REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7TH JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 59, Toledo City, Cebu

NARIVEL R. GALAURA and Civil Case No. T-3484

MARY ANN LAHAYLAHAY
CALDERON, FOR: DECLARATION
Plaintiff, OF NULLITY OF
ORDINANCE NO. 02,
-versus- SERIES OF 2017,
INJUNCTION AND
REX CASIANO T. GERONA, THE DAMAGES WITH
MUNICIPALITY OF TABUELAN, PRAYER FOR
CEBU AND THE BARANGAY OF PRELIMINARY
MARAVILLA, TABUELAN, CEBU, MANDATORY
Defendants. INJUNCTION AND
TEMPORARY
X------------------------x RESTRAINING ORDER

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF MARYANN

LAHAYLAHAY CALDERON

Name of Witness: Mary Ann Lahaylahay Calderon

Address: Maravilla, Tabuelan, Cebu

Name of Lawyer who conducted the Examination: Atty. Francis George

F. Dinopol
Place: Suite 402 G.K. Chua Bldg., Sancianco St., Cebu City

I, Mary Ann Lahaylahay Calderon, of legal age, Filipino, and a

resident of Maravilla, Tabuelan, Cebu, after having been duly sworn
to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:

Atty. Dinopol:
1. Q: Madam witness, are the same MaryAnn Calderon Lahaylahay
Calderon, one of the plaintiffs in the Civil Case No. T-3484 now
pending before the Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, Branch 59?
A: Yes.
2. Q. Can you tell who are the name defendants in said case?
A: Yes, the named defendants are the Rex Casiano Gerona,
Municipality of Tabuelan, Cebbu and the Barangay LGU of
Maravilla, Tabuelan, Cebu.

3. Q. Can you tell me what was the purpose of the filing the
complaint in Civil Case No. 3484?
A: Yes. In our complaint, were prayed for:
1. Temporary Restraining Order (T.R.O.), preliminary
mandatory injunction ordering the refrain from demolishing
the sari-sari stores of the plaintiffs located in Maravilla,
Tabuelan, Cebu;

2. To declare as null and void Ordinance No. 02, Series of

2017, and therefore, has no force and effect:
A.1. for being an ultra vires
ordinance;
A.2. by reason that no public hearing
was conducted before its enactment;
and/or;
A.3. by reason that the same was not
published in a newspaper of general
publication;

3. We also prayed for Moral Damages, Attorney’s Fees

and Litigation Expenses;

4. You said “we”, so ther are more than one (1) plaintiff?
A. That is correct, I and Narivel Rico Galaura are the plaintiffs
in the Civil Case No. 3484. Her sari-sari store was also demolished by
the defendants.

5. Q: So, in other words, you and Narivel Rico Galaura both had a
sari-sari stores which were demolished by the defendants, is that
correct?
A: That is correct.

2
6. Q: Do you have any picture of your sari-sari store before the same
was demolished by the defendants?
A: Yes. Here they are.

Atty. Dinopol:
The witness presented to me computer printout of pictures of a
the “sari-sari” store of the plaintiff Mary Ann Lahaylahay Calderon
marked as Exhibit “B”;

7. Q: Madam witness, just for emphasis, can you point in this

picture exactly where your old “sari-sari” is?
A: Yes. Here it is, it is located beside Costa Blanca, a resort that
has encroached the actual public beach in Maravilla, Tabuelan, Cebu.

Atty. Dinopol:
The witness pointed to a portion of the picture which is
encircled and marked as Exhibit “B-1”;

8. Q: Do you have the necessary permits for this sari-sari store,

madam witness?
A: Yes, I have here with the necessary permits and other
documents.

Atty. Dinopol:
The witness presented me the following:

A. Business Permit, marked as Exhibit “C”;

B. Certificate of Annual Inspection, marked as Exhibit “D”;
C. Sanitary Permit, marked as Exhibit “E”; and
D. “Health Certificate”, marked as Exhibit “F”;

9. Q: You said earlier that you and Narivel Rico Galaura’s “sari-
store” were both demolished by the defendants, is that correct?

A: That is correct.

10. Q: Did you receive any communication from the defendants

before they demolished your sari-sari store?

A: Yes, I have here a letter dated May 31, 2018, there was one
earliest letter that we received from the defendants.

