Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

11th Judicial Region Branch __ Davao City
PRIORITY INSURANCE & SURETY CORPORATION, Plaintiff. -versusMS. ABING Defendant. X-------------------------X CIVIL CASE NO. 33,777-2 !2 For: S"# $% M$n&', (a#a)&* an+ A,,$rn&'-* .&&*

ANS/ER /IT0 SPECIAL1A..IRMATIVE (E.ENSES AN( COMPULSORY COUNTER-CLAIM

COMES NO/ the defendant through the undersigned counsel and unto this !onorable Court "ost respectfully sub"its this An*2&r 23,h A%%3r#a,34& (&%&n*&* an+ C$"n,&r-C5a3# by averring that: 1. #he defendant categorically denies the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Co"plaint for lac$ of $no%ledge sufficient to for" a belief as to their truth or falsity& #he defendant ad"its the allegations in paragraphs ' of the Co"plaint& #he allegations in paragraph ( are denied the defendant having no $no%ledge or infor"ation sufficient to for" a belief %ith respect to the truth of the facts therein alleged as %ell as to the genuineness and due e)ecution of *nne) +*+& #he defendant ad"its the allegation in paragraph , only insofar as it alleges the occurrence of the incident. #he defendant has no personal $no%ledge as to the genuineness and due e)ecution of *nne) +-+& #he allegations in paragraph . and / as %ell as the genuineness and due e)ecution of are denied the truth of *nne)es 0C1 and 0D1 are denied the truth of the "atter being that it %as the driver of the !a""er 234 %ho %as at fault. #hus defendant has no obligation to the Plaintiff the insurer or to 5r. Ping the driver and o%ner of the !a""er 234. Further the da"age sustained by the !a""er 234 %as only "inor. 6t could only be out of pure i"agination for the cost of repair to reach T/O 0UN(RE( SI6TY T0OUSAN( PESOS 7Ph8 29 , . :; Defendant specifically denies the allegations in paragraph 7 as %ell as the genuineness and due e)ecution of *nne) 081. Defendant cannot recall

'. (.

,.

..

/.

ANSWER WITH COUNTER-CLAIM Priority Ins. & Surety Corp. v. Ms. A in! Page 1 of 7

having received any de"and letter fro" the plaintiff. 9ranting %ithout ad"itting that she had received the said de"and letter defendant %ould certainly not pay considering that it %as not her car that %as at fault as further sho%n in the special and affir"ative defenses belo%& 7. Defendant specifically denies the allegations in paragraph : and ; for lac$ of $no%ledge sufficient to for" a belief as to their truth or falsity. -esides plaintiff has itself to bla"e for filing the baseless suit&

SPECIAL1A..IRMATIVE (E.ENSES
Defendant hereby repleads all the foregoing and further aver by %ay of affir"ative defenses that: 1. #he plaintiff<s co"plaint lac$s and=or fails to state a cause of action& '. Plaintiff has not been validly subrogated to the rights of 5r. Ping the insured& (. #he Co"plaint is a "ere scrap of paper for failure to co"ply %ith the Rules of Court vis->-vis 4erification and Certification of Pleading

(3*c"**3$n* $n ,h& A%%3r#a,34& (&%&n*&

THE PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT LACKS AND/OR FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION 1. #he Plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant for the follo%ing obvious reasons: a. 6t %as 5r. Ping the driver and at the sa"e ti"e the o%ner of the !a""er 234 %ho %as at fault. !e "ade the vehicle ran at e)tre"ely high speed in gross violation of traffic rules and regulations and %ithout giving due regard to the fact that the vehicle of the defendant %as running at nor"al speed along the center of a MAIN ROA( ? Ro)as 2treet ? and already at the intersection %ith *urora 2treet. b. 5oreover 5r. Ping disregarded Defendant<s right of way as clearly reflected under Par. A S!"tio# $% Arti"&! III Cha't!r I( of the R.A. $)*+ other%ise $no%n as the <Lan+ Tran*8$r,a,3$n an+ Tra%%3c C$+&1. 2aid section states that 0,h!# two -!hi"&!. a''roa"h or !#t!r a# i#t!r.!"tio# at a''ro/i0at!&y th! .a0! ti0! th! 1ri-!r of th! -!hi"&! o# th! &!ft .ha&& yi!&1 th! right of way to th! -!hi"&! o# th! right !/"!'t a. oth!rwi.! h!r!i#2#1!r 'ro-i1!1.3 c. *s a result thereof the !a""er 234 driven by 5r. Ping collided %ith Defendant<s car a 5itsubishi @ancer the Afficial Receipt and Certificate of Registration of %hich are attached herein as *nne)es 0*1 and 0-1 respectively. d. #he #raffic *ccident 6nvestigation Report attached herein as *nne) 0C1

