I-17520

Copy furnished:  Atty. Kristopher Vallejos Vallejos Counsel for Plaintiff

 AFFIDAVIT  AFFIDAV IT OF SERV SERVICE ICE BY REG REGISTERED ISTERED MA MAIL IL

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 SUBSCR IBED AND SWORN to before me this 22 nd 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.

   

  Doc. No. 07 Page No. 6 Book No. 16 Series of 2010

     

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

 

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

Clea Rebueno, Complainant Civil Case No. 1711 For: Permanent Protect ctiion Order under RA 9262

-versus-

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

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

Thiss com Thi compro promis misee and set settle tlemen mentt agr agreem eement ent is made made by and bet betwe ween en Clea 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. Pla Plaint intiff iff asser asserts ts a cla claim im aga agains instt def defend endan antt ba based sed on vio violat lation ion of RA 9262 or An Antiti Violence Against Women and 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  

October 30, 2010     October 30, 2010

Clea Rebueno Signature of Plaintiff 

Kristopher Vallejos Signature of Plaintiff's Atty.

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. Pet Petiti itione onerr is of leg legal al age, Filip Filipino ino citi citizen zen,, mar marrie ried d und under er the circu circumst mstan ances ces 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. Re Resp spon onde dent nt is like likewi wise se of lega legall ag age, e, Fili Filipi pino no ci citi tize zen, n, ma marr rrie ied d un unde derr the the circum cir cumsta stance ncess her herein ein sta stated ted and and wi with th res reside idence nce at No. 101 Val Valent entine ine 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. Peti Petition tioner er and respo responden ndentt excha exchanged nged mar marital ital vow vowss on Decem December ber 13, 1990 1990,, at Malate Catholic Church, Malate, Manila. A copy of their Marriage Certificate is he here reto to atta attach ched ed and and ma mark rked ed as AN ANNE NEX X “A”. “A”. Ha Havi ving ng no prepre-nu nupt ptia iall

 

agreement, the existing property relation between the parties is absolute community of property; 4. On Octob October er 19, 1997 1997,, petiti petitioner oner and re respond spondent ent beg begot ot thei theirr first chil child, d, 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 Janu Januar aryy 25 25,, 19 1999 99,, peti petiti tion oner er gave gave birt birth h to thei theirr se seco cond nd ch chil ild, d, Pa Patr trici iciaa 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 Janu January ary 28, 200 2001, 1, Petit Petitioner ioner an and d respond respondent ent acq acquired uired pro property perty loc located ated 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. Som Someti etime me in Jun Junee 2002, 2002, the Pet Petiti itione onerr left left their their conj conjuga ugall home home with thei theirr chil ch ildr dren en an and d live lived d with with he herr pa pare rent ntss beca becaus usee of trou troubl bles es betw betwee een n the the Respo Res ponde ndent nt and her hersel self. f. Pet Petiti itione onerr an and d Res Respon ponden dentt oft often en qua quarre rrell ab about out money mon ey and the latte latter’s r’s time for their fami family. ly.

Res Respon ponden dentt seldom giv givee

petitioner money to support their family and he also has more time to mingle  with friends rather than than spend time with his wif wifee and their children; 8. The Res Respon ponden dentt her herein ein com commit mitted ted an act of concubi concubina nage ge as def define ined d in the Revised Penal Code, for which the Petitioner simultaneously filed a criminal case against the former; 9. On or about about Ferb Ferbrua ruary ry 2010, Pet Petiti itione onerr let the chi childr ldren en see and spen spend d time time  with the Respondent. Respondent. When they arrived at their house in Golden Subdivision, Las Pinas, they discovered that someone named Juanita Gutierrez living with th thee Res Respon ponden dent. t. Mar Markk Pat Patric rickk tol told d the Pet Petiti itione onerr ab about out what what the theyy saw saw.. Petitioner immediately confirmed it with the Respondent and he admitted this fact. 10. On Oct Octobe oberr 19, 2010, 2010, Mar Markk Pat Patric rick’s k’s Birth Birthday day,, Pet Petiti itione onerr wen wentt to the their ir conjugal home with the children and she saw Respondent and Juanita in the act of caressing each other. 11. Dia Dianne nne Franc Francisc isco, o, a com common mon frien friend d of the Peti Petitio tioner ner and Res Respon ponden dentt an and d 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 neighb nei ghborh orhood ood as his new wif wife. e. Dia Dianne nne sho showe wed d to Pet Petiti itione onerr pictur pictures es 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 condo condoned ned or committed such act of adult adultery ery on the part of respondent; 13. The Peti Petitio tioner ner becam becamee cog cogniz nizant ant of the above above cau cause se on Febru February ary 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. 14. Th Thee fa fact ctss of th this is case case rend render er th thee reco reconc ncil ilia iati tion on of the the pa part rtie iess high highly  ly  improbable.  WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after due hearing, a decree of legal separation be issued by this Honorable Court, ordering: (a) That Petit Petitione ionerr be entitle entitled d to live separ separatel atelyy from the responde respondent, nt, without without dissolution, however, of the marriage bond; (b) Tha Thatt th thee con conjug jugal al par partne tnersh rship ip be dissol dissolved ved and and liquid liquidate ated, d, dep deprivi riving ng the Respondent of his share of the conjugal partnership profits and awarding the same to the above-named children; and (c) Th That at th thee cus custo tody dy of th thee mi mino norr chil childr dren en,, Ma Mark rk Pa Patr tric ickk G. De Dela la Cruz Cruz and 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 MARIE FAITH II.. 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  VERIFICAT ION

 

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 accordance with law, hereby depo depose se and state, that: 1. 2. 3. 4.

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 th the aalllegations tth herein aarre true aan nd ccoorrect base on on my my personal knowledge and belief; All the annexes attached th t herein a rree ffaaithful reproduction f ro rom genuine and authentic documents and records;

5.

CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

6. 7. 8.

I ha have n noot h heeretofore ccoommenced aan ny ootther aacction or or p prroceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body; To the best ooff my kkn nowledge aan nd belief, no ssu uch ac a ction or or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any  other court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial body; If I should le learn ooff a similar aacction oorr p prroceeding th that iiss p peending  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 1 st 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 DANILO R. ASU ASUNCION NCION

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 10 SeriesNo. 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

COME CO MESS NO NOW W th thee Re Resp spon onde dent nt by th thee un unde ders rsig igne ned d co coun unse sel, l, and and un unto to this this Honorable Court, respectfully avers:

15. That the Petit Petitioner ioner’s ’s Peti Petition tion for Legal Separation Separation in its paragra paragraph ph 8 alleg alleges es 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 insufficien insufficientt and defective in tha thatt 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 definit definitee statement statement on the matt matter er as above above indicated indicated is nece necessary  ssary  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. FRAN FRANCE REY  Counsel for CE the DANIEL 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 MARIE FAITH II.. 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 FRANCE DANIEL REY 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL LAS TRIAL PIÑAS COURT 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 WITH AFFIR AFFIRMATIVE MATIVE DE DEFENSES FENSES

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

1. Respo Responden ndentt admit admitss para paragraph graphss 3, 4, 5 and 6 ooff the Petiti Petition on tha thatt he is mar married ried 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. Res Respo ponde ndent nt part partial ially ly admits admits par paragr agraph aph 7 of the Petitio Petition n ins insofa ofarr 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. Res Respo ponde ndent nt part partial ially ly admits admits par paragr agraph aph 8 of the Petit Petition ion inso insofar far 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. Res Respo ponde ndent nt admit admitss par paragr agraph aph 9 of the Petiti Petition on that that the Pet Petiti itione onerr tog togeth ether er  with the children went to their conjugal home to celebrate Mark Patrick’s  birthday where Juanita Juanita was also invited;

5. Re Resp spon onde dent nt spec specif ific ical ally ly deni denies es th thee al alle lega gati tion onss in pa para ragr grap aph h 10 beca because use 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. Res Respo ponde ndent nt is witho without ut knowled knowledge ge or inf inform ormat ation ion to form a bel belief ief as to the the truth of the averments made in paragraph 11;

7. Respo Responden ndentt specifi specifically cally den denies ies parag paragraph raph 12 beca because use Petit Petitioner ioner knew knew about Juanita since year 2005, and not only on February 2010.

