Republic of the Philippines

Department of labor and Employment

National Labor Relations Commission
Regional Arbitration Branch No. XI
Davao City

WARLORD JOHN R. CERVANTES

Complainant,
NLRC CASE NO. RAB XI 08-00883-10
For: ILLEGAL DISMISSAL WITH MONEY
CLAIMS
-versusVITARICH CORPORATION/
GROMAX, INC., et. a.
Respondent,
x---------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER
COMPLAINANT,

thru

the

undersigned

counsel,

and

unto

this

Honorable Office, respectfully submits this Position Paper.

PREFATORY STATEMENT
The employers prerogative of terminating its employees in the
implementation of its management policies and protection of its interests is
not without limitations. Labor laws provide not only the valid causes for
which an employer may order the dismissal of an employee, but also the
proper manner in exercising such right to dismiss. And herein complainant
was dismissed arbitrarily, and in a manner contrary to what is mandated by
law, hence, this position paper.

PARTIES
COMPLAINANT

WARLORD JOHN

R. CERVANTES

(hereinafter

referred to as CERVANTES for brevity) is a Filipino, married, of legal age,

and a resident of Block 6, Lot 12, Southvilla Country Homes, Ma-a, Diversion
Road, Davao City and may be served with pleadings, orders and other
processes of this Honorable Office thru the undersigned counsel.

VITARICH CORPORATION / GROMAX, INC. (hereinafter referred

as VITARICH for brevity) is a corporation existing under Philippine laws and
is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of animal feeds and
health products to its consumers. It is represented by ROGER M.
SARMIENTO, as its owner; ROCCO M. SARMIENTO, as General Manager;
STEPHANIE NICOLE S. GARCIA, as Finance Manager; GUILLERMO B.
MIRALLES, as Vice President for Vis-Min Operations; AIDA T. GIRADO, as
Administrative Manager; DIANA C. CONCEPCION, as Human Resource
Supervisor for Vis-Min; and MARICEL L. MUSONES, as Human Resource
Manager. It is located at Km. 14, Panacan, Davao City where it may be
served with pleadings, orders, and other processes of this Honorable Office.

ANTECEDENT FACTS
1. Complainant CERVANTES was employed by respondent VITARICH as
a Regional Sales Manager (RSM for brevity) for Cebu Feed Sales
Operations on April 15, 2006 with a salary rate fixed at P42,500.00
per month;
2. As RSM, CERVANTES function was primarily and essentially to
monitor and ensure that the target sales and collections of the
District Sales Managers (DSM for brevity) under his supervision are

reached (Job Descriptions Manual for RSM is herein attached as

Annex A to A-1);
3. Sometime in April 2009, CERVANTES was verbally informed of his
transfer to Mindanao as RSM for General Santos Feed Sales
Operations;
4. Prior to the effectivity of such transfer, there was a transition period
during which CERVANTES underwent orientation from a certain
BERNARDO TANIZA (TANIZA for brevity), the then RSM for General
Santos Feed Sales Operations;
5. That CERVANTES officially assumed office as RSM for General
Santos Feed Sales Operations only on May 1, 2009;
6. In April 2009, during the tenure of TANIZA as RSM, one DSM, a
certain GRACE C. NECOR (NECOR for brevity), conducted the
alleged questioned transactions of selling and causing the delivery
of VITARICHs products to a certain MILAGROS TAMAYO, who at
that time does not have an approved credit line with VITARICH;
7. Also prior to complainant CERVANTES tenure as RSM for General
Santos, similar transactions of selling and causing the delivery of
VITARICHs products to a certain ROSALINA FARM were effected
despite the latters lack of a credit line or during the pendency of
their application for a credit line;
8. To facilitate such sales despite the lack of a credit line, NECOR
issued invoices under the name and account of an existing client
with an approved credit line, the DOA JOSEFA FARM owned by one
JOSIE GARCIA;
9. TAMAYO FARM transacted with respondent VITARICH under the
name of DOA JOSEFA FARM only until May 8, 2009, as

complainant already completed the processing of TAMAYO FARMs

application for a credit line on May 11, 2009;
10.

