Motions (Previous Batch) JJ

Legal Forms
Submitted by: Emilio Soriano

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
11th Judicial Region
Davao City
Branch 27
WILLIE REVILLAME Civil Case No. 452221

Plaintiff
FOR: Collection of Sum
of
Money
- vs -
WALLY BAYOLA
Respondent.
x--------------------------------x
MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT/DEFERMENT HEARING
COMES NOW Defendant, thru undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Court respectfully states that:
1. The above entitled case is set for initial hearing on March 1, 2020.
2. The counsel for defendant is afflicted with the flu and is now
under the medical care of Dr. Vic Sotto. A copy of the physician’s certificate
under is attached.
3. Upon the recovery of the said counsel, she will yet prefer for trial of the above
entitled case.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the

hearing be reset to another day at the convenience of this Honorable Court.
Davao City, Philippines, February 25, 2020.

(SGD)ATTY. EMILIO SORIANO
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT
Roll of Attorneys No. 99999
IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City
PTR No.068575C;12/13/2020; Davao City
MCLE Compliance No.: 111-005483
Buhangin, Davao City
REQUEST FOR AND NOTICE OF HEARING
The Branch Clerk of Court

Regional Trial Court
Branch 27, Davao City
Greetings!
Please submit the foregoing motion to the Court for its consideration
and approval immediately upon receipt hereof and kindly include the same
in the court’s calendar for hearing on April 1, 2020 at 8:30 in the morning.

Atty. MOYMOY PALABOY

Counsel for the Plaintiff
11 Matina, Davao City
Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on April 1,

2020 at 8:30 in the morning.

Copy Furnished:
MP LAW OFFICES
Door 7 Top Building, Agdao, Davao City
Republic of the Philippines
Davao City
Branch 15
ERIK FOCKER Civil Case No. 321411

Plaintiff FOR: Recovery of Possession
With Damages
-vs-
BLACK DOG,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT

TO SERVE SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION
COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and

unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:
That on August 25, 2018, copy of the summons was served by the
process server of this Honorable Court to the defendant on his given address,
but defendant is no longer residing on his given address;
That considering that the whereabouts of the defendant is unknown

and this case affects the property of the defendant, plaintiff most respectfully
move with leave of court to serve summons by publication.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the summons be served by

publication based on the above reasons.
Such other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable
under the premises are likewise prayed for.
City of Davao, August 29, 2018.

BOB ONG LAW FIRM
Unit 111
Obrero, Davao
By:
(SGD) BOB ONG
Roll No. 45678
IBP No. 23456/1-3-12/Davao
PTR No. 87654/1-3-12/Davao
NOTICE OF HEARING

ATTY. BLACK DOG

Counsel for the Defendant
34 Agdao, Davao
GREETINGS:
Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration and approval
of the Honorable Court on September 9, 2018 at 2:00 PM.
(S
GD) BOB ONG
Counsel for Plaintiff
Copy furnished:

ATTY. BLACK DOG
34 Agdao, Davao
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
City of Davao
Branch 3
JOHNNY SINS,
Plaintiff,
-versus- CIVIL CASE No. 23456

FOR: Recovery of Possession
POOPER SCOOPER, with Damages
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT

FOR EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS
COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and

unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers that:
1. The Defendant is presently not in the Philippines, as he is living in

California, USA.
2. Rule 14, Sections 15-16 of the Rules of Court allows such

Extraterritorial Service of Summons.
3. Considering that the Defendant is not presently in the Philippines, and

this case affects the property of the defendant, plaintiff most
respectfully move with leave of court for Extraterritorial Service of
Summons
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the summons be served by

extraterritorial service based on the above reasons.
Such other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable
under the premises are likewise prayed for.
City of Davao, August 29, 2019.

BAMBINI LAW OFFICE
Unit 314 The Tower
Obrero, Davao
By:
(SGD) IP MAN
Roll No. 45678
IBP No. 23456/1-3-12/Davao
PTR No. 87654/1-3-12/Davao
NOTICE OF HEARING

Municipal Trial Court
POOPER SCOOPER
Defendant
72 Extreme Bldg.
Davao
GREETINGS:
Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration and approval
of the Honorable Court on September 9, 2019 at 2:00 PM.
(SGD) IP MAN
Copy furnished:

POOPER SCOOPER
Defendant
72 Extreme Bldg.
Davao
11th JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 06
Davao City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiffs,
-versus- Crim. Case No. SC-06-3852
LIL ZUPLADOH,
Accused.
x---------------------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND INFORMATION
The Prosecution, through undersigned Public Prosecutor and Private

Prosecutor, by way of Motion for Leave to Amend Information, respectfully
states:
1. On 31 January 2020, Prosecution filed the Information dated 28

October 2019, charging accused LIL ZUPLADOH of the crime of Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries as a result of the incident
on 05 January 2020, when the Isuzu cargo truck with Plate Number UTL-
666 being driven by the accused, hit and bumped Private Complainant
Henry Lovecraft; to which accused entered a plea of not guilty.
2. On 07 January 2020, private complainant died as a result of

serious physical injuries sustained from the aforesaid incident as evidenced
by the Copy of the Certificate of Death marked as Annex “B”.
3. As a consequence of the supervening fact of death of private

complainant, Prosecution respectfully moves to amend the Information to
Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide, pursuant to Section 14, Rule
110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, thus:
“Amendment or substitution. --- A complaint
or information may be amended, in form or
substance, without leave of court, at any time
before the accused enters his plea. After the plea
and during the trial, a formal amendment may
only be made with leave of court and when it can
be done without causing prejudice to the rights of
the accused. (Emphasis ours)
“x x x”
4. The amendment of the Information is only a formal amendment

because:
4.1) The new allegation, i.e., death of Private
Complainant, only relates to the range of penalty that the
court might impose in the event of conviction. Amending
the Information to Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Homicide will only modify the range of imposable
penalty, i.e., arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its medium period. In the original
Information for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Serious Physical Injuries, the imposable penalty is
arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods.
4.2) It is an amendment which does not charge

another offense different or distinct from that charged in
the original one. Accused is still charged of the crime of
principal crime of Reckless Imprudence. It is only the
result of the imprudent act which is being sought to be
amended. It bears stressing that in the crime of reckless
imprudence, “the law punishes the negligent and careless
act, not the result thereof… The gravity of the
consequence is only taken into account to determine the
penalty; it does not qualify the substance of the offense.”
4.3) The additional allegation does not alter the

prosecution’s theory of the case so as to cause surprise to
the Accused and affect the form of defense he has or will
assume. The amendment of the Information is not
prejudicial to the rights of the Accused. This was
explained in the case of Matalam vs. The Second Division
Of The Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 165751. April 12,
2005), thus:
“The test as to whether a defendant is
prejudiced by the amendment has been said
to be whether a defense under the
information as it originally stood would be
available after the amendment is made, and
whether any evidence defendant might have
would be equally applicable to the
information in the one form as in the other.
An amendment to the information which
does not change the nature of the crime
alleged therein does not affect the essence or
cause surprise or deprive the accused of an
opportunity to meet the new amendment had
each been held to be one of form and not of
substance.” (Underscoring ours).
4.4) Applying the ruling in the present case, the

