Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Branch 5
Cagayan de Oro City

PAUL ANTHONY CASTRO PIZARRO Civil Case No. M-CDO-22-00863-CV

Complainant

-vs-

ROLLEN NAALITAN AND LEVY JARIOLNE For: DAMAGES

Respondent

x- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -/

ANSWER

DEFENDANT, ROLLEN NAALITAN, thru the undersigned counsel, unto

this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

I. PRAYER FOR THE

ADMISSION OF THE ANSWER

1. The Order of this Honorable Court dated August 26, 2022 was only
received by the undersigned counsel on September 17, 2022;

2. The undersigned counsel filed a Motion for Extension on September 19,

2022;

3. A decision for said Motion has not been adjudicated as of the moment;
but notwithstanding the foregoing, the undersigned counsel prays before
this Honorable Court to admit the Answer in the interests of justice.

II. ANSWERS TO THE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF THE

COMPLAINT WITH COUNTER-STATEMENTS

1. Paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are all admitted.

1|Page
2. Paragraph 13 is specifically denied for lack of personal knowledge to
ascertain whether or not Defendant Levy Jariolne unjustly,
maliciously, and intentionally failed to present complete and
sufficient documents. Levy Jariolne had shown the defendant papers
and he was not on a position to determine the veracity of the same.

3. Paragraph 14 is specifically denied. Defendant was rushed by Levy

Jariolne to depart immediately after the charcoals were loaded. He
was told by the latter that the papers were in the possession of her
nephew, Mr. Rolan Cabigquez who was also with him at that trip.

4. Paragraph 15 is admitted.

5. Paragraph 16 is admitted.

6. Paragraph 17 is admitted with qualifications. It was not only the

Philippine National Police Highway Patrol Group (PNP-HPG) that
apprehended the Defendant but also a personnel from the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) were
also included.

7. Paragraph 18 is specifically denied. The truck was apprehended not

for the lack of Certificate of Public Convenience(CPC); but instead, it
was flagged for loading a charcoal. With that, the specific documents
required for carrying of a charcoal is way beyond my
comprehension.

8. Paragraph 19 is specifically denied. Defendant is not in a position to

determine Plaintiff’s state of mind.

9. Paragraph 20 is specifically denied. Herein defendant is the one who

took initiative of calling plaintiff and informed the latter of what
happened. It took defendant three (3) days to call plaintiff since he
was scared and did not want to dismay his employer. It was not his
intention to conceal this matter to his employer who had been the
source of his bread-and-butter for the last twenty (20) years.

10. Paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 are ad since defendant did not lie to
plaintiff. In fact, defendant called plaintiff of what happened albeit
only made two (2) or three(3) days after the incident.

2|Page
 11. Paragraph 24 and 25 are admitted but with clarifications that
Defendant’s intention was to appease Plaintiff and not to purposely
defraud him.

12. Paragraphs 26 and 27 are specifically denied for lack of personal

knowledge to ascertain an information to form a reasonable belief as
to the veracity of the allegation.

13. Paragraphs 28-41 are all denied for these are matters to be
adjudicated out by the Honorable Court.

III. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

DEFENDANT DID NOT

ACT WITH BAD FAITH

There is negligence on the part of Defendant for not immediately

informing the Plaintiff of the apprehension, but let it be noted that
said omission was not attended by bad faith. Jurisprudence provides
that bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence.
It imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and
conscious doing of a wrong. It means a breach of a known duty
through some motive, interest or ill will that partakes of the nature
of fraud.1

In the case at bar, defendant Naalitan exhausted all the possible

remedies to resolve the incident. Upon apprehension, he
immediately contacted Levy Jariolne demanding from the latter
documents. Instead of cooperating, Levy Jariolne intentionally
turned-off her phone.

It was a bad judgment on his part to belatedly tell the Plaintiff of

what happened; but nevertheless, he did not intend to evade
Plaintiff. It just happened that it took him three (3) days to muster all
the courage to tell Plaintiff of what happened.

. Spouses Maximo Espinoza and Winifreda de Vera vs. Spouses Antonio Mayandoc and Erlinda
1

Cayabyab Mayandoc, G.R. No. 211170

3|Page
 OURS IS NOT ONLY A COURT OF
LAW, BUT ALSO A COURT OF
JUSTICE

In Pangan vs Court of Appeals,2 it was held that:

We stressed that this court is not only a court of law but

also of justice. Faced with a choice between a decision that
will serve justice and another that will deny it because of a
too-strict interpretation of the law, we must resolve in favor
of the former, for the ultimate end of the law is justice.
Bonus ju dex secundum acquum at nonum judicat strict
juri praefert.”

Assuming arguendo that Defendant is negligent, the prayer sought

by th Plaintiff is way beyond the former’s financial capacity.
Defendant is a destitute member of the society who live in a mouth-
to-hand existence.

Given the status of the Defendant who is negligent but without bad
faith, it will be inequitable if he will be solidarily liable for the
purported obligation.

VI. DOCUMENTARY EXHIBIT

Exhibit
Photocopy of the Employment A
Identification Card of Defendant
Rollen R. Naaliatan in order to
prove that he was an employee of
Paul Anthony Castro Pizarro

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant Rollen Naalitan prays
that the Complaint against his person be DISMISSED.

Furthermore, undersigned counsel respectfully prays that he be

furnished copies of all the pleadings, orders and notices relative to the instant
case at its address indicated below.

2
150 SCRA 259

4|Page
 Other and further reliefs just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.

Cagayan de Oro City, September 26, 2022.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

MGC LAW FIRM

Suite #3, 2nd Floor Rego Building (PNB Carmen Branch)
296 Agoho Drive, Zone 1 Carmen
9000 Cagayan de Oro City

By:

ATTY. RAPHAEL P. RIVAS

Counsel for the Complainant
Roll No. 82157
IBP No. 217990 issued on May 28, 2022
PTR No. 1838700 issued on June 20, 2022
MCLE Compliance No.
(Admitted to the BAR on May 27, 2022)
TIN 454-546-281

COPY FURNISHED & NOTIFICATION

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

Cagayan de Oro, Misamis Oriental

Atty. Sylvan Gerald L. Sabio

Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Unti F, 2nd Floor, Uptown Corner Building,
B-2, L-2, Golden Glow North Commercial
Macapagal Avenue, Upper Carmen
Cagayan de Oro City

5|Page