MANILA LAW COLLEGE

MID-TERM EXAM – SPECIAL PROCEEDING 25 March 2022

Explain your answers in detail

1. A and B are husband and wife. They have two (2) children, X and Y. A died
on 14 August 1985. X has five (5) children namely X-1, X-2, X-3, X-4 and X-5
while Y has one (1) child, Y-1. X-5 died on 10 October 1985 leaving his two
(2) children X-5-a and X-5-b, while X died on 20 December 1985. B died in
1997.

On 11 August 1997, X-1 and X-2 filed a petition to settle the intestate estate of
B docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 1. They alleged that all the individuals
mentioned above are the heirs of B and that Y and Y-1 are misappropriating
B’s properties. Y filed a Motion to Dismiss stating that she already filed a
petition for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of B docketed as Spec.
Proc. No. 2. X-1 and X-2 opposed the petition for probate alleging that the
will’s attestation clause did not state the number of pages, the will was written
in Tagalog, and not the English language usually used by B in most of her
legal documents, her signature is forged and that she could not have gone to
Makati where the purported will was notarized due to her failing health and
distance of her residence in Pasay City. They also claimed that based on the
alleged will, more properties will be given to Y contrary to the usual statement
of B during her lifetime that all her properties would be distributed equally
between X and Y. Thus, X-1 and X-2 prayed for the disallowance of probate
and for the proceedings to be converted into an intestate one. If you were the
judge, how would you rule on the issue? Explain your answer.

2. In July 2020, H filed in the RTC of Quezon a petition for the probate of a
document alleged to be the last will and testament of T, who died in
December 2019. Said document, written in Tagalog, institutes petitioner as
sole heir of T. The petition for probate was opposed by two (2) oppositors who
claimed that the will was revoked by implication of law six years before T’s
death because after making the will, T sold to B the parcels of land described
therein, so that at the time of T's death, the titles to said lands were no longer
in his name. They moved for the dismissal of the petition for probate on that
ground. Decide.

3. X was the former governor of the Province of Laguna. During his lifetime, X
contracted three marriages. His first marriage was with A on March 17, 1942
out of which were born six children. When A died, X married B, an American
citizen, with whom he had a son. B later secured and was granted a Divorce
Decree. Thereafter, X married C in U.S.A. He had no child with C but lived
with her for 18 years from the time of their marriage up to his death.

C filed a dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets and the settlement of

X’s estate. She also filed a petition for letters of administration. She alleged
 that she is the widow of X; that, at the time of his death, the decedent was
residing at 100 San Juanico Street, New Alabang Village, Alabang, Metro
Manila; that the decedent’s surviving heirs are C as legal spouse, his six
children by his first marriage, and son by his second marriage; that the
decedent left real properties, both conjugal and exclusive, valued at ₱30
Million more or less; that the decedent does not have any unpaid debts. C
prayed that the conjugal partnership assets be liquidated and that letters of
administration be issued to her.

One of the children of C by his first marriage, filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground of failure to state a cause of action because C has no legal personality
to file the petition as she was only a mistress of C considering that the latter,
at the time of his death, was still legally married to B. Decide.

ANSWERS:

1. It is settled that "the law favors testacy over intestacy" (Dy Yieng Seangio vs.
Reyes, 538 Phil. 40, 51 (2006) ) and hence, "the probate of the will cannot be
dispensed with. Article 838 of the Civil Code provides that no will shall pass
either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance
with the Rules of Court. Thus, unless the will is probated, the right of a person
to dispose of his property may be rendered nugatory."(Maninang vs. Court of
Appeals, 199 Phil. 640 (1982) In a similar way, "testate proceedings for the
settlement of the estate of the decedent take precedence over intestate
proceedings for the same purpose." (Cuenco vs. Court of Appeals, 153 Phil.
115 (1973)

The petition below being for the probate of a will, the court's area of inquiry is
limited to the extrinsic  validity thereof. The testator's testamentary capacity
and the compliance with the formal requisites or solemnities prescribed by law
are the only questions presented for the resolution of the court. Any inquiry
into the intrinsic  validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will or the legality of
any devise or legacy is premature. (Nuguid vs. Nuguid, G.R. No. L-23445,
June 23, 1966).