defense available for the accused in the original
Information would still be applicable after the amendment
considering that the death of the Accused was brought
about by the same imprudent acts committed by the
accused and is only a logical consequence of the serious
physical injuries sustained by Private Complainant.
5. Further, under the doctrine of supervening event, the accused

may be prosecuted for another offense if a subsequent development changes
the character of the first indictment under which he may have already been
charged or convicted. As earlier stated, the subsequent development, i.e.,
supervening death of Private Complainant, which changes the character of
the first indictment is only a logical consequence of the serious physical
injuries sustained by the latter.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that
the Honorable Court amend the original Information of Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries to “Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Homicide.”
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.
Davao City, 28 February 2020.

(SGD) ATTY. AKIBA SASAKI
Private Prosecutor
IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City
NOTICE OF HEARING
Branch Clerk of Court

MTC 6, Davao City
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Hall of Justice, Davao City
ATTY. MARIO LUIGI

Counsel for the Accused
No.4149 Gov. Duterte Street
Davao City
For the convenience and for the economy of time and expense of all
concerned, and with the kind indulgence of the Court, we shall present the
foregoing motion to the Court on March 15, 2020 at 8:30 AM, a previous
setting which has been earlier scheduled by the Court for the preliminary
conference of the instant case. Thank you.
ATTY. AKIBA SASAKI

Private Prosecutor
Copy Furnished:

ATTY. MARIO LUIGI

Davao City
11TH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 16
DAVAO CITY
MIA KHALIFA, CIVIL CASE NO: 42521

Plaintiff
FOR: COLLECTION OF SUM OF
-versus- MONEY
RILEY REID,
Defendant
x-----------------x
MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANT, through his counsel, move that the complaint in this

case be dismissed on the ground that the Complaint FAILS TO STATE A
CAUSE OF ACTION as THE OBLIGATION SOUGHT TO BE
ENFORCED BY PLAINTIFF IS NOT YET DUE AND DEMANDABLE.
In support thereof, Defendant respectfully alleges:
ARGUMENT
1.Allegedly, defendant has failed to reach the quotas agreed upon

under the Marketing Agreement dated April 1, 2019. Plaintiff now
seeks to collect the sum of Five Hundred Thousand pesos
(P500,000.00), representing the balance of the proceeds due
plaintiff under the said Marketing Agreement.
2.The contract is for two (2) years and defendant is given that same
period to reach the quota specified therein; the period of two (2)
years has not yet expired. Consequently, plaintiff’s claim is
premature as there is yet no breach of the Marketing Agreement
until the period expires and the quota is not attained. For this
reason, plaintiff’s Complaint states no cause of action and must be
dismissed.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays that the Complaint be

DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.
Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City

Greetings!


MP LAW OFFICES

Copy Furnished:
MP LAW OFFICES
Branch 1
Davao City
BABY DIAPER,
Plaintiffs,
-versus- Civil Case No. 20-9844

For: Partition
JOPAY MUPAY,
Defendants.
x---------------------------------------x
MOTION TO ADMIT AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT
Defendant JOPAY MUPAY, through counsel, and unto this

Honorable Court most respectfully seeks the admission of the attached
Answer to Complaint dated 29 November 2019, and in support thereof,
states that:
1.0 On 03 September 2019, JOPAY received a summons from this

Honorable Court requiring her to file an Answer within fifteen (15) days
after service or until 18 September 2019. However, due to financial
constraint, Defendant was not able to timely secure the services of counsel to
represent her in the instant case.
1. It was only on September 30, 2019, when the services of the

undersigned counsel were engaged. Forthwith, this representation carefully
evaluated the Complaint and all related documents necessary to draft an
intelligent Answer. However, it, still, took him more than three (3) days to
complete this Answer.
2. While a defendant is required to file an Answer to the

Complaint within fifteen (15) days after service of summons in accordance
with Section 1, Rule 11 of the Rules of Court, the court may allow an
answer or other pleading to be filed after the time fixed by these Rules.
3. Additionally, the court may allow the admission of an Answer
belatedly filed when it is due to the following: [1] excusable negligence; [2]
the defendant has meritorious defenses; [3] it was filed before defendant is
declared in default; and [4] that the late filing of the answer did not in any
way prejudice or deprive the plaintiff of any substantial right, nor was there
intention to unduly delay the case as held in the case of Sps. Delos Santos
vs. Hon. Carpio and Metrobank ( G.R. No. 153656, September 11, 2006)
4. JOPAY, through counsel, is filing this Motion to Admit

attached Answer based on the foregoing grounds and in the interest of
substantial justice.
ACCORDINGLY, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court

to grant this Motion and issue an order admitting the attached Answer.
OTHER RELIEFS just and equitable under the foregoing premises

are likewise prayed for.
Davao City, 28 February 2020.

IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City
Pryce Tower, Davao City

Branch 1
City of Davao
Greetings!

Atty. PEKPEK SHORTS

69, Amazing Bldg., Davao City

Copy Furnished:
Atty. PEKPEK SHORTS
69, Amazing Bldg., Davao City

City of Davao
Branch 3
JIM PAREDES,
Plaintiff,

XANDER FORD, with Damages
Defendant,
x-----------------------------------------x
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
COMES NOW, the undersigned counsel, unto the Honorable Court, most
respectfully states:
1.That the undersigned counsel has already terminated his attorney-client

relationship with the Defendant Xander Ford, particularly because of the
latter's deliberate failure to pay the fees for the undersigned's legal services
despite repeated requests for payment and repeated promises to pay, in
violation of the Defendant's Retainer Contract with the undersigned counsel;
2.That the statement of accounts of the undersigned counsel merely fell on

deaf ears and not a single centavo was paid to this date by the said
Defendant contrary to all its representations;
3.That the undersigned counsel's previous request for said Defendant to give
consent and conformity to the undersigned counsel's Motion for Withdrawal
was never acted upon to this date;
4.That in view of the foregoing reasons, the undersigned counsel could no

longer adequately fulfill his obligations as legal counsel for the said
Defendant;
5.That Rule 22.01 par. (f) of the Code of Professional Responsibility states
that a lawyer may withdraw his services when the client deliberately fails to
pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
6.That there is a need to protect the members of the legal profession from
clients who take advantages of their professional services. In fact, the
Honorable Supreme Court had the occasion to state that:
"Counsel, any counsel, if worthy of his hire, is entitled to be fully

recompensed for his services. With his capital consisting solely of his brains
and with his skill, acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in the
expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to the protection of any
judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of the client to escape
payment of his fees. It is indeed ironic if after putting forth the best that is in
him to secure justice for the party he represents, he himself would not get his
due. Such an eventuality this Court is determined to avoid. It views with
disapproval any and every effort of those benefited by counsel's services to
deprive him of his hard-earned honorarium. Such an attitude deserves
condemnation."(Albano vs. Coloma, 21 SCRA 411).
7.As such, undersigned most respectfully requests that he be allowed by this

Honorable Court to withdraw his appearance in this case as Counsel for the
Defendant Xander Ford without the latter's express conformity.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, undersigned counsel most respectfully
prays that he be allowed to withdraw his appearance in this case as counsel
for the Defendant Xander Ford, dispensing with the latter's express
conformity, and that he be relieved of all his responsibilities relative to this
case.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Davao, Philippines, March 3, 2020

IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City

Greetings!
in the court’s calendar for hearing on March 10, 2020 at 8:30 in the morning.


