REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 10
Manila

MIGUEL RAMONKITO MENDOZA,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE NO. 4455.

-versus- FOR: Breach of Contract.

ABIGAIL SOL MENDOZA,

Defendant.
X -----------------------------------------------------------X

REPLY

Plaintiff, by counsel, unto the Honorable Court, most respectfully

manifest that on September 30, 2019, he received a copy of the ANSWER
WITH COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS of defendant in the above-
entitled case and, by way of a REPLY to new matters alleged therein, hereby
states:

1. Defendant, in paragraph 3 of her Answer with Counterclaim,

alleged that “A 30-day extension was given by the Miguel Ramonkito
Mendoza (Miguel) to Abigail for her to deliver the Hello Kitty and Keroppi
Japanese collector's items that was sent through a text message”.

It is noteworthy to point out that the said 30-day extension sent

through a text message was sent a year ago involving another transaction not
connected with the delivery of the Hello Kitty and Keroppi Japanese
collector's items. Thus, defendant’s assertion that a 30-day extension was
given in favor of the defendant has no basis and specifically denied for lack
of knowledge’;

2. The allegation in Paragraph 4 of the Answer with Compulsory

Counterclaim is specifically admitted insofar as the plaintiff’s
acknowledgement of proof of delivery issued by the his common law
spouse Katty Perry, the truth being that the Plaintiff authorized Katty to
receive the items from the defendant. However, the item received was not
the item stipulated in the contract. After thorough inspection by a toy
collector expert, the item delivered was discovered fake and counterfeited as
the same toys that can be bought in Divisoria upon assessment of the
manufacturer’s marks and packaging. Attached hereto as “Annex-A”;

3. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are specifically denied for lack of knowledge

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof; and

4. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are specifically denied, the truth being that the
present action is well-founded in fact and in law. It is filed in good faith to
protect and vindicate the rights of the plaintiff violated by the defendant.
Therefore, there is no basis whatsoever for the defendant to recover any
damages, attorney’s fees nor expenses of litigation from the plaintiff.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby respectfully prayed
that the foregoing Reply of the plaintiff may be given weight and credence
by this Honorable Court.
Other just and equitable relief available in the premises is likewise
prayed for.
Manila City, September 30, 2019.

ATTY. ROSEMARIE C. ARNAIZ

Counsel for the Plaintiff
#347 Emerald Building
Sampaloc, Manila
Roll of Attorney 54372
PTR 30794; 6-12-19; Manila
IBP 30895; 6-12-19; Manila
MCLE Compliance Certificate II; 9-13-17

Copy furnished through registered mail:

ATTY. ROSEMARIE C. ARNAIZ

Counsel for the Defendant
Suite 1234 Richmond Tower
E. Rodriguez Ave., Quezon City.

BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Taft Avenue, Manila
(Civil Case No. 5432)

EXPLANATION

Due to time constraints, distance, and lack of personnel to effect

personal service, copies of the foregoing Reply is served by way of
registered mail.

ATTY. ROSEMARIE C. ARNAIZ

Counsel for the Defendant
#347 Emerald Building
Sampaloc, Manila.
“ANNEX-A”