Sometime in December 2009, NECOR, in a letter

dated

December 12, 2009, addressed to complainant and other officials of

respondent VITARICH, herein attached as Annex B, admitted to
conducting the said transactions;
11.

NECOR justified her transactions by explaining that allowing a

client without an approved credit line to purchase and place orders

under the name of another client who has an approved credit line is
an accepted company practice for the purpose of promoting and
developing new customers or accounts;
12.

That the questioned transactions were done with the knowledge

and consent of JOSIE GARCIA (Audit Report, refer to Annex A of

Respondents Position Paper), subject to the condition that it is
still the DSM who will handle collections from the other clients
purchasing under the name of DOA JOSEFA FARM;
13. Upon Confirmation of Accounts by respondent VITARICH, JOSIE
GARCIA denies having placed the orders, since the orders were
actually made by TAMAYO FARM and ROSALINA FARM, but does not
deny consenting to the arrangement;
14.

TAMAYO FARM, along with other clients, refused to pay for the

purchased products and asked for an adjustment of the balance as

compensation for the losses incurred by them due to the production
and delivery by respondent VITARICH of low quality feeds;
15.

That such allegation of the products having low quality is

supported

by the findings of respondents quality assurance

department personnel, JESUS C. CARIN, JR as stated in his letter,

herein attached as Annex C;
4

16.

That complainant CERVANTES, thereafter, openly criticized the

Vice President for Vis-Min Operations, GUILLERMO B. MIRALLES

(MIRALLES for brevity), for the production low quality products;
17.

In January 2010, CERVANTES received a Notice to Explain (Refer

to Annex B of Respondents Position Paper), dated January

5, 2010, issued only by MIRALLES, and not by the Human Resource
Department, directing the former to explain, in a letter, the charges
against him in relation to the unpaid sales and deliveries made to
TAMAYO FARM and ROSALINA FARM, when both clients do not have
approved credit lines;
18.

That the complainant was wrongfully designated in the Notice to

Explain (Refer to Annex B of Respondents Position Paper) as

a District Sales Manager (DSM for brevity), and the charges therein
were related to the functions of a DSM as well (Job Description
Manual for DSM is herewith attached as Annex D to D-1);
19.

Complainant CERVANTES submitted his reply (Refer Annex C

of Respondents Position Paper) denying all allegations;

20.

Nevertheless, respondent VITARICH through MIRALLES, and not

through

its

Human

Resource

Department,

CERVANTES a Notice of Decision (Refer to

sent

complainant

Annex D of

Respondents Position Paper) informing the latter that his

employment is being terminated;
21.

Such termination is not supported by substantial proof that

complainant is indeed guilty of the charges, the evidence are purely

fabricated statements or, at best, hearsay;
22.

Complainant was not given opportunity to be heard before

VITARICHs Administrative Investigation Committee to which every

5

company employee, rank and file or managerial, was entitled to as

a matter of company policy;
23.

Complainant CERVANTES is also entitled to shares of stocks

valued at P7,200.00 per month as provided in his Letter of

Appointment, herein attached as Annex E, and Appointment &
Pay Authorization, herein attached as Annex F, the value of
which, respondent VITARICH has failed to release to complainant;
24.

Complainant CERVANTES is also entitled to the ownership of the

company vehicle subject of the car plan provided for in his Letter of
Appointment

(Annex E to E-1) and Appointment

& Pay

Authorization (Annex F), already having fully paid for the same;
ISSUE
1) Whether

or

not

Complainant

CERVANTES

was

illegally

dismissed.
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to reinstatement and
backwages.
3) Whether or not Complainant is entitled to receive the value of
shares of stocks and ownership over the company car.
4) Whether the complainant is entitled to moral and exemplary
damages and attorneys fees

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

ON THE FIRST ISSUE:
1. THE COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.

1.A. COMPLAINANT IS A MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE OF VITARICH

AT THE TIME HIS DISMISSAL WHO ENJOYS SECURITY OF
TENURE, AS PROVIDED BY LAW.

