LEGAL FORMS (Finals)

Group 13
Group 10 1.MOTION TO AMEND PETITION (MODES OF
a. Captions within jurisdiction of : AMENDMENT)
- Municipal Trial Court G.R. No. 133657 May 29, 2002
- Regional Trial Court (Special REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION,
Proceedings/Civil/Crim.) vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and BRITISH STEEL (ASIA),
- Court of appeals (appealed cases such as Petition for LTD.,
Review)
- Supreme Court (petition for Review) 2. AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE (CRIM. CASE)
b. Action which is prosecuted or defended by G.R. No. 181900 October 20, 2010
representative party PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. DEMETRIO SALAZAR,
c. Cite one case wherein a petition for review
(regarding forms) was the subject of a case. Group 14
1.. Ex-Parte (Ex Abundanti Cautela) to Allow Accused
Group 11 to Post Bail
1. Entry of Appearance G.R. No. 134504 March 17, 2000
2. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute JOSELITO V. NARCISO,vs. FLOR MARIE STA. ROMANA-
3. Motion to Quash CRUZ

Group 12 2. MOTION TO REDUCE BAIL

1. Pre-trial Brief G.R. No. 137681 January 31, 2002
2. Motion to Inhibit PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.HON. CONRADO R.
3.Demand Letter ANTONA, ETC.

CAPTIONS AND TITLES

A. Captions with different court jurisdiction.

B. Action which is prosecuted or defended by representative party.
C. Cite one case wherein a Petition for Review (regarding forms) was the subject of a case

The caption sets forth the name of the court, the title of the action, and the docket number if
assigned. (Sec.1, Rule 7, first paragraph of the Rules of Court)

The Title of the action indicates the names of the parties. They shall all be named in the original
complaint or petition; but in subsequent pleadings, it shall be sufficient if the name of the first
party on each side be stated with an appropriate indication when there are other parties. Their
respective participation in the case shall be indicated. (Sec.1 Rule 7, second and third paragraph)

A. Captions with different court jurisdiction.

 Municipal Trial Court

 Regional Trial Court (Special Proceedings/Civil/Crim.)
 Court of Appeals (appealed cases such as Petition)
 Supreme Court (petition for Review)

1
Background:

Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (Batas PambanasaBlg. 129), all courts except the Supreme
Court, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals were abolished, and the following Courts were
created: Intermediate Appellate Court, Regional Trial Court created in 13 Judicial Regions including the
National Capital Regions and other areas as may be established by law; Municipal Trial Courts in cities and
municipalities; and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Under Executive Order No. 3 dated 1986, the
immediate Appellate Court was renamed the Court of Appeals.

The following are samples of Caption filed in said courts:

1. Municipal Trial Court:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 1
Pasay

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL REGIO
Branch 1
Lingayen, Pangasinan

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
FIFTH JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 1
Legazpi, Albay

2
 =============

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF METRO MANILA
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 1
Manila

CHRIS EVANS,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 12345

-versus- For: Sum of Money

ROBERT DOWNEY JR.,

Defendant.

X_____________________________X

2. Regional Trial Court

A. Civil Case

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 1
Manila

CHRIS EVANS,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 12345

-versus- For: Sum of Money

ROBERT DOWNEY JR.,

Defendant.

X_____________________________X

B. Criminal Case
3
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 1
Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Complainant, Criminal Case No. 0001

-versus- For Violation of RA 9262

CHRIS HEMSWORTH,

Accused.

