REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Trade and Industry

PHILIPPINE CONTRACTORS ACCREDITATION BOARD
(PCAB)Makati City, Philippines

IN RE: PCAB Case No.: 0423-0019

Violation of Section. 28 par.(f) RA 4566
F-DEY CONSTRUCTION AND TRADING

X-----------------------------------------------X
ANSWER
Comes Now RESPONDENT, thru the undersigned, unto this
HONORABLE BOARD, respectfully states that;

1. On April 25, 2023, the respondent received a summons via electronic mail
from the Honorable Board ordering the respondent to file its verified answer
within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
2. The Summons was issued in relation to a media report about the death of a
certain Ramiro Baterina Sr., on November 18, 2022 around 4:00 in the
morning.
3. Herein respondents would like to strenuously manifest that neither a civil
nor criminal case was filed against the respondents. No blotter was sent,
police or incident report that was submitted to the authorities. Instead, the
respondent was ordered to file an answer regarding the death of Mr.
Baterina, without being informed of the circumstances surrounding his
death.
4. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, here is the respondents’ answer.
 I. The main issue in this case is whether or not the respondent is liable under Section 28,
Article 6 of R.A 4566.

ARTICLE VI
Disciplinary Action

Section 28. Causes for disciplinary action. The following shall constitute causes for disciplinary
action:

(f) The doing of any willful or fraudulent act by the licensee as a

consequence of which another is injured or damaged;
5. To begin with, there is nothing willful nor fraudulent in the actions of
the licensee which could merit any disciplinary act from the BOARD.
(Bold face supplied)
6. From the onset, safety was the primary consideration of the respondents.
The respondent was hand in hand with the government in making sure that
any possibility of an accident was minimized during the duration of the
project.
7. On August 5, 2022, a complaint was sent to the DPWH informing the latter
of the alleged lack of safety warning devices in the area. The respondents
immediately installed several early warning devices in the area and also
placed flagmen to assist in the conduct of the traffic.
(Attached here are the pictures proving compliance to the directive
of the DPWH marked as Annexes “A” to “W”)

8. Said photos, taken way back before the incident only prove that the
contractor was not remiss in its duty to ensure as much as possible
safety in the construction site.

9. Furthermore, a statement was issued by Chairman Danilo Mariano ABC,

Sto. Cristo Norte, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, basically saying that the respondent
was never remiss in its duty to install early warning devices in the area.
(A copy of the notarized statement of Barangay Captain Mariano is
hereby attached as Annex “X”).
10. Finally, the undersigned respondent would like to direct the attention of
the Honorable Board to the Incident Report issued by Project Engineer
Mario S. Javier. In the said incident report, Engr Javier said that “this
project was closely monitored to ensure that the contractor strictly complied
with the requirements, including the installation of sufficient road safety
devices and warning signs throughout the project’s duration.
(Please see herein attached incident report of Engr. Mario Javier marked
as Annex “Y”.)

11. It is elementary that in any proceeding, “he who alleges must be able to
prove”. The Supreme Court is explicit in saying that

To hold a defendant liable for torts, it must be clearly shown that he

is the proximate cause of the harm done to the plaintiff. The nexus
or connection of the cause and effect, between a negligent act and
the damage done, must be established by competent evidence.
(G.R. No. 164749 ROMULO ABROGAR and ERLINDA
ABROGAR, Petitioners vs
COSMOS BOTTLING COMPANY and INTERGAMES, INC.,
Respondents)

12. There is overwhelming evidence that the contractor installed early

warning devices to warn motorists of an ongoing road construction in the
area. The respondents proved that it has exercised the required diligence to
prevent any untoward incident on the construction site.
13. While the respondents were able to controvert claims that they were
negligent, the complainant failed to submit any evidence showing the same.
14. No police report was ever submitted. There was no medico-legal report,
no death certificate, or any affidavit indicating that the respondent was
 indeed negligent. And mysteriously, why was there no case filed in court? A
proper disposition of this case would have been judiciously ruled upon by
the court to determine who among the parties is liable after the court’s
appreciation of the evidence submitted by both parties.
15. The respondents nevertheless extend their condolences to the deceased’s
family and have extended attempts to assist the heirs of the victim
financially. Be that as it may, such assistance is in no way an admission of
guilt on the part of the respondents, having exercised the diligence required
of them during the duration of the project.

Affiant

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST NON-FORUM SHOPPING,

SPLITTING A SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION AND MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS

I, Lagry Garcia of legal age, Filipino, married/single/widow/widower, and

a resident of ______________________________________________________, on oath,
state:

1. That I am the authorized legal representative in the above-entitled

case, and that I have caused this ANSWER to be prepared; that I read and
understood its contents which are true and correct of my own personal
knowledge and/or based on true records;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ___________ day

of _____________________, 20_____.
AFFIANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of May, 2023, the
affiant presenting her competent evidence of identity issued by ____ on
_____ at _________________.

Notary Public

Doc:____

Page:____

Book :