To begin with, it must be stressed that CERVANTES was a regular

employee

until

the

time

that

he

was

illegally

dismissed

from

his

employment.
Article 280 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides:
Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment.
The provisions of written agreement to the contrary
notwithstanding

and

regardless

of

the

oral

agreement of the parties, an employment shall be

deemed to be regular where the employee has
been engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer, xxx
Provided, that any employee who

has

rendered at least one year of service, whether

such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee with respect to
the activity in which he is employed and his
employment

shall

continue

while

such

activity

exists. (Emphasis supplied).

The primary standard to determine a regular employment is the
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the
employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. The test
is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business
or trade of the employer.
1

De Leon vs. NLRC, GR No. 70705, Aug. 21, 1989

By virtue of the nature of

his employment as stated above, the

activities that complainant performed are

necessary or desirable in the

usual business or trade of VITARICH as engaged in the business of

manufacturing and selling of animal feeds and health products to its
consumers. It can be gleaned further by their individual length of service to
VITARICH, which obviously exceeded the statutory period of at least one (1)
year of service, Complainant was indeed a regular employee of VITARICH
when the was dismissed from their employment.
Furthermore, Article 279 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides:
Art. 279. Security of Tenure. In cases of
regular

employment,

the

employer

shall

not

terminate the services of an employee except for a

just cause or when authorized by this Title. x x x
While the aforementioned provision finds better application to regular rankand-file employees, it is not, however, completely without application to
managerial employees.
Jurisprudence dictates that even managerial employees are entitled to
security of tenure. While an employer has its own interests to protect, and
pursuant thereto, it may terminate a managerial employee for a just cause,
such prerogative to dismiss or lay off an employee must be exercised
without abuse of discretion. Its implementation should be interpreted with
compassion and understanding. The employer should bear in mind that in
the execution of said prerogative, what is stake only is not only the
employees position but his livelihood. The fact that one is a managerial
employee does not by itself exclude him from the protection of the

constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.(Maglutac v NLRC, Commart

[Phil.] Inc., G.R. No 78345, Sept 21, 1990)
1.B THE CAUSES FOR DISMISSAL WERE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY
PROVEN.
The power to dismiss is the normal prerogative of the employer and
generally, the latter may dismiss his employees for just and authorized
cause. However, the employer is bound to exercise caution in terminating
the services of his employees and must not be arbitrary and capricious. 2
Article 282 of the Labor Code provides for just causes in which an
employer may terminate his employee:
a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of
the lawful orders of his employer or representative in
connection with his work;
b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed
in him by his employer or duly authorized representative
d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against
the person of his employer or any immediate member of his
family or his duly authorized representative; and
e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
As a general rule, employers are allowed wider latitude of discretion in
terminating the employment of managerial personnel or those who, while
not of similar rank, perform functions which by their nature require the
employer's full trust and confidence. This must be distinguished from the
case of ordinary rank-and-file employees, whose termination on the basis of
these same grounds requires a higher proof of involvement in the events in
question; mere uncorroborated assertions and accusations by the employer
will not suffice. (Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Incorporated vs. NLRC, et.
Al, G.R. No. 84075, April 25, 1989).
2

Rance, et al. vs. NLRC, GR No. 68147, June 30, 1988

9

While

the

charges

alleged

by

respondent

VITARICH

constitute

violations of Art. 282, Par. (c), VITARICH nevertheless, failed to substantially

prove the same.
First and foremost, the alleged questionable transactions could not
have been performed by complainant as they do not pertain to the functions
and responsibilities of complainant. In fact, the Notice to Explain (Refer to
Annex B of Respondents Position Paper) received by CERVANTES was
addressed to a District Sales Manager, and the charges therein are mainly
for selling and delivering products to clients without credit lines which are
essentially functions of a DSM as a sales agent. Respondent VITARICHs DSM
Job Descriptions Manual (Annex D) provides that the DSMs duties and
responsibilities include opening new accounts, coordinate with the Feed
Production Section to ensure the availability of stocks for delivery, facilitate
the sales and deliveries of the products, and prepare and submit reports.
While complainants duties and functions as Regional Sales Manager, on the
other hand, is primarily to help the DSM in promoting VITARICHs products
to customers, and monitor the sales and collections of the DSM based on the
latters reports. Clearly, any unauthorized sales could not be attributed to
the RSM. This is further evidenced by the letter, dated December 12, 2009,
made by DSM NECOR, admitting that it was her who arranged for the sales
to be made under the name of another account which is JOSIE GARCIA
(Annex B). Moreover, the sales involved in the allegations occurred before
complainant CERVANTES tenure as RSM for Gen. Santos began, and during
such time when complainant was still the RSM for Central Visayas.
The allegations of connivance to conceal the said transactions from the
knowledge of respondent VITARICH must also fail in the face of substantial
evidence to the contrary. If there really was an attempt to conceal the
transactions, DSM NECOR, would not have had the representative of