X_____________________________X

C. Special Proceedings

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 1
Manila

SCARLETT JOHANSSON, Petitioner, Civil Case No. 143XX

-versus- For: Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage under Article 46 of
the Family Code
JEREMY RENNER, Respondent.
X_____________________________X

3. Court of Appeals (appealed cases such as Petition)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

JOSH BROLIN, Petitioner-Appellant C.A. G.R. No. 12345

-versus- For: Petition for review

4
 MARVEL CORPORATION, Respondent-Appellee
X_____________________________X

4. Supreme Court (Petition for Review)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

First Division

MARK RUFFALO, Petitioner S.C. G.R. No. 55555

-versus- For: Petition for Review of the

on Certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

X_____________________________X

B. Action which is prosecuted or defended by representative party.

Rule 3, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure

Representatives as Parties –
Where the action is allowed to be prosecuted or defended by a representative or someone acting in
fiduciary capacity, the beneficiary shall be included in the title of the case and shall be deemed to be
the real party in interest. A representative may be a trustee of an express trust, a guardian, an executor
or administrator, or a party authorized by law or these Rules. An agent acting in his own name and for
the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when
the contract involves things belonging to the principal.

1. Trustee

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court
7th Judicial Region
Branch 8
Cebu City

JUAN DELA CRUZ, as trustee for the creditors of the Civil Case No. 8910
ABAKADA Import & Export Co.,petitioner,For: Sum of Money
vs.
SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIOand ANSELMO T. FAJARDO,
5
 Defendants

2. Guardian
Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 58, Makati City

ELIZABETH PATOLA, for herself and as guardian of the Civil Case No. 345
minors: MARILOU, MARIJEAN, AND DENNIS all surnamed For: Ejectment
PATOLA, petitioner
vs.
MARIE WANYA, respondent

3. Agent
Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 69, Mandaluyong City

XYZ FINANCE AND LENDING CORPORATION Civil Case No. M-2019-789

represented by Mr. Harry Potter,President For: Sum of Money and damages
andHermione Granger, Secretary,
plaintiff
vs.
LORD VOLDEMORT, defendant

C. Cite one case wherein a Petition for Review (regarding forms) was the subject of a case

PEOPLE vs. CFI of Quezon, Br. V

G.R. No. 41903 | June 10, 1992

“The rules do not require that the State be specifically mentioned in the body of the information
as an offended party. It is sufficient that the People of the Philippines appear in the caption of the
information to emphasize that penal laws of the State have been violated.”

FACTS: Private respondents Ramon Reyes alias "Caping," Guillermo Untalan, Natalio Alvarez and Wilfredo
Saliendra were charged in Criminal Case No. 380 at the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch V, with

6
qualified theft, as defined and punished under Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 3302 in an information
filed by Special Counsel Hjalmar Quintana of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon, on August 5,
1975, in the following manner:

"x xx xxx xxx

That on or about the 16th day of April 1974, at Barrio San Jose, in the Municipality of Mauban, Province
of Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
Ramon Reyes alias "Caping", Guillermo Untalan, Natalio Alvarez and Wilfredo Saliendra, with intent to
gain, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter a public forest zone under lease to the ALUK LOGGING
CORPORATION and once consisting of 1,200 board feet, without the consent of the latter, valued at
ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED TWENTY (P1,920.00) PESOS, Philippine currency, to the damage and
prejudice of said ALUK Logging Corporation in the aforesaid sum.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

On September 17, 1975, the private respondents were arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the
charge. After the arraignment, the private respondents moved to quash the aforestated information. One
of the grounds stated in the motion to quash was that “the facts charged do not constitute the crime of
qualified theft, there being no offended party, Aluk Logging Corporation being neither a timber lessee or
licensee.” the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon filed an opposition to private respondent's quashal arguing that
“the information is sufficient in form and substance and that there is a specific offended party.” The
respondent court, in its assailed order quashed the information for failure to conform substantially to the
prescribed form under Sec. 3(d) Rule 117, specifically the failure to state the name of the offended party
as embodied in Sec. 11, Rule 110 of the Old Rules of Criminal Procedure. In quashing the information,
respondent judge reasoned that the prosecuting fiscal's categorical admission that the State and not Aluk
Logging Corp. was the offended party was fatal to the information. Such admission by the fiscal deviated
from the allegations of the information which affected not only its form but also its substance. The court
held that such a defect in the designation of the name of the offended party could not be cured by mere
amendment in view of another claim by one of the accused, Ramon S. Reyes, as the duly registered timber
licensee.