Atty. Dinopol:

3
 The witness presented to me a Letter dated May 31, 2018
marked as Exhibit “”F”.

11. Q: Madam witness, can you please read the contents of this letter
for record purposes?
A: Yes. I quote:

“May 31, 2018,

NARIBEL RICO GALAORA &

MARY ANN LAHAYLAHAY CALDERON

Dear Mrs. Galaora & Mrs. Calderon:

It has come to my attention that despite the lawful advice of

the Barangay Captain to demolish the illegal structure that you have
erected within the 20-meter easement zone along the beach of
Baranagy Maravilla, you chose to ignore his lawful order. I am
dismayed by your complete non-cooperation and your continued
defiance.

Heretofore, I am providing you with machine copies of

Ordinance No. 02, series of 2017 of the Barangay Maravilla and
Resolution No. 101, series of 2017 of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Tabuelan, Cebu approving the former for implementation.

In view of the foregoing, I am giving you the last chance to

demolish subject structure within five (5) days from receipt of this
letter. Your failure to do so would force my Office to effect the
demolition and possibly the subsequent filing of case against you.

For your compliance.

Respectfully yours,

(Sgd.) Rex Casiano T. Gerona

Municipal Mayor”

12. Q: Did you reply to his letter, madam witness?

A: Yes, here is the reply prepared by our lawyer Atty. Francis
George F. Dinopol:

Atty. Dinopol:
The witness presented to me a letter dated June 4, 2018 marked
as Exhibit “H”.

4
12. Q: For record purposes, madam witness, can you please read
aloud the contents of the letter dated June 4, 2018 prepared by your
lawyer Atty. Francis George F. Dinopol?

A. Yes, I quote:

“Cebu City

June 4, 2018

To: Hon. REX CASIANO T. GERONA

Municipal Mayor
Municipality of Tabuelan, Cebu

Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter dated May 31, 2018 addressed

to my clients namely: NARIVEL RICO GALAURA and MARY
ANN LAHAYLAHAY ordering them to demolish their respective
structures in Brgy. Maravilla, Tabuelan Cebu.

This is to inform you that only the proper courts can order
the demolition of structures and only the court appointed sheriffs are
authorized by law to implement demolition orders.

You, being only a Municipal Mayor, have not yet been

appointed as a sheriff, and therefore, has neither the power nor
authority to issue demolition orders much less to implement them.

You are hereby advised to please file the necessary court case
first against my client, and await whatever the outcome of the said
case.

Sincerely,

Atty. Francis George F. Dinopol

Counsel for Ms. Naribel Rico Galaura
and Mary Ann L. Calderon

Copy furnished:

Hon. Paul Elmer M. Clemente

Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas
Cebu City

Atty. Rene K. Burdeos, CESO III

Regional Director
Department of Interior and Local Government VII
Sudlon, Lahug, Cebu City

5
 Renerio O. Oca,
Barangay Captain,
Maravilla, Tabuelan, Cebu”

13. Q: Madam witness, did the defendants heed your reply?

A: Sadly, no.

14. Q: What did the defendants do, after that letter of your
lawyer dated June 4, 2018, if any?
A. defendant was really determined to demolish our sari-sari
stores. They sent to us another letter, here is the letter.

Atty. Dinopol:
The witness presented to me letter dated June 27, 2018, marked
as Exhibit “I”.

15. Q: Madam witness, what was the gist of the letter dated
June 27, 2018?
A: Defendant Gerona was really determined to demolish aour
“sari-sari” stores and he insisted that has the power to demolish
invoking section 444 of Republic Act No. 7160 and par (a) Section 28
of R.A. 7279, but this time the reason for the impending demolition
was no longer violation of the Municipal Ordinance of Maravilla,
Tabuelan, Cebu, now the reason for the demolition was due to
structures being allegedly occupying danger areas such as shorelines.

16. Q: What did you do, if any, upon receiving the said letter
dated June 27, 2018?
A. I and Narivel Rico Galaura each filed separate cases against
defendant Gerona before the Office of the Ombudsman for the
Visayas, for the following grounds:

1. for the intention to demolish plaintiffs’ store even though

there is no court order yet;
2. intention to demolish plaintiffs’ store even though it is not
within the shoreline;
3. intention to demolish plaintiffs’ store even though he has
no power to do so;
4. intention to demolish plaintiffs’ store even though, the
other cottages, resort like the Costa Blanca and “The Tree”, which
are clearly within the shoreline, but he has no intention to demolish
the same, only the plaintiffs are singled out.
5. intention to demolish plaintiffs’ sari-sari store even
without conduction a “pre-demolition conference”.

