Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 0
Las Pinas City

BN,
Plaintiff,
-versus- CIVIL CASE NO.
For: DAMAGES
ED
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - – – - - - - - - - - - ----x
ANSWER
(In Re: SUMMONS received on May 31, 2016)

COMES NOW the Defendant, by the undersigned counsel, and in answer to

Plaintiff's complaint, respectfully alleges:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. That Defendant admits paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Complaint with the
additional averment that she may be served with all court processes
through the undersigned counsel;

2. That Defendant cannot possibly comment as to the veracity of Plaintiff’s

statement in paragraph 4 of the complaint, she not having been in the
place and time mentioned in said paragraph, in that, granting that
Plaintiff indeed was bumped at 9:05 PM on August 6, 2015 by X while
Plaintiff was alongside pedestrian lane/sidewalk along Alabang-Zapote
road. To Defendant’s knowledge, there is no such pedestrian lane or
sidewalk in that area because of the presence of a footbridge and a
signages saying: BAWAL TUMAWID and NO JAYWALKING;

Please refer to attached pictures on Annexes “1”, “6” and “6-1” showing
that Plaintiff was not allowed to cross that portion of the road.

3. Also, that Plaintiff appears to be changing his tune and is obviously

telling a lie to this Honorable Court in his statements in paragraphs 4
and 5 of this new complaint:

In this new complaint, the Plaintiff said:

“For cause of action against Defendant Domingo, it is hereby stated

that on August 6, 2015 at around 9:05 in the evening, Plaintiff was
alongside pedestrian lane/sidewalk along Alabang-Zapote road;

1 | Answer – BT v. ED
 That while Plaintiff was walking along the sidewalk, the Mitsubishi
owned by Domingo was driven by her driver, X a resident of Editiorial
Extension 4th Estate Antonio Paranaque City, Metro Manila.”

While in the first complaint1 which, incidentally, was dismissed by this

Honorable Court last March 2, 2016 basically for lack of proper
verification and certification against forum-shopping, the Plaintiff said:

“For cause of action against Defendant Domingo, it is hereby stated

that on August 6, 2015 at around 9:05 in the evening, while I was
crossing along Alabang Zapote Road, Casimiro, coming from the side
of Cecilles Restaurant Las Pinas City, Plaintiff was bumped by the
Mitsubishi driven by X, a resident of Editiorial Extension 4th Estate
Antonio Paranaque City,Metro Manila.”

Obviously, Plaintiff is trying to change his story from “while I was

crossing along Alabang Zapote Road, Casimiro, coming from the side of
Cecilles Restaurant Las Pinas City” to , “Plaintiff was alongside
pedestrian lane/sidewalk along Alabang-Zapote road. That while
Plaintiff was walking along the sidewalk…”

He wants us to believe now that he was not violating any City Ordinance
against jay walking. He wants us to believe that it was not his violation
of a City Ordinance that caused his being bumped by the vehicle driven
by X.

In his sworn affidavit2 before the Prosecutor A, BT said that he “was

crossing along Alabang Zapote Road, coming the side of Cecilles
Restaurant, Las Pinas3”, when he was allegedly bumped.

Also, according to the report4 prepared by the Vehicle Traffic

Investigation Unit of Las Pinas City dated August 7, 2015, BT was
actually crossing, viz:

“… when upon reaching on a certain place of incident, the front

portion of the same hit a pedestrian while crossing on the
abovementioned place of incident going to Urci Townhomes…”5

4. That again, Defendant cannot possibly comment on the veracity of

paragraph 6 of the Complaint for not having been in the averred place at
the time. Granting, however, without admitting, that the Plaintiff was
bumped by X at the spot mentioned, it is worth-noting why Plaintiff
opted NOT to use the footbridge erected for his safety. Instead, he
crossed the road where he was not allowed to;
1
Annex 7, Original Complaint, as amended, for case ----------
2
Annex 8, Sworn Affidavit of BT dated September 16, 2015
3
Annex 8, paragraph 1
4
Annex 9, Police Report dated August 7, 2015
5
Annex 9, sub-marking “9-1”

2 | Answer – BT v. ED
5. That Defendant could not comment on the veracity and accuracy of
paragraph 7 except for the fact that it tells us about a printout coming
from the website of Google;

6. That Defendant could not comment on the veracity and accuracy of

paragraphs 8 and 9 due to lack of information and knowledge of the
same, the truth being that Plaintiff’s alleged emotional suffering is
personal to him and that Defendant has not been shown any proof to
validate it;

7. That defendant denies paragraph 10 of the complaint as the figures

mentioned are unsubstantiated and that the purported Annex “C”, and
sub-Annexes are not properly referenced and the purported figures are
nowhere to be found. As such, defendant will have no basis in forming
any judgment as to their authenticity and veracity;

8. That paragraph 11 is also being denied for being unsubstantiated, the

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

9. That paragraph 12 is also being denied for being unsubstantiated. There

is no such document attached to the complaint as Annex “D” which
contains the amount P29,693. The Certificate of Employment” is dated
February 6, 2015 – way before the date of the purported accident of
August 6, 2015. Also, its purpose is not related at all to the filing of this
claim for damages. The certification says: “this employment certification
has been issued upon the request of BT for his credit card application.”