ISSUE: Whether or not the information for qualified theft properly charges an offense due to its failure
to allege the proper offended party therein.

HELD: YES. What is important, as required by the Rules, is that "in criminal action the complaint or
information shall be in writing in the name of the People of the Philippines x xx.” The rules do not require
that the State be specifically mentioned in the body of the information as an offended party. It is sufficient
that the People of the Philippines appear in the caption of the information to emphasize that penal laws
of the State have been violated. For indeed, a crime is an offense against the State.

It was error for the lower court to dismiss the information. The information was already sufficient
in form and substance. The argument that it was fatal for the prosecution not to have alleged the State as
the offended party is without merit for in the case of Sayson v, People, in construing Sec. 11 of Rule 110
(now Sec. 12, Rules of Court of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure), we have clearly held that in offenses

7
against property, the designation of the name of the offended party is not absolutely indispensable as
long as the criminal act charged in the complaint or information can be properly identified.

Indeed, the crime of qualified theft under Presidential Decree No. 330 was described with
particularity in the information as to properly identify the offense charged. Hence, the erroneous
allegation as to the person injured is deemed immaterial as the same is a mere formal defect which does
not tend to prejudice any substantial right of the defendant.

WHEREFORE, the Order dated October 24, 1975 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the case
is REMANDED to the lower court for immediate disposition on the merits.

SO ORDERED.

GUELOS v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 177000 | June 19, 2017

“The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the
Information, nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being
conclusions of law, but the ACTUAL RECITAL OF THE FACTS in the Complaint or Information…it is not the
technical name given by the Fiscal appearing in the title of the information that determines the character
of the crime but the facts alleged in the BODY of the Information.”

FACTS: On December 5, 1995, two separate Informations for the death of Police Chief Inspector Rolando
Camacho and SPO2 Estelito Andaya, respectively, were filed with the RTC against herein petitioners for
the crime of Direct Assault upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Homicide, defined and penalized
under Articles 148 and 249, in relation to Article 48 of the RPC. The accusatory portions of the two
Informations state:

Criminal Case No. P-204

That on or about the 4th day of June 1995, at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, at Barangay Boot,
Municipality of Tanauan, Province of Batangas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring and confederating together, acting in
common accord and mutually helping one another, [Nestor] while armed with an Armalite Rifle,
with intent to kill and without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the said firearm one SPO2 Estelito Andaya, a bona fide
member of the Philippine National Police assigned at Tanauan Police Station, while engaged in the
performance of his official duties as peace officer, and while the latter is being held from the back
by [Gil] and other companions, whose identities and whereabouts are still unknown, thereby hitting
and inflicting upon the said SPO2 Estelito Andaya gunshot wounds on his body which caused his
instantaneous death.

Contrary to law.

Criminal Case No. P-205

8
 That on or about the 4th day of June 1995, at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, at Barangay Boot,
Municipality of Tanauan, Province of Batangas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused, conspiring and confederating together, acting in
common accord and mutually helping each other, [Nestor] while armed with an Armalite Rifle, with
intent to kill and without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the said firearm, one P/Chief Inspector Rolando M.
Camacho, a bona fide member of the Philippine National Police and concurrently the Chief of Police
of Tanauan, Batangas, while engaged in the performance of his official duties as peace officer, and
while the latter is being held at the back including his two arms by [Alfredo] and the barrel of his
armalite rifle is being held by [Rodrigo], thereby hitting and inflicting upon the said P/Chief Inspector
Rolando M. Camacho gunshot wounds on his head which caused his instantaneous death.

Contrary to law.

The petitioners pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charges. Thereafter, a joint trial ensued. The
prosecution and the defense presented their respective versions of the case.