ANSWER WITH COUNTER-CLAIM Priority Ins. & Surety Corp. v. Ms. A in! Page 2 of 7

%as secured at the instance of the plaintiff %ithout the participation of the defendant. Borse there %ere even no eye%itnesses or hopeful bystanders %ho could have proffered testi"onies affir"ing the police investigation report. #he absence of Defendant<s signature therein is a noticeable "anifestation of the lac$ of confir"ation pertaining to the truth contained in the said report. 6t obviously does not reflect the actual situation of the vehicles at the ti"e of the accident. #he #raffic *ccident 6nvestigation Report %as for all intents and purposes irregularly issued. e. 9ranting %ithout ad"itting that Defendant<s car driven then by one Coli #uco %as the erring part still Defendant has no direct pri"ary or subsidiary obligation to the plaintiff or to 5r. Ping because her car at the ti"e of the incident %as not driven by her regular driver. 6n fact defendant did not $no% hi". 3pon investigation defendant learned that her regular driver @uciano #oraDui had allo%ed Coli #uco to drive the subEect vehicle %ithout the defendant<s consent. f. Defendant had e)ercised due diligence in the hiring selection and supervision of her regular driver and that she observed all the diligence of a good father of a fa"ily to prevent da"age. g. Due to the foregoing bac$drop no other conclusion can be dra%n e)cept that it %as 5r. Ping the o%ner and the driver of the !a""er 234 %ho %as the party at fault and %hose negligence caused the ungrateful "ishap. h. An this pre"ise the Plaintiff therefore has no legal clai" to enforce against herein Defendant since the insurer is "erely subrogated to any right of action %hich the insured has against the %rongdoer. *s it %as 5r. Ping the insured %ho %as the negligent party Plaintiff cannot be subrogated absent such right or clai".

PLAINTIFF HAS NOT 4EEN (ALIDL5 SU4RO6ATED TO THE RI6HTS OF MR. PIN6 '. 8ven if 5r. Ping "ay have a valid clai" against Defendant %hich clai" is vehe"ently denied the doctrine of subrogation cannot validly ta$e place. (. 0Pa'#&n, =' ,h& 3n*"r&r ,$ ,h& 3n*"r&+ operates as an eDuitable assign"ent of the for"er of all the re"edies %hich the latter "ay have against the third party %hose negligence or %rongful act caused the loss. I, accr"&* *3#85' "8$n 8a'#&n, $% ,h& 3n*"ranc& c5a3# =' ,h& 3n*"r&r .1 FPan 5alayan 6nsurance Corp. v. Court of *ppeals 1:, 2CR* ., G1;;HIJ ,. 6""ediate attention of this !onorable Court is directed to%ards Ann&> <C? of the C$#85a3n,. -elo% the Ca*h V$"ch&r N$. 7 39 is an O%%3c3a5 R&c&38, N$. 3@A 3 Fattached herein as *nne) 0D1J in the na"e of (AVAO UNICAR CORPORATION. *s contained in said receipt said corporation received the su" of T/O 0UN(RE( .I.TY-.IVE T0OUSAN( T/O 0UN(RE( SEVENTY-T/O PESOS AN( SEVENTY-T0REE CENTS 7Ph8 2BB,272.73: fro" PRIORITY INSURANCE CORPORATION. .. #he clai" of 5r. Ping the insured against the Plaintiff the insurer has not been satisfied in accordance %ith the la%. #he clai" %as paid by the Plaintiff to (AVAO UNICAR CORPORATION, %hich is not the insured as evidenced by