The main issue which the court must determine in a probate proceeding is the
due execution or the extrinsic validity of the will as provided by Section 1,
Rule 75 of the Rules of Court. The probate court cannot inquire into the
intrinsic validity of the will or the disposition of the estate by the testator. Thus,
due execution is "whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely executed
the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law" as mandated by
Articles 805 and 806 of the Civil Code, as follows:

Art. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be subscribed at the end
thereof by the testator himself or by the testator's name written by some other person
in his presence, and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by three
or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.

The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental
witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof,
except the last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively
in letters placed on the upper part of each page.

The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is written,
and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some
other person to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of the
instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the
pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.

If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it shall be

interpreted to them.

Art. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and
the witnesses. The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or
file another with the office of the Clerk of Court.

An examination of Consuelo's will shows that it complied with the formalities required
by the law, except that the attestation clause failed to indicate the total number of
pages upon which the will was written. To address this concern, Y enumerated the
following attributes of the attestation clause and the will itself, which the Court
affirms:

a. The pages are completely and correlatively numbered using the same
typewriting font on all the pages of the will;

b. All indications point to the fact that the will was typewritten using the same
typewriter;

c. There are no erasures or alterations in the will;

d. The notarial acknowledgment states unequivocally or with clarity that the

will consists of five (5) pages including the attestation clause (i.e.[,] the
"pagpapatunay") and the notarial acknowledgment itself (i.e.[,] the
"pagpapatotoong ito");

e. All of the pages of the entire will were properly signed on the appropriate
portions by the testator and the instrumental witnesses;

f. All of the signatures of the testator and the instrumental witnesses on all the
pages of the will are genuine if only for the fact that they are identical/similar
throughout;

g. The oppositors have not adduced, and in fact waived the presentation of,
any kind of evidence to impugn the authenticity of any of the signatures
appearing in the will;
 [h]. The oppositors have not adduced, and in fact waived the presentation of,
any kind of evidence tending to show that the will was allegedly executed by
undue influence or any fraudulent or improper/unlawful means (Catalino
Tanchanco and Ronaldo Tanchanco vs. Natividad Santos, G.R No. 204793,
June 8, 2020

2. True or not, the alleged sale is no ground for the dismissal of the petition for
probate. Probate is one thing the validity of the testamentary provisions is
another.itc-alf The first decides the execution of the document and the
testamentary capacity of the testator; the second relates to descent and
distribution. (Testate Estate of Hilarion Ramagosa vs. Saturnina Ramagosa,
et. al, G.R. No. L-23135)

The alleged revocation implied from the execution of the deeds of conveyance
in favor of the testamentary heir is plainly irrelevant to and separate from the
question of whether the testament was duly executed. For one, if the will is
not entitled to probate, or its probate is denied, all questions of revocation
become superfluous: in law, there is no such will and hence there would be
nothing to revoke. Then, again, the revocation invoked by the oppositors-
appellants is not an express one, but merely implied from subsequent acts of
the testatrix allegedly evidencing an abandonment of the original intention to
bequeath or devise the properties concerned. As such, the revocation would
not affect the will itself, but merely the particular devise or legacy.itc-
alf (Fernandez, et al. vs. Dimagiba, L-23638 and Reyes, et al. vs. Dimagiba,
L-23662, October 12, 1967.)

3. Even assuming that X was not capacitated to marry C, nevertheless, we find

that the latter has the legal personality to file the subject petition for letters of
administration, as she may be considered the co-owner of X as regards the
properties that were acquired through their joint efforts during their
cohabitation.