Eventually, the Regional Trial Court found the accused in both criminal Informationsguilty of the
crime of Direct Assault upon an Agent of a Person in Authority with Homicide. The Court found that the
version of the prosecution of the case was more credible—the positive declarations of the police officers
who testified for the prosecution, particularly that of the eyewitnesses PO2 Carandang, were not
impeached. The trial court observed that PO2 Carandang testified in a straightforward manner and
showed signs of candor, as compared to the accused, who were smart-alecky and did not sound truthful.
The petitioners appealed to the CA. The latter affirmed in toto the petitioners’ conviction.

In the Supreme Court, the petitioners alleged in their petition for review certain factual errors.
Nonetheless, the Court gave due course to the petition due to reasons other than the factual issues raised
by the petitioners.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against them was properly observed.

HELD: NO. The Court finds that the Informations in this case failed to allege all the elements which
constitute the crime charged. The RPC provides:

Art. 148. Direct assaults.—Any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ
force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purpose enumerated in defining the crimes
of rebellion and sedition, or shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person
in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion
of such performance, shall suffer the penalty of prisióncorreccional in its medium and maximum
periods and a fine not exceeding P1,000.00 pesos, when the assault is committed with a weapon
or when the offender is a public officer or employee, or when the offender lays hands upon a person
in authority. If none of these circumstances be present, the penalty of prisióncorreccional in its
minimum period and a fine not exceeding P500.00 pesos shall be imposed.

9
 Art. 249. Homicide.—Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill
another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding
article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.

Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.—When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for
the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

While the elements constituting the crime of Homicide were properly alleged in the two
Informations and were duly established in the trial, the said Informations, however, failed to allege all the
elements constitutive of the applicable form of direct assault.To be more specific,the Informations do not
allege that the offenders/petitioners knew that the ones they were assaulting were agents of a person in
authority, in the exercise of their duty.

Direct assault, a crime against public order, may be committed in two ways: first, by “any person
or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of
the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition”; and second, by any person or
persons who, without a public uprising, “shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any
person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion
of such performance.”

Indubitably, the instant case falls under the second form of direct assault. The following elements
must be present, to wit:

1. That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes
a serious resistance;

2. That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent;

3. That at the time of the assault, the person in authority or his agent (a) is engaged in the actual
performance of official duties, or (b) is assaulted by reason of the past performance of official duties;

4. That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise
of his duties; and

5. That there is no public uprising.

In the course of the trial, the evidence presented sufficiently established the foregoing
allegations including the fact that the petitioners came to know that the victims were agents of a person
in authority, as the latter introduced themselves to be members of the PNP.

Nevertheless, the establishment of the fact that the petitioners came to know that the victims
were agents of a person in authority cannot cure the lack of allegation in the Informations that such fact
was known to the accused which renders the same defective. In addition, neither can this fact be
considered as a generic aggravating circumstance under paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the RPC for acts
committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank to
justify the imposition of an increased penalty against the petitioners.

10
 It is essential that the accused must have knowledge that the person attacked was a person in
authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties, because the accused must have the intention to offend,
injure, or assault the offended party as a person in authority or agent of a person in authority.

“The Constitution mandates that the accused, in all criminal prosecutions, shall enjoy the right to
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. From this fundamental precept
proceeds the rule that the accused may be convicted only of the crime with which he is charged.” This
right is accorded by the Constitution so that the accused can prepare an adequate defense against the
charge against him. Convicting him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating on his defense against
the ground alleged would plainly be unfair and underhanded. It must be noted that said constitutional
right is implemented by the process of arraignment in which the allegations in the document charging an
offense is read and made known to the accused. Accordingly, a Complaint or Information which does not
contain all the elements constituting the crime charged cannot serve as a means by which said
constitutional requirement is satisfied. Corollarily, the fact that all the elements of the crime were duly
proven in trial cannot cure the defect of a Complaint or Information to serve its constitutional purpose.

