Republic of the Philippines NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 0 Las Pinas City BN, Plaintiff, -versus-
CIVIL CASE NO. For: DAMAGES
ED Defendant. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - – – - - - - - - - - - ----x
ANSWER (In Re: SUMMONS received on May 31, 2016) COMES NOW the Defendant, by the undersigned counsel, and in answer to Plaintiff's complaint, respectfully alleges:
ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS 1.
That Defendant admits paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Complaint with the additional averment that she may be served with all court processes through the undersigned counsel;
2.
That Defendant cannot possibly comment as to the veracity of Plaintiff’s statement in paragraph 4 of the complaint, she not having been in the place and time mentioned in said paragraph, in that, granting that Plaintiff indeed was bumped at 9:05 PM on August 6, 2015 by X while Plaintiff was alongside pedestrian lane/sidewalk along Alabang-Zapote road. To Defendant’s knowledge, there is no such pedestrian lane or sidewalk in that area because of the presence of a footbridge and a signages saying: BAWAL TUMAWID and NO JAYWALKING; Please refer to attached pictures on Annexes “1”, “6” and “6-1” showing that Plaintiff was not allowed to cross that portion of the road.
3.
Also, that Plaintiff appears to be changing his tune and is obviously telling a lie to this Honorable Court in his statements in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this new complaint: In this new complaint, the Plaintiff said: “For cause of action against Defendant Domingo, it is hereby stated that on August 6, 2015 at around 9:05 in the 1 | Answer – BT v. ED
evening, Plaintiff was alongside pedestrian lane/sidewalk along Alabang-Zapote road; That while Plaintiff was walking along the sidewalk, the Mitsubishi owned by Domingo was driven by her driver, X a resident of Editiorial Extension 4th Estate Antonio Paranaque City, Metro Manila.”
While in the first complaint1 which, incidentally, was dismissed by this Honorable Court last March 2, 2016 basically for lack of proper verification and certification against forum-shopping, the Plaintiff said: “For cause of action against Defendant Domingo, it is hereby stated that on August 6, 2015 at around 9:05 in the evening, while I was crossing along Alabang Zapote Road, Casimiro, coming from the side of Cecilles Restaurant Las Pinas City, Plaintiff was bumped by the Mitsubishi driven by X, a resident of Editiorial Extension 4th Estate Antonio Paranaque City,Metro Manila.”
Obviously, Plaintiff is trying to change his story from “while I was crossing along Alabang Zapote Road, Casimiro, coming from the side of Cecilles Restaurant Las Pinas City” to , “Plaintiff was alongside pedestrian lane/sidewalk along Alabang-Zapote road. That while Plaintiff was walking along the sidewalk…” He wants us to believe now that he was not violating any City Ordinance against jay walking. He wants us to believe that it was not his violation of a City Ordinance that caused his being bumped by the vehicle driven by X. In his sworn affidavit2 before the Prosecutor A, BT said that he “was crossing along Alabang Zapote Road, coming the side of Cecilles Restaurant, Las Pinas 3”, when he was allegedly bumped.
1 Annex 7, Original Complaint, as amended, for case ---------2 Annex 8, Sworn Affidavit of BT dated September 16, 2015 3 Annex 8, paragraph 1 2 | Answer – BT v. ED
Also, according to the report4 prepared by the Vehicle Traffic Investigation Unit of Las Pinas City dated August 7, 2015, BT was actually crossing, viz: “… when upon reaching on a certain place of incident, the front portion of the same hit a pedestrian while crossing on the abovementioned place of incident going to Urci Townhomes…”5
4.
That again, Defendant cannot possibly comment on the veracity of paragraph 6 of the Complaint for not having been in the averred place at the time. Granting, however, without admitting, that the Plaintiff was bumped by X at the spot mentioned, it is worth-noting why Plaintiff opted NOT to use the footbridge erected for his safety. Instead, he crossed the road where he was not allowed to; 5.
That Defendant could not comment on the veracity and accuracy of paragraph 7 except for the fact that it tells us about a printout coming from the website of Google;
6.
That Defendant could not comment on the veracity and accuracy of paragraphs 8 and 9 due to lack of information and knowledge of the same, the truth being that Plaintiff’s alleged emotional suffering is personal to him and that Defendant has not been shown any proof to validate it;
7.
That defendant denies paragraph 10 of the complaint as the figures mentioned are unsubstantiated and that the purported Annex “C”, and sub-Annexes are not properly referenced and the purported figures are nowhere to be found. As such, defendant will have no basis in forming any judgment as to their authenticity and veracity; 8.