MP LAW OFFICES
Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on March 10,

Copy Furnished:
MP LAW OFFICES
City of Davao
Branch 3
JIM PAREDES,
Plaintiff,

Defendant,
x-----------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
Defendant, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court,
respectfully avers:
1. That the plaintiff's complaint in paragraph 5 alleges:
From August 3 to December 2003, defendant never paid anything to herein

plaintiff. The check that he issued as partial payment for the first month also
bounced. x x x(underscoring supplied)
2.The said allegation is not averred with sufficient definiteness and

particularity, specifically it does not mention the amount of the check therein
mentioned, its check number, date, and the drawee bank;
3.That a more definite statement on the matters as above-indicated is

necessary in order to enable the defendant to prepare its responsive pleading
because from the very onset of this controversy, the main dispute was on
what was actually and exactly agreed upon by the parties as the amount of
monthly rentals on the lease of plaintiff's property;
4.However, due to the fact that defendant corporation had to transfer its
liaison offices depending on its project sites, the check stub where the
above-mentioned check came from was probably misplaced and could no
longer be found;
5. That a bill of particulars or a more definite statement as to particulars of

the said check which was allegedly issued by the defendants as partial
payment for the first month would definitely simplify the issues in this case,
and hopefully uncomplicate the negotiations between the parties for an
amicable settlement.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, defendant most respectfully prays that an order be issued by
this Honorable Court requiring the plaintiff to make more definite statement
as to the particulars of the check mentioned in paragraph 5 of his complaint,
particularly stating its amount, check number, date, and the name of the
drawee bank.

IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City

Greetings!

MP LAW OFFICES

Copy Furnished:
MP LAW OFFICES
City of Davao
Branch 3
JIM PAREDES,
Plaintiff,

Defendant,
x-----------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER
DEFENDANT, by the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court,

most respectfully states that:
1. Defendant engaged the services of undersigned counsel only on February

15, 2020;
2. Defendant was served with Summons and copy of the Complaint on

February 20, 2020 and thus has until March 5, 2020 within which to submit
an Answer or Responsive Pleading;
3. However, due to the pressures of equally urgent professional work and

prior commitments, the undersigned counsel will not be able to meet the said
deadline;

4. As such, undersigned counsel is constrained to request for an additional
period of 5 days from today within which to submit Defendant's Answer or
Responsive Pleading. Moreover, this additional time will also allow the
undersigned to interview the available witness and study this case further;
5. This Motion is not intended for delay but solely due to the foregoing
reasons.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Defendant most respectfully prays of this Honorable Court

that he be given an additional period of 5 days from today within which to
submit an Answer or other Responsive Pleading.
Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City

Greetings!

MP LAW OFFICES

Copy Furnished:
MP LAW OFFICES
City of Davao
Branch 3
JIM PAREDES,
Plaintiff,

Defendant,
x-----------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THE DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully state:
1. PURPOSE. - The subject matter of this motion for partial reconsideration
is the Order, dated March 17, 2019, of the Honorable Court.
2. MATERIAL DATES. – The undersigned counsel for the DEFENDANT

personally received a copy of the said Order in open court during the hearing
held on March 18, 2019 at 8:30 AM. His 15 th day to file this motion expires
on April 2, 2019, Saturday. Hence, his final legal deadline would expire on
April 4, 2019, Monday, the next working day, per the Rule of Court.
3. THE ORDER, DATED MARCH 17, 2019. - The Order denied the
DEFENDANT’ motion to dismiss, by way of special affirmative defenses
alleged in their earlier supplemental responsive pleading, “without prejudice
to the (said special affirmative defenses) being raised and appreciated during
the pretrial and trial”.
The two (2) bases for the denial, as contained in the Order, are as follows:
(a) That the special affirmative defenses raised by the DEFENDANT “are
technicalities and matters which are evidentiary in nature”; and
(b) That “they are best threshed out in the crucible of trial”.
4. ISSUE. – It will be recalled that in their “SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSIVE PLEADING (In Compliance with Paragraph. 4 of the
OMNIBUS ORDER, Dated October 20, 2015) With EX PARTE MOTION
TO SET A PRELIMINARY HEARING ON THE SPECIAL AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES”, dated November 3, 2015, the DEFENDANT argued the
certain procedural, legal and antecedent issues, which are matters of record
and which are purely legal issues without need of evidence presentation.
This motion for partial reconsideration respectfully submits that the

Honorable Court erred in not dismissing the instant case for the following
reasons:
(a) The instant petition lacks a valid verification and anti-forum shopping
certification for LACK OF AUTHORITY OF Jim Paredes to execute the
same.
(b) The instant petition is tantamount to an UNSIGNED PLEADING, for

lack of a valid legal authority of JIM PAREDES to institute the same in the
form of a proper, valid and timely Board Resolution of the corporate
plaintiff.
(c) The instant petition is a mere scrap of paper that fails to comply with
the full valid and mandatory requirements to commence an INITIATORY
PLEADING.
(d) One such basic and fundamental requirement is a proper and valid
Board Resolution of the corporate plaintiff that serves as the proper and
valid legal authority of JIM PAREDES to commence the instant petition by
signing the verification and anti-forum shopping certification thereof.
(e) Hence, it fails to state a cause of action, for which reason, it must be
dismissed.
(f) The foregoing issue/ground is a PURELY LEGAL ISSUE and a

MATTER OF RECORD that can be resolved by the Honorable Court by
applying, at this early stage, the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court
and the relevant Jurisprudence.
(g) The foregoing issue/ground needs no evidence presentation for its

disposal, the same being a purely legal issue and a matter of record.
(h) The foregoing issue/ground need not wait for the pretrial stage of this
case (as held in the questioned Order) for its final disposal by this Honorable
Court.
5. THE GLARING LACK OF LEGAL AUTHORITY OF POOPIE YUNA