WHEREFORE, the judgment is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioners Nestor

Guelos, Rodrigo Guelos, Gil Carandang and SPO2 Alfredo Carandang y Prescilla are hereby found GUILTY
of Homicide and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prisión
mayor, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The
fine of P1,000.00 is DELETED. In addition to the amount of damages and civil indemnity that were already
awarded by the courts below to the respective heirs of Police Chief Inspector Rolando Camacho and Senior
Police Officer 2 Estelito Andaya, each of the petitioners are also directed to pay the amount of P30,000.00
as exemplary damages to each of the victims.

Rule 138, Section 21: Authority of attorney to appear

PRESUMPTION

An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears,

and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client, but the
presiding judge may, on motion of either party and on reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require
any attorney who assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the authority under which he
appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the person who employed him,
and may thereupon make such order as justice requires.

An attorney wilfully appearing in court for a person without being employed, unless by leave of
the court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official
transactions.

11
12
Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel

13
DEMAND LETTER

14
5 May 2019

Kristina A. Calumpit
111 Bonifacio Street, Canumay East,
Valenzuela City.

Re: Demand to Pay Rent and to Vacate the Leased Property

Madam:

I write to you regarding the above-referenced matter for the property located at:

111 Bonifacio Street, Canumay East,

Valenzuela City.

Under our lease agreement, your monthly rent of Fifteen Thousand Philippine Pesos (Php 15,000)
was supposed to be paid every 1st month. However, your last rental payment was made on 1,
December, 2018. As of this date, you have missed 5 monthly rental payments amounting to
Seventy-Five Thousand Philippine Pesos (Php 75,000).

Due to the foregoing, I hereby make a final demand upon you to pay Seventy-Five Thousand
Philippine Pesos (Php 75,000) and to vacate the property within Fifteen (15) Days from receipt of
this letter otherwise I would be constrained to institute the appropriate civil complaint against you.
I will also hold you liable for interest, damages, attorney’s fees, and expenses that I will incur
arising from your unlawful detainer of my property.

If you have any questions or concerns, you may have contact me at 09123456789.

Best Regards,

Juan Dela Cruz.

15
Motion to Inhibit

It has been said that due process of law requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal
and that every litigant is entitled to nothing else than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge (Mateo, Jr.
v. Villaluz, 50 SCRA 18). Hence, a judge should strive to be at all times wholly free, disinterested, impartial,
and independent (A.M. No. 87-9-3918-RTC, October 26, 1987.

In this wise, the Rules of Court provides for procedures that a plaintiff may refer to in order to protect his
right to a fair trial. Section 1, Rule 137 dictates the rules for the disqualification of a judge or judicial officer
from trying or hearing a case, to wit:

“No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested
as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the
civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has
been presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written
consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.

A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or
valid reasons other than those mentioned above.”

On the other hand, Section 2 of the same Rules provides for the manner that a party objecting to the
competency of the judge may file his motion:

Section 2. Objection that judge disqualified, how made and effect. — If it be claimed that an official is
disqualified from sitting as above provided, the party objecting to his competency may, in writing, file with
the official his objection, stating the grounds therefor, and the official shall thereupon proceed with the
trial, or withdraw therefrom, in accordance with his determination of the question of his disqualification.
His decision shall be forthwith made in writing and filed with the other papers in the case, but no appeal
or stay shall be allowed from, or by reason of, his decision in favor of his own competency, until after final
judgment in the case.

Kinds of Inhibition

The Rules contemplate two kinds of inhibition: compulsory and voluntary. In a Compulsory Inhibition, it is
conclusively presumed that judges cannot actively and impartially sit in the instances mentioned. In a
Voluntary Inhibition, recusal is left to the sound discretion of the judges concerned whether to sit in a
case for other just and valid reasons, with only their conscience as guide (Ramiscal, Jr. v. Justice
Hernandez, G.R. Nos. 173057-74, 2010).