9.
That paragraph 11 is also being denied for being unsubstantiated, the truth being that as mentioned in the special and affirmative defenses;
That paragraph 12 is also being denied for being unsubstantiated. There is no such document attached to the complaint as Annex “D” which contains the amount P29,693. The Certificate of Employment” is dated February 6, 2015 – way before the date of the purported accident of August 6, 2015. Also, its purpose is not related at all to the filing of this claim for damages. The 4 Annex 9, Police Report dated August 7, 2015 5 Annex 9, sub-marking “9-1”
3 | Answer – BT v. ED
certification says: “this employment certification has been issued upon the request of BT for his credit card application.” 10.
That paragraphs 13 and 14 are denied for lack of basis to form a belief as to their truth and veracity there being no proof shown to substantiate them, the truth being that as mentioned in the special and affirmative defenses;
11. That defendant could not make an informed comment respecting paragraphs 15 and 16 as the defendant has not received any of the purported notices; 12. That paragraph 17 is denied for lack of basis to form a belief as to its truth and veracity there being no proof shown to substantiate it, the truth being that as mentioned in the special and affirmative defenses; and 13. That paragraphs 18 and 19 are likewise denied for lack of basis to form a belief as to its truth and veracity there being no proof shown to substantiate it, the truth being that as mentioned in the special and affirmative defenses.
DEFENSES 14. As SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, the defendant alleges: COMPLAINT LACKS A VALID AND COMPLIANT CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING; HONORABLE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION 14.1 The CERTIFICATION and VERIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING was defective and incomplete as the mandatory paragraph under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “Certification against forum-shopping. - The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
4 | Answer – BT v. ED
court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.” (emphasis supplied)
The “VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING” prepared by the complainant violates the above rule, specifically letter (c) which states that: “… (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.” There is no such certification/statement made by the Plaintiff. In his “VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING”, BR mentioned only the following: xxx “I, BT, Filipino, of legal age, with office address at ABC, Zapote-Alabang Road, Talon Uno, Las Pinas City, Metro Manila, under oath depose and state: 1 That I am the Complainant in the above-captioned case; 2 That I caused the preparation of the Complaint; 3 That all allegations therein are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge and based on authentic records. I certify that That: i
A Complaint of Reckless Imprudence resulting to Serious Physical injuries was filed by herein Complainant against a certain X, (driver of herein Respondent) , with the Office of the Prosecutor of Las Pinas City and after the finding of probable cause, an
5 | Answer – BT v. ED
Information was filed the Municipal Trial Court (MRT) Branch 0 of Las Pinas City; On April 7, 2016, I already received an Order from MTC Branch 0 setting on May 19, 2016, the Arraignment of the accused in criminal case with number 0; ii A similar Complaint for Damages was filed by herein Complainant with the RTC Branch 0, Las Pinas City covered by Civil Case No. 0, however, the Court dismissed the case in an Order dated March 2, 2016, the dispositive portion of which states: “WHEREFORE, for non-compliance with Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure the instant Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.” A copy of the Order is hereto attached as Annex “A”.” xxx
With all due respect, plaintiff’s non-compliance alone is a solid ground to dismiss the complaint outright. 14.2
Time and again, the Supreme Court has ruled sustaining this basic rule. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the instant complaint be dismissed outright. One example is the case of De Formoso v. PNB6 citing Oldarico S. Traveno v. Bobongon Banana Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative7, wherein the High Court said: xxx 4) As to certification against forum shopping, noncompliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons." (emphasis supplied)
LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION AS PLAINTIFF COMES TO COURT WITH UNCLEAN HANDS, THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES 14.3
By his very own admission in his first complaint, complainant said in paragraph 4 :
6 G.R. No. 154704 dated June 1, 2011 7 G.R. No. 164205 dated September 3, 2009 6 | Answer – BT v. ED
“4. For cause of action against Defendant ED, it is hereby stated that on August 6, 2015 at around 9:05 in the evening, while I was crossing along Alabang Zapote Road, Casimiro, coming from the side of Cecilles Restaurant Las Pinas city, Plaintiff was bumped by the Mitsubishi driven by X, a resident of San Antonio Paranaque city, Metro Manila;