ANSWER WITH COUNTER-CLAIM Priority Ins. & Surety Corp. v. Ms. A in! Page 3 of 7

the afore-stated O%%3c3a5 R&c&38,, contrary to %hat the la% reDuires and absent any indication of 5r. Ping<s Fthe insuredJ relation to said corporation. /. #his being the case there %as no valid subrogation because of the a=*&nc& $% 8a'#&n, =' ,h& 3n*"r&r ,$ ,h& 3n*"r&+. Ar,3c5& !2A of the C3435 C$+& e"phatically lays do%n the rule that 08a'#&n, *ha55 =& #a+& ,$ ,h& 8&r*$n 3n 2h$*& %a4$r ,h& $=53)a,3$n ha* =&&n c$n*,3,",&+.1 7. Conco"itantly the clai" for the a"ount of da"age sustained by the !a""er 234 %hich a"ounted to appro)i"ately T/O 0UN(RE( .I.TY-.IVE T0OUSAN( PESOS 7Ph8 2BB, . :, has no basis %hatsoever e)cept on the unilateral declaration by the insured %ithout the Plaintiff "a$ing the proper adEust"ents. 2urely the clai" "ust be properly substantiated. THE COMPLAINT IS A MERE SCRAP OF PAPER FOR FAILURE TO COMPL5 ,ITH RULES OF COURT (IS787(IS PROPER (ERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION :. #he co"plaint is a "ere scrap of paper for being unsigned. #he 3r+ Para)ra8h of S&c,3$n A, R"5& 7 of the R"5&* $% C$"r, categorically states that A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on information and belief, or upon knowledge, information and belief, or &a"9. a 'ro'!r -!rifi"atio#, shall be treated as an 2#.ig#!1 '&!a1i#g. ;. *propos to this Par. !, S&c,3$n B, R"5& 7 of the sa"e Rules pertaining to the rule on C&r,3%3ca,3$n $% N$n-.$r"# Sh$883n), it is reDuired that The '&ai#tiff or 'ri#"i'a& 'arty .ha&& "!rtify 2#1!r oath in the complaint or other initiator pleading! 1H. 6n the case of COSCO P0ILIPPINES S0IPPING, INC., 4. CEMPER INSURANCE COMPANY 7G.R. N$. !7DA@@:, the Court ratiocinated in this %ise: 0Be have consistently held that the certification against foru" shopping "ust be signed by the principal parties. 6f for any reason the principal party cannot sign the petition ,h& $n& *3)n3n) $n h3* =&ha5% #"*, ha4& =&&n +"5' a",h$r3E&+ K only individuals vested %ith authority by a valid board resolution "ay sign the certificate of non-foru" shopping on behalf of a corporation. Be also reDuired proof of such authority to be presented. #he petition is *"=F&c, ,$ +3*#3**a5 if a certification %as sub"itted "nacc$#8an3&+ =' 8r$$% $% ,h& *3)na,$r'G* a",h$r3,' .1 :!0'ha.i. .2''&i!1; 11. #he V&r3%3ca,3$n an+ C&r,3%3ca,3$n in Plaintiff<s C$#85a3n, attached herein as Ann&> <E1 are unacco"panied by proof of the signatory<s authority. 1'. *s a legal ra"ification 2n+ Par., S&c,3$n B, R"5& 7 of the sa"e Rules provides that 0.a35"r& ,$ c$#85' 23,h ,h& %$r&)$3n) r&H"3r&#&n,* shall not be curable by "ere a"end"ent of the co"plaint or other initiatory pleading but shall cause for the +3*#3**a5 $% ,h& ca*&.1 1(. Finally the dis"issal of the instant case should be %ith preEudice as it has the

ANSWER WITH COUNTER-CLAIM Priority Ins. & Surety Corp. v. Ms. A in! Page 4 of 7

effect of adEudication upon the "erits FS&c,3$n 3, R"5& !7 $% ,h& R"5&* $% C$"r,J

COUNTER-CLAIM
Defendant hereby repleads all the foregoing as part of her counter-clai" and further avers that: 1. Due to the baseless and "alicious filing of this action by plaintiff defendant has suffered and %ill continue to suffer bes"irched reputation social hu"iliation and %ounded feelings for %hich the plaintiff should be conde"ned to pay F6F#L #!A32*CD P82A2 FPhp .H HHH.HHJ as and by %ay of "oral da"ages. *s an e)a"ple for the public good in order to discourage other persons fro" doing the sa"e act of plaintiff in "aliciously filing this case even if it $ne% very %ell that it %as no legal basis to do so plaintiff should be "ade to pay #!6R#L #!A32*CD P82A2 FPhp (H HHH.HHJ as and by %ay of e)e"plary da"ages& *s a result of the "alicious filing of this case the defendant %as constrained to enlist the services of a la%yer in order to bring out the truth for %hose services she stands to incur #hirty #housand Pesos FPhp (H HHH.HHJ as attorney<s fees and Ane #housand Pesos FPhp 1 HHH.HHJ as honorariu" per appearance.

'.

(.