6
 here are is a copies of the said complaint.

Atty. Dinopol:

The witness presented to me machine copy of the letter

complaint together with the attached affidavits of complaint, marked
as Exhibits “J” and “K”, respectively.

17. Q: Considering that there was already an impending, what

did you do, if any, after you filed the complaint before the
Ombudsman?

A. We furnished defendant Gerona with a copy of the

complaints.

18. Q: Did it stop the defendants from demolishing your “sari-

sari” stores?

A. The opposite happened.

19. Q: How come?

A. Because in the complaint that we filed with the Ombudsman
one of the grounds that we invoked was that there was no “pre-
demolition conference”, the defendant Gerona, again sent us a letter
inviting us for a pre-demolition conference, here is the letter.

Atty. Dinopol:
The witness presented to me a copy of a letter dated July 2,
2018, marked as Exhibit “L”.

20. Q: What happened to the pre-demolition conference that

was mentioned in the letter dated July 2, 2018?

A: It was set on July 4, 2018, at 9:00 o’clock in the morning, we

attended the said “conference”, but the same cannot be considered as
a conference because defendants never listened to all our pleas. No
agreement was reached. I have here a copy of the minutes of the said
“conference”.

Atty. Dinopol:
The witness presented to Minutes of the “Pre-Demolition
Conference conducted on July 4, 2018, marked as Exhibit “M”;

21. Q: In the very first letter that you received, the reason cited
was a Ordinance, can you confirm this, madam witness?

7
 A. Yes. Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2017 enacted by the
Sangguniang Barangay of Maravilla, Tabuelan, Cebu, dated April 6,
2017 the same.

22. Q: What can you say about this ordinance madam witness?
A: The same should de declared as Null and Void.

23. Q: Why?
A. Because the Sangguniang Barangay of Maravilla, Tabuelan,
Cebu has neither the power nor the authority to enact ordinances
pertaining to the use and occupancy of the shoreline, as the power
and authority to enforce laws in the shoreline is vested solely with
the Department of the Environment and Natural Resources and the
power of to enact laws with respect to shorelines is vested solely with
the Philippine Legislature which is composed by the House of
Representative and the Senate, to the exclusion of the Brgy.
Sangguniang Barangay of Maravilla, Tabuelan, Cebu and even the
Sangguniang Bayan of Tabuelan, Cebu.

24. Q; Do you have any copy of the said ordinance?

A. Yes. Here it is.

Atty. Dinopol:
The witness presented to me certified true copy of Ordinance No. 02,
Series of 2017 , marked as Exhibit “N”;

25. Q: You said earlier that you are a resident of Maravilla,

Tabuelan, Cebu, am I correct, madam witness?

A: Yes.

26. Q: Being a resident of Maravilla, Tabuelan, Cebu, can you

recall if there was a public hearing conducted prior to the enactment
of said Ordinance 02, Series of 2017?
A: From what I can gather, no public hearing was conducted
before the enactment of the said ordinance.

27. Q: Madam witness, from the contents of said Ordinance No.

02, Series of 2017, does it contain any penal provision?
A: Yes.

28. Q. Madam witness, from the contents of said Ordinance No.

02, Series of 2017, does it contain any provision for the demolition of
any structures?
A. No.

8
 29. Q: Can you recall if the said Ordinance No. 02, Series of
2017 was ever published in a newspaper?
A. From what I can gather, said Ordinance No. 02; Series of
2017 was never published in any newspaper.

30. Q: So, madam witness, what happened next, if any, after the
“pre-demolition conference was conducted on July 4, 2018?

A. Sadly, my lowly “sari-sari” store was demolished by the

defendants. I have here the pictures of the demolition.

Atty. Dinopol:

The witness presented to me computer printouts of the pictures

of the act of the defendants in demolishing the lowly “sari-sari” store
of the plaintiff Mary Ann L. Calderon, marked as Exhibit “O” to “O-
2”.

31. Q: Madam witness, would to you consider your demolished

“sari-sari” store as a nuisance?
A. No. Never. My “sari-sari” store was located far from the
seashore, as a matter of fact, if you look closely at the picture, my
store is located way, way back, whereas if you look at what was very
eminent in this picture is the Costa Blanca Resort, which already
encroaching in the seashore, that should be the one who should
declared as a nuisance. But up to now, defendant did not even left a
finger.