Plaintiff admitted crossing the portion that pedestrians are NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS. There is a footbridge constructed for that very purpose. The fact that he was allegedly hit by an incoming vehicle while doing an illegal act of CROSSING A RESTRICTED AREA is to his own undoing. He was violating the law. As such, if there is anyone who must be held accountable and responsible, it should be BT, the Plaintiff; The illegal act of BT of crossing in the restricted area is also supported by the police report dated August 7, 2015 (Annex 9) and his own sworn affidavit executed before Prosecutor A on September 16, 2015 (Annex 8). He already caused so much trouble not only to the driver but also to the defendant. Annex “1” presents 5 pictures that show where the alleged incident happened. Sub-marking “1-A” shows that there is supposed to be a free-flowing of vehicle and as such no pedestrians must either stay or cross in the area. Annex “2” shows the map of the alleged place in accident. It proves that there is a footbridge that should have been used by the Plaintiff but he did not – contrary to law. Sub-marking “2-A” shows the specific place. Annex “3” is also submitted concerning the statement of the driver stating the place of incident (submarking “3-A”) and the fact that Defendant paid P15,000.00 (sub-marking “3-B”) despite the fact that is was the Plaintiff who was at fault. Annex “4” is further submitted to show the sketch on the exact place of accident (sub-marking “4-A). Like that of Annex “2”, Plaintiff was in a place where he was not supposed to be. 7 | Answer – BT v. ED
Annexes “5”, “5-1” and “5-2”, the bio-data and credentials of driver Robert A. Doronio, are hereby presented herewith to prove that Defendant exercised the diligence of a good father in the selection of said driver be he was hired. As shown on sub-making “5A”, Mr. Doronio has been driving professionally since 1989. Annexes “6” and “6-1” are pictures showing that Plaintiff was not allowed to cross the portion of the road. Specifically, sub-marking “6-A” says: “BAWAL TUMAWID” and sub-marking “6-1-A” says: “NO JAYWALKING”. Under Section 2 of Rule of the Rules of Court, a cause of action is defined as an act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. From the foregoing, it was actually the Plaintiff who violated the right to safely of others. It was he who violated the law thereby causing damage to others. With all due respect, it is he who must actually pay. BASELESS AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS 14.4 The following claims are unsubstantiated and are therefore baseless: Hospital Expenses, Professional Fees, Miscellaneous: Alleged Annexes are not found and/or referenced. Lost Income (P89,100): There are no supporting documents presented. Check up and x-rays: document presented.
There
is
no
supporting
Moral & Exemplary damages (P600,000): the actual damages being unsubstantiated, claims moral & exemplary damages are left without basis. EXORBITANT AND UNCONSCIONABLE LEGAL FEES 14.5 The claim for Attorney’s Fees (P100,000) is not only baseless. The amount is exorbitant and unconscionable.
8 | Answer – BT v. ED
COUNTERCLAIMS 15. As COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS against the Plaintiff, the Defendant alleges: 15.1 That to protect her right she is forced to defend herself by engaging the services of an attorney for P50,000 plus P4,000 fee per appearance; and 14.2 That the plaintiff’s unfounded and frivolous suit has caused the defendant mental anguish, sleepless nights and suffering as well as public humiliation and embarrassment, for which she claims moral damages of P300,000 and exemplary damages of P100,000.
TIMELINESS 16. That this ANSWER is submitted seasonably, or within the 15 days from the date of receipt on May 31, 2016, today being June 15, 2016.
PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court render judgment as follows: 1. DISMISS the complaint due to a defective certification against forum-shopping and lack of jurisdiction ; 2. DISMISS the complaint for lack of cause of action; 3. DISMISS the complaint for utter lack of merit and for being baseless; 4. ORDER the plaintiff to pay defendant attorney’s fee of P50,000 and P4,000 fee per appearance, plus moral damages of P300,000 and exemplary damages of P100,000; and 5. GRANT such other relief consistent with law and equity, and for costs. Las Pinas City, June 15, 2016.
9 | Answer – BT v. ED
NARAG LAW OFFICE Counsel for the Defendant 7-C Crispina Ave., Las Piñas Village, Pamplona III, 1740 Las Piñas City E-mail:
[email protected] By: MARIO P. NARAG, JR. Roll No. 56274 PTR No. 10999105-J/01-04-2016 IBP No. 1017158/01-04-2016 MCLE Compliance No. V-0020347 dated April 11, 2016 Copy furnished: ATTY. XYZ Counsel for the Plaintiff XXXXX BT Zapote-Alabang Road, Talon Uno, Las Pinas City
EXPLANATION A copy of this ANSWER was sent to the Plaintiff and his Counsel through registered mail as personal service is impracticable. MARIO P. NARAG, JR.
10 | Answer – BT v. ED