TO EXECUTE THE VERIFICATION AND ANTI-FORUM SHOPPING
CERTIFICATION OF THE INSTANT PETITION BY REASON OF THE
PATENTLY QUESTIONABLE AND INVALID BOARD RESOLUTION
ATTACHED THERETO.
RIKU KAIRI, the alleged corporate secretary of the corporate plaintiff,

has no legal authority to execute the verification and anti-forum shopping
certification in the instant civil action and her act of executing the
verification and anti-forum shopping certification of the instant petition is
ultra vires for the reasons reiterated hereinbelow:
(a) Par. 1 of Board Resolution No. 006-2015, dated April 17, 2015, of the
board of directors of the petitioner, which is attached to the instant petition
as Annex “A” thereof, speaks only of a CRIMINAL CASE, not a civil action.
(b) The specific powers granted to Jim Paredes under Par. 2 of the board
resolution do not expressly include the power to execute verification and an
anti-forum shopping certification. The clause “to sign any and all pleadings,
papers and documents relative thereto” stated in Line No. 7 and Line No. 8
of Par. 2 of the board resolution does not expressly refer to the power to
execute verification and an anti-forum-shopping certification.
(c) The phrase “relative thereto” contained in the aforecited clause (i.e.,
“to sign any and all pleadings, papers and documents relative thereto”)
expressly refers to the phrase “appropriate CRIMINAL CASE” clearly
stated in Par. 1 of the board resolution.
(d) The board resolution, which is not under oath, is not supported by a
notarized Corporate Secretary’s Certificate to attest, under pain of perjury,
to (a) the due execution and authenticity thereof and (b) the veracity of the
contents thereof.
(e) For lack of authority of Jim Paredes to commence the instant civil
action and/or for exercising an ultra vires act of filing the instant civil action,
and as explained in the foregoing paragraphs, the petition may be deemed to
be an UNSIGNED PLEADING. The rule is that “an unsigned pleading
produces no legal effect” (Sec. 3, Rule 7).
(f) FURTHER, and more importantly, the Court should note that Par. 1
the verification and anti-forum shopping certification, dated March 13. 2015,
executed by Jim Paredes was expressly an specifically based and premised
on an alleged Board Resolution No. 003-2015, dated March 12, 2015, as her
alleged legal authority to execute the verification and anti-forum shopping
certification and to commence the instant civil action.
(g) She alleges in her said verification and anti-forum shopping

certification, dated March 13. 2015, that the alleged Board Resolution No.
003-2015, dated March 12, 2015, was attached as Annex “A” to the instant
petition. It was not so.
(h) The document that is attached as Annex “A” of the instant petition is
not the alleged Board Resolution No. 003-2015, dated March 12, 2015
mentioned in Jim Paredes’s signed verification and anti-forum shopping
certification, dated March 13. 2015, but another and unrelated alleged
Board Resolution No. 006-2015, dated April 17, 2015.
(i) Please note, further, that the verification and anti-forum shopping
certification signed by Jim Paredes is dated March 13, 2015. But the alleged
Board Resolution No. 006-2015, dated April 17, 2015, attached as Annex
“A” of the petition is not dated March 13, 2015 but April 17, 2015 and does
not refer to the instant civil action but to a criminal action.
(j) Hence, at the time Jim Paredes actually executed on March 13, 2015,
under oath and under pain of perjury, the verification and anti-forum
shopping certification of the instant petition she HAD NO LEGAL
AUTHORITY to do so.
(k) There was a “huge antedated time gap of 35 days” between the date
Jim Paredes signed the verification and anti-forum shopping certification
which is March 13, 2015 and the date of the board resolution (which
purports to be her legal authority) marked as Annex “A” of the petition
which is April 17, 2015.
(l) In addition to the rule that “an unsigned pleading produces no legal
effect” (Sec. 3, Rule 7), Sec. 5, Rule 7 expressly provides that the failure of a
petitioner to comply with the requirements for a valid, legal and proper
verification and anti-forum shopping certification for an initiatory pleading
“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.”
(m) Under Sec. 1 (g), Rule 16, a petition may be dismissed if it “fails to state
a cause of action”. An unsigned pleading (for lack of authority of Jim
Paredes to execute the verification and anti-forum shopping certification) is
mere scrap of paper because it fails to state a cause of action.
(n) To repeat: Jim Paredes signed the verification and anti-forum shopping
certification of the instant petition on March 13, 2015 while the board
resolution (Annex “A” thereof) allegedly empowering her to commence a
“criminal action” (not a civil action) against the herein respondents was
dated April 17, 2015 - or a gap of thirty-five (35) days or five (5) weeks.
The obvious legal conclusion is that at that time that Jim Paredes allegedly
signed the verification and anti-forum shopping certification of the petition
on March 13, 2015 she had no legal authority do so, considering that the
board resolution which allegedly served as her legal authority was passed
by the illegitimate Maca board only much later on April 17, 2015.
6. THE ISSUES OF “FAILURE OT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION” AND

THE “LACK OF AUTHORITY” OF JIM PAREDES ARE PROCEDURAL
ANTECENDENTS THAT MUST FIRST BE RESOLVED WITH TOP
PRIORITY, PREFERENCE AND UTMOST DISPATCH BEFORE THE
PRETRIAL AND TRIAL STAGES OF THIS CASE.
It must be noted that his motion is premised on “FAILURE TO STATE A

CAUSE OF ACTION” (not “lack of cause of action”) and the “LACK OF
AUTHORITY” of JIM PAREDES to commence this action because the
Board Resolution attached as Annex “A” to the instant petition is improper,
invalid, dubious, and questionable ON ITS FACE.
The issues of “failure to state a cause of action” and the “lack of legal
authority” of JIM PAREDES by reason of an improper and invalid Board
Resolution (i.e., Annex “A”, Petition) are MATTERS OF RECORD which
can be resolved by simply analyzing Annex “A” of the instant petition.
The issues of “failure to state a cause of action” and “lack of legal authority”
are PURELY LEGAL ISSUES.
They require NO EVIDENCE PRESENTATION.
All that is needed is to analyze the Board Resolution (Annex “A”) in

question.
They are NOT MATTERS OF EVIDENCE THAT MUST BE TRIED ON

THE MERITS IN A PROTRACTED, TEDIOUS, COSTLY,
PROLONGED, AND PAINFUL TRIAL ON THE MERITS AND
APPELLATE REVIEWS OF THIS CASE.
They may be and must be resolved PRIOR TO THE PRETRIAL AND

