REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 90, QUEZON CITY PHILIPPINE LONG

DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC. Plaintiff, Civil Case No. Q-99-38800 -versusPHILIPPINE LEAGUE FOR DEMOCRATIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. and GERARDO KAIMO Defendants x----------------------------x ANSWER (With Compulsory Counterclaims) Comes now defendant Philippine League for Democratic Telecommunications, Inc. ("PLDT, Inc." for brevity), through counsel, unto this Honorable Court respectfully represents that: ADMISSIONS 1. That defendant PLDT, Inc. admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2. [a] except its address which is now at LPL Center Unit 15-B, 130 L. P. Leviste Street (formerly Alfaro Street), Salcedo Village, Makati City. 2. The averment in paragraph 3 of the complaint is admitted; DENIALS 3. The allegations stated in paragraphs 1, 2[b], 4, 5, 6, 28, and 31 are specifically DENIED for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof; 4. The averments contained in paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 of the complaint are specifically DENIED, the truth being stated in the special and affirmative defenses incorporated hereinbelow; and defendant PLDT, Inc. furthers avers by way of -

and therefore has no legal capacity to sue.COM. plaintiff was incorporated in 1928.I SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES: That FIRST DEFENSE 5. the domain name and website PLDT. Rules of Court) THIRD DEFENSE 7. As admitted by the defendant Gerardo Kaimo himself. Rule 3. has NEITHER participated in. collaborated with nor involved itself in acquiring rights over or in creating a website on the worldwide web or internet using the domain name PLDT. On the other hand. (Section 1." Affidavit of Horacio Lavides (Annex "E.COM belongs to him only as it was acquired. Defendant PLDT. defendant PLDT. uses a separate and distinct website from that of PLDT. Plaintiff has NO legal capacity to sue. plaintiff Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. There is no showing nor any allegation in the complaint that plaintiff re-incorporated itself after the expiration of its 50-year corporate life. Its "application for registration of the service mark "PLDT" was received by the Bureau of Patent. The complaint dismally fails to state a valid cause of action against defendant PLDT. Plaintiff's unfounded assertion of "exclusive and continuous use of the tradename "PLDT" for more than seventy (70) years is a complete prevarication. has no legal corporate existence to begin with. Trademarks and Technology Transfer only on November 19.COM. Inc. Inc." Complaint) . complaint). Admittedly. 1997. as the life span of corporate entities are consittutionally limited to such period. Without re-incorporating upon expiration of the 50-year period. By its own admission (paragraph 4. "I. (See Exh. paid for and being maintained solely by him. Inc. SECOND DEFENSE 6.

FOURTH DEFENSE 8. his Furthermore." which is merely a generic set of letters put together in a particular order. it can only have itself to blame for its gross negligence and extreme incompetence. a number of other local well-known companies do not hold the corresponding top-level dot-com (. Due to plaintiff's lack of diligence to acquire the domain PLDT. the defendant Kaimo still the time. In fact. plaintiff can NOT cause the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a writ of injunction against the "Palestinian Liberation Demolition Team" or "Pangilingan's Lap Dancing Troupe" which both use the initials "PLDT. plaintiff can always try. Since was first to acquire and own said domain name while it was available to anyone who paid the US$70 registration fee at rights thereto must be respected. Similarly. names." Of course. such trademark can NEVER be held exclusive. But even stretching one's imagination and granting that plaintiff holds a trademark on said initials.Plaintiff has NOT and can NOT validly acquire an exclusive trademark over the initials "PLDT. It is a profound insult and affront to all other entities which may happen to also share the initials "PLDT" to be effectively barred from legally using those said initials simply because plaintiff happens to be known by those initials. As is the norm on the registration of Internet domain general policy of "first-come.COM (having been validly registered under and through the vigilant efforts of defendant Kaimo). as such initials are by their very nature GENERIC.com) domain names for their . not just within the territorial jurisdiction of the Honorable Court. but the entire Internet as well. the fact that plaintiff exerted no efforts to get in touch with or at least negotiate with defendant Kaimo over the subject domain name shows the clear unmistakably malicious attitude of insatiable greed of a giant telecommunications company (the plaintiff) lording it over the entire country's telephone consumers like a monopolistic dictator reminiscent of the Marcosian era. however. that plaintiff's attempt to prevent defendants from using the initials "PLDT" on a website simply because it is known by that name bespeaks of sheer arrogance and gall in attempting to monopolize the use of said generic initials. first-serve" applies. The fact remains.