8. As Af Affi firm rmat ativ ivee De Defe fens nses es,, th thee Re Resp spon onde dent nt repl replea eads ds by refe refere renc ncee al alll the the foregoing allegations as may be material and pertinent hereto and further aver that:

a. Pe Peti titi tion oner er kn knew ew ab abou outt th thee rela relati tion onsh ship ip of Re Resp spon onde dent nt an and d Ju Juan anit itaa 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. Pet Petiti itione onerr lef leftt the conj conjuga ugall home for the sec second ond ti time me whe when n they oft often en quarrel because Respondent suspected the Petitioner of being in love  with another man named named Francis Gonzales;

d. On Febr Februar uaryy 201 2010, 0, Peti Petitio tioner ner star started ted to go out pub public licly ly with Francis. 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 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 MARIE FAITH II.. REYES

Counsel for the Petitioner Room 709, 1010 Building A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila

 

 VERIFICATION  VERIFICAT ION

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 tth herein are true and correct base on my personal knowledge and belief; All the annexes attached th theerein ar aree fa faiithful reproduction fro 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 DANILO R. ASU ASUNCION NCION

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 THE PHILIPPINES NATIONALOFJUDICIAL 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. Pet Petiti itione onerr den denies ies the alleg allegati ations ons of the Resp Respond ondent ent under under parag paragrap raph h 2 his 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. Peti Petition tioner er denie deniess the alleg allegation ation of the Respo Responden ndentt 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. Peti Petition tioner er likewise likewise denies the allegatio allegations ns of the Respon Respondent dent under paragr paragraph aph 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 admit admitss the allegations of the Respondent 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 13.. Pe Peti titi tion oner er spec specif ific ical ally ly de deni nies es th thee al alle lega gati tion onss of the the Re Resp spon onde dent nt unde underr paragraph 8(b) of his Answer that: “ the Petition for Legal Separation is still  dismi dis missa ssable ble bec becaus ausee of Co Condo ndonat natio ion. n. Petiti Petitione onerr ex expre pressl ssly y for forgiv given en the  Respondentt when they live together at their conjugal home on September  Responden 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 admit admitss the allegations of the Respondent Respondent under paragraph 8(c) only insofar as to the fact that Petitioner left the conjugal home for the second sec ond tim timee whe when n th they ey oft often en qua quarre rrell becaus becausee Respon Responden dentt sus suspec pecte ted d 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. Last Lastly, ly, Petitione Petitionerr denie deniess the allegati allegations ons of the Respond Respondent ent under paragra paragraph ph 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 MARIE FAITH II.. 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 FRANCE DANI DANIEL EL REY 

Counsel for the Respondent Room 515, Oriental Building M.H. Del Pilar St., Malate, Manila

REPUBLIC THE PHILIPPINES NATIONALOFJUDICIAL 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 STA TAT TEM EMEN ENT T OF C CL LAIMS AND DEFE FEN NSES

Petitioner and the Respondent were legally married on December 13, 1990 and  begotten with two 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 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 II..

PO POSS SSIB IBIL ILTY TY OF AMI MICA CABL BLE E SE SETT TTLE LEME MENT NT

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.

II III. I.

PR PROP OPOS OSED ED ST STIP IPUL ULAT ATIO ION N OF FA FACT CTS S

The following are the proposed stipulations of facts: 1. Pet Petiti itione onerr an and d Respo Responde ndent nt wer weree legall legallyy marri married ed on December December 13, 199 1990 0 and  begotten with two two (2) children, Mark Patrick and Pa Patricia tricia Marie; 2. Peti Petition tioner er and respon respondent dent acq acquired uired a prope property rty locat located ed at No. 101 Valentine Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City, as their conjugal home; and 3. Peti Petition tioner er and Respo Responden ndentt are sepa separate rated d in fact sinc sincee June 20 2002. 02. IV.

ADMITTED FACTS

Peti Pe titi tion oner er’s ’s alle allega gati tion onss in he herr Co Comp mpla lain intt an and d Re Repl plyy co cons nsti titu tute te her her on only  ly  admissions and nothing more.

 V.

STATEMENTS OF THE IS ISSUE SUE

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.

APPLICAB APPLICABLE LE LAWS AND JU JURISPRUD RISPRUDENCE ENCE

 

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

Perti Pertinent nent p provis rovisions ions ooff the F Family amily Code ooff the Ph Philipp ilippines; ines; Perti Pertinent nent pr provisi ovisions ons of tthe he Civil Civil Code of tthe he Phi Philippi lippines; nes; Perti Pertinent nent pro provision visionss of the Revised Pe Penal nal Code, pa particu rticularly larly on Concubin Concubinage; age; Othe Otherr ap applica plicable ble laws and jurisp jurispruden rudence. ce.

 VII.

DOCUMEN DOCUMENTARY TARY OR EX EXHIBITS HIBITS T TO O BE PRESEN PRESENTED TED

In support of their claims, plaintiffs will present the following documentary  evidence: 1. Ex Exhi hibi bitt A – Ma Marr rria iage ge Co Cont ntra ract ct da date ted d De Dece cemb mber er 13 13,, 19 1990 90 to prov provee the the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent; 2. Exhi Exhibit bit B – Cert Certifica ificate te of Liv Livee Birth ooff Mark Pa Patrick trick G. Dela Dela Cruz to prove prove th that at he is a son of Petitioner and Respondent; 3. Exh Exhibi ibitt C – Certific Certificate ate of Live Birth Birth of Patr Patrici iciaa Marie G. Dela Cru Cruzz to pro prove ve that she is a daughter of Petitioner and Respondent; 4. Exhi Exhibit bit D – Deed of Sal Salee to prove th that at Peti Petitione tionerr and Respo Responden ndentt acquir acquiree the property located at No. 101 Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City; 5. Exh Exhibi ibitt E - Trans Transfer fer Cer Certif tifica icate te of Title No. T-1 T-1126 126145 145 to prove prove that the said said property if registered under the names of the Petitioner and Respondent; 6. Exhi Exhibit bit F – Picture Picturess of Respon Respondent dent an and d Juani Juanita ta inside tthe he conju conjugal gal hom homee to prove that they were living there together; 7. Peti Petition tioner er reserve the rig right ht to presen presentt additi additional onal doc document umentary ary exhi exhibits bits 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 MARIE FAITH II.. 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 FRANCE DANI DANIEL EL 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 STA STATEMENT TEMENT OF C CLAIMS LAIMS A AND ND DEFENS DEFENSES ES

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.. IX

PO POSS SSIB IBIL ILTY TY OF AM AMIC ICAB ABLE LE SE SETT TTLE LEME MENT NT

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.

PRO ROP POSED STIP IPU ULA LAT TIO ION N OF FA FAC CTS

The following are the proposed stipulations of facts: 4. Pet Petiti itione onerr an and d Res Respon ponden dentt wer weree leg legall allyy marrie married d on Dece Decembe mberr 13, 1990 and  begotten with two two (2) children, Mark Patrick and Pa Patricia tricia Marie; 5. Peti Petition tioner er and respo responden ndentt acqui acquired red a proper property ty locat located ed at No. 101 Valenti Valentine ne St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City, as their conjugal home; and 6. Peti Petition tioner er and Respo Responden ndentt are sepa separate rated d in fact sinc sincee June 20 2002. 02. XI.

ADMITTED F FA ACTS

Respon Res ponden dent’s t’s allega allegatio tions ns in his An Answe swerr con consti stitut tutee her onl onlyy adm admiss ission ionss and nothing more.

XII. XI I. ST STAT ATEM EMEN ENTS TS OF TH THE E IISS SSUE UE

The sole issue to be resolved is whether or not Petitioner has a sufficient cause of action against the Respondent?

XIII.. APP XIII APPLICA LICABLE BLE LAW LAWS S AND JURIS JURISPRUD PRUDENCE ENCE

The following are the applicable laws and jurisprudence: 5. 6. 7. 8.