PRAYER
/0ERE.ORE, pre"ises considered it is "ost respectfully prayed of this !onorable Court that after due hearing the Co"plaint be D6256228D for lac$ of "erit and for absence of cause of action. 6t is li$e%ise prayed that an Arder be issued directing the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant the follo%ing: 1. '. (. ,. .. F6F#L #!A32*CD P82A2 FPhp .H HHH.HHJ as and by %ay of "oral da"ages& #!6R#L #!A32*CD P82A2 FPhp (H HHH.HHJ as and by %ay of e)e"plary da"ages& #!6R#L #!A32*CD P82A2 FP(H HHH.HHJ as *##ARC8L<2 F882& AC8 #!A32*CD P82A2 FP1 HHH.HHJ as *PP8*R*CC8 F88 for every hearing attended in this case& and #o pay the costs.

Ather reliefs Eust and eDuitable are li$e%ise prayed for. Davao City Philippines *ugust 1H 'H1'.

PULIDO & DIO LAW FIRM COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT 2F Floor, YMCA Building, Claveria St , Davao Cit! Tele"#one No$ % Fa& '()2* 22+,-.-./ '()2*0((,.-.ANSWER WITH COUNTER-CLAIM Priority Ins. & Surety Corp. v. Ms. A in! Page 5 of 7

E,1ail addre$$% "ulido2di3o4la56!a#oo 7o1 B!% ATTY. JERANO PAULO B. PULIDO Roll No +02+8 9B: No ;208.)/ <2=0(=<2/ Davao del Sur :TR No .)<+-.+A/ (<=(+=<0/ Davao Cit! MCLE E&e1"tion No 999,(((;+Copy furnished to: ATTY. ZENEN V. ATON :NB Bldg , C M Re7to St , Davao Cit!

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) CITY OF DAVAO )S.S. x----------------------x VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION I, MS. ABING, o> legal age, Fili"ino and a re$ident o> San Ra>ael, D9HO, Maa, Davao Cit!, :#ili""ine$, a>ter ?eing $5orn to in a77ordan7e 5it# la5 #ere?! de"o$e and $tate% < T#at 9 a1 t#e De>endant in t#e a?ove,entitled 7a$e/ 2 T#at 9 #ave 7au$ed t#e "re"aration and >iling o> t#e >oregoing An$5er/ 0 T#at 9 #ave read and under$tood t#e 7ontent$ t#ereo> and t#at t#e $a1e i$ true and 7orre7t a77ording to t#e ?e$t o> 1! o5n "er$onal @no5ledge and ?a$ed on aut#enti7 re7ord$/ + T#at 9 >urt#er 7erti>! t#at 9 #ave not 7o11en7ed an! ot#er "leading= a7tion involving t#e $a1e "artie$, 5it# t#e $a1e i$$ue$ and 7au$e$ o> a7tion ?e>ore t#e Su"re1e Court, Court o> A""eal$ or an! ot#er 7ourt, tri?unal or Aua$i, Budi7ial agen7! S#ould it 7o1e to 1! attention t#at t#ere i$ anot#er "ending a7tion or 7lai1, 9 #ere?! underta@e to re"ort t#i$ >a7t 5it# t#e Honora?le Court 5it#in a "eriod o> >ive '8* da!$ >ro1 t#e ti1e 9 learn o> t#e "enden7! o> $u7# a7tion and "roviding t#e Honora?le Court t#e 7o1"lete $tatu$ t#ereo> IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 9 #ave #ereunto $et 1! #and t#i$ Augu$t <<, 2(<2 at Davao Cit!, :#ili""ine$

MS. ABING A>>iant

ANSWER WITH COUNTER-CLAIM Priority Ins. & Surety Corp. v. Ms. A in! Page 6 of 7

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to ?e>ore 1e, a Notar! :u?li7 >or and in t#e Cit! o> Davao, :#ili""ine$, t#i$ << t# da! o> Augu$t, 2(<2, a>>iant "er$onall! @no5n to 1e and to ?e t#e $a1e "er$on 5#o e&e7uted

Do7 No + / :age No ) / Boo@ No 9C / Serie$ o> 2(<2

ANTHONY LADMAN Notar! :u?li7 0rd Flr , Yang Bldg , Claveria St , :TR No 0)2;0-+0=<,+,<0=Davao Cit! 9B: O R No 0+0+0+0+0+=2,<.=<2

ANSWER WITH COUNTER-CLAIM Priority Ins. & Surety Corp. v. Ms. A in! Page 7 of 7