Parts of a Motion to Inhibit

1. Caption
2. Contents
a. Relief sought to be obtained/Prayer
b. Grounds
3. Notice of hearing
4. Proof of service

16
17
18
19
 Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH XX,
BACOLOD CITY

SPOUSES ENZO and CHARISSE AVELINO,

Plaintiffs, Civil Case No: AUF-LF-001
For: Breach of Contract and Damages
-versus-

DON AURELIO FOOD VENTURES, INC., and MCDEWEY’S FOOD

PHILIPPINE, INC., BACOLOD CITY BRANCH and MARCUS WEW
Defendants.
x----------------------------------------x

MOTION TO ADMIT AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM

SHOPPING

Plaintiffs, SPOUSES ENZO and CHARISSE AVELINO, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable

Court, most respectfully state:

1. On 13 February 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Breach of Contract and Damages docketed as Civil Case
No. AUF-LF-001, entitled “Spouses Enzo and Charisse Avelino vs. Don Aurelio Food Ventures, Inc., and Mcdewey’s
Food Philippine, Inc., Bacolod City Branch and Marcus Wew”, which was assigned to this Honorable Court.

2. Unfortunately, Plaintiff failed to comply with the formalities required by the Rules of Court and the A.M No.
11-9-4-SC or Efficient Use of Paper Rule, and to specifically provide the surname and home address of Defendant
Marcus due to the inadvertence of the undersigned counsel;

3. Furthermore, on 21 February 2018, the Plaintiff with exercise of due diligence was able to specifically
identify the surname and home address of the Defendant Marcus.

4. Significantly, Section 2 Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, provide:

Section 2. Amendments as a matter of right. — A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of right at
any time before a responsive pleading is served or, in the case of a reply, at any time within ten (10) days after it is
served.

5. In accordance with the above-mentioned provision, Plaintiff hereby amends the instant complaint (hereto
attached as Annex “A”) without leave of court;

6. Significantly, Section 4 Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, provide:

Section 4. Formal amendments. — A defect in the designation of the parties and other clearly clerical or
typographical errors may be summarily corrected by the court at any stage of the action, at its initiative or on motion,
provided no prejudice is caused thereby to the adverse party.

7. Consequently, in accordance with the above-mentioned provision and Section 4 of Rule 10 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby amends the instant complaint by following the formalities required by the
rules, and by designating MARCUS WEW, providing his specific address, and by correcting clerical and typographical

20
errors. And by said amendment is necessary so that the actual merits of the controversy subject of the complaint
may be speedily determined and for complete determination of the claim of the Plaintiff;

8. In accordance with the above-mentioned provision and Section 4 of Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, Plaintiff hereby amends the instant complaint by justifying in the body of the complaint the relief sought
by the Plaintiff;

9. Thus, with due respect and in the interest of broad substantial justice, the undersigned counsel is
constrained to beg the indulgence of this Honorable Office and respectfully moves for the admission of the aforesaid
Amended Complaint;

10. Plaintiff and counsel respectfully manifest that they do not have the slightest intention of delaying the
proceedings or disregarding any rule and its failure to comply with the formalities required by the Rules of Court and
the A.M No. 11-9-4-SC or Efficient Use of Paper Rule was due to the aforestated reason. So that the actual merits of
the instant case may be determined, Plaintiff respectfully moves for the admission of the attached Amended
Complaint.

11. Moreover, due to the inadvertence of the undersigned counsel, the Plaintiff failed to attach to the
Complaint the required Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.

12. Notably, in the case of Roadway Express, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals , the Supreme Court considered as
substantial compliance the filing of the certification before the dismissal of the petition, to wit:

“The records show that 14 days before the CA dismissed the petition for review, an ex-parte manifestation
containing the requirement of the certification of non-forum shopping was already filed. Thus, the CA had no basis
in ruling that there was no certification, although the same was in the form of a manifestation. If subsequent
compliance with Circular 28-91, after a petition was dismissed for non-compliance was considered by the court as
substantial compliance with the said Circular, with more reason should the petition for review be allowed in this
case, in view of the compliance prior to the dismissal of the petition. ”