Section 6,  Rule 78 of the Rules of Court states that letters of administration

may be granted to the surviving spouse of the decedent. However, Section 2,
Rule 79 thereof also provides in part:

SEC. 2. Contents of petition for letters of administration. – A petition for letters

of administration must be filed by an interested person and must show, as far
as known to the petitioner: x x x.

An "interested person" has been defined as one who would be benefited by

the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such
as a creditor. The interest must be material and direct, and not merely indirect
or contingent. 

In the instant case, C would qualify as an interested person who has a direct
interest in the estate of X by virtue of their cohabitation, the existence of which
was not denied by petitioners. If she proves the validity of the divorce and X’s
capacity to remarry, but fails to prove that her marriage with him was validly
performed under the laws of the U.S.A., then she may be considered as a co-
 owner under Article 144 of the Civil Code. This provision governs the property
relations between parties who live together as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void from the beginning. It provides
that the property acquired by either or both of them through their work or
industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-
ownership. In a co-ownership, it is not necessary that the property be
acquired through their joint labor, efforts and industry. Any property acquired
during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their
joint efforts. Hence, the portions belonging to the co-owners shall be
presumed equal, unless the contrary is proven. 

Meanwhile, if respondent fails to prove the validity of both the divorce and the
marriage, the applicable provision would be Article 148 of the Family Code
which has filled the hiatus in Article 144 of the Civil Code by expressly
regulating the property relations of couples living together as husband and
wife but are incapacitated to marry. In Saguid v. Court of Appeals, we held
that even if the cohabitation or the acquisition of property occurred before the
Family Code took effect, Article 148 governs. The Court described the
property regime under this provision as follows:

The regime of limited co-ownership of property governing the union of parties

who are not legally capacitated to marry each other, but who nonetheless live
together as husband and wife, applies to properties acquired during said
cohabitation in proportion to their respective contributions. Co-ownership will
only be up to the extent of the proven actual contribution of money, property
or industry. Absent proof of the extent thereof, their contributions and
corresponding shares shall be presumed to be equal.

MIDTERM EXAM

1. X died intestate, leaving several heirs and substantial property here in the
Philippines.

a) Assuming X left no debts, as counsel for X’s heirs, what steps would you
suggest to settle his estate in the least expensive manner?

b) Assuming X left only one heir and no debts, as counsel for X’s lone heir, what
steps would you suggest?

c) Assuming that the value of X’s estate is only Nine Thousand Pesos
(P9,000.00), what remedy is available to obtain a speedy settlement of his
estate?

2. The last will and testament of the deceased was presented in the proceeding to
settle his estate, and in due course, hearing was set for the probate of the will.
Before evidence thereon could be presented, the legal heirs of the deceased, his
 widow and two surviving daughters, filed a manifestation that the probate of the
will would no longer be necessary since they had already agreed to divide the net
estate differently in accordance with a project of partition attached to their
manifestation. Consequently, they moved that the project of partition be approved
and forthwith implemented without probate of the decedent’s will. Should the
court grant the heirs motion and accordingly approve their project of partition
without probate of the will? Explain

3. In the Special Proceedings for the settlement of the intestate estate of the
deceased Y, his widow by his second marriage, Z, moved for her appointment as
Administratrix of the estate. This was opposed by A, the son of Y by his first wife,
who moved for his appointment instead. The court appointed Z, the widow, as
Administratrix.

a) How may A contest that appointment of Z?

Instead of Administratrix, Z was appointed Special Administratrix.

b) Is the same remedy available to the oppositor, A? Why?

c) If Y left a holographic will, how may it be probated? Explain.