Perti Pertinent nent pr provisi ovisions ons of tthe he Family Family Code ooff the Phi Philippi lippines; nes; Perti Pertinent nent pr provisi ovisions ons of tthe he Civil Civil Code of tthe he Phi Philippi lippines; nes; Perti Pertinent nent pro provision visionss of the Revised Pe Penal nal Code, pa particu rticularly larly on Concubin Concubinage; age; Othe Otherr ap applica plicable ble laws and jurisp jurispruden rudence. ce.

XIV.. DOC XIV DOCUMEN UMENTARY TARY OR EX EXHIB HIBITS ITS T TO O BE P PRESEN RESENTED TED

 

In support of their claims, plaintiffs will present the following documentary  evidence: 8. Exhi Exhibit bit 1 – Marriag Marriagee Contra Contract ct dated De Decembe cemberr 13, 1990 to prove prove the marriage marriage  between the Petitioner Petitioner and the Respondent; Respondent; 9. Exhi Exhibit bit 2 – Certi Certificat ficatee of Live Birt Birth h of Mark Pat Patrick rick G. Dela Dela Cruz to prove tthat hat he is a son of Petitioner and Respondent; 10. Exhi Exhibit bit 3 – Certi Certificat ficatee of Live Birth Birth of Patr Patricia icia Marie G. Dela Cruz to prove that she is a daughter of Petitioner and Respondent; 11. Exhi Exhibit bit 4 – Deed of Sale to prove tha thatt Petitio Petitioner ner and Respo Responden ndentt acquire the property located at No. 101 Valentine St. Golden Subdivision Pamplona 3, Las Pinas City; 12. Exhi Exhibit bit 5 - Transfer Certi Certificat ficatee of Titl Titlee No. T-112 T-1126145 6145 to prove that the said property if registered under the names of the Petitioner and Respondent; 13. Exhi Exhibit bit 6 – Pictures of Petitio Petitioner ner and Respond Respondent ent at the conjugal home to prove that they lived again as husband and wife from September 2009 to January 2010; 14. Respo Responden ndentt reserv reservee the right to prese present nt addition additional al document documentary ary exhibit exhibitss 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 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 MARIE FAITH II.. 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 Compla Com plaint int for Res Rescis cissio sion n of Contract with Damages

 ALMARIO JANDAYAN 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 Execut Exe cutive ive Cen Cente ter, r, 114 Le Levist vistee St. St.,, Salced Salcedoo Vil Villag lage, e, Mak Makati ati Cit City. y. Dex Dexter ter 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 12 th 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. Plain Plaintiff tiff furth further er charged that that on June 28, 2009 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 deter determin minati ation on by the Court th that at the said con contra tract ct of sale has been res rescin cinded ded and ordering restitution of the consideration paid by the Plaintiff with legal interest from September 10, 2009. 2. That tthe he Resp Responde ondent nt be require required d to comp compensa ensate te the P Plain laintiff tiff of actu actual, al, mora morall 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, 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/CERTIFI  VERIFICAT ION/CERTIFICATION CATION A AGAINST GAINST FO FORUM RUM SHOP SHOPPING PING

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

)

City of Manila ) S.c.

I, DEXTER CAGUI, of legal age, Filipino citizen, after having been duly sworn s worn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say: 1. That I am the p plaint laintiff iff in the above above-ent -entitled itled case; 2. Tha Thatt I have caus caused ed the prep prepara aratio tion n of th thee foregoin foregoingg com compla plaint int;; I have read the allegations therein and certify that the same are true and correct of my own personal knowledge; 3. That I furth further er certify certify that plain plaintiff tiff have n not ot commen commenced ced any action action involvi involving ng 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. Tha Thatt in th thee event th that at any act action ion in invol volvin vingg the same shou should ld be made known 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, 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 Compla Com plaint int for Res Rescis cissio sion n of Contract with Damages

 ALMARIO JANDAYAN JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. Respondent.

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.

Res Respon ponden dentt enga engage ge the se servi rvices ces of the the unde undersi rsigne gned d coun counsel sel on only ly on Decem December ber 10, 2010;   2. Respo Responden ndentt was served with Summo Summons ns an and d copy of the the comp complain laintt on N Novemb ovember er 26, 2010 and thus has until December 11, 2010 within which to submit an  Answer or Responsive Pleading; Pleading; 3. How Howeve ever, r, due to the the pres pressur sures es of equ equall allyy urgent urgent prof profess ession ional al wor workk and prior prior commitments, the undersigned counsel will not be able to meet the scheduled deadline;

4. As such such,, the und unders ersign igned ed coun counsel sel is con constr strain ained ed to requ request est for an ad addit dition ional al 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 M Motio otion n is not not in intend tended ed fo forr dela delayy but solely solely due to the the for foregoin egoingg rea reasons. sons.

 

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, 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 IRISH TOM TOLEN TOLENTINO TINO

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 Compla Com plaint int for Res Rescis cissio sion n of Contract with Damages

 ALMARIO JANDAYAN 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 p plain laintiff tiff’s ’s comp complain laintt in p parag aragraphs raphs 5 all alleges: eges: On September 10, 2009, plaintiff notified the Respondent and  demanded rescission rescission of the contract of sale sought for the return of  the price of the engine x x x x (underscoring supplied);

2. The sai said d all allega egatio tion n is not averr averred ed with suffi sufficie cient nt defi definit nitene eness ss and particula part icularity, rity, specifical specifically ly it does not ment mention ion the specif specific ic engine subject of the sale under consideration and of the amount of the consideration actually paid;   3. ne That aary m more definite tatement ment nthe ma matter tters sdent asntabove indica indicated ted nece cess ssar yore indef orde orinite derr sstate to en enab able leoon ththe e Resp Re spon onde to prep pr epar are e its itiss resp respon onsi sive ve plea leadin ding beca ecaus usee from from the ve very ry onse sett of this 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. Tha hatt a bill ill of pa part rtic icu ulars lars or a mo more re de defi fin nite ite st staateme temen nt 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, 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 IRISH TOM TOLEN TOLENTINO TINO

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 Compla Com plaint int for Res Rescis cissio sion n of Contract with Damages

 ALMARIO JANDAYAN 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 an answer swer to th thee compla complaint int for res rescissio cission n of cont contract, ract, th thee Responden Respondentt 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. Moreo Moreover, ver, att attached ached to the co complai mplaint, nt, as acti actionab onable le document document is the contra contract ct 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. 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

 

Manila

Counsel for the Plaintiff   VDXMB Jubilation, Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, 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 Compla Com plaint int for Res Rescis cissio sion n of Contract with Damages

 ALMARIO JANDAYAN 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 R Respon espondent dent aadmits dmits para paragraph graph 11,, 2, and and 3 of tthe he com complain plaint; t;   2. That Res Responde pondent nt is witho without ut know knowledge ledge of inf informat ormation ion to form beliefs beliefs as the truth of the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6; 3. Tha Thatt par paragr agraph aph 4 of the comp complai laint nt failed failed to allege allege any ultima ultimate te fact that 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 fact,, pl plai aint ntif iff’ f’ss de dema mand nd fo forr resc rescis issi sion on wo woul uld d be with withou outt le lega gall ba basi siss and 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. Faile Failed d to allege by wh what at writt written en instr instrument ument tthe he latt latter, er, presumably presumably du during ring th thee peri period od of th thee cont contra ract ct,, th thee pa part rtic icul ular ar en engi gine ne mo mode dell and and ot othe herr specifications whichto willthe uncomplicate theannexes issues; the necessary contract  b. Failed to attached complaint as covering the purported sale of the subject engines; 5.