13. Furthermore, in the case of Uy vs. The Land Bank of the Philippines , the Supreme Court even reinstated a
petition it had already dismissed for lack of verification and certification against forum shopping, after petitioner
had justified the reinstatement, to wit:

“The admission of the petition after the belated filing of the certification, therefore, is not unprecedented. In those
cases where the Court excused non-compliance with the requirements, there were special circumstances or
compelling reasons making the strict application of the rule clearly unjustified. In the case at bar, the apparent merits
of the substantive aspects of the case should be deemed as a special circumstance or compelling reason for the
reinstatement of the petition. That counsel for petitioner filed the verification/certification before receipt for the
resolution initially denying the petition also mitigates the oversight.”

14. Thus, to correct the aforementioned mistake and inadvertence, the Plaintiffs intend to submit the Amended
Complaint, which now includes the Verification and Certification Against Non-Forum Shopping .

15. It is worthy to note that by allowing the admission of the Amended Complaint with Verification and
Certification Against Non-Forum Shopping, no unfairness to any of the Defendants would result. To this date, the
Defendants have not yet served any responsive pleading. Furthermore, the attachment is merely to conform to
procedural rules and is not intended to prejudice the Defendants.

16. As the Supreme Court has expounded in Aguam vs. Court of Appeals:

Technicalities, however, must be avoided. The law abhors technicalities that impede the cause of justice. The court's
primary duty is to render or dispense justice. "A litigation is not a game of technicalities." "Lawsuits unlike duels are
not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its
great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts." Litigations must be decided on their
merits and not on technicality. Every party litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just

21
determination of his cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities. Thus, dismissal of appeals purely on
technical grounds is frowned upon where the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of appeals on their merits
and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only
to help secure, not override substantial justice. (Emphasis supplied)

17. In Ginete v. Court of Appeals, the Court further held:

Let it be emphasized that the rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment
of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflect this principle. The power to
suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself has
already declared to be final, as we are now constrained to do in the instant case.

xxxx

The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper
and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities. Time and again, this Court has
consistently held that rules must not be applied rigidly so as not to override substantial justice. (Emphasis supplied)

18. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully manifest that they do not have the slightest intention of disregarding any
rules of procedure, and their failure to attach Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was due
inadvertence and was not done deliberately and willfully.

19. Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs most respectfully request this Honorable Court to admit the Amended
Complaint with Verification and Certification Against Non-Forum Shopping and to serve the same to the Defendants.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the attached Amended Complaint with Verification and
Certification of Non-Forum Shopping be admitted and served by this Honorable Court.

Bacolod City, 26 February 2018.

CATANDUANES & DE VERA LAW OFFICES

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Rm. 105 Bacolod Bldg,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
Tel Nos. 814-6147, 815-6189

By:

Catanduanes, Edselie Joyce R. De vera Erikka D.

Counsel for the Plaintiff Counsel for the Plaintiff
Rm. 105 Bacolod Bldg,Bacolod City Rm. 105 Bacolod Bldg,Bacolod City Roll of Atty. No. 0000
Roll of Atty. No. 0000
IBP No. 000 IBP no. 000
MCLE Compliance No. 00 MCLE Compliance No.00

Copy Furnished:
DON AURELIO FOOD VENTURES, INC.
Unit 300 Edificio Aurelio, Lacson Avenue,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental.

MCDEWEY’S FOOD PHILIPPINE, INC.,

22
BACOLOD CITY BRANCH
Unit 150 Edificio Aurelio,
Lacson Avenue,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental.

MARCUS WEW
155 Barangay Tangub,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental.

EXPLANATION

Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13, Rules of Court, service of this pleading to adverse party by registered mail was
resorted to because personal service is not practical due to lack of manpower and distance.