ANSWERS:

1-a) To settle X’s estate in the least expensive manner, an extrajudicial settlement of the
estate by agreement of the parties should be made through a public instrument to be filed
with the Register of Deeds, together with a bond in an amount equivalent to the value of the
personal property involved as certified to under oath by the parties concerned and
conditioned upon payment of any just claim that may be filed within two (2) years by an heir
or other person unduly deprived of participation in the estate. The fact of extrajudicial
settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a
week for three (3) consecutive weeks (Sec. 1 Rule 74) (Page 44)

1-b) If X left only one heir, then the heir may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means
of an affidavit of self-adjudication to be filed also with the Register of Deeds together with the
other requirements abovementioned (Sec. 1 Rule 74)

1-c) As the value of X’s estate does not exceed P10,000.00, the remedy available is to
proceed to undertake a summary settlement of estates of small value by filing a petition in
court and upon hearing, which shall be held not less than one (1) month nor more than three
(3) months from the date of the last publication of a notice which shall be published one a
week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province
and after such other notice to interested persons as the court may direct. The court may
proceed summarily without the appointment of an executor or administrator, and without
delay, grant, if proper, allowance of the will, if any, to determine the persons legally entitled
to participate in the estate, and to apportion and divide it among them after payment of such
debts of the estate as the court shall then find to be due. The order of partition if it involves
real estate, shall be recorded by the proper register’s office (Sec. 2, Rule 74)

2. No, the court may not approve the project of partition without probate of the will, because
no will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it Is proved and allowed in the proper
court (Sec. Rule 75) The law and public policy require the probate of the will because
otherwise, the right of a person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered nugatory.
(Ralla vs. Untalan, 172 SCRA 858) (Page 80)

3-a) By appeal, because the appointment of an administrator is a final order under Rule 109
(Page 151-152

3-b) No, because no appeal is allowed from the appointment of a special administrator (Sec.
1-e, Rule 109)

3-c) A holographic will may be probated by filing a petition for the allowance of said will. If it
is not contested, at least one competent witness who knows the handwriting and signature of
the testator should explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of
the testator. In the absence of any such competent witness, and if the court deem it
necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. If it is contested, at least three witnesses
who know the handwriting of the testator should explicitly declare that the will and the
signature are in the handwriting of the testator. In the absence of any competent witness,
and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. (Sex. 1, 5 and 11
Rule 76)

MANILA LAW COLLEGE

FINAL EXAM – SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

1. X filed a petition in the RTC to correct his birth certificate by changing his
citizenship from “Chinese” to “Filipino” and his status from “legitimate” to
“illegitimate”. The Local Civil Registrar (LCR) was named respondent in the
petition. The notice of hearing was published in a newspaper of general
circulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Notice was also given to the
Office of the Solicitor General who delegated the authority to the Fiscal (now
Public Prosecutor) to appear in the case. A full-blown trial was conducted where
X presented testimonial and documentary evidence. X and his witnesses were
cross-examined by the Fiscal. After hearing, the trial court ordered the LCR to
make the corrections sought by X. The Solicitor General appeared and argued
that substantial changes in the civil registry cannot be made under Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court. Is the contention correct? Why?

2. B, also known in the community as Bounce, filed a petition for change of name to
Bob. The name Bounce appeared in the body of the petition but not in the
caption. When the petition was published, the caption and the body of the petition
 were merely lifted verbatim, so that as published, the petition’s caption still did not
contain Bounce as the petitioner’s alias. The Public Prosecutor filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that, notwithstanding publication for the requisite number
of times, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition because
petitioner’s alias (Bounce) did not appear in the published caption. The court
denied the motion to dismiss with the ruling that there was substantial compliance
with the law and that the omission of the alias in the caption may be deemed de
minimis because the alias was clearly set forth in the petition itself. Was the court
correct in denying the motion to dismiss? Explain

ANSWERS:

1. No, because proceedings under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court may be either
summary or adversary in nature. If the correction sought to be made in the civil
registry is clerical, then the procedure is summary. If the rectification affects the
civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial and the
procedure adopted is adversary. In this case, the procedure was adversary. The
proper notice was published and served on the SolGen. There was a full-blown
trial where X presented testimonial and documentary evidence proving that he is
a Filipino citizen. The prosecutor authorized by the SolGen to appear in the case
participated in the trial and even cross-examined X and his witnesses.
Consequently, the court correctly ordered the LCR to make the corrections
sought (Republic vs. Bautista, 155 SCRA 1)