Tha Thatt the the all allega egatio tions ns in p para aragra graphs phs 5 aand nd 6 ooff th thee com compla plaint int aare re not not likew likewise ise averments of ultimate facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action;

6. That con contrary trary to the al allegat legations ions in the comp complain laint, t, the Respo Responden ndentt records sho show  w  that no notice for rescission was ever filed by the plaintiff; 7. As con conseq sequen uence ce of plain plaintif tiff’s f’s unfou unfounde nded d claims claims,, wh which ich force forced d Res Respon ponden dentt to liti litiga gate te an and d prot protec ectt its its in inte tere rest st and and to se secu cure re the the se serv rvic ices es of a co coun unse sel, l, 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, 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/CERTIFI  VERIFICAT ION/CERTIFICATION CATION A AGAINST GAINST FO FORUM RUM SHOP SHOPPING PING

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. I aam m the Respond corpora corporation’ s duly au authori thorized repr represent esentative ; y depos 2. That Tha Thatt after having havRe ingspondent bee been nent duly sworn sworntion’s to in acco accorda rdance ncezed wit with h law, doative; hereb hereby deposee 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.

 

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

DEXTER CAGUI, Plaintiff, - versus -

Civil Case No. 01 Compla Com plaint int for Res Rescis cissio sion n of Contract with Damages

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

 ANSWER WITH AFFIRMATIVE AFFIRMATIVE D DEFENSES EFENSES COMES NOW, the Respondent, through the undersigned attorney and in answer to plaintiff’s complaint, in the above-entitled case, respectfully prays: 1. That R Respon espondent dent aadmits dmits para paragraph graph 11,, 2, and and 3 of tthe he com complain plaint; t;   2. That Res Responde pondent nt is witho without ut know knowledge ledge of inf informat ormation ion to form beliefs beliefs as the truth of the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6; 3. Tha Thatt par paragr agraph aph 4 of the comp complai laint nt failed failed to allege allege any ultima ultimate te fact that 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 fact,, pl plai aint ntif iff’ f’ss de dema mand nd fo forr resc rescis issi sion on wo woul uld d be with withou outt le lega gall ba basi siss and 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. Faile Failed d to allege by wh what at writt written en instr instrument ument tthe he latt latter, er, presumably presumably du during ring th thee peri period od of th thee cont contra ract ct,, th thee pa part rtic icul ular ar en engi gine ne mo mode dell and and ot othe herr 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. Tha Thatt the the all allega egatio tions ns in p para aragra graphs phs 5 aand nd 6 ooff th thee com compla plaint int aare re not not likew likewise ise averments of ultimate facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action; 6. That con contrary trary to the al allegat legations ions in the comp complain laint, t, the Respo Responden ndentt records sho show  w  that no notice for rescission was ever filed by the plaintiff; 7. As con conseq sequen uence ce of plain plaintif tiff’s f’s unfou unfounde nded d claims claims,, wh which ich force forced d Res Respon ponden dentt to liti litiga gate te an and d prot protec ectt its its in inte tere rest st and and to se secu cure re the the se serv rvic ices es of a co coun unse sel, l, Respondent suffered damages in the form of attorney’s fees and other litigation expenses;

 AFFIRMATIVE  AFFIRMAT IVE DEFENS DEFENSE E

 

1. To the ex extent tent p plain laintiff’ tiff’ss lack sta standin ndingg with respect respect to aany ny claim, claim, that cl claim aim should 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 Based upon th these ese an answe swers rs and aff affirm irmat ative ive def defens enses, es, the Res Respon ponden dentt res respe pectf ctfull ully  y  request that the Court enter a judgment as follo0ws: a. Dis Dismis missin singg the pla plaint intiff iff’s ’s claim in its ent entire irety, ty, on the merit merits, s, 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, 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

REPUBL REP UBLIC IC OF THE PH PHILI ILIPPI PPINES NES ) 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 th thee Respo Responden ndentt corpo corporati ration’s on’s dul dulyy author authorized ized repre representa sentative tive;; 2. That aft after er hav having ing bee been n duly sworn to in acc accorda ordance nce with la law, w, do here hereby by depo depose se 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, Philippine Philippines. s. JAIME LUGOS PORCIUNCUL PORCIUNCULA  A    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 

 

Doc. No.: Page No.: Book No.

454; 2 4; VII

Series of 2010.

Counsel for the Plaintiff   VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of 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 Compla Com plaint int for Res Rescis cissio sion n of Contract with Damages

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

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

 ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLA COUNTERCLAIM IM 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 R Respon espondent dent aadmits dmits para paragraph graph 11,, 2, and and 3 of tthe he com complain plaint; t;   2. That Res Responde pondent nt is witho without ut know knowledge ledge of inf informat ormation ion to form beliefs beliefs as the truth of the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6; 3. Tha Thatt par paragr agraph aph 4 of the comp complai laint nt failed failed to allege allege any ultima ultimate te fact that 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 fact,, pl plai aint ntif iff’ f’ss de dema mand nd fo forr resc rescis issi sion on wo woul uld d be with withou outt le lega gall ba basi siss and 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. Faile Failed d to allege by wh what at writt written en instr instrument ument tthe he latt latter, er, presumably presumably du during ring th thee peri period od of th thee cont contra ract ct,, th thee pa part rtic icul ular ar en engi gine ne mo mode dell and and ot othe herr 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.

Tha Thatt the the all allega egatio tions ns in p para aragra graphs phs 5 aand nd 6 ooff th thee com compla plaint int aare re not not likew likewise ise averments of ultimate facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action;

6. That con contrary trary to the al allegat legations ions in the comp complain laint, t, the Respo Responden ndentt records sho show  w  that no notice for rescission was ever filed by the plaintiff; 7. As con conseq sequen uence ce of plain plaintif tiff’s f’s unfou unfounde nded d claims claims,, wh which ich force forced d Res Respon ponden dentt to liti litiga gate te an and d prot protec ectt its its in inte tere rest st and and to se secu cure re the the se serv rvic ices es of a co coun unse sel, l, 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 tthe he alle allegatio gations ns in par paragra agraph ph 1 to 7 of the aanswe nswerr are here hereby by repr reproduce oduced d and reiterated; 2. That th thee filin filingg of the malici malicious ous and gro ground und less act action ion by the the plaint plaintiff iff against 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. Th That at Resp Respon onde dent nt he here reby by repl replea eads ds,, reit reiter erat ates es,, an and d repr reprod oduc uces es al alll mate materi rial al allegations contained in the foregoing answer with counterclaim; 2. That Res Responde pondent nt MURAL MURALAGI AGI shou should ld reimbu reimburse rse answ answering ering Res Respond pondent ent 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 dis dismissin missingg the co complai mplaint nt aga against inst aanswe nswering ring Re Respon spondent dent;;   2. An Answ swer erin ingg Re Resp spon onde dent nt pray prayss fo forr su such ch ot othe herr reli relief efss as may may be ju just st and and equitable under the premises. Makati City, Philippines, December 14, 2010. JOY MARIE R. GABOR 

 

Counsel for the Plaintiff   VDXMB Jubilation, 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/CERTIFI  VERIFICAT ION/CERTIFICATION CATION A AGAINST GAINST FO FORUM RUM SHOP SHOPPING PING

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 aam m the Re Respond spondent ent corpora corporation’ tion’ss duly au authori thorized zed repr represent esentative ative;; 2. Tha Thatt after having having bee been n duly sworn sworn to in acco accorda rdance nce wit with h law, do hereb herebyy depos deposee 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 

 

Doc. No.: 454; Page No.: 2 4; Book No. VII Series of 2010.

Counsel for the Plaintiff   VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of 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 Compla Com plaint int for Res Rescis cissio sion n of Contract with Damages

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

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

 ANSWER WITH WITH SPECIFIC DENIA DENIAL L 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 R Respon espondent dent aadmits dmits para paragraph graph 11,, 2, and and 3 of tthe he com complain plaint; t;   2. That Res Responde pondent nt is witho without ut know knowledge ledge of inf informat ormation ion to form beliefs beliefs as the truth of the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6; 3. Tha Thatt par paragr agraph aph 4 of the comp complai laint nt failed failed to allege allege any ultima ultimate te fact that 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 fact,, pl plai aint ntif iff’ f’ss de dema mand nd fo forr resc rescis issi sion on wo woul uld d be with withou outt le lega gall ba basi siss and 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. Faile Failed d to allege by wh what at writt written en instr instrument ument tthe he latt latter, er, presumably presumably du during ring th thee peri period od of th thee cont contra ract ct,, th thee pa part rtic icul ular ar en engi gine ne mo mode dell and and ot othe herr 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.