Atty. Dinopol:
The witness was pointing to a portion of a computer printout of
the picture previously marked as Exhibit “B” and “B-1”.

32. Q: Did the defendants filed any case against any of you
before they implemented the demolition of your “sari-sari” store?
A: No.

33. Q: Was there any court appointed sheriff that assisted the
defendants in demolishing your lowly “sari-sari” store?
A. No. Only officials and employees of the Municipality of
Tabuelan, Cebu and Brgy. Maravilla, Tabuelan, Cebu.

34. Q: Madam witness, was your “sari-sari” store located in an

area that can be considered as a danger zone?
A. No. As I said earlier, my “sari-sari” store was located far
from the seashore, as a matter of fact, if you look closely at the
picture, my store is located way, way back, whereas if you look at
what was very eminent in this picture is the Costa Blanca Resort,

9
which already encroaching in the seashore, that should be the one
who should declared as located in a danger zone. But up to now,
defendant did not even left a finger.

35. Q: You said earlier that while you and Narivel Rico
Galaura’s sarisari stores were demolished, the Costa Blanca Resort,
which was already encroaching in the seashore was not touched by
the defendants, are you saying that the defendants are playing
favorites?
A. Yes. Clearly they are guilty of violation of the equal
protection clause as guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution because as
shown by the pictures that I have just pointed to you, the Costa
Blanca Resort, which clearly encroaching the public beach and is
already halfway to the sea, the defendants Gerona, his Office and the
defendant Municipality if Tabuelan, Cebu, did not even lift a finger;

36: 21: 17. Q: What did you feel, Mr. Witness, of the acts of
defendants, in demolishing your lowly “sari-sari” store?
A. I was deeply hurt because my lowly “sari-sari” store was my
only source of income. Of all people, the defendant should have been
models of morality, justice, order and fairness, instead they became
blind and dumb. There were may night where I was not able to
sleep. When my lowly “sari-store” was demolished, I just watched
the defendant helplessly, and during that time, everybody in the
community was looking, yet a few offered help and even fewer
offered words of support.

37. Q: As compensation for the emotional hurt you suffered

because of the acts of the defendants and for the sleepless nights and
the emotional anguish that you also suffered, how much are you
asking this Honorable Court as Moral Damages?
A: TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00).

38. Q: In order to protect your rights, you engaged the

services of Atty. Francis George F. Dinopol, is that correct?
A: Oo.

39. Q: So far, how much have you paid Atty. Dinopol in

prosecuting this case?
A: We paid Atty. Dinopol P50,000.00, for accepting our case,
and then we agreed to pay the hum sum of P5,000.00 per court
appearance.

10
 40. Q: Do you have any other claims that you seek to ask this
Honorable Court against the defendants.
A: Yes. We also pray to this Honorable Court that the
defendants be condemned to pay P15,000.00 as litigation expenses
and for the defendants should also be made to reimburse us the filing
fees.

In witness hereof, I hereby set my hands this 20 th day of August

2020 in the City of Cebu, Philippines.

MARY ANN LAHAYLAHAY CALDERON

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20 th day of

August, 2020 in the City of Cebu, Philippines. I hereby certify that
the witness is answering the questions asked before him, fully
conscious that she does so under oath and that he may face criminal
liability for false testimony of perjury.

Doc. No. ____

Page No. ___
Book No. ___
Series of 2020

Republic of the Philippines)

City of Cebu)S.S.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/

SWORN ATTESTATION

That I, Francis George F. Dinopol with office address at Room

402 G.K. Chua Building, Sancianco St., Cebu City, after having been
duly sworn to in accordance with law do hereby depose and say:

11
 1. That I am the lawyer who conducted the examination of
Mary Ann L. Calderon.

2. That I faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the

questions I asked and the corresponding answers that the witness
gave;

3. That neither I nor any other person hen present or assisting

me coached the witness regarding the answers of the witness.

4. That I execute the affidavit to attest the truth of the foregoing

and for whatever purpose it may serve.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this 20th day of August 2018 at Cebu City, Philippines.

FRANCIS GEORGE F. DINOPOL

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20 th Day of

August 2018, at Cebu City, affiant exhibited to me his Driver’s
License No. GO1-00-262953 as competent proof of identity.

Doc. No. ___

Page No. ___
Book No. ___
Series of 2020

12
13