Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 62, Makati City

ALBERTO ANG,
Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO.

For: DAMAGES

HENRY CHING
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:

1 | Answer – BT v. ED
 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 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 Pinas3”, 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. That paragraph 11 is also being denied for being unsubstantiated, the

truth being that as mentioned in the special and affirmative defenses;

9. 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 certification says: “this
employment certification has been issued upon the request of BT
for his credit card application.”

4
Annex 9, Police Report dated August 7, 2015
5
Annex 9, sub-marking “9-1”

3 | Answer – BT v. ED
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 court

4 | Answer – BT v. ED
 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:

5 | Answer – BT v. ED
 (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 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, non-

compliance 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)

6
G.R. No. 154704 dated June 1, 2011
7
G.R. No. 164205 dated September 3, 2009

6 | Answer – BT v. ED
 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 :

“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 (sub-marking “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.

7 | Answer – BT v. ED
 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.

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 “5-A”, 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: There is no supporting document

presented.

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.

NARAG LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Defendant
7-C Crispina Ave., Las Piñas Village,
Pamplona III, 1740 Las Piñas City
E-mail: narag.law@gmail.com

9 | Answer – BT v. ED
 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