Tha Thatt the the all allega egatio tions ns in p para aragra graphs phs 5 aand nd 6 ooff th thee com compla plaint int aare re not not likew likewise ise averments of ultimate facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action;

6. That con contrary trary to the al allegat legations ions in the comp complain laint, t, the Respo Responden ndentt records sho show  w  that no notice for rescission was ever filed by the plaintiff; 7. As con conseq sequen uence ce of plain plaintif tiff’s f’s unfou unfounde nded d claims claims,, wh which ich force forced d Res Respon ponden dentt to liti litiga gate te an and d prot protec ectt its its in inte tere rest st and and to se secu cure re the the se serv rvic ices es of a co coun unse sel, l,

 

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 tthe he alle allegatio gations ns in par paragra agraph ph 1 to 7 of the aanswe nswerr are here hereby by repr reproduce oduced d and reiterated; 2. That th thee filin filingg of the malici malicious ous and gro ground und less act action ion by the the plaint plaintiff iff against 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. Th That at Resp Respon onde dent nt he here reby by repl replea eads ds,, reit reiter erat ates es,, an and d repr reprod oduc uces es al alll mate materi rial al allegations contained in the foregoing answer with counterclaim; 2. That Res Responde pondent nt MURAL MURALAGI AGI shou should ld reimbu reimburse rse answ answering ering Res Respond pondent ent 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 dis dismissin missingg the co complai mplaint nt aga against inst aanswe nswering ring Re Respon spondent dent;;   2. An Answ swer erin ingg Re Resp spon onde dent nt pray prayss fo forr su such ch ot othe herr reli relief efss as may may be ju just st and and equitable under the premises. Makati City, Philippines, December 14, 2010. JOY MARIE R. GABOR 

 

Counsel for the Plaintiff   VDXMB Jubilation, 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/CERTIFI  VERIFICAT ION/CERTIFICATION CATION A AGAINST GAINST FO FORUM RUM SHOP SHOPPING PING

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 aam m the Re Respond spondent ent corpora corporation’ tion’ss duly au authori thorized zed repr represent esentative ative;; 2. Tha Thatt after having having bee been n duly sworn sworn to in acco accorda rdance nce wit with h law, do hereb herebyy depos deposee 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 

 

Doc. No.: 454; Page No.: 2 4; Book No. VII Series of 2010.

Counsel for the Plaintiff   VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of 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 Compla Com plaint int for Res Rescis cissio sion n of Contract with Damages

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

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

 ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND A AFFIRMATIVE FFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 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 R Respon espondent dent aadmits dmits para paragraph graph 11,, 2, and and 3 of tthe he com complain plaint; t;   2. That Res Responde pondent nt is witho without ut know knowledge ledge of inf informat ormation ion to form beliefs beliefs as the truth of the averments made in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6; 3. Tha Thatt par paragr agraph aph 4 of the comp complai laint nt failed failed to allege allege any ultima ultimate te fact that 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 fact,, pl plai aint ntif iff’ f’ss de dema mand nd fo forr resc rescis issi sion on wo woul uld d be with withou outt le lega gall ba basi siss and 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. Faile Failed d to allege by wh what at writt written en instr instrument ument tthe he latt latter, er, presumably presumably du during ring th thee peri period od of th thee cont contra ract ct,, th thee pa part rtic icul ular ar en engi gine ne mo mode dell and and ot othe herr 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.

Tha Thatt the the all allega egatio tions ns in p para aragra graphs phs 5 aand nd 6 ooff th thee com compla plaint int aare re not not likew likewise ise averments of ultimate facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action;

6. That con contrary trary to the al allegat legations ions in the comp complain laint, t, the Respo Responden ndentt records sho show  w  that no notice for rescission was ever filed by the plaintiff; 7. As con conseq sequen uence ce of plain plaintif tiff’s f’s unfou unfounde nded d claims claims,, wh which ich force forced d Res Respon ponden dentt to liti litiga gate te an and d prot protec ectt its its in inte tere rest st and and to se secu cure re the the se serv rvic ices es of a co coun unse sel, l, 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 tha thatt transa transacti ctions ons entered entered into in beh behalf alf of the answ answeri ering ng Res Respon ponden dentt by  MURALAGI Respondent. are unauthorized, plaintiff have no cause of action against answering COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

By way of compulsory counterclaim, answering Respondent alleges: 1. That tthe he alle allegatio gations ns in par paragra agraph ph 1 to 7 of the aanswe nswerr are here hereby by repr reproduce oduced d and reiterated; 2. That th thee filin filingg of the malici malicious ous and gro ground und less act action ion by the the plaint plaintiff iff against 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 dism dismissin issingg the com complai plaint nt aga against inst an answeri swering ng Respo Responden ndent; t;   4. An Answ swer erin ingg Re Resp spon onde dent nt pray prayss fo forr su such ch ot othe herr reli relief efss as may may be ju just st and and equitable under the premises. Makati City, Philippines, December 14, 2010. JOY MARIE R. GABOR 

 

Counsel for the Plaintiff   VDXMB Jubilation, Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, PTRManila No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010,

Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

 VERIFICATION/CERTIFI  VERIFICAT ION/CERTIFICATION CATION A AGAINST GAINST FO FORUM RUM SHOP SHOPPING PING

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 Resp Responde ondent nt corporatio corporation’s n’s duly auth authorized orized rep represen resentati tative; ve; 4. and Tha Thattsay after having hav ing bee been n duly swor n to in acco accorda rdance nce wit with h law, do hereb hereby y depos deposee that I have caused thesworn 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 

 

Doc. No.: 454; Page No.: 2 4; Book No. VII Series of 2010.

Counsel for the Plaintiff   VDXMB Jubilation, Binan, Laguna Roll of 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 Compla Com plaint int for Res Rescis cissio sion n of Contract with Damages

 ALMARIO JANDAYAN 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 an answer swer to th thee compla complaint int for res rescissio cission n of cont contract, ract, th thee Responden Respondentt 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. Moreo Moreover, ver, att attached ached to the co complai mplaint, nt, as acti actionab onable le document document is the contra contract ct 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. 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, 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 Compla Com plaint int for Res Rescis cissio sion n of Contract with Damages

 ALMARIO JANDAYAN 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 Settle Settlement ment Plaintiff hereby manifest that he is open to amicable settlement on matters other than rescission of the contract of sale; s ale; B. Bri Brief ef St Stat ateme ement nt of P Plai laint ntiff  iff  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. Fac Facts ts for Sti Stipul pulati ation on - Jur Jurisd isdict iction ion ooff the Hono Honorab rable le Court Court on tthe he perso person n of th thee partie partiess - Aut Authen hentic ticity ity an and d enf enforce orceabi abilit lityy of the sub subjec jectt cont contrac ractt of sale sale.. D. Sta Statem tement ent of IIssue ssue  Whether the contract entered into between the plaintiff and Respondent corporation may be rescinded. E. Do Docume cuments nts for Mar Markin kings gs - Contract of Sale - Invo Invoic ices es (d (del eliv iver eryy an and d offic officia iall rec recei eipt pts) s) - Rece ceiiving Papers F. Witne itness ssees - Plaintiff himself - Trucking Services represen representative tative (who ma made de the delivery) G. Tr Tria iall Da Date tess - Sub Subjec jectt to availa available ble dates dates ooff th thee Ho Honor norab able le Cour Courtt

 

Respectfully submitted

Makati City, November 26, 2010

IRISH TOM TOLENTINO

 

Counsel Jubilation, for the Plaintiff   VDXMB Jubila tion, 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 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 Compla Com plaint int for Res Rescis cissio sion n of Contract with Damages

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

 ARBITRATION – COMPROMISE AG AGREEMENT REEMENT

Pl Plai aint ntif ifff DE DEXT XTER ER CA CAGU GUI, I, file filed d th this is comp co mpla lain int t agai agains nstt ofRe Resp spon onde dent nt contract AL ALMA MARI RIO O JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. for rescission the written 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