10

TAMAYO FARM sign the Delivery Receipts and Sales Invoices, such act
controverts the entire theory of concealment. And if respondent company
truly had no knowledge of said transactions, then JUSTINO H. GARSUTA
(GARSUTA for brevity) of the Credit and Collection Department could not
have sent a bill addressed directly to MILAGROS TAMAYO. This proves that
respondent VITARICH, in fact, had knowledge that deliveries were made not
to JOSIE GARCIA, but to MILAGROS TAMAYO.
Furthermore, granting, for the sake of argument, that there was
connivance, complainant CERVANTES could not have been part of it. As
previously stated, complainants role, in relation to sales, is limited to
managing the sales team by monitoring the same through the reports
prepared and submitted by the DSM. Looking into the process flowchart of
respondent VITARICH, the DSM refers the sales and orders to the Credit and
Collection Department, headed by GARSUTA, to determine the status of the
clients credit line. Upon approval by the latter, the order is then referred to
the Accounting Department for further processing. From there, it is then
subjected to the approval of the Field Sales Manager, ALBERTO O. OPPUS
(OPPUS for brevity), and lastly, to MIRALLES. And finally upon approval, it is
GARSUTA who instructs the stocks custodian, a certain BUBONG BENITEZ, to
release the products for delivery. Nowhere in the processing of sales and
deliveries is complainant CERVANTES approval required. Thus, respondent
VITARICH could not possibly present documentary evidence showing
CERVATES direct involvement in the questioned transactions.
Respondents only basis for complainants involvement as shown in the
formers Audit Report (Refer to Annex A of Respondents Position
Paper), is the alleged statement of NSC NECOR that CERVANTES had
knowledge of such transactions. This is once again belied by NECORs letter

11

(Annex B), which was addressed to the complainant, admitting to the

performance of such transactions and explaining the reason for such.
Complainant CERVANTES also could not be said to have been remiss in
the performance of his duties, for although respondent VITARICH, through
the DSM NECOR, has been selling and delivering products to the TAMAYO
FARM, the latter only became an official client of respondent when
complainant processed the application of TAMAYO FARM for a credit line,
which was subsequently approved on May 11, 2009, herein attached as
Annex G to G-1. Furthermore, complainant CERVANTES was among
those who recommended that legal action be taken against MILAGROS
TAMAYO for non-payment of her outstanding balance, herein attached as
Annex H.
Having

stated

all

that,

it

is

noteworthy

that

the

questioned

transactions were a series of sales that transpired over a period of time. Had
it been a one-time transaction, it would have raised the possibility that there
could, in fact, be an attempt to conceal the transaction. But seeing as the
transactions went on for a certain period, it would be logical to believe that
by the time TAMAYO FARM and ROSALINA FARM had placed their subsequent
orders, the approving authorities shall have already noticed that the Delivery
Receipts and Sales Invoices, while under the name of JOSIE GARCIA, were
actually signed and acknowledged by a different client. This would show that
the authorities such as GARSUTA and MIRALLES, approved such orders even
when the previous Receipts and Invoices contained discrepancies, or were
signed by a different client. These circumstances should confirm the theory
that selling to and placing orders for clients without a credit line, under the
names of clients with credit lines, is indeed an accepted company practice.
Otherwise, it should be the aforementioned authorities who approved such
sales and orders that should be held liable for negligently approving the

12

same despite the existence of anomalies in the previous sales invoices and
delivery receipts.
1.C. COMPLAINANT