2. No, the failure of the petitioner to include his alias (Bounce) in the caption is a
jurisdictional defect and the inclusion of the alias in the body of the petition does
not cure said defect. It is because the ordinary reader only glances fleetingly at
the caption in a special proceeding and only if the caption strikes him does he
proceed to ready the body of the petition; hence, he will probably not notice the
other names or aliases of the petitioner (Gil Go vs. Republic 77 SCRA 65)

MANILA LAW COLLEGE

MID-TERM EXAM – SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Explain your answers in detail

4. X died intestate, leaving several heirs and substantial property here in the
Philippines.

d) Assuming X left no debts, as counsel for X’s heirs, what steps would you
suggest to settle his estate in the least expensive manner?

e) Assuming X left only one heir and no debts, as counsel for X’s lone heir, what
steps would you suggest?
 f) Assuming that the value of X’s estate is only Nine Thousand Pesos
(P9,000.00), what remedy is available to obtain a speedy settlement of his
estate?

5. The last will and testament of the deceased was presented in the proceeding to
settle his estate, and in due course, hearing was set for the probate of the will.
Before evidence thereon could be presented, the legal heirs of the deceased, his
widow and two surviving daughters, filed a manifestation that the probate of the
will would no longer be necessary since they had already agreed to divide the net
estate differently in accordance with a project of partition attached to their
manifestation. Consequently, they moved that the project of partition be approved
and forthwith implemented without probate of the decedent’s will. Should the
court grant the heirs motion and accordingly approve their project of partition
without probate of the will? Explain

6. In the Special Proceedings for the settlement of the intestate estate of the
deceased Y, his widow by his second marriage, Z, moved for her appointment as
Administratrix of the estate. This was opposed by A, the son of Y by his first wife,
who moved for his appointment instead. The court appointed Z, the widow, as
Administratrix.

d) How may A contest that appointment of Z?

Instead of Administratrix, Z was appointed Special Administratrix.

e) Is the same remedy available to the oppositor, A? Why?

f) If Y left a holographic will, how may it be probated? Explain.

ANSWERS:

1-a) To settle X’s estate in the least expensive manner, an extrajudicial settlement of the
estate by agreement of the parties should be made through a public instrument to be filed
with the Register of Deeds, together with a bond in an amount equivalent to the value of the
personal property involved as certified to under oath by the parties concerned and
conditioned upon payment of any just claim that may be filed within two (2) years by an heir
or other person unduly deprived of participation in the estate. The fact of extrajudicial
settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a
week for three (3) consecutive weeks (Sec. 1 Rule 74) (Page 44)
1-b) If X left only one heir, then the heir may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means
of an affidavit of self-adjudication to be filed also with the Register of Deeds together with the
other requirements abovementioned (Sec. 1 Rule 74)

1-c) As the value of X’s estate does not exceed P10,000.00, the remedy available is to
proceed to undertake a summary settlement of estates of small value by filing a petition in
court and upon hearing, which shall be held not less than one (1) month nor more than three
(3) months from the date of the last publication of a notice which shall be published one a
week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province
and after such other notice to interested persons as the court may direct. The court may
proceed summarily without the appointment of an executor or administrator, and without
delay, grant, if proper, allowance of the will, if any, to determine the persons legally entitled
to participate in the estate, and to apportion and divide it among them after payment of such
debts of the estate as the court shall then find to be due. The order of partition if it involves
real estate, shall be recorded by the proper register’s office (Sec. 2, Rule 74)

2. No, the court may not approve the project of partition without probate of the will, because
no will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it Is proved and allowed in the proper
court (Sec. Rule 75) The law and public policy require the probate of the will because
otherwise, the right of a person to dispose of his property by will may be rendered nugatory.
(Ralla vs. Untalan, 172 SCRA 858) (Page 80)