TRIAL STAGES of the instant case for the sake of procedural orderliness
and the doctrine of speedy justice WITHOUT WAITING FOR ANY
FURTHER DILATORY PROCEEDING.
They are PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS that must be given top priority

for resolution of the Court before pretrial and trial stages of the case if
judicial orderliness is to be preserved and if fidelity to Rule 16 is to be
observed.
7. JURISPRUDENCE.
A. “FAILURE TO STATE CAUSE OF ACTION” VS. “LACK OF CAUSE
OF ACTION.”
The DEFENDANT respectfully cite the 2011 decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of DOLORES ADORA MACASLANG vs. RENATO AND
MELBA ZAMORA, G.R. No. 156375, May 30, 2011.
In the said case, the Supreme Court held that “failure to state a cause of
action” and “lack of cause of action” are really different from each other.
“Failure to state a cause of action” refers to the “insufficiency of the

pleading”, and is “a ground for dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of
Court”.
The herein DEFENDANT submit that it does not need to wait for pretrial or
for trial on the merits.
The herein DEFENDANT submit that the lack of a proper and valid Board
Resolution authorizing JIM PAREDES to commence the civil action is
means “insufficiency of the pleading”.
Its legal effect is the “failure to state a cause of action”.
The herein DEFENDANT submit that the pleading so filed with such a fatal
defect is an “unsigned pleading” and hence, a “mere scrap of paper”, as
discussed in the foregoing sections above.
On the other hand, according to the aforecited Supreme Court in the

aforecited decision, “lack of cause action” refers to a situation where the
“evidence does not prove the cause of action alleged in the pleading”.
It needs trial on the merits because a DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE may be

filed after termination of the presentation of evidence-in-chief of the
plaintiff.
THUS:
“x x x.
Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are really
different from each other. On the one hand, failure to state a cause of action
refers to the insufficiency of the pleading, and is a ground for dismissal
under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, lack of cause action
refers to a situation where the evidence does not prove the cause of action
alleged in the pleading. Justice Regalado, a recognized commentator on
remedial law, has explained the distinction:
Jim Paredes What is contemplated, therefore, is a failure to state a cause of
action which is provided in Sec. 1(g) of Rule 16. This is a matter of
insufficiency of the pleading. Sec. 5 of Rule 10, which was also included as
the last mode for raising the issue to the court, refers to the situation where
the evidence does not prove a cause of action. This is, therefore, a matter of
insufficiency of evidence. Failure to state a cause of action is different from
failure to prove a cause of action. The remedy in the first is to move for
dismissal of the pleading, while the remedy in the second is to demur to the
evidence, hence reference to Sec. 5 of Rule 10 has been eliminated in this
section. The procedure would consequently be to require the pleading to
state a cause of action, by timely objection to its deficiency; or, at the trial,
to file a demurrer to evidence, if such motion is warranted. (Emphasis
added).
X x x.” (Emphasis added).

UNSIGNED PLEADING.
On the legal issue of USIGNED PLEADINGS, the herein DEFENDANT

respectfully cite the case of REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by the Land Registration Authority vs. KENRICK
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 149576, August 8, 2006.
In the aforecited case, the Supreme Court held that an unsigned
pleading is invalid and it produces no legal effect.
Thus, it must be DISMISSED outright via a motion to dismiss or as a

special affirmative defense.
It further held that “procedural requirements” (which have often been
“disparagingly labeled as mere technicalities”) have their own valid raison
d'etre in the “orderly administration of justice”.
It furthermore held that to summarily brush such procedural

requirements or technicalities may result in “arbitrariness and injustice.”
THUS:
“X x x.
No doubt, Atty. Garlitos could not have validly given blanket

authority for just anyone to sign the answer. The trial court correctly ruled
that respondents answer was invalid and of no legal effect as it was an
unsigned pleading. Respondent was properly declared in default and the
Republic was rightly allowed to present evidence ex parte.
Respondent insists on the liberal application of the rules. It maintains

that even if it were true that its answer was supposedly an unsigned
pleading, the defect was a mere technicality that could be set aside.
Procedural requirements which have often been disparagingly labeled
as mere technicalities have their own valid raison d'etre in the orderly
administration of justice. To summarily brush them aside may result in
arbitrariness and injustice.
The Courts pronouncement in Garbo v. Court of Appeals is relevant:
Procedural rules are [tools] designed to facilitate the adjudication of

cases. Courts and litigants alike are thus [enjoined] to abide strictly by the
rules. And while the Court, in some instances, allows a relaxation in the
application of the rules, this, we stress, was never intended to forge a bastion
for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the
interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and
under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that litigation is
not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be
prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly
and speedy administration of justice.
X x x.
8. RELIEF.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the

ORDER, dated March 17, 2019, be partially reconsidered:
(a) By declaring the fatal defect and/or absence of the legal authority
of Jim Paredes Jim Paredes to commence the instant action in behalf of the
corporate plaintiff;
(b) By declaring that the petition “fails to state a cause of action”; and
(c) By declaring the instant petition is an “unsigned pleading” without

any legal and valid effect.
AND THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING, the instant

petition be DIMSISSED outright without prejudice, per Rule 16.
FURTHER, the herein DEFENDANT pray for such and other reliefs
as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.
Davao City, March 30, 2019.

IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City

Greetings!


MP LAW OFFICES

Copy Furnished:
MP LAW OFFICES
City of Davao
Branch 3
JIM PAREDES,
Plaintiff,
FOR: Collection of Sum of

Money
XANDER FORD,
Defendant,
x-------------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully alleges that:
1. On May 5, 2013, plaintiff sued defendant for a sum of money in the
amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00);
2. In his Answer, defendant admitted the obligation and merely stated that
he was asking to be given an extension of time to pay his obligation but that
plaintiff instead filed the Complaint;
3. Said Answer has not tendered any issue and in fact it can be read
therefrom that defendant admitted the obligation; consequently, a judgment
on the pleadings may be rendered.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court
render a judgment on the pleadings.

Davao City, Philippines. February 10, 2020.

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF
IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City

Greetings!


MP LAW OFFICES

Copy Furnished:


MP LAW OFFICES
BRANCH 13
DAVAO CITY

Plaintiff,

- Versus - Crim. Case No. 49985
For: Violation of Sec. 3 (e), RA
3019
BOY TUTOK
(Salary Grade 14)
Barangay Chairman
Davao City,
Accused.
BOY BASTOS
Barangay Treasurer
Davao City
BOY ICEPICK
(Salary Grade 10)
Barangay Councilor
c/o Barangay Hall
Davao City
BOY DUNGGAB
Proprietor
Davao City,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------x
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
TRIALS OF RELATED OFFENSES
The ACCUSED (1) BOY TUTOK, (2) BOY BASTOS, (3) BOY
ICEPICK, and (4) BOY DUNGGAB, by counsel, respectfully
move to CONSOLIDATE the trials of the instant criminal case with the
related criminal case now pending in Branch 12 of this Court, under Hon.
Jules Vosotros, docketed as Criminal Case No. 45555 and entitled “People
vs. Boy Tutok” for violation of Section 3 (g) of RA 3019, which is the related
criminal case with the lower docket number, considering that the instant
criminal case and the aforecited Criminal Case No. 45555 pending in Branch
12 of this Court “are founded on the same facts” (Section 22, Rule 119), i.e.,
the procurement of vitamins by Barangay 1 of this City which was the
subject matter of the one and the same audit report and notice of
disallowance issued by the local office of the Commission on Audit of this
City and which documents, in turn, became the basis of the subsequent
indictment of the accused by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Davao City, November 5, 2019.

COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED
IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City
NOTICE OF HEARING

RTC 13, Davao City

Prosecution and Monitoring Bureau

Office of the Ombudsman
Davao City
Mabuhay:
foregoing motion to the Court on November 15, 2019 at 8:30
AM, a previous setting which has been earlier scheduled by the Court for
the preliminary conference of the instant case. Thank you.

Copy Furnished:

Prosecution and Monitoring Bureau

Office of the Ombudsman
Davao City

Presiding Judge
Branch 13
Hall of Justice
Davao City
City of Davao
Branch 3
JIM PAREDES,
Plaintiff,

Defendant,
x-----------------------------------------x
MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT
Plaintiff, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully

states
1. The records of the Honorable Court show that Defendant was served
with copy of the summons and of the complaint, together with annexes
thereto on February 15, 2020.
2. Upon verification however, the records show that Defendant Xander
Ford has failed to file his Answer within the reglementary period specified
by the Rules of Court despite the service of the summons and the complaint;
3. As such, it is respectfully prayed that Defendant Xander Ford be

declared in default pursuant to the Rules of Court and that the Honorable
Court proceed to render judgment as the complaint may warrant.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Defendant Xander Ford

be declared in default pursuant to the Rules of Court and that the Honorable
Court proceed to render judgment as the complaint may warrant.
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the given circumstances, are likewise
prayed for.

IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City

Greetings!

MP LAW OFFICES

Copy Furnished:
MP LAW OFFICES

City of Davao
Branch 3
JIM PAREDES,
Plaintiff,

Defendant,
x-----------------------------------------x
MOTION TO LIFT/VACATE ORDER OF DEFAULT AND ADMIT

ATTACHED MOTION TO DISMISS WITH COUNTERCLAIM
The DEFENDANT, XANDER FORD, through the undersigned

counsel, unto this Honorable Court, after having been duly deposed and
having been placed under oath, hereby say:
1. Defendant was declared to be in default in an Order of this

Honorable Court dated 08 May 2019, when he failed to file his
answer within the reglementary period;
2. That on 18 May 2019 herein defendant through counsel, filed a

Comment and Motion to dismiss with Counterclaim.
Consequently, the Honorable Court denied the same in an
Order dated 29 May 2019;
3. Defendant begs for a reconsideration of the 08 May 2019

Order declaring him in default, for the reason that he belatedly
received the summons which was received by his mother, on
May 17, 2019;
4. As a matter of fact, it was only on 07 May 2019 when herein

Defendant received a copy of the Order dated 06 April 2019,
ordering him to file his comment/opposition on the said
Motion. Giving him ten (10) days from receipt to file
comment/opposition, that he sought the assistance of herein
counsel and was informed of the impending results of this legal
dispute;
5. Additionally, as explained earlier in his Comment and Motion

to Dismiss with Counterclaim, the surrounding factual
circumstances of the case at bar is the same as that involved in
Criminal Case No. xxx-17 for Reckless imprudence Resulting
in Serious Physical Injuries filed by the Plaintiff at the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 3, Davao entitled,
“People of the Philippines vs. xxx xxx xxxx.”;
6. At outset it must be emphasize that the above mentioned

criminal case has already been provisionally dismissed by the
Court on 27 February 2019, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
“WHEREFORE, the cases are hereby

ordered PROVISIONALLY DISMISSED
with the consent of the accused.”
7. Copy of the Court Order dated 27 February 2019 issued by the

Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch 3, Davao is hereto
attached and marked as Annex “A”;
8. Herein Defendant believing in good faith, that since Criminal

Case No. 62310-17 has been provisionally dismissed, thought
that the present Civil case is moot and academic;
BASIS FOR LIFTING OF ORDER OF DEFAULT
9. Section 3(b) Rule 9, of the Rules of Court provides the remedy

against an order of default to wit:
A party declared in default may at any time
after notice thereof and before judgment file
a motion under oath to set aside the order of
default upon proper showing that his failure
to answer was due to fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence and that
he has a meritorious defense. In such case,
the order of default may be set aside on such
terms and conditions as the judge may
impose in the interest of justice.
10. Additionally the Supreme Court as early in Montinola, Jr. v.

Republic Planters Bank1, has noted that the three (3) requisites
that must be satisfied by a motion in order "to warrant the
setting aside of an order of default for failure to file answer,
are:
(1) it must be made by motion under oath by

one that has knowledge of the facts;
(2) it must be shown that the failure to file

answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence; and
(3) there must be a proper showing of the

existence of a meritorious defense."
11.In the case at hand, herein Defendant’s failure to file his

answer was not meant to disregard or delay the proceedings but
because of his mistaken belief that the same will be settled,
considering the decision rendered by Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Branch 3, Davao in Criminal Case No. 62310-17.
Attached as Annex “B” is the Defendant’s Affidavit of Merit;
12.In the interest of substantial justice and for the reason earlier
stated, Defendant begs the compassion of this Honorable Court
to admit his attached Motion to Dismiss with Counterclaim.
Delay in the proceedings of this case was never intended.
PRAYER
1
244 Phil. 49 (1988)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed
to this Honorable Court that that the Order of default be set aside and this
case be ordered finally DISMISSED for lack of merit and the Defendant’s
compulsory counterclaim be granted, i.e. attorney’s fee of Php30,000.00
plus moral damages of Php100,000.00, plus cost of suits.
FURTHER, the Defendant respectfully prays for such and other

reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.
City of Davao, 8th of June 2019.

IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City

Greetings!
in the court’s calendar for hearing on June 13, 2019 at 8:30 in the morning.


MP LAW OFFICES
Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on June 13,

Copy Furnished:

MP LAW OFFICES

City of Davao
Branch 3
JIM PAREDES,
Plaintiff,

Defendant,
x-----------------------------------------x
EX-PARTE MOTION TO SET CASE FOR PRE-TRIAL
PLAINTIFF, by counsel, through the undersigned counsel unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully moves that the instant case be set for
pre-trial considering that the issues have been joined by the filing of
defendant's Answer.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully

prayed that the instant case be immediately set for pre-trial.


IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City

Greetings!