10. That paragraphs 13 and 14 are denied for lack of basis to form a belief
as to their truth and veracity there being no proof shown to substantiate
them, the truth being that as mentioned in the special and affirmative
defenses;

11. That defendant could not make an informed comment respecting

paragraphs 15 and 16 as the defendant has not received any of the
purported notices;

12. That paragraph 17 is denied for lack of basis to form a belief as to its
truth and veracity there being no proof shown to substantiate it, the
truth being that as mentioned in the special and affirmative defenses;
and

13. That paragraphs 18 and 19 are likewise denied for lack of basis to form
a belief as to its truth and veracity there being no proof shown to
substantiate it, the truth being that as mentioned in the special and
affirmative defenses.
DEFENSES

3 | Answer – BT v. ED
14. As SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, the defendant alleges:

COMPLAINT LACKS A VALID AND COMPLIANT CERTIFICATION

AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING; HONORABLE COURT LACKS
JURISDICTION

14.1 The CERTIFICATION and VERIFICATION AGAINST FORUM

SHOPPING was defective and incomplete as the mandatory paragraph
under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

“Certification against forum-shopping. - The plaintiff or principal

party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification
annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has
not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete
statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter
learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been
filed.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be

curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing.
The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with any of
the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court,
without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal
actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful
and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for
summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct
contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.” (emphasis
supplied)

The “VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM

SHOPPING” prepared by the complainant violates the above rule,
specifically letter (c) which states that:

“… (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar

action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein
his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been
filed.”

There is no such certification/statement made by the Plaintiff.

In his “VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM

SHOPPING”, BR mentioned only the following:
4 | Answer – BT v. ED
 xxx

“I, BT, Filipino, of legal age, with office address at ABC, Zapote-Alabang
Road, Talon Uno, Las Pinas City, Metro Manila, under oath depose and
state:
1. That I am the Complainant in the above-captioned case;
2. That I caused the preparation of the Complaint;
3. That all allegations therein are true and correct based on my
own personal knowledge and based on authentic records.

I certify that That:

(i) A Complaint of Reckless Imprudence resulting to Serious Physical

injuries was filed by herein Complainant against a certain X, (driver of
herein Respondent) , with the Office of the Prosecutor of Las Pinas
City and after the finding of probable cause, an Information was filed
the Municipal Trial Court (MRT) Branch 0 of Las Pinas City;

On April 7, 2016, I already received an Order from MTC Branch 0

setting on May 19, 2016, the Arraignment of the accused in criminal
case with number 0;

(ii) A similar Complaint for Damages was filed by herein Complainant

with the RTC Branch 0, Las Pinas City covered by Civil Case No. 0,
however, the Court dismissed the case in an Order dated March 2,
2016, the dispositive portion of which states: “WHEREFORE, for non-
compliance with Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
the instant Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.” A copy of the
Order is hereto attached as Annex “A”.”

xxx

With all due respect, plaintiff’s non-compliance alone is a solid

ground to dismiss the complaint outright.

14.2 Time and again, the Supreme Court has ruled sustaining this basic
rule. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the instant
complaint be dismissed outright. One example is the case of De
Formoso v. PNB6 citing Oldarico S. Traveno v. Bobongon Banana
Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative7, wherein the High Court
said:

xxx

4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance

therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not
curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless
there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial
compliance" or presence of "special circumstances or compelling
reasons." (emphasis supplied)

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

5 | Answer – BT v. ED
 LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION AS PLAINTIFF COMES TO COURT WITH
UNCLEAN HANDS, THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES

14.3 By his very own admission in his first complaint, complainant said
in paragraph 4 :

“4. For cause of action against Defendant ED, it is hereby stated that
on August 6, 2015 at around 9:05 in the evening, while I was
crossing along Alabang Zapote Road, Casimiro, coming from the
side of Cecilles Restaurant Las Pinas city, Plaintiff was bumped by
the Mitsubishi driven by X, a resident of San Antonio Paranaque
city, Metro Manila;

Plaintiff admitted crossing the portion that pedestrians are NOT

ALLOWED TO CROSS. There is a footbridge constructed for that
very purpose. The fact that he was allegedly hit by an incoming
vehicle while doing an illegal act of CROSSING A RESTRICTED
AREA is to his own undoing. He was violating the law. As such, if
there is anyone who must be held accountable and responsible, it
should be BT, the Plaintiff;

The illegal act of BT of crossing in the restricted area is also

supported by the police report dated August 7, 2015 (Annex 9)
and his own sworn affidavit executed before Prosecutor A on
September 16, 2015 (Annex 8).