WAS

NOT

ACCORDED

PROCEDURAL

DUE

PROCESS.
Based on the facts stated, it is apparent that the complainants were
not accorded procedural due process. Granting arguendo that the dismissal
was founded on any of the said grounds, the same is still considered as
illegal for want of compliance with the procedural process of dismissal.
If the employee committed an act which was a lawful cause or
justification for his dismissal, the employer should give him the opportunity
to explain or present his side. There should not be an outright termination of
the services of the employee without affording him due process 3. It is further
required by the Implementing Rules of Book 6, Rule 1, Paragraph (d) of
Department Order No. 9 Series of 1997 of the Department of Labor and
Employment, that the following shall be observed:
1. A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground/s for
termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity
within which to explain his side;
2. A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with
the assistance of the counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to
respond to the charge, present his evidence, or rebut the evidence
presented against him;
3. A written notice of termination serve on the employee, indicating
that upon due consideration of all circumstances, grounds have
been established to justify his termination.
In addition to these requirements provided for by existing laws and
jurisprudence, respondent VITARICHs own policies provides that the
existence of causes to penalize and/or terminate an employee must be
determined

by

their

Administrative

Investigative

Committee.

Robusta Agro Marine Products, Inc. vs. Gorombalem, GR No 80500, July 5,

1989
13

In

complainants case, however, all the aforementioned requirements were

capriciously bypassed by MIRALLES.
In terminating complainant, MIRALLES issued a Notice to Explain
(Refer Annex B of Respondents Position Paper), without being
sanctioned by their Human Resource Department, requiring complainant
explain, in a letter, the charges against the latter. Clearly, this is not the
hearing or conference contemplated by law. Subsequent thereto, MIRALLES,
again without being sanctioned by the Human Resource Department, and
upon his own discretion, issued the Notice of Decision (Refer to Annex D
of Respondents Position Paper), terminating complainants employment.
Jurisprudence dictates that while a managerial employee may be
dismissed merely on the ground of loss of confidence, the matter of
determining whether the cause for dismissing an employee is justified on the
ground of loss of confidence cannot be left entirely to the employer.4
It is also worth mentioning that prior to complainants termination,
there was already a rising conflict between complainant CERVANTES and
MIRALLES. This was due to the fact that the former has been criticizing
MIRALLES performance as Vice President for Vis-Min Operations for allowing
the manufacture and sale of low quality products, which the complainant
substantiated through the expert findings (Annex C) of respondent
VITARICHs own quality assurance personnel.
These circumstances indicate bad faith on the part MIRALLES in
capriciously and immediately dismissing complainant CERVANTES to the
prejudice of the latters right to procedural due process.
ON THE SECOND ISSUE
2. COMPLAINANTS ARE ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT

WITH

BACKWAGES
Since the complainant was illegally dismissed from his employment,
he is entitled to reinstatement plus backwages.
4

De Leon vs. National Labor Relations Comission, 100 SCRA 691 (1980)
14

Article 279 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides that an

employee who is unjustly dismissed from work is entitled to reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their
monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld
from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
Backwages, in general, are granted on grounds of equity for earnings
which a worker or employee has lost due to his illegal dismissal 5.
Clearly, as respondent VITARICH failed to comply

with

the

requirements of due process, both procedurally and substantively, the

complainant was illegally dismissed. Hence, the complainant is entitled to
reinstatement and backwages computed from the actual period when the
complainant was unlawfully prevented from working.
ON THE THIRD ISSUE
3. COMPLAINANTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS:
3.A

Value of shares of stocks:

Upon his employment, a Letter of Appointment (Annex E) and

Appointment & Pay Authorization (Annex F) was issued by respondent

VITARICH, stating that part of his monthly benefits shall be shares of stocks
of respondent VITARICH valued at P7,200.00. The same, however, was not
released to him upon his termination. And having been earned by
complainant during his employment, he has a vested right over said shares
of stocks which cannot be prejudiced by his termination.
3.b

Ownership over the company car:

Also provided in complainant CERVANTES Letter of Appointment

(Annex E) and Appointment & Pay Authorization (Annex F) was the

grant of a car plan, valued at P437,500.00 worth of car loan credits.
However, the vehicle subject of complainants car plan was appraised only
5