MP LAW OFFICES

Copy Furnished:
MP LAW OFFICES

SANDIGANBAYAN
QUEZON CITY
1st DIVISION

Plaintiff,
-versus- SB-12-CRM-1241
MR. X,
Accused.
x------------------------x
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA

AD TESTIFICANDUM
ATTY. ARNOLD SWASZNISQKHJAKJG

Executive Clerk of Court
Sandiganbayan, 1st Division
Quezon City
GREETINGS:
Please issue subpoena ad testificandum to the prosecution witnessed
named hereunder to appear and testify during the hearing on 20 and 21
January 2020 at 1:30 P.M.
1. BOY TUHOG
Punong Barangay
Barangay Kapuspalad
Aborlan, Palawan
2. BOY HIPO
Kagawad
Barangay Kapuspalad
Aborlan, Palawan
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Quezon City, 12 November 2019.
(SGD.) MASTER CAMPBELL

Counsel for accused
Roll of Attorney No. 23422
IBP Lifetime Roll No. 4442 – Davao City
MCLE IV Exemption No. 2152/12-30-15
City of Davao
Branch 3
JIM PAREDES,
Plaintiff,

Defendant,
x-----------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR EXECUTION
COMES NOW Plaintiff, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully states:
That on February 10, 2020, the Honorable Court rendered decision on the
above-captioned case, ordering as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby

rendered in favor of the petitioner:
1. ORDERING the respondents and all other persons claiming rights

under them to vacate the subject portions of the land and surrender
possession thereof to the plaintiff;
2. ORDERING the respondents to pay attorney's fees in the amount of

Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00) litigation expenses.
SO ORDERED.
That inquiry into the records of this case with this Honorable Court shows
that no appeal has been taken from the said decision after it has been
rendered by the Honorable Court;
That the reglementary period for appeal has already expired, and said
decision is now final, unappeasable and executory.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that a

Writ of Execution be issued.

IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City

Greetings!


MP LAW OFFICES

Copy Furnished:
MP LAW OFFICES

BRANCH 13
DAVAO CITY

Plaintiff,
- versus - Criminal Case No. C–88888
For: Kidnapping for Ransom
(Violation of Art. 267 of RPC
as amended by RA 7659)
PO1 LINK ZELDA, ET.AL.,
Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
MOTION FOR INHIBITION
COMES NOW, the private PLAINTIFF, by and through the

undersigned private prosecutor, respectfully states:
1. That, at the outset, for the interest of Justice and fairplay,

Plaintiff herein humbly begs for the inhibition of the Honorable Presiding
Judge MIA KHALIFA, because he loses his confidence in the competence
and impartiality of the Honorable Presiding Judge.
a. The Hon. Presiding judge allowed accused Pacleb to post bail

without any hearing despite the fact the crime imputed against him
is non-bailable;
b. In the decision dated June 30, 2017, the Hon. Presiding judge says
in her decision that there was no testimony from a competent
witness that Johnny Sy “was actually and unlawfully taken”. No
one saw how he was kidnapped. However, on the same decision,
the Honorable Presiding judge stated that PO3 Archibald Tejero
testified in open court that he saw the subject – named Johnny Sy-
riding a motorcycle. He introduced himself as a police officer and
immediately handcuffed him. He brought Johnny Sy inside the
police vehicle.
c. The Hon. Presiding Judge also concluded in her decision that the
police officers who testified for the prosecution do not have
personal knowledge of the commission of the offense. They merely
testified on the fact of arrest. Apparently, the Hon. Presiding Judge
only relied on the facts laid down by the defense, wherein it was
clear in the factual findings of the prosecution that Jun-jun Amar –
recited the names of his cohorts, including their whereabouts. With
this lead, the police conducted a follow-up operation in Ponciano
Reyes St., Davao City. On their way to this place, four armed male
individuals were sighted on board two motor vehicles. They were
Armando Mariano, PO1 Samuel Derije, Jr., PO1 Freddie
Dumaguing and Augusto Tabuno, Jr. All of them were frisked and
apprehended.
d. Moreover, the Hon. Judge stated that there were no proof that the
Accused were actually restraining Johnny Sy’s liberty, but she took
the fact that Johnny Sy was arbitrarily detained for five hours and
he was only released to settle the demand of huge amount by the
Accused, because he was the only one who knows the account.
Plaintiff kept his silence, because of the fear of the lives of his
family, since Accused threatened him that they will take the life of
his children if he would not heed what the Accused was
compelling him to do. He kept his silence for the moment and
chose not to report the crime until he found the right chance for
him to do. That this conveys that the crime committed was
continuous and the Plaintiff, even if he was no longer in the
custody of the Accused, they were still restraining his liberty to act
normally and extorting money from him.
e. With regards to the findings that there was no conspiracy on the

part of the Accused, it was crystal clear that the Accused had
planned the offense committed as can be discerned by the
circumstances, and apparently, all the Accused were common to
each other and they admitted in open court that they needed money
for themselves, which led them to orchestrate the kidnapping of the
Plaintiff to divide among themselves whatever money they could
get from the Plaintiff. The guilt beyond reasonable doubt was
established by the Prosecution through the candid admission of the
Accused of the conspiracy.
2. Based on the foregoing observation, there was already a
prejudgment in the instant case and most likely than not, the Presiding Judge
will eventually acquit the accused .
3. That, as a member of the legal profession, the Undersigned

Counsel is also aware of the mindless deliberation in the disposition of the
case by the Honorable Judge, that in this instance, the Honorable Judge is
not upholding the interest of justice.
4. That, the overly protracted proceedings that have attended this

case have fostered great disillusionment and cynism with regards to
Plaintiff’s pursuit of justice.
5. That, it has been a BIG question to the Plaintiff on what are the
reasons why the Honorable Judge acquitted the Accused, where in fact, the
Accused themselves had admitted before the Open Court and in their
Judicial Affidavits their guilt of kidnapping the Plaintiff for ransom, and all
the circumstances surrounding said fact was proven by the Prosecution on an
independent evidence.
6. That, not only the Accused but even the Accused’s counsel
were perplexed to know that his clients were acquitted, as they were
expecting for conviction.
7. That, to scrutinize the evidence presented before the Honorable

Court, there is indeed a great anticipation of conviction, because even an
ordinary person could discern that the Judge is not impartial in issuing her
Decision of the case.
8. In the case of Judge Martonino R. Marcos (Retired) vs. Hon.