3-a) By appeal, because the appointment of an administrator is a final order under Rule 109
(Page 151-152

3-b) No, because no appeal is allowed from the appointment of a special administrator (Sec.
1-e, Rule 109)

3-c) A holographic will may be probated by filing a petition for the allowance of said will. If it
is not contested, at least one competent witness who knows the handwriting and signature of
the testator should explicitly declare that the will and the signature are in the handwriting of
the testator. In the absence of any such competent witness, and if the court deem it
necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. If it is contested, at least three witnesses
who know the handwriting of the testator should explicitly declare that the will and the
signature are in the handwriting of the testator. In the absence of any competent witness,
and if the court deem it necessary, expert testimony may be resorted to. (Sex. 1, 5 and 11
Rule 76)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL
3rd Floor, MWSS Administration Building
Katipunan Road, Diliman, Quezon City
DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES CORPORATION,
Complainant,

-versus- ADMIN. CASE NO. MDD-ER-16-001

For: Simple Neglect of Duty, Rule 10,
Section 50-D (1) of the 2017 RACCS

VICTOR V. TEJONES,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
(of Alfie B. Solis)

OFFER OF TESTIMONY:

The testimony of the witness is being offered to:

1. To disprove the materials allegations in the Formal Charge filed against the
above-named respondent
2. Identify the documents (including this Judicial Affidavit) executed in connection
with the instant case as well as other pertinent evidence, and
3. Testify on other relevant and material matters

I, Alfie B. Solis, of legal age, a resident of Block 16 Lot 17 Metroville Subdivision,

Imus, Cavite, after subscribing under oath, declare that:

Prosecutor Anne Geraldine T. Agar, assigned at the Office of the City Prosecutor,
Room 308, 3rd Floor, Manila, conducts the examination of herein affiant at her office;

The affiant-witness is answering the questions asked of him, fully conscious that he
does under oath, and that he may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.

Questions asked of the witness are as follows:

1. Q: Please state your full name, address, occupation, and other personal
circumstances, for the record.
 A: Alfie B. Solis, of legal age, a resident of Block 16 Lot 17 Metroville Subdivision,
Imus, Cavite, an employee of Duty Free Philippines and currently holding the
position of Senior Applications Developer at the Information Technology
Department (ITD), Management Information Services Division (MISD)

2. Q: You said that you are a Senior Applications Developer at the Information
Technology Department (ITD), Management Information Services Division
(MISD), when did you assume that position, Sir?

A: I assumed that position on ________, Ma’am

3. Q: Can you tell us some of your duties and responsibilities as Senior Applications
Developer?

A: My duties and responsibilities include, among others, the development and

implementation of software applications using Visual Basic 6.0/ VB Net. RPG/ILE
and advanced technologies to produce configurable, reusable, scaleable and
secure software solutions

4. Q: Do you know a certain Maricor Geslani of Non-Consumables Department,

Merchandising Division?

A: Yes, Ma’am

5. Q: Why do you know her?

A: I know her because aside from the fact that she is an employee of Duty Free, I
and Mr Victor Tejones assisted her in setting up the Price Events (PEs) in
connection with the Friday Madness Event that was held on 26 December 2014,
Ma’am

6. Q: How about a certain Jennifer F. Start, do you know her?

A: Yes, Ma’am

7. Q: Why do you know her?

A: I know her because at the time that the said Friday Madness Event would be
held, she was then the Merchandising Division Manager of Ms. Geslani, Ma’am

8. Q: If you know, what is her participation, if any, in the conduct of that Friday
Madness Event?

A: What I know is that apart from the fact that she is the Merchandising Division
Manager, and that her division is in charge of the said event, I also learned that
she adopted the recommendation of Mr. Charles A. Merioles, the Management
Information Services Division (MISD) Manager, to use the “Per Vendor Number”
option of the Merchandise Management System (MMS) during the said Friday
Madness Event.
9. Q: What is that “Per Vendor Number” option all about?