This is owned by Business Products Inc. it is however owned by a Hong Kong brewery. which is instead owned by USA Global Link. which simply shows that there is a clear history and precedent of NOT having one's own tradename for its own domain name. It is owned by Pacific National Bank in Miami.COM. d) Ayala Corporation does not own AYALA. b) Metrobank does not own METROBANK.COM. which is instead by a bank in Panama c) Purefoods does not own PUREFOODS.COM which is instead owned by MCA-Universal in Los Angeles. The nature of the case at hand is unprecedented in local . Inc.COM.COM.COM nor INFOCOM. g) Philippine National Bank does not own PNB. the latter being owned by a company in Indiana. j) Infocom does not own INFO. USA. e) Universal Records Philippines does not own UNIVERSALRECORDS. h) Smart Communications does not own SMART. It is owned by a European Web magazine called "Smart. does not own GLOBE. Some examples of these are cited hereinbelow: a) The Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) does not own BPI. Florida. FIFTH DEFENSE 9." i) Globe Telecommunications GMCR.COM.COM.COM. which is a "portal" or general-content site having nothing to do with telecoms or cell phones. With all due respect.COM. the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the subject and/or nature of the action or suit.respective websites. USA. This belongs to Ayala E-mail Services in Vancouver. USA. in Colorado.COM. f) San Miguel Corporation Philippines does not own SANMIGUEL.

COM website in question. crisscrossing the borders of various countries. it must take notice of the fact that any decision in the instant case will certainly have "far reaching" repercussions beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Honorable Court. did initiate the registration of the PLDT. (3) the legitimacy of the efforts of a local sovereign to enforce rules applicable to global phenomena. (2) the effects of online behavior on individuals or things. Florida in the United States. which is the global network of interconnected computer networks throughout the world. and continues to maintain the same.COM website. . also in the United States. as well as indirectly that of all other users of the PLDT.The Rise of Law in Cyberspace (Stanford Law Review.jurisprudence as it involves the Internet. "The Net thus radically subverts a system of rulemaking based on borders between physical spaces. Post and david Johnson in their article Law and Borders -. Even assuming arguendo that defendant PLDT." As seen in the instant case. the web server hosting the wbesite in question is located in Boca Raton. Inc. SIXTH DEFENSE 10. The very nature of the Internet and cyberspace defies simple traditional concepts of territorial jurisdcition. which may adversely affect innocent third parties outside the territorial boundaries of the Philippines. while the Internet registry of domain names throughout the world (Network Solutions. and territorial jurisdictions nationally and internationally. While the Honorable Court's authority within the territorial boundaries of the Philippines is without question. Inc. The rise of the global computer network is destroying the link between geographical location and: (1) the power of local governments to assert control over online behavior. May 1999): "Cyberspace radically undermines the relationship between legally significant (online) phenomena and physical location. As stated by David G. at least with respect to the claim that cyberspace should naturally be governed by territorially defined rules. But the audience of the website is the entire Internet which spans practically the whole world. plaintiff's suit is directly violative of defendant's constitutional and intrinsic human right to freedom of speech and expression.) resides in Virginia. states. and (4) the ability of physical location to give notice of which sets of rules apply.COM domain name or had caused the creation of the PLDT.

TEARS. "It is granted only on a showing that (a) the invasion of the right is material and substantial. II OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 11. "The party applying for it must show a clear legal right the violation of which is so recent as to make its vindication an urgent one" (Police Commission vs. This clearly seen. Court of Appeals. being can hardly be the "clear legal the issuance of the writs Failing therein. it is has not established a clear legal right to preliminary injunction. even in the humorous disclaimer on the subject website itself: "100% PURE Pinoy -.UNADULTERATED ANGST. They do not misrepresent the statements therein as fact." This disclaimer makes perfectly clear that the contents of the entire website are not in bad faith. RUMORS. right contemplated by the rules warranting prayed for. 117. PAIN. but rather as a means of expressing the personal opinions of the website owner and users. preliminary. 37 SCRA 230). requiring a person to refrain from a particular act (Section 1. Rule 58. and LIES FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY OR YOUR MONEY BACK. Bello. A preliminary injunction is n order granted at any stage of an action prior to final judgment. (b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable. as well as other political and social issues of the day in the form of satirical parody. and (c) there is an urgent and permanent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damages" (Pelajo vs. moreso permanent injunction . From the foregoing discussions. Plaintiff is not entitled to the issuance of writ of preliminary and permanent injunction. certain that plaintiff herein justify the issuance of upon in its application.The PLDT. LAUGHTER. Rules of Court). SCRA 665). The grounds relied utterly bereft of factual and legal bases.COM website is clearly a non-commercial site for the purpose of expressing and ventilating its creator's and users' gripes and dissatisfactions with the plaintiff's services which affect the general consuming public. HORROR.

This rather lackadaisical attitude consittuted gross negligence. a non-stock. justifies the grant of moral damages. By the malicious filing of the instant action which is clearly and utterly unwarranted. sustained moral damages for which the plaintiff should be held liable to pay P 50. 88013. was compelled to engage . Inc. it cannot experience physical suffering or such sentiments as wounded feelings. unfounded and unwarranted. further alleges by way of - III COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS: That - 12. Inc. Court of Appeals. repleads and incorporates the foregoing by way of reference insofar as they are relevant and material hereto: 13. P 50. mental anguish and moral shock. in the present action. The exception to this rule is where the corporation has a good reputation that is debased. Herein defendant is now reputed to be the leading group of professionals who continually monitors and checks plaintiff's abuses and retrogressing services committed against the consuming public. Inc.R. is not being countenanced in a civilized society and to serve as a warning and deterrent against the repetition of the ineptness and indifference that has been unabashedly displayed here by plaintiff. serious anxiety.CANNOT lie. Inc. not being a natural person. Inc. The slackness of plaintiff in dragging the defendant PLDT. 15. defendant PLDT. as rule entitled to moral damages because. non-profit corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws. 14. defendant PLDT. March 19. if not wanton bad faith..0 MILLION as exemplary damages. as this. No. enough to warrant the claim for moral injury suffered by said corporation. has never been besmirched nor tainted until the malicious filing of the instant case by the plaintiff. Inc.0 MILLION. The reputation of defendant PLDT. Defendant PLDT. "A corporation is not. 1990). it should be held to pay to defendant PLDT. resulting in its social humiliation" (Simex International. vs. In order to set an example for the public good that the institution of precipitate actions. Inc. G. Due to and consequent upon the filing of the instant action which is baseless. Defendant PLDT. Inc.

Salcedo Village Makati City . for and as attorney's fees.the services of counsel for which plaintiff should be held liable to pay the sum of P 1. c) P1. b) P 50. plus P 5.000. Makati City for Quezon City. LPL Center 130 Alfaro Street. it is repectfully prayed of this Honourable Court that the case be DISMISSED for being frivolous and unfounded and that the plaintiff be held liable to pay the following sums by way of compulsory counterclaims: a) P 50. Other relief and remedies just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for. for and as attorney's fees.0 MILLION. 1999.000. October 24. Unit 15-B. Domingo & Dizon Counsel for Philippine League for Democratic Telecommunications. Inc. IV PRAYER WHEREFORE.0 MILLION as exemplary damages.0 MILLION as moral damages.00 for every court appearance.00 for every court appearance.0 MILLION and P 5.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times