REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENTR OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AUTHORITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY ARBITRATION BOARD (CIAC)
MAKATI CITY

GOTO DENSHI MFG. PHILS.,

INC.,
Claimant,

- versus –
CIAC Case No. 27-2019
For: Collection of Money,
Damages and Cost

JTO CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION,
Respondent.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

MOTION TO DECLARE
RESPONDENT IN DEFAULT

CLAIMANT, by counsel, to this Arbitration Commission,

respectfully states:

1. On 12 April 2019, plaintiff filed a Request for Arbitration/

Complaint before this Arbitration Commission against respondent for
the construction of its new factory project located in TECO Industrial
Park, Ninoy Aquino Highway, Bo. Bundagul, Mabalacat City.

2. Accordingly, the Arbitration Commission ordered

respondent to file its Answer within fifteen (15) days from the receipt
of the aforementioned Request for Arbitration/Complaint. Herein
respondent however filed a purported answer in Attempt to comply to
the said Order on ______________.

3. Much to the dismay of the plaintiff, however, respondent

rehashed plaintiff’s allegations in its complaint and merely indicated
its comments without offering any substantial information to rebut
claimant.

4. Respondent’s Answer to claimant’s complaint reads like a

farce – using phrases like “Noted”, “Noted but subject to validation”,
“Subject for validation” and the like, a plain reading of which suggest
 2

no tinge of effort to arbitrate given the huge amount of money

involved in claimant’s complaint.

5. By merely indicating its comments in each allegations of

claimant’s complaint, respondent failed to tender an issue. A closer
look of the Answer filed by respondent would even disclose that he
neither interposed a specific denial nor a general denial as required
by the manner of alleging allegations of pleadings under the Rules of
Court.

6. There was no competent allegation, nay, substantial

information that can be gleaned in his Answer which would be
sufficient enough to be a basis of response to claimant’s complaint.
Respondent’s failure to specify material allegations in its Answer
therefore warrants that his Answer be deemed not filed at all.

7. Under these circumstances, the Honorable Commission

may now declare Defendant in default and proceed the
commencement of the arbitral proceedings under Sec 5.1 of Rule 5 of
the 2017 CIAC Revised Rules of Procedure, which provides:

“SECTION 5.1. Time to answer - The

Respondent shall, within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of the Request for
Arbitration/Complaint, file its answer thereto
including such counterclaim/s as it may
assert. For justifiable reason/s, Respondent
may apply to CIAC for an extension of time to
file its answer. If Respondent fails to do so,
the arbitration shall proceed in accordance
with these Rules.”

8. Assuming arguendo that the Answer of respondent

constitutes a substantial compliance for his responsive pleading, in
an ordinary civil action, the Answer filed by respondent is akin to a
situation where judgment on the pleadings is appropriate. Under
Section 1 of Rule 34 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, "Where the
answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material
allegations of the adverse party’s pleading, the court may on motion
of the plaintiff, render judgment upon the pleadings."

9. Moreover, a responsive pleading requires specific denial,

i.e., respondent must specify each material allegation of fact the truth
of which he does not admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth
 3

the substance of the matters which he will rely upon to support

his denial.1

10. Since specific denial is required, there is no question that

any material averment not specifically denied is admitted to be true
and need not be proved. Thus, in an ordinary civil action, where there
is general denial, judgment on the pleadings is proper.

11. The rationale of requiring respondent in making a specific

denial is to make him briefly disclose the matters alleged in the
complaint which he intends to disprove at the trial, together with the
matter which he relied upon to support such denial. 2

12. While judicial rules are not controlling in Arbitration

proceedings, this does not hinder the Honorable Commission to find
the same principle binding and applicable in the proceedings before
it, where it is clear that the Answer was filed for the purpose of
confusing the adverse party and for the purpose of delay.

13. Given that respondent’s Answer contained an

unexplained denial of information, information which is within his
exclusive control and are readily accessible to him, it is therefore
proper that his Answer shall be treated like a mere scrap of paper so
as to avoid a mockery of the arbitration process.

14. In light of the defective Answer filed by respondent,

Claimant humbly seeks the indulgence of the Honorable Commission
to find that the Answer is deficient in substance and in form according
to the rules on responsive pleading and find that it should be deemed
not filed at all.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Arbitration

Board:
1. Declare respondent in default; and
2. Proceed with the commencement of Arbitral proceedings;

Claimant prays for such other reliefs as may be deemed just

and equitable.

Angeles City, 03 April 2019.

HIPOLITO TUAZON VILLANUEVA

LAW OFFICES
1
Section 10 of Rule 8 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
2
Cua v. Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. et al., G.R. No. 171331, July 11, 2012, 676 SCRA 143, 153.
 4

Counsel for the Petitioner

Ground Floor Angeles Business Center
Nepo Mart Complex, Angeles City.
Tel No. 436-1761; 887-1577 & 885-2713

By: SABRINA VILLANUEVA SUAREZ

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Copy furnished:

JOHN D. OLASO Registry Receipt No. _______

Respondent ________25 May 2019
Unit 13 Alava Quay, Global
Commercial Bldg., Waterfront
Rd., Subic Bay Freeport Zone