Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 113, Pasay City

Ana Grace Rosales and Yo Yuk To

Sarah Oh and Gerald Oh
Plaintiff, Civil Case No.19-12345-CC
For: Breach of Obligation of
Contract with Damages
              -versus-

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.

RCBC,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -x

FORMAL NOTICE OF
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Pasay City
Branch 113

Greetings:

Please enter the appearance of the GAGED LAW FIRM as Private

Counsel for the Defendant RCBC METROPOLITAN BANK
AND TRUST CO. in the above-entitled case.

It is requested that, henceforth, the undersigned be served and

furnished with copies of notices, motions, orders, judgements, and
other legal papers in said case.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the foregoing Formal

Notice of Entry of Appearance be noted and made of record.

Manila City, February 143, 2020.

GAGED LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Defendant
Suite 258 The Tower
 Malate, 1004 Manila
Email add: degglaw@gmail.com
Tel No. (02) 7576-4567

By:

Dexter D. Del Rosario

IBP No. 1060289 Jan 9, 2020/Manila
PTR No. MCF-2426612 Jan. 9, 2020/Manila
Roll No. 29722
MCLE Compliance No. V-0007333
Issued on Dec 01, 2018

-and-

Emmanuel Dumayas
IBP No. 1052347 May 26, 2019/Manila
PTR No. MCF-2426612 May 26, 2019/Manila
Roll No. 68281
MCLE Compliance No. V-0007879
Issued on October 23, 2019

-and-

Gee A. Pastor
IBP No. 017174 April 17, 2019/Manila
PTR No. MCF-2626777 June 22, 2019
Roll No. 67882
MCLE Compliance No. V-0008008
Issued on Jan 26, 2020

-and-

Gigi J. Morales
IBP No. 1037238 Dec. 15, 2018/Manila
PTR No. MCF-2388746 Jan 4, 2019/Manila
Roll No. 41775
MCLE Compliance No. V-0007230
Issued on Nov 17, 2019

-and-

Aaron Cananua
IBP No. 10372928Dec. 15, 2019/Manila
PTR No. MCF-2388321 Jan 4, 2020/Manila
Roll No. 41797
 MCLE Compliance No. V-0007256
Issued on Nov 17, 2019

Copy Furnished:
BMCM LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Plaintiff
Tel. No. 123456789
Email: dodoin.mo@gmail.com
1234 Menlo St., Pasay City,
Metro Manila, Philippines.

By: Atty. JM MANEZ

Roll No. 123456
MCLE No. 123456/2020
PTR No. 1234567

WRITTEN EXPLANATION ON MODE OF SERVICE

This FORMAL NOTICE OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE is being

served by special courier service pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, due to impracticability of personal service caused
by distance, time constraints and expenses.

Emmanuel Dumayas

=
 Republic of the Philippines
National Capital Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 113, Pasay City
Branch 5, Manila

Ana Grace Rosales and Yo Yuk To

Sarah Oh and Gerald Oh
Plaintiff, Civil Case No.19-12345-CC
For: Breach of Obligation of
Contract with Damages
              -versus-

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.

RCBC,
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -x

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM

Defendants, through the undersigned counsel, most respectfully file

their Answer in response to the Complaint of the Plaintiffs and interpose as
well as their counterclaim against the latter, to wit:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are admitted;

2. Paragraph 3 is denied for lack of information or knowledge

sufficient to form a reasonable belief thereof. The said paragraph is denied
insofar as it alleges that the Plaintiffs has opened a joint account amounting
to P2,515,693.52, in the year 2002, the plaintiff did not specifically show on
what date the figures was taken. The truth being stated in the affirmative and
special defenses hereunder;

3. Paragraph 4 is likewise admitted;

4. Paragraph 5 is admitted however a detailed explanation shall be

discussed in the next paragraph;
 5. Paragraph 6 denied is further denied for lack of information or
knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable belief thereof. The said paragraph
is denied insofar as it alleges that the Plaintiffs were not given any
explanation as why their withdrawals were denied. The Plaintiffs failed to
prove that indeed no explanation was given to them when exert more effort
to ask why their attempt to withdraw was denied. However, they are very
much aware of the ongoing case of estafa against them filed by Liu Tiu
Fang. In fact, we received an order of Preliminary Injunction and TRO
coming from this same Court mandating the defendant to refrain from
releasing the balances of the plaintiffs with our bank.