ATTY. EDSELIE JOYCE R. CATANDUANES

==========================

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH XX,
BACOLOD CITY

SPOUSES ENZO and CHARISSE AVELINO,

Plaintiffs,

-versus-
Civil Case No: AUF-LF-001
For: Breach of Contract and Damages

DON AURELIO FOOD VENTURES, INC., and

MCDEWEY’S FOOD PHILIPPINE, INC., BACOLOD
CITY BRANCH and MARCUS WEW
Defendants.
x----------------------------------------x

MOTION TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, respectfully moves for leave of court to file the amended complaint attached hereto as annex “A”
alleging additional material facts in support of plaintiff’s claim. The amendments are indicated by bold letters and
those deleted are placed in brackets.
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that an order be issued granting leave of court to file the amended complaint
attached hereto and that the same be admitted.
Plaintiff further prays for such other relief, just and equitable in the premises.

By:

Catanduanes, Edselie Joyce R. De vera Erikka D.

Counsel for the Plaintiff Counsel for the Plaintiff
Rm. 105 Bacolod Bldg,Bacolod City Rm. 105 Bacolod Bldg,Bacolod City
Roll of Atty. No. 0000 Roll of Atty. No. 0000
IBP No. 000 IBP no. 000
23
MCLE Compliance No. 00 MCLE Compliance No.00

Copy Furnished:

DON AURELIO FOOD VENTURES, INC.

Unit 300 Edificio Aurelio, Lacson Avenue,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental.

MCDEWEY’S FOOD PHILIPPINE, INC.,

BACOLOD CITY BRANCH
Unit 150 Edificio Aurelio,
Lacson Avenue,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental.

MARCUS WEW
155 Barangay Tangub,
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental.

EXPLANATION

Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13, Rules of Court, service of this pleading to adverse party by registered mail
was resorted to because personal service is not practical due to lack of manpower and distance.

ATTY. EDSELIE JOYCE R. CATANDUANES

=========================

Republic of the Philippines )

Province of Isabela ) S. S.
City of Ilagan )
x--------------------------------x

AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE

I, Magdalena A. Awa, Filipino, of legal age, single, and a resident of 5 Disgracia Street, Poblacion, Ilagan
City, Isabela, after having been duly sworn inaccordance with law, hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the complainant in Criminal Case No. C-19-12345, entitled "People of the Philippines versus Bruno M.
Lacqui", for alleged “RAPE” against accused Bruno M. Ang, which case is pending before the Regional Trial Court,
Branch No. 2, Ilagan City, Isablea, Philippines;

2. That I signed the aforesaid complaint against accused Bruno M. Lacqui against my will;

3. That my grandparents will cut-off my monthly allowances if I do not sign the complaint;

4. There is no truth to the allegations contained in my sworn statement executed by me as there was no force,
violence or intimidation done against me by said accused Bruno M. Lacqui. I was not forced by him to submit to
his desires. It was all in accordance with my own will, volition and consent that I went personally to him because
we love each other and that accused was my boyfriend for three years prior to the alleged “RAPE;”

5. I hereby inform the Public Prosecutor of Ilagan City, Isabela, that I am withdrawing my complaint for “RAPE”
under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in Criminal Case No. C-19-12345 entitled "People of the Philippines
versus Bruno M. Lacqui ", Regional Trial Court, Branch No. 2, Ilagan City, Isabela, Philippines;

24
6. I likewise request the Regional Trial Court, Branch No. 2, Ilagan City, Isabela, Philippines, to dismiss with
prejudice the said criminal case.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this 17th day of May, 2019 at Ilagan City, Isabela.

MAGDALENA A. AWA
(Affiant/Private Complainant)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 17th day of May, 2019 at IlaganCity, Isabela.

ATTY. JOHN A. SUERTE

Notary Public for the City of Ilagan Isabela
Appointment No. 40012 until 31 December 2019
Roll of Attorney No. 45018577
PTR No. 925445
IBP No. M-5769457
MCLE Compliance No. 2018-6589405

Doc. No.: 33
Page No.: 10
Book No.: 25
Series of 2019

25