A: It is an option for batch data entry only. Instead of encoding each

Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) with its promo price via “Turbo Entry”, the user can use
this option to select multiple SKUs and indicate a discount percentage applicable
to the selected SKU. This approach will significantly make data encoding faster,
therefore saving time for the Merchandising Division

10. Q: When did you come to know that Ms. Start adopted the recommendation of
Mr. Merioles to use the “Per Vendor Number” option?

A: When Ms. Start and Ms. Geslani came to the office of Mr. Merioles/our office
(ANO ANG TAMA DITO SA DALAWANG ITO?) asking our office to assist them
in _____ (ano yun hinihingi nila ng tulong) sometime in December 2014, Ma’am.

11. Q: Who were present then?

A: Enumerate the people present at that time

12. Q: Can you tell us the issues that were discussed then?

A: Aside from the adoption of the “Per Vendor Number” option that was
discussed by and between Mr. Merioles and Ms. Start, the selection of the SKUs
in the aforesaid “Per Vendor Number” option was the only matter I and Mr.
Tejones discussed with Ms. Geslani.

13. Q: How about the set up/data entry on the PE Header?

A: We did not discuss anything about the PE Header

14. Q: Why is it that there was no discussion about the set up/data entry on the PE
Header?

A: Not only because it was not part of her inquiry but also because the selection
of the SKUs in the aforesaid “Per Vendor Number” option has nothing to do and
has no effect at all when it comes to the set-up/data entry on the PE Header.

15. Q: Do you know that an error was made on the PE Header when the Friday
Madness Event was held on 26 December 2014?

A: I came to know about it later, Ma’am.

16. Q: Based on your knowledge as Senior Applications Developer, can the use of
the “Per Vendor Number” option cause error on the PE Header?
A: No. Any PE Header error during the conduct of the said Friday Madness Event
cannot be attributed to the recommendation to use the “Per Vendor Number”
option, Ma’am

17. Q: Do you recall having executed a document in connection with the case filed
against respondent?
 A: Yes, Ma’am. My Affidavit

18. Q: If you will see that document, will you be able to identify it?

A: Yes, Ma’am

19. Q: Please go over this document, what can you say about it?

A: This is the same document, Ma’am

20. Q: There is a signature on top of the name Alfie B. Solis, whose signature is that?

A: That is mine, Ma’am.

21. Q: Do you affirm and confirm the contents of your Affidavit?

A: Yes, Ma’am.

Manifestation and Marking:

Atty. Agar: Your Honor, the witness identified his Affidavit dated 07 July 2016 which
is attached to his Judicial Affidavit. It was marked as Exhibit “___” May we pray that
the signature identified by the witness be marked as Exhibit “____-1”.

22. Q: Is there anything more you would like to say?

A: I am adopting my Affidavit as part of my Judicial Affidavit.

Manifestation:

Atty. Agar: That will be all for the witness, Your Honor.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this ___day of

______, 2022 in Manila.

ALFIE B. SOLIS
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME on the date and place above mentioned.

ANNE GERALDINE T. AGAR

ATTESTATION
 I, ANNE GERALDINE T. AGAR, upon being duly sworn, depose and state that:

1. I faithfully recorded or caused to be recorded the questions I asked and the

corresponding answers that the witness gave; and
2. Neither I nor any other person then present coached the witness regarding the
latter’s answer.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I affixed my signature on the date and place first written.

ANNE GERALDINE T. AGAR

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME on the day and in the place above-
mentioned. I further certify that I have personally examined the affiant and that I am satisfied
that she voluntarily executed and understood the contents of her attestation.

_________________________________
Administering officer

Cc:

Atty. Dinoy, etc

Dear Atty. Moya,

May I respectfully request for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum only to :

1. PSsg Dylan Verdan and

2. Pat Ma. Jerem Baldemor 

for the hearing set at 2:30PM of 26 October 2020.

Thank you and keep safe.

Very truly yours,

Anne Geraldine T. Agar