Perla V. Cabrera-Faller, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472, the Supreme Court held
that there was gross ignorance of the law and in competence on the part of
the Presiding Judge in displaying her careless disposition of the case, to wit:
“Although judges are generally not accountable for

erroneous judgments rendered in good faith, such defense in
situations of infallible discretion adheres only within the
parameters of tolerable judgment and does not apply where the
basic issues are so simple and the applicable legal principle
evident and basic as to be beyond permissible margins of error.
Time and again, the Court has earnestly reminded judges

to be extra prudent and circumspect in the performance of their
duties. This exalted position entails a lot of responsibilities,
foremost of which is proficiency in the law. They are expected
to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes
and procedural rules and to apply them properly in all good
faith. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his
office to simply apply it; anything less than that would be
constitutive of gross ignorance of the law.
Moreover, judges are duty bound to render just, correct

and impartial decisions at all times in a manner free of any
suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality or integrity. The records
must be free from the slightest suspicion that the trial court
seized upon an opportunity to either free itself from the usual
burdens of presiding over a full-blown court battle or worse, to
give undue advantage or favors to one of the litigants. Public
confidence in the Judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or
improper conduct of judges. The appearance of bias or prejudice
can be as damaging to public confidence and the administration
of justice as actual bias or prejudice.
Thus, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires

a judge to be the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence. They are likewise mandated to be faithful to the
law and to maintain professional competence at all times. A
judge owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in
the law. He is expected to keep abreast of the laws and
prevailing jurisprudence. Basic rules must be at the palms of
their hands for ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the
mainspring of injustice.
Unfortunately, Judge Cabrera-Faller fell short of this basic

canon. Her utter disregard of the laws and rules of procedure, to
wit: the immediate archiving of Criminal Case No. 11862-13,
the recall of the warrant of arrest which she claimed were issued
inadvertently and the hasty dismissal of the case displayed her
lack of competence and probity, and can only be considered as
grave abuse of authority. All these constitute gross ignorance of
the law and incompetence.”
9. For the foregoing reasons and to restore the private Plaintiffs’ faith
and confidence in the courts, may the Honorable Presiding Judge be
inhibited from further trying this case based on the second paragraph of
Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
“Section 1. Disqualification of judges.—
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.”
10.This move is also predicated on Article III, Section 16 of the 1987

Constitution which entitles not only the Accused, but also herein
Plaintiff, to a “speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies.”
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Private Prosecutor

respectfully prays that an Order be issued granting this motion for the
Honorable Presiding Judge, MIA KHALIFA, to voluntarily inhibit herself
from further trying the above cited case, and causing the re-raffling of the
said case to another branch of the Honorable Court.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
City of Davao, February 28, 2020.
(SGD)ATTY. AKIBA SASAKI

Private Prosecutor
IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City
NOTICE OF HEARING
RTC 13, Davao City
ATTY. MARIO LUIGI

Davao City
foregoing motion to the Court on March 15, 2020 at 8:30 AM, a previous
ATTY. AKIBA SASAKI

Private Prosecutor
Copy Furnished:

ATTY. MARIO LUIGI

Davao City
Branch 12
Davao City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Criminal Case No.

19222
Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-
Carl Johnson , OTHER DECEITS

Accused.
x----------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
Accused, through undersigned counsel, unto the Honorable Court,

most respectfully moves for the approval of the compromise agreement and
state: THAT-
1. Private Complainant and Accused have executed a Compromise

Agreement with respect to the civil aspect of the instant case dated
6 December 2014;
2. The parties in the said Compromise Agreement have come into an

amicable settlement with the following conditions, to wit:
a. Accused, acknowledged his civil obligation to the private
complainant in the instant case the total obligation of Php
68,000.00 but will only be made liable to pay for the
reduced amount of Php 50,000.00
b. The Private Complainant approves the proposal of the

accused to pay the above-mentioned amount at the rate of
ONE THOUSAND (P 1,000.00) PESOS per month,
beginning January 25, 2017 and every 25th day of each and
every succeeding months until fully paid. Payment shall be
deposited to the private complainant’s bank account at Bank
account no. 1234564798
c. In consideration of the above, private complainant, for

humanitarian reasons, waives the interest and penalty
charges from January 2016 until the end of the
aforementioned period;
d. The parties agreed on the archival of the criminal aspect of
the instant case pending faithful compliance by the accused
of the instant compromise agreement;
e. However, in the event that accused fails to remit, or is

delayed in remitting any two (2) consecutive monthly
payments as these fall due, he is deemed to have violated
this compromise Agreement, and for which reason, private
complainant is allowed, even without notice, to
automatically revive its original claim in the amount of Php
68,000.00 plus 1% interest and 1% penalty charges, and cost
of suit until the whole obligation shall have been fully paid,
and may immediately move for the issuance of a Writ of
Execution on the civil aspect of this case and initiate the
revival of the instant criminal case;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered that the compromise agreement

executed by the Private Complainant and Accused be approved by the
Honorable Court.
Respectfully submitted this 15th day of January 2020, in Davao,

Philippines.

IBP No.09988; 12/13/2020; Davao City
NOTICE OF HEARING

MTC 12, Davao City

Mabuhay:
foregoing motion to the Court on February 15, 2020 at 8:30 AM, a previous

Copy Furnished:


Motions (Previous Batch) JJ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motions (Previous Batch) JJ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Forms

Submitted by: Emilio Soriano

WILLIE REVILLAME Civil Case No. 452221

MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT/DEFERMENT HEARING

COMES NOW Defendant, thru undersigned counsel, unto this

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the

Davao City, Philippines, February 25, 2020.

REQUEST FOR AND NOTICE OF HEARING

The Branch Clerk of Court

(SGD)ATTY. EMILIO SORIANO

Atty. MOYMOY PALABOY

Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on April 1,

(SGD)ATTY. EMILIO SORIANO

ERIK FOCKER Civil Case No. 321411

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT

COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and

That considering that the whereabouts of the defendant is unknown

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the summons be served by

City of Davao, August 29, 2018.

The Branch Clerk of Court

ATTY. BLACK DOG

The Branch Clerk of Court

-versus- CIVIL CASE No. 23456

MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT

COMES NOW, the plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and

1. The Defendant is presently not in the Philippines, as he is living in

2. Rule 14, Sections 15-16 of the Rules of Court allows such

3. Considering that the Defendant is not presently in the Philippines, and

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the summons be served by

City of Davao, August 29, 2019.

The Branch Clerk of Court

The Branch Clerk of Court

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

-versus- Crim. Case No. SC-06-3852

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

The Prosecution, through undersigned Public Prosecutor and Private

1. On 31 January 2020, Prosecution filed the Information dated 28

2. On 07 January 2020, private complainant died as a result of

3. As a consequence of the supervening fact of death of private

4. The amendment of the Information is only a formal amendment

4.2) It is an amendment which does not charge

4.3) The additional allegation does not alter the

4.4) Applying the ruling in the present case, the

5. Further, under the doctrine of supervening event, the accused

Davao City, 28 February 2020.

Branch Clerk of Court

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

ATTY. MARIO LUIGI

ATTY. AKIBA SASAKI

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

ATTY. MARIO LUIGI

MIA KHALIFA, CIVIL CASE NO: 42521

DEFENDANT, through his counsel, move that the complaint in this

In support thereof, Defendant respectfully alleges:

1.Allegedly, defendant has failed to reach the quotas agreed upon

WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays that the Complaint be

Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

(SGD)ATTY. EMILIO SORIANO

REQUEST FOR AND NOTICE OF HEARING

The Branch Clerk of Court

(SGD)ATTY. EMILIO SORIANO

Atty. MOYMOY PALABOY

(SGD)ATTY. EMILIO SORIANO