Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 10
Manila City

ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL
SHIPPING LINES, INC. FOR ITS
OWN BEHALF and IN REPRESENTATION
OF MAERSK LINE MCC TRANSPORT
SINGAPORE, APL COMPANY PTE.M
LTD, ET. AL
Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 13-129654

EDGAR D. LIM, VIRGILIO S.

RAMOS, PETER F. MUTUC,
RICHARD K. TOM, FERNANDO
DICK A. CUTAB, JULIO S.
TANGON, JR., MIKE CICILIO
FIDEL L. CU, CEZAR MANCAO II
CIRILO C. BASALO, JR., AND
DIONISIO B. PORTES III, CPA
Defendants.
x----------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY INHIBITION

Defendants Jojo T. Pintang and Manuel B. Javines Jr., by the

undersigned collaborating counsel, unto this Honorable Court most
reverentially aver:

1. That the above-captioned civil case was raffled before this

Honorable Court way back years ago and up to now the case is still
pending;

a. That while the case is pending before the Honorable

Court, the case has been turtle paced in the sense that the

proceedings of the case is still in its preliminary stage. It must

be taken note that the case has already been dragging for
almost a year now. And that, the proper party to whom the
 payment be made has been waiting and agonizing for the
resolution of the case;

2. The movant in this motion had also noticed that the Honorable
Court had been accommodating and entertaining worthless pleadings to
the effect that the proceedings of the case is being hampered despite the
vehement objection of the undersigned movant. In effect said worthless
pleadings would cause needless delays which would run afoul to the
proper parties right to speedy disposition of their case;

3. Further, the movant would like to invite the Honorable Court

that the Regional Trial Court Branch 24 had already rendered a decision to
the effect that the election dated March 21, 2014 by the GDITI stockholders
was valid and binding. Hence, all the stockholders of GDITI must respect
the same. In the said election, the following officers were nominated and
elected, to wit;

A. Richard K. Tom as President

B. Manuel B. Javines, Jr., as Vice President
C. Zandro O Babol as Corporate Secretary
D. David Z. Calma as Treasurer

Board of Directors

E. Zandro O. Babol
F. David Z. Calma
G. Manuel B. Javines, Jr.
H. Jojo T. Pintang
I. Dionisio B. Portes III
J. Julio S. Tanagon, Jr.
K. Richard K. Tom;

For ready reference copy of the result of the election

mentioned above were already on record of the
case.

4. In continuity with the court supervised March 21,

2014 election, the stockholders of GDITI hold an stockholders
meeting and election of officers on March 20, 2015, at Max’s
Restaurant, 1123 Maria Orosa St, corner UN Avenue St., Ermita
Manila, attended by defendant Basalo and defendant Ramos of
this case. The following Officers were Elected by the
stockholders;
 Manue B. Javines Jr. as President
David Z. Calma, as Vice President
Jojo T. Pintang as Corporate Secretary
Richard K. Tom as Treasurer

Board of Directors

Atty. Pablo LR Ronquillo as Chairman of the Board

David Z. Calma
Manuel B. Javines, Jr.
Jojo T. Pintang
Dionisio B. Portes III
Julio S. Tanagon, Jr.
Richard K. Tom;

5. That in one of the hearings of the case, the Honorable

Presiding Judge made mentioned that the payment of the monetary
obligation which now ballooned to more than TWENTY MILLION PESOS
(Php20,000,000.00) be divided among the defendants in this case instead of
paying it to the proper creditor. By the said position, it would readily
imply that the Interpleader case is moot or already worthless. Worthy of
credence in this case is that some of the defendants were neither officers
nor directors of the corporation so that they could properly represent GDITI
as a corporation and be given the amount owed by the plaintiff in this case.
It must be taken note that the proper creditor in this case would be the
GDITI as represented by its newly elected officers;

6. That rationalizing the advice of the Honorable presiding Judge

is tantamount to splitting the corporate fund into the hands of parties who
were not legally entitled to. Worthy of credence is that a corporation has a
separate personality to its stockholders or officers;

“A corporation is not in fact and in reality a person, but the law

treats it as though it were a person by process of fiction, or by
regarding it as an artificial person distinct and separate from its
individual stockholders. (Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated, Inc., 26
SCRA 242)

“The corporate debt or credit is not the debt or credit of the

stockholder nor is the stockholder’s debt or credit that of the
corporation. (Good Earth Emporium v. CA, 194 SCRA 544).
Thus, the amount involved which is the subject of the interpleader
case must be given to the corporation as represented by its newly
elected officers not to any claimants thereto.