Torillo vs. Leogardo GR No. 77205, May 27, 1991

15

for P300,000.00. Although the plan was for a 5-year term, the deductions
and amortizations were computed and fixed on the basis of the P437,500.00
car plan. Hence, after being employed for three (3) years and four (4)
months, the amortizations shall have sufficed to fully pay for the subject
vehicle, and ownership thereof rightfully belongs to complainant.
ON THE FOURTH ISSUE
4. COMPLAINANTS ARE ENTITLED TO DAMAGES
4.A. Moral Damages
The fact that complainant was not afforded of both substantive and
procedural due process on their arbitrary dismissal, it is but proper for
them to be awarded moral damages.
The employer is liable for damages under the provisions of Article
2220 of the Civil Code providing for damages for breach of contract
where the employer acted fraudulently or in bad faith.6
Ergo, where the dismissal of the employee was attended by bad
faith or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, an award of moral
damages is justified. Evidently, the foregoing are present in this instant
case due to the failure of VITARICH to observe the requirements of both
substantive and procedural due process.
4.B. Exemplary Damages
Where the employees dismissal was effected without substantive
and procedural fairness, an award of exemplary damages in their favor
can only be justified if her dismissal was effected in a wanton, oppressive
or malevolent manner.7
Inasmuch as the manner in which the complainant was dismissed
was done in a wanton, arbitrary and unjustifiable manner, they are
entitled to exemplary damages.
4.C. Attorneys Fees
6

CLLC E.G. Gochangco Workers Union, et. al.vs. NLRC, GR No. 67258, May
30,1988
7
Roche Philippines vs. NLRC, GR. No. 832335, Oct. 95, 1989
16

Complainants was compelled to litigate and incur expenses to

protect and vindicate their rights. Hence, it is only proper that attorneys
fees be awarded equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the claims of the
complainants.

17

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Labor Arbitration Branch to render judgment in favor of
complainant declaring his dismissal illegal and order respondents the
following:

1. the reinstatement of complainant with backwages;

2. the delivery of shares of stocks and the company vehicle subject of
the car plan policy to complainant;
2. the payment of separation pay, in lieu of reinstatement;
3. to pay moral and exemplary damages; and
4. Attorneys Fees
Complainant further prays for other relief just and equitable.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ___ day of November 2010 in Davao

City, Philippines.

18

ATENEO LEGAL SERVICES OFFICE

Counsel for the Complainant
2F Dotterweich Hall
Jacinto Street, Davao City 8000
Tel. No. (082) 227-7460
BY:

Jose Karlo Caballero II

Charnem Caete

Karen Cate Ilagan

Hannah Khiarra Linog

Hanna Jane Pernes

Christian Paul Pinote

Daryl Ritchie Valles

Legal Interns
(as per Supreme Court Resolution No. 449
Dated September 29, 1988)

Under the Control and Supervision of:

Atty. Manuel P. Quibod

Roll of Attorneys No. 33499
PTR No. 8442955, 01-04-10, D.C.
IBP Lifetime Member Roll No. 00996
MCLE Exemption No. III-00745

19

Republic of the Philippines)

C I T Y O F D A V A O ) s.s.
x ----------------------------------x
VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, WARLORD JOHN R.CERVANTES,, of legal age, Filipino and a resident of
Davao City, upon my oath, depose and state THAT:

1. I am the complainant in the above-entitled case; I have caused the

preparation of this Position Paper; and I have read the contents hereof and
declare that the same to be true and correct based upon authentic records
obtained in this case.
2. I CERTIFY FURTHER that I have not therefore commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, or any tribunal or any agency;
3.

To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the

Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other Tribunal or agency;

4. If there is any such action or proceedings which is either pending or may

have been terminated, I will state the status thereof; and
5. If thereafter I learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and any other tribunal
or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days there from to
the Court or agency, wherein the original pleading and sworn certification
contemplated herein have been filed.
In
witness
whereof,
I
hereby
affix
____________________, at Davao City, Philippines.

my

signature

this

____________________________
WARLORD JOHN R.CERVANTES
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ____________________, at
Davao City, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his Community Tax Certificