REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPTIAL JUDICIAL REGION
MAKATI CITY, BRANCH XII
Angelo S. Santos,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

Civil Case No. 11111-13

Beatrice T. Chang,
Defendant,
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant Beatrice T. Chang (Defendant), by counsel,
respectfully states that:
Admissions and Denials
1. She admits the contents of paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Complaint.
2. She admits the contents of paragraph 5 only insofar as to the
fact of her non-appearance in the wedding, but specifically
denies that it was deliberate and her part and specifically
denies that there was a breach of her promise to marry for the
reasons stated in the Affirmative Defenses below.
3. She admits the allegations in paragraphs 6 and 9 only insofar
as the Plaintiff in fact shouldered the expenses for the wedding,
but specifically denies the amount of expenses for lack of
knowledge.
4. The allegations in paragraph 7 are specifically denied for lack of
knowledge.
5. The allegations in paragraph 12 are specifically denied for the
reasons stated in the Affirmative Defenses below.
6. She specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 14 for lack
of knowledge and for the reasons stated in the Affirmative
Defenses below.
7. She specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 17 for lack
of knowledge on the fact of Plaintiffs psychological counseling,

and specifically denies the fact that it was a willful act of

shaming for the reasons stated in the affirmative defenses
below.
8. She specifically denies the contets of paragraph 18 for lack of
knowledge.
Affirmative Defenses
9. The foregoing are repleaded.
10.
Defendant submits that the complaint
dismissed as it fails to state a cause of action.

should

be

11.
For the first cause of action, Defendant should not be
liable for the expenses for the wedding because, Defendant
only wanted to have an intimate gathering shouldered by both
of them, but it was Plaintiff who insisted on having a lavish
wedding instead.
12.
Plaintiff persuaded Defendant to have the lavish wedding
on the assurance that he will shoulder all the expenses for the
wedding. In doing so, Plaintiff assumed all the responsibilities
concerning the wedding expenses.
13.
For the second cause of action, Plaintiff is not entitled to
moral damages on account of the non-happening of the
wedding because Defendant was not in bad faith.
14.
There was no deception on the part of the Defendant and
she was not motivated by revenge. The Defendant was
prepared to marry Plaintiff, as also shown in the Certification
from the priest who conducted their marriage seminar attached
as Annex B.
15.
The non-appearance of Defendant on their wedding day
was not deliberate and not a willful act of shaming the Plaintiff
for the reason that Defendant was raped the night before their
wedding, while she was already at the hotel preparing for the
upcoming wedding. The rape incident is shown on the Police
Report attached as Annex C and the Medico-Legal Report
attached as Annex D.
16.
Due to the trauma and shame of the untoward incident
that befell the Defendant the night before her marriage, she
secluded herself from her friends and family. She was even
diagnosed with Rape Trauma Syndrome under a Psychological

Report attached as Annex E.

Counterclaim
17.

The foregoing are repleaded.

18.
On account of the filing of this suit, the Defendant
experienced mental anguish, sleepless nights, besmirched
reputation and social humiliation for reliving and pain and
trauma she experienced when she was raped the night before
her wedding. Thus, Defendant is entitled to moral damages.
19.
The Defendant is also entitled to attorneys fees because
she was compelled to secure the services of counsel to
vindicate her legal rights.
Prayer
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that,
after due hearing, this Honorable Court render a judgment in
Defendants favor by dismissing the Complaint and granting
Defendants counterclaim of:
a. Php500,000 for Moral Damages; and
b. Php100,000 for Attorneys Fees.
Other just and equitable reliefs likewise prayed for.
Makati City, November 12, 2013.

Ambas, Evangelista, Jalandoni,

Mesina and Tuazon Law Offices
Counsel for Defendant
14F Tower One, Ayala Avenue,
Makati City
AEJMTlaw@yahoo.com
(02) 801-2345

Copy Furnished by Personal Service:

Alcantara, Cario, Hernandez,
Lumanog and Rellosa Law Offices
Counsel for Plaintiff
Jane Doe
Clerk of Court
Branch XII, RTC Makati