7. With the foregoing view and prudent reasons must be employed

by the Honorable Judge to recuse himself from further hearing the case so
as to give meaning of the so called substantial justice and considering
further that the case have been pending for years now which means that
the amount of money due to GDITI have been held in abeyance to the great
prejudice of GDITI. Moreover, GDITI cannot undertake to start nor finish
some of its projects and business transaction due to lack of fund. Hence, the
need to give the amount of money owed to GDITI must now be properly
addressed;

8. No less than the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of China

Banking Corporation vs. Janolo, Jr., 554 SCRA 295 ruled that:

“The issue of voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of

conscience and sound discretion on the part of the judge.” (China
Banking Corporation vs. Janolo, Jr., 554 SCRA 295).

9. The Top most court further animated the principle on

voluntary inhibition in the case of Lao vs. Lao, 566 SCRA 558 where it held
that:

“In case of voluntary inhibition, the law leaves to the sound

discretion of the judge the decision to decide for himself the
question of whether or not he will inhibit himself from the case.”
(Lao vs. Lao, 566 SCRA 558).

10. Likewise, herein undersigned counsel reverentially begs this

Honorable Court to grant this Motion without the further appearance.
Similarly, in one instance the Court declared “A judge must know that he
may act motu proprio on a motion for inhibition without requiring the
attendance of the movant.” (Colorado vs. Agapito, 526 SCRA 250).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

unto the Honorable Presiding Judge to voluntarily inhibit himself to hear
and try this present case in the interest of substantial justice, fair play and
equity.

Such other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the premises
are likewise prayed for.
 Pasig City for Manila City, August 13, 2015.

ATTY. CLIMARK D. DASAYON

Collaborating Counsel for
Defendant Jojo Pintang and
Manuel Javines
Roll # 63556
IBP # 963578 / 1-12-15
PTR # 9979031 / 1-14-15
Exempted MCLE Compliance Board Order No. 1
Series of 2008, July 4, 2008
Unit 505, 5/F, OMM-CITRA,
San Miguel Avenue, Ortigas,
Pasig City

With our conformity:

JOJO PINTANG

MANUEL JAVINES

COPY FURNISHED AND NOTICE OF HEARING:

ATTY. JEFF L. MARTINEZ

MONTILLA LAW OFFICE
2/F Casa Maritima, 651 Gen. Luna
Intramuros, Manila

ATTY. GILBERT RAY C. NAVARRO

For defendant Engr. Cirilo C. Basalo Jr.
Unit 1706 17th Floor,
Prestige Tower Condominium,
F. Ortigas, Jr. Road (Emerald Avenue)
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
ATTY. ROY LAGO SALCEDO
For defendant Engr. Cirilo C. Basalo Jr.
Ground Floor, ryzl Building
12th St., Cagayan de Oro City,
Misamis Oriental

ATTY. GIL A. VALERA

For Defendant Virgilio S. Ramos
228 Swallow Drive, Greenmeadows
Quezon City

ATTY. BENZON JUDD C. CONG

For plaintiff-Intervenor Fidel L. Cu
Unit 11-A, Lumier Chatteau Building
285 P. Guevarra St., San Juan

ATTY. MARCELINO P. ARIAS

For plaintiff-Intervenor Fidel L. Cu
Rm. 201, MN Square Bldg. 678
Shaw Boulevard, Pasig Clity 1600

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

BRANCH 10
Manila City

Greetings!

Please take notice that the undersigned-movant will submit the

foregoing Motion unto the Honorable Court for its kind approval and
consideration without any further arguments and appearance.

CLIMARK D. DASAYON

EXPLANATION

The foregoing Motion was served through registered mail with

registry return card for time constraint and lack of manpower to effect
personal service. (Please omit the if personally served)

CLIMARK D. DASAYON