He already caused so much trouble not only to the driver but also
to the defendant.

Annex “1” presents 5 pictures that show where the alleged

incident happened. Sub-marking “1-A” shows that there is
supposed to be a free-flowing of vehicle and as such no
pedestrians must either stay or cross in the area.

Annex “2” shows the map of the alleged place in accident. It

proves that there is a footbridge that should have been used by
the Plaintiff but he did not – contrary to law. Sub-marking “2-A”
shows the specific place.

Annex “3” is also submitted concerning the statement of the

driver stating the place of incident (sub-marking “3-A”) and the
fact that Defendant paid P15,000.00 (sub-marking “3-B”) despite
the fact that is was the Plaintiff who was at fault.

Annex “4” is further submitted to show the sketch on the exact

place of accident (sub-marking “4-A). Like that of Annex “2”,
Plaintiff was in a place where he was not supposed to be.

6 | Answer – BT v. ED
 Annexes “5”, “5-1” and “5-2”, the bio-data and credentials of
driver Robert A. Doronio, are hereby presented herewith to prove
that Defendant exercised the diligence of a good father in the
selection of said driver be he was hired. As shown on sub-making
“5-A”, Mr. Doronio has been driving professionally since 1989.

Annexes “6” and “6-1” are pictures showing that Plaintiff was not
allowed to cross the portion of the road. Specifically, sub-marking
“6-A” says: “BAWAL TUMAWID” and sub-marking “6-1-A” says:
“NO JAYWALKING”.

Under Section 2 of Rule of the Rules of Court, a cause of action is

defined as an act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another. From the foregoing, it was actually the Plaintiff who
violated the right to safely of others. It was he who violated the
law thereby causing damage to others. With all due respect, it is
he who must actually pay.

BASELESS AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS

14.4 The following claims are unsubstantiated and are therefore

baseless:

Hospital Expenses, Professional Fees, Miscellaneous: Alleged

Annexes are not found and/or referenced.

Lost Income (P89,100): There are no supporting documents

presented.

Check up and x-rays: There is no supporting document presented.

Moral & Exemplary damages (P600,000): the actual damages

being unsubstantiated, claims moral & exemplary damages are
left without basis.

EXORBITANT AND UNCONSCIONABLE LEGAL FEES

14.5 The claim for Attorney’s Fees (P100,000) is not only baseless. The
amount is exorbitant and unconscionable.

COUNTERCLAIMS
15. As COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS against the Plaintiff, the Defendant
alleges:

7 | Answer – BT v. ED
 15.1 That to protect her right she is forced to defend herself by
engaging the services of an attorney for P50,000 plus P4,000 fee
per appearance; and

14.2 That the plaintiff’s unfounded and frivolous suit has caused the
defendant mental anguish, sleepless nights and suffering as well
as public humiliation and embarrassment, for which she claims
moral damages of P300,000 and exemplary damages of P100,000.

TIMELINESS
16. That this ANSWER is submitted seasonably, or within the 15 days from
the date of receipt on May 31, 2016, today being June 15, 2016.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that this
Honorable Court render judgment as follows:

1. DISMISS the complaint due to a defective certification against forum-

shopping and lack of jurisdiction ;

2. DISMISS the complaint for lack of cause of action;

3. DISMISS the complaint for utter lack of merit and for being baseless;

4. ORDER the plaintiff to pay defendant attorney’s fee of P50,000 and

P4,000 fee per appearance, plus moral damages of P300,000 and
exemplary damages of P100,000; and

5. GRANT such other relief consistent with law and equity, and for costs.
Las Pinas City, June 15, 2016.

NARAG LAW OFFICE

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

By:

MARIO P. NARAG, JR.

Roll No. 56274
PTR No. 10999105-J/01-04-2016
IBP No. 1017158/01-04-2016
8 | Answer – BT v. ED
 MCLE Compliance No. V-0020347
dated April 11, 2016

Copy furnished:

ATTY. XYZ
Counsel for the Plaintiff
XXXXX

BT
Zapote-Alabang Road,
Talon Uno, Las Pinas City

EXPLANATION
A copy of this ANSWER was sent to the Plaintiff and his Counsel through
registered mail as personal service is impracticable.

MARIO P. NARAG, JR.

9 | Answer – BT v. ED