Comess No Come Now, w, th thee pa part rtie iess plai plaint ntif ifff DE DEXT XTER ER CAGU CAGUII and and Re Resp spon onde dent nt AL ALMA MARI RIO O JAND JA NDAY AYAN AN GE GENE NERA RAL L ENGI ENGINE NEER ERIN ING, G, CO CO.. an and d un unto to this this Ho Hono nora rabl blee Cour Courtt respectfully submit this compromise agreement: 1. Res Respon ponden dent t cor corpor porat ation ionplus ackn acknow ledges ges its from obl obliga igatio tion n to the pla plaint intiff iff for a total total amount of Php827,500 6%owled PA interest January 1, 2010; 2. Respo Responden ndentt promise promisess and under undertake takess to pay the afore aforementi mentioned oned amo amount unt to the plaintiff in 3 monthly installments of equal amounts; 3. Sai Said d monthl monthlyy instal installme lment nt payme payments nts shal shalll com commen mence ce on February February 20, 2011 an and d 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. shall The ifbecome the Res Respon ponden dent t fails to com comply ply wit with h one (1) inst install allmen ment, t, the obl obliga igatio tion n due and demandable;

 

5. Th That at th thee plai plaint ntif ifff shal shalll retu return rn all all th thee dies diesel el en engi gine ness purc purcha hase sed d from from the the nd Respondent after the 2  installment has been cleared; 6. The par partie tiess agr agree ee that the app approv roval al of thi thiss agreemen agreementt by the Court Court shal shalll 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. MARASIGA MARASIGAN, N,

Plaintiff,

-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO. 556987

ROSEMARIE B. SANTOS,

Defendant.

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

POSITION PAPER 

Defend Def endan antt Rosema Rosemarie rie San Santos tos throug through h the the un under dersig signed ned cou counse nsell respec respectfu tfully  lly  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 aaccoun ccountt of the def defenda endant’s nt’s preg pregnan nancy cy with a chi child ld not of the pl plaint aintiff’s. iff’s. 2. The plai plaintif ntiff’s f’s consen consentt havin havingg been obta obtained ined by forc forcee and intim intimidat idation ion 3. Failu Failure re in obt obtaini aining ng cons consent ent of the the plainti plaintiff’s ff’s par parents ents..

 

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 carry ca rryin ingg a four four-w -wee eekk ol old d baby baby in he herr wo womb mb.. Th Thee pl plai aint ntif ifff ho howe weve verr qu ques esti tion onss his his paternity over the child.

In a cross examination with the plaintiff, (TSN, July 20, 2007, p. 16),  16),   he alleged that   on February 22, 2005, he was approached by two bodyguards of the defendant’s that father, Atty. Felipe Santos, accordingly informing him of the ‘misfortune’ that he would  be in should he not marry the defendant. defendant. A revolver was accordingly shown to him 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 aaccoun ccountt of the def defenda endant’s nt’s preg pregnan nancy cy with a chi child ld not of the pl plaint aintiff’s. iff’s. 2. The plai plainti ntiff’ ff’ss con consen sentt ha havin vingg been been obt obtain ained ed by force, inti intimid midat ation ion and und undue ue influence. 3. Failu Failure re in obt obtaini aining ng cons consent ent of the the plainti plaintiff’s ff’s par parents ents..

 

 ARGUMENTS  ARGUMENT S

I

The court has established the fact that defendant Santos was known in the same univer uni versit sityy for her pla playfu yfulne lness ss wit with h her mal malee bud buddie dies. s. The uni univer versit sity’s y’s Guidan Guidance ce Counselor has testified the numerous instances when the defendant’s attention was called calle d due to her alleged obvio obvious us misconduct misconduct of consi consisten stently tly going out with various 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 Defen dant Santo Santoss also admitte admitted d in court that in her past experience experiences, s, 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 direct-examination (TSN, July 20, 2007, 2007, p. 10 to 12).

 ATTY. QUIRANTE: Q

Do yo you u kno know wR Ros osem emar arie ie Sa Sant ntos os ev even en befo before re you you m met et in the the ccla lass ss part party? y?

 A

No.

Q

Ca Can n yyou ou tell tell th this is cour courtt h how ow you ap app pro roac ach hed her? her?

 A

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

 

Q

So yyou ou w wer eree at attr trac actted ttoo he her. r. D Did id yyou ou h haave th the hi hint nt ttha hatt sh shee wo wou uld not 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 Did yyou ou no nott h hav avee aany ny boy boy ttal alkk w wit ith h yyou ourr fri frien ends ds rega regard rdin ingg R Ros osem emar arie ie??

 A

Yes we did but I did not kn know ow 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 113, 3, 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 Did yyou ourr ffat athe herr for force ce or in inti timi mida date te Al Alvi vin n to to mar marry ry you? you?

 A

No

Q

Th Then en wha whatt ca can n yyou ou ssay ay abo about ut tthe he p pet etit itio ione ner’ r’ss al alle lega gati tion on tha thatt he was was fo forc rced ed 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, 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, cas e, as int intere eresti stingl nglyy he held ld 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 independent independently ly in the

 

ey eyee of th thee la law w whe hen n he acts acts relu reluct ctan antl tlyy an and d with with he hesi sita tati tion on as when when he ac acts ts 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. plaintiff.

III

It is also stated in Art. 45, Family Code Code

 Article 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage: (1) (1) Th That at th the e pa part rty y in wh whos ose e be beha half lf it is so soug ught ht to ha have ve th the e marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below  twent tw enty-o y-one ne,, an and d th the e mar marria riage ge was sol solemn emniz ized ed wit witho hout ut th the e consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute paren pa renta tall aut autho horit rity y ov over er th the e par party, ty, in th that at ord order, er, 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 sstill till cohabiting as the plaintiff  told the court.

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

 ATTY QUIRANTE

Q

By tthe he w way ay A Alv lvin in,, wh when en did did R Roose sema mari riee live live you yourr ho home me ttoo live live aalo lone ne in 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 inte interr rrog ogat atio ion, n, th they ey we were re stil stilll coha cohabi biti ting ng wh when en peti petiti tion oner er Mara Marasi siga gan n tu turn rned ed 21 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. 812 812332, 332, 4/13/2 4/13/2008, 008, Pasig C City  ity   Roll of Attorney No. 43789

 

Copy Furnished:  Atty. Florie Gama Afable 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 petitioner sir.  Where are you residing?  A. I am a resident of Blk 4, Lot 10 10 Adelina Homes Subd., Lipa City, Batangas. Do you know Susann Reyes?  A.Yes sir.  Why do you know her? her?  A.She is my wife sir.  When and where where were you married to Susan L. Reyes?  A.The report of marriage sir.  When and where where did you meet Susa L. Reyes?  A.I met her sometime in 1993 in the the State of Bahrain, 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 with to while away from th thee boredom of working in Bahrain.  What did you do if any? any?  A.After a few days i courted courted her, but i wasn’t actually serious w with ith her. How did you court her?  A.I personally visited her or i would would call her on the phone to profe profess ss my love. So what happened next?  A.We started dating dating and soon we began to en engage gage in premarital sex. However, I treated treated her as a playmate only, i was not serious with her, all I wanted was her body.  What else happened? happened?  A.Every time we have concluded concluded our trysts, I would distance myself aand nd 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 what happened, if any any??  A.Susan L. Reyes became pregnant. pregnant.  What was your reaction? reaction?  A.I got mad about it so without without any further words words I hung up the phone.  What happened happened next if any?  A.I just decided to marry Susan. Susan. Do you love Susan by that time?  A.No sir. So why did you marry Susan?  A.Because I don’t want want to inconvenience inconvenience the parties concerned.  After the marriage ceremony, what what happened next? next?  A.After the marriage ceremony, ceremony, we each went on our our own ways.  What happened happened after that?  A.When my contract contract ended in mid 1994, I went ba back ck to the Philippines wi without thout Susan’s knowledge. Susan was already six months pregnant.  While in the Philippines, Philippines, did you meet Susan?  A.Yes sir, but only once.  Will you please tell us the incident? incident?  A.In 1996, Susan, our child and Susan’s Susan’s family were able to tra trace ce my whereabouts and came to our house in Batangas. For the first time i saw my child.  What was your reaction? reaction?  A.I did not feel anything anything special. So you were not happy to see Susan and your Son.  A.I was not happy happy sir.

