You are on page 1of 5

1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
CALOOCAN CITY
Branch 128
ELEONORA CELESTINO - CASTRO,
CAROLINA CELESTINO,
Substituted named in behalf of
BENJAMIN B. CELESTINO, FLORA
C. BELTRAN, LINDA VALDEZ,
EMERITA RODRIGUEZ,
PERPETUA DIMLA, and EDILON
MERCADO by JOSE M. MERCADO,
ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
- Versus -

SP. CIVIL CIVIL ACTION No. C-

1112
ABILENE REALTY
CORPORATION, ET AL,
Defendants.
X

* * * * * * * * *

MOTION TO EXPUNGE
(THE AMENDED JOINT JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT)
COMES NOW, the Defendant, Abilene Realty
Corporation, in the above-entitled case, by and
through the Undersigned Counsel and unto Honorable
Court, most respectfully moves that the Joint Judicial
Affidavit of Plaintiffs be Expunged from the records of
the case and in support thereof, most respectfully
avers that:
1. The subject Joint Judicial Affidavit of
Plaintiffs was subscribed and sworn to before a
Notary Public and the same was notarized on April 4,
2014;
2. As may be culled from page 3 of the subject
Joint Judicial Affidavit under the subtitle or subcaption PANGUNANG SALITA, the Lawyers who
conducted the examination of the persons or affiants
in the Joint Judicial Affidavit were ATTY. ROMEO P.
METILLA and ATTY. MICHAEL A. PEROCHO. Under the
Judicial Affidavit Rule
(A.M. No. 12-8-8SC), the required Sworn Attestation at the end of

the Judicial Affidavit shall and must be executed by


the lawyer who conducted or supervised the
examination of the witness and no other. Section 3 of
the Judicial Affidavit Rule (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC) is clear,
categorical and definite on this point;
3. In the Joint Judicial Affidavit of Plaintiffs, the
Attestation as may be gathered from pages 16 to 17
of the same was executed by one - Adm. David R.
Dulfo, and not ATTY. ROMEO P. METILLA and ATTY.
MICHAEL A. PEROCHO, the lawyers mentioned in the
Joint Judicial Affidavit who conducted or supervised
the examination of the witnesses and/or affiants, in
patent violation of Section 4 of the Judicial Affidavit
relative to the required Sworn Attestation of the
Lawyer;
4. Violation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule
becomes even more glaring since it was stated in the
Joint Judicial Affidavit that the examination was
conducted at the Office Chapter at No. 29 Maria Elena
Street, Hayaville Subdivision, Project 8, Quezon City,
Metro Manila whereas, under the Judicial Affidavit
Rule, it is required that the place where the
examination was held or conducted by the lawyer
must be stated (Section 3, paragraph [b], A.M. No.
12-8-8-SC) and not the place, office address or
Chapter Office of one Adm. David R. Dulfo who is not
a Lawyer and who is not authorized under A.M. No.
12-8-8-S to conduct or supervise an examination in
the form of questions and answers to take the place
of the witnesss direct examination ;
5. Moreover, it is indicated in the attestation of
the Joint Judicial Affidavit just below the name of
Plaintiff ADM. DAVID R. DULFO on
the lower right portion of the Attestation Clause
(page 17 of the Judicial Affidavit) that he is an
AFFIANT and the one who conducted or supervised
the
examination
of
the
plaintiffs
witnesses.
Certainly, under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, a lawyer
who did not conducted or supervised the examination
of the witness cannot be an affiant in the attestation
clause of a judicial affidavit. And to be sure, under
the same Rule, a person who is not a Lawyer cannot
also execute a sworn attestation at the end of the
Judicial Affidavit;

6. Moreover, a meticulous perusal of the


Attestation Clause of the Joint Judicial Affidavit (page
16 of the same) reveals that the following persons
were named as the ones who attested to the conduct
of the Joint Judicial Affidavit albeit they did not signed
the attestation clause and/or were not affiants of the
attestation clause,
viz:
Eleonora
B.
Celestino
Castro, Flora

Carpio Beltran, Emerita David Rodriguez, Carolina


Cruz Celestino, Linda Plego Valdez, Pacita Pastor
Anselmo, Jose Madriaga, Merelizabeth Gooden Borde,
Perpetua Leongson Dimla and Beatriz Tubias Sto.
Tomas, et al;
7. It suffice to state that the attestation clause
or segment of the joint judicial affidavit renders the
entirety of the joint judicial affidavit patently
defective and flawed with fatal infirmities owing to its
utter lack of conformity to the requirements of
Section 4 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule;
8. All the Exhibits mentioned in the Joint
Judicial Affidavit (Titik A, Titik B, B-1 to B-9,
K, :K-1, D, E, G and H) were not attached
to the joint judicial affidavit as required by Section 2
(a), subparagraph (2) of the Judicial Affidavit Rule.
The exhibits were not likewise identified and their
authenticity were not established in accordance with
the Rules of Court as required under Section 3 (d)
subparagraph (3) of the Judicial Affidavit Rule;
9. It may not be amiss to state that the Joint
Judicial Affidavit takes the place of the direct
testimony of the witnesses for the plaintiff but the
purpose for which the testimony is offered is not
stated in the Joint Judicial Affidavit;
10. It may not be amiss to state too, that the
evidence of identity of the affiants or witnesses in the
Joint Judicial Affidavit are all Community Tax
Certificates which are not deemed and not recognized
Competent
Evidence
of
Identity
under
A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, February 19, 2008 (RE: 2004
RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE);

11. That plaintiffs subject Joint Judicial Affidavit


patently suffers from scores of fatal infirmities,
violations of the Judicial Affidavit Rule and other
brazen legal flaws which cannot be considered
negligible or slight and cannot demand the liberal
application of the Rules or substantial justice.
Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere
technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the
convenience of a party. (BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS Vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ROMEO
BARZA, ET AL., G.R. No. 168313, October 6, 2010).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most


respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that this
Motion be given its due weight and credence and that
plaintiffs Amended Joint Judicial Affidavit, be
EXPUNGED from the records of the case for being in
utter violation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule and for
being replete with fatal and legal infirmities.
Other reliefs and remedies just and equitable
under the premises are likewise prayed for.
City of Manila for Caloocan City, April 23, 2014.

ATTY. LEOPOLDO P. DELA ROSA


Counsel for Defendant Abilene Realty Corporation
Suite 307 CCI Building
1091 Concepcion Street
Ermita, Manila
PTR No. 2529768/Mla./ 1-07-2014
IBP No. 906971 / 11-28-2012
Roll No. 28195
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020667
June 13, 2013

NOTICE
The Branch Clerk of Court
RTC, Branch 125
Caloocan City

DAVID R. DULFO
No. 29 Maria Elena Street, Hayaville Subdivision
Project 6, Quezon City, Metro Manila
Greetings
Please take notice that Undersigned will submit the
foregoing Motion for the kind consideration and approval of
the Honorable Court on ___________________ , 2014 at
_____________________.

ATTY.

LEOPOLDO

P.

DELA

ROSA

E X PLAN AT I O N
This is to certify as an Officer of the Court that a copy of this
MOTION was served, not by personal service but by registered mail as herein-below
indicated by reason of time, distance, lack of manpower and urgency.

ATTY. LEOPOLDO P. DELA ROSA

Copy furnished:

DAVID R. DULFO
No. 29 Maria Elena Street, Hayaville Subdivision
Project 6, Quezon City, Metro Manila

You might also like