6. With respect to the allegation in paragraph 6 that they were not

informed of the denial of their several attempts to withdraw, the same is
further denied, the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special
defenses hereunder;

7. Paragraph 7 is denied, the defendant did not deny the right of

the plaintiffs to withdraw from their deposits due to the hold out order.
Instead, it is a consequence of a Judicial Order that compelled the defendant
to issue a hold-out order to its employee from releasing the balance of the
said joint account;

AFFIRMATIVE AND SPECIAL DEFENSES

8. The Complaint filed by Plaintiffs is nothing but a malicious

lawsuit calculated to defraud its debtors or persons to whom they are
obligated, to which the Plaintiff has no legal cause of action to sue, thereby
rendering it dismissible outright;

No Legal Cause of Action

9. The said amount in the joint account deposit opened by the

Pplaintiffs in 2002 was initially deposited an amount of P100,000. A copy of
the initial deposit transaction of the plaintiffs is hereby attached marked as
“Annex A”. The amount stated by the plaintiffs is vague because it does
not show as on what date that the amount stated accrued. Thus, there is no
specific reference point to where this claim is based. The bank is not
guessing on what is the reference point where the said amount was derived.

10. Plaintiffs were actually informed by Ddefendant’s tellers that

they cannot withdraw from their joint account due to the hold-out order
issued by the RCBC Metrobank branch Manager because of the Judicial
Order issued by the court. Attached are the Order of Injunction marked as
“Annex B” and TRO marked as “Annex C”.
 11. Defendant is mandated to refrain from releasing the account
balances of the plaintiff; until such order is lifted, Ddefendant is not obliged
to release any amount in the plaintiffs’ favour. The said hold-out order given
by the Branch Manager to its tellers should be understood and not
questioned. The plaintiffs should understand that the defendant is just
lawfully doing its duty mandated by a Court order.

12. Moreover, the Defendant has also conducted its ownsaid

account is under investigation. It came to the knowledge of the Ddefendant
that one of their depositors account, named, Liu Tiu Fang, wasere closed by
a fictitious person. Note that when the Pplaintiffs opened a dollar account on
March 3, 2003, one month from the closing of Ms. Fang’s dollar account,
defendant’s tellers discovered that the same serial numbers were registered
on the money withdrawn from the closing of Ms. Fang’s dollar account and
the Pplaintiffs’ deposits in opening its account. This supports the claim of
Liu Tiu Fang that indeed, the amount deposited on her dollar account have
been the same amount used to open the joint account of the Plaintiffs.
13. RA 9160, Sec. 2, states: Declaration of Policy. — It is hereby declared
the policy of the State to protect and preserve the integrity and confidentiality of bank
accounts and to ensure that the Philippines shall not be used as a money laundering site
for the proceeds of any unlawful activity. Consistent with its foreign policy, the State
shall extend cooperation in transnational investigations and prosecutions of persons
involved in money laundering activities wherever committed.
14. Thus, the said suspicious transaction is likewise
under investigation and covered by the RA 9160.
15.
By Way of Counterclaim

16. Due to the malicious filing of this instant suit, Defendant have
hired the services of the undersigned law office counsel for an agreed
amount of Philippine Pesos: Five Hundred Thousand (PHP 500,000.00) and
have suffered have besmirched reputation which when quantified in
monetary terms is in the amount of Philippine Pesos: Five Hundred
Thousand (PHP 500,000.00).

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Defendants most respectfully pray

for the dismissal of the complaint and the award of counterclaim to them.  Other
reliefs are likewise prayed for.

City of Manila, Metro Manila,November 11, 2019.

GAGED LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Defendant
Suite 258 The Tower
Malate, 1004 Manila
 Email add: degglaw@gmail.com
Tel No. (02) 7576-4567

By:

Dexter D. Del Rosario

IBP No. 1060289 Jan 9, 2020/Manila
PTR No. MCF-2426612 Jan. 9, 2020/Manila
Roll No. 29722
MCLE Compliance No. V-0007333
Issued on Dec 01, 2018

-and-

Emmanuel Dumayas
IBP No. 1052347 May 26, 2019/Manila
PTR No. MCF-2426612 May 26, 2019/Manila
Roll No. 68281
MCLE Compliance No. V-0007879
Issued on October 23, 2019

-and-

Gee A. Pastor
IBP No. 017174 April 17, 2019/Manila
PTR No. MCF-2626777 June 22, 2019
Roll No. 67882
MCLE Compliance No. V-0008008
Issued on Jan 26, 2020

-and-

Gigi J. Morales
IBP No. 1037238 Dec. 15, 2018/Manila
PTR No. MCF-2388746 Jan 4, 2019/Manila
Roll No. 41775
MCLE Compliance No. V-0007230
Issued on Nov 17, 2019

-and-

Aaron Cananua
IBP No. 10372928Dec. 15, 2019/Manila
PTR No. MCF-2388321 Jan 4, 2020/Manila
Roll No. 41797
MCLE Compliance No. V-0007256
 Issued on Nov 17, 2019

Copy Furnished:
BMCM LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Plaintiff
Tel. No. 123456789
Email: dodoin.mo@gmail.com
1234 Menlo St., Pasay City,
Metro Manila, Philippines.

By: Atty. JM MANEZ

Roll No. 123456
MCLE No. 123456/2020
PTR No. 1234567