 

 What else happened? happened?  A.Susan tried to extend extend her hand in reconciliation reconciliation but I refused it.  Why did you refuse?  A.Because I had already made a decision not to live with her, her, because it would be unfair  both to me and Susan as as we would be living a lie.  What happened happened next?  A.They left without without any further conversatio conversation. n. Before filing this case, did you consult anyone?  A.Yes sir.  Whom did you consult?  A.Besides my lawyer, I consulted consulted a clinical psychologist.  Who was that clinical clinical psychologist?  A.Dr. Nedy Tayag.  What did Dr. Tayag Tayag do if any?  A.She performed various psychological psychological tests.  After those psychological psychological tests, what happened happened??  A.Dr. Tayag prepared a written written report.  What is that written written report?  A.It is a report on the psychological psychological condition of Guido Reyes. Reyes.  What does it contain? contain?  A.My background data data and brief marital history.  What else?  A.The tests results and evaluation evaluation and remarks.  A.You mentioned remarks, remarks, what were her remarks? 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 own misguided notions an and d apparent unprepa unpreparedness redness 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 No.:DO1-05-006787 th

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6  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 Cor Corpor porati ation on pri prior or ttoo 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 parts of which were purchased from the defendant, 324 Contractors, Inc? 2. Was ssuch uch contr contract act,, if an any, y, in wr writi iting? ng? 3. Was tthe he sa said id co contr ntract act iin n for force ce on the the 1st day of October, 2008? 4. Did Ha Habaji baji C Corpor orporation ation at an anyy tim timee prior ttoo 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 Haba Habaji ji Corpor Corporation ation op operat eratee its inspect inspection, ion, serv service ice and repair repair depart department ment under the name of the Corporation? 6. What wa wass the relationshi relationship, p, if any, betw between een the afo aforesai resaid d Habaji Cor Corporat poration ion and Huson Corporation? 7. Did Hab Habaji aji Corporat Corporation ion by an anyy of its emplo employees, yees, in inspect spect,, service service,, and made st

repairs on a certain cooler machine in the tavern aforesaid on thend1  day of October 2008, and at any other time between that date and the 2  day of November, 2008?

 

8. Were Hab Habaji aji Corpo Corporati ration on and Huson Co Corpora rporation tion bot both h locate located d at 224 Street on the 2nd day of November, 2008?  AFFIDAVIT  AFFIDAVI T

 WILBUR IAN Q. BABULA, BABULA, being first duly sworn, on oath, oath, deposes and says tha thatt 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 and believes that the said bar bar fictures were inspected, altered, an and d 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 that the evidence required by the the answers of the interroga interrogatories tories herewith presented, and the list of wsorn documents, are necessary and material in the trial of said cause.

 WILBUR IAN BAB BABULA ULA & A Associates ssociates

2nd Flr. JR Business Complex, Ayala Highway  Mataas na Lupa, Lipa City, Batangas 4217 By :

 WILBUR IAN BAB BABULA  ULA 

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 la last st Nove November mber 11, 22009, 009, M MARIET ARIETA A GLOB GLOBO O ECACA ECACA,, witn witness ess for th thee herei herein n plaintiff, arrived for a one-month vacation from Qatar where she is currently  working; 2. That That,, her testim testimony ony is of utmost im importa portance nce for the judi judicial cial dete determina rmination tion of the instant case. 3. That ho howeve wever, r, herein herein witn witness ess is const constrain rained, ed, by rea reason son of her wo work, rk, to go ba back ck to Qatar on December 13, 2007, and, is uncertain as to when departure on December 13, 2009.  WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully respectfully prayed of this Honourable 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 9828287/LIpa City/1-52009 IBP No.Compliance 25633/1-05-2009 MCLE 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 -

Civil Case No. 01 Compla Com plaint int for Res Rescis cissio sion n of Contract with Damages

 ALMARIO JANDAYAN JANDAYAN GENERAL ENGINEERING, CO. Respondent. 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 th thee foll follow owin ingg grou ground nd th that at THE THE HO HONO NORA RABL BLE E CO COUR URT T HA HASS NO NOT T ACQU ACQUIR IRED ED 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 GENE GE NERA RAL L EN ENGI GINE NEER ERIN ING, G, CO CO.. th thro roug ugh h a ce cert rtai ain n Mari Mariaa Cl Clar araa al alle lege ged d to be the the author aut horize ized d person personnel nel of ALMAR ALMARIO IO JAN JANDAY DAYAN AN GEN GENERA ERAL L ENG ENGINE INEERI ERING, NG, CO. 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 ser Said servic vicee of Sum Summon mons, s, how howeve ever, r, con consti stitut tutes es an improp improper er ser servic vicee of sum summon monss 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 Section 11, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure upon whom service of summonsinshall 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:

 

"SECT "SECTION ION 13. 13.Ser Service vice upo upon n pri privat vatee dom domest estic ic cor corpor porat ation ion or partne partnersh rship. ip. - 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, 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 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 c ounsel and to this Honorable Court, alleges: 1. Petit Petitioner ioner is of legal legal age an and d with resi residence dence aatt 6933 Wash Washingt ington on St., Pio D Del el Pilar 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 Octob October er 20, 2008, pet petiti itione onerr an and d res respon ponden dentt got marr married ied at the Lou Lourde rdess Church Retiro, Quezon City. 3. The Theyy lived at 6933 Washing Washington ton St. St.,, Pio Del Pila Pilar, r, Makat Makatii City City an and d pet petiti itione onerr 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 their quarrels. Such quarrels him hour to frequently thedrunk conjugal home, of and when he would return at anled unholy at night, leave he was and  would immediately go to sleep. 4. Petit Petitioner ioner had had been con convincin vincingg her husband husband to go to a physici physician an for consulta consultation tion and, if required, for treatment, but he refused. Petitioner instead went to see and co cons nsul ultt a psyc psychi hiat atri rist st abou aboutt th thee prob proble lems ms of her her hu husb sban and, d, an and d the the do doct ctor or psychi psy chiatr atrist ist inf inform ormed ed her th that at respon responden dentt was was suffer suffering ing fro from m psy psycho cholog logica icall incapacity. 5. In the mor moree than one yea yearr of th their eir mar marria riage, ge, respon responden dentt did not have an anyy sex  with her, nor would he even allow petitioner 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 be been en held th that at the pro prolonge longed d refusa refusall of a spouse to ha have ve sexua sexuall intercourse intercourse  with the other spouse is a sign of 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, 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/CERTIFI  VERIFICAT ION/CERTIFICATION CATION A AGAINST GAINST FO FORUM RUM SHOP SHOPPING PING

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 P Petit etitioner ioner in th thee abo above-en ve-entitl titled ed cas case; e; 2. Tha Thatt I have have caused caused th thee pre prepar parat ation ion of the for forego egoing ing pet petiti ition; on; I have have rea read d the the allegations therein and certify that the same are true and correct of my own personal knowledge; 3. That I furth further er certif certifyy that Peti Petitione tionerr have not comme commenced nced any act action ion invo involvin lvingg 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. Tha Thatt in th thee event th that at any act action ion in invol volvin vingg the same shou should ld be made known 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, 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 of Attorney No. 99XXXXXXXX IBP No 4879555X, Manila PTR No. 8015258 Jan. 15, 2010, Manila MCLE Compliance No. 10-0820, Jan,15, 2010

 

 AFFIDAVIT  AFFIDAV IT OF PERS PERSONAL ONAL SERVI SERVICE CE

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 rendere rendered d by this Honora Honorable ble Court which plaint plaintiff iff received on June 12, 2011, dismissing her petition;

17. Peti Petition tioner er has discover discovered ed new eviden evidence ce to prove that Respo Responden ndentt committed sexual infidelity by living with Juanita Gutierrez at the conjugal home of the part pa rtie iess he here rein in.. Ma Mark rk Pa Patr tric ick, k, wh whil ilee pl play ayin ingg ar arou ound nd the the ro room om of the the Respondent, found the Company ID of Juanita in San Gabriel Corporation  where she is currently working as a Marketing 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 MARIE FAITH II.. 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 DEIZRELLE SAN JOSE

Counsel for the Respondent Room 143 McArthur Building  Ayala Avenue, Makati 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 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

COME CO MESS NO NOW W th thee Re Resp spon onde dent nt by th thee un unde ders rsig igne ned d co coun unse sel, l, and and un unto to this this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges that:

18. The conti continuat nuation ion of the trial of this case was set by this Honorable Honorable Court on  April 15, 2011 at 8:30 am, as as agreed upon by the partie parties; s; 19. 19. Ho Howe weve ver, r, wh whil ilee th thee un unde ders rsig igne ned d coun counse sell agre agreed ed to su such ch se sett ttin ing, g, 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 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 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 MARIE FAITH II.. 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 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 th this is dat date, e, the un unde ders rsig igne ned d cou couns nsel el has with withdr draw aw as co coun unse sell of the Respondent in the above-entitled case for all legal purpose; 2. The und undersig ersigned ned coun counsel sel will be substitu substituted ted by Att Atty. y. Deizr Deizrelle elle San Jo Jose se 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 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: of: PEDRO S. DELA CRUZ

Respondent

 

NOTICE OF HEARING THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court Branch 02, Las Piñas City 

 ATTY. MARIE MARIE FAITH II.. 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 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 O OF F JUDGMENT 

PLAINTIFF, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges: 1. The de decision cision in favo favour ur of th thee plain plaintiff tiff ha hass become final final and exe executor cutor ssince ince more more than fifteen (15) days from defendant’s receipt thereof on September 15, 2009 had already lapsed without a defendant’s appealing therefrom. 2. Afte Afterr a decision h has as becom becomee final final,, execution execution is a matt matter er of right on the the part of the prevailing party and ministerial duty of the court to issue writ of execution.  WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that that a writ of execution be issued for 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

-versus VINCENT S. CASTRO Defendants. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

 MOTION FOR THE ISSUANC ISSUANCE E OF   ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTIO EXECUTION  N 

COMES NOW, the petitioner in the above captioned case by and through counsel, and to this Honorable Court most respectfully states that: 1. On Octo October ber 21, 22003, 003, tthis his Hon Honorabl orablee Court re rendere ndered d its deci decision sion gra grantin ntingg the petitioner’s petition for the issuance of writ of execution; 2. To imple implemen mentt the Decision Decision,, this Honorabl Honorablee Court Court cause the issu issuan ance ce of the the  writ of execution dated dated October 28, 2003; 3. As th thee da date te howe howeve ver, r, th thee said said wr writ it of ex exec ecut utio ion/ n/po posse ssess ssio ion n has has not not be been en 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 mot motion ion is filed filed due to the fo foregoi regoing ng reasons reasons only aand nd for the pu purpose rpose oof  f  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 EDUARDO P P..

Guagua Water District San Nicolas, Guagua, Pampanga

RE: Administrative Complaint x---------------------------------x  ENTRY OF APPEARANCE APPEARANCE AND URGENT EX-PARTE MOTION FOR TIME  UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL, respectfully states that:

1. He is ent entering ering h his is appearan appearance ce for th thee cause of tthe he Gen General eral Man Manager, ager, E Eduard duardoo P.  Abad of the Guagua Water Water District; 2. The orde orderr dated No Novembe vemberr 11, 2009 w was as recei received ved on Nov November ember 19, 22009 009 by th thee 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 th thee preoccu preoccupati pation on of the undersig undersigned ned coun counsel sel with ot other her prior prior commitments of equal import, he would earnestly seek for time within which to prepare and submit said comment; 4. The need needed ed time is not int intende ended d to delay the soon soonest est administr administration ation of jus justice; tice;  WHEREFORE,  WHEREFOR E, premises considered, it is respectfully r espectfully 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. c omment. 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 MOTION FOR EXTE EXTENSION NSION OF TIME 

DEFENDANT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that: 1. Defen Defendant dant eengag ngaged ed the service servicess of unde undersign rsigned ed coun counsel sel onl onlyy on November November 17, 17, 2009; 2. Defen Defendant dant w was as served with with Sum Summons mons an and d copy of Com Complain plaintt on Novemb November er 3, 2009 and thus has until November 18, 2009 within which to submit an Answer or Responsive Pleading; 3. Howev However, er, due to th thee pressur pressures es of equa equally lly urgen urgentt profe profession ssional al work an and d prior commitments, the undersigned counsel would not be able to meet the said decline; 4. As such, und undersign ersigned ed counse counsel,l, throu through gh an urgent mot motion ion for ext extensio ension n of time  was constrained to request for an additional period of five days 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. Howev However, er, defe defendan ndantt failed to subm submit it the said mot motion ion on time fo forr honest honestly ly failing 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. Moreo Moreover, ver, this ad additio ditional nal time wil willl also allow the und undersig ersigned ned to inte interview rview th thee available witness and study this case further; 7. This Sec Second ond Mot Motion ion is not in intend tended ed for dela delayy but solely solely due to the foregoin foregoingg reasons.

 

 WHEREFORE, Defendant Defendant most respectfully prays of this Hon Honorable orable 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 forRizal Defendant  ABC Bldg., Avenue, Manila PTR No. 3395523 IBP No.: 34482 Roll No. 3495430 Copy furnished:  Atty. Wenceslao Gonzales 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 MOTION FOR EXTE EXTENSION NSION OF TIM TIME  E 

Undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, mostly respectfully states that: 1. He is the co counsel unsel for for the D Defend efendant ant in the the abo above ve cap captione tioned d case for ssum um of money; 2. Defen Defendant dant en engaged gaged th thee service servicess of undersig undersigned ned coun counsel sel only on Nove November mber 17, 2009; 3. Defen Defendant dant w was as served with with Sum Summons mons an and d copy of th thee Compla Complaint int on No Novembe vemberr 3, 2009 and thus has until November November 18, 2009 within whi which ch to submit an Answer or Responsive Pleading; 4. Defen Defendant dant w was as twice given given ext extensio ension n of time to pre prepare pare an and d answe answerr the complaint. The first time extension of five days was given on November 19, 2009 to end on November 24, 2009. 5. Howev However, er, defe defendan ndantt failed to subm submit it the said mot motion ion on time fo forr honest honestly ly failing 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 to November 30, 2009; 6. Good caus causee exist to justi justify fy the addit additiona ionall request requested ed exten extension sion of thre threee more days as counsel for the defendant had to undergo a minor dental surgery during the previously requested extension;  WHEREFORE, with indulgence indulgence form the Court, counsel for the defen defendant dant 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 DEFEN DEFENDANT DANT DEFAU DEFAULT  LT 

Plaintiff, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully states 1. The rec records ords of tthe he Hon Honorabl orablee Court sh show ow tha thatt Defen Defendant dant w was as serve served d with copy copy of  the summons and of the complaint, together with annexes thereto on March 20, 2009; 2. Upon veri verificat fication ion how however, ever, th thee records show tthat hat Defe Defendan ndantt Doris Begorn Begornia ia 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 iiss respectfully respectfully pra prayed yed tha thatt Defen Defendant dant Dor Doris is Begor Begornia nia be decl declared ared 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 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 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 LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT 

Defendant, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully alleges that: 1. Ten (10) da days ys afte afterr the summo summons ns of the co complai mplaint nt was rece received ived by th this is defen defendant dant,, she filed a motion to dismiss; 2. Plain Plaintiff tiff has no nott filed an anyy oppos opposition ition ttoo said motion motion and no hearing hearing w was as held on said motion to dismiss; 3. While th thee said moti motion on to dism dismiss iss was sti still ll pendi pending, ng, thi thiss Honora Honorable ble Cour Courtt declared declared defendant in default; 4. Said orde orderr declari declaring ng defend defendant ant in default default is prema premature ture and wit without hout leg legal al basis since there is still a pending motion to dismiss.  WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that that the order declaring the defendant 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 Batonghinog Counsel for Plaintiff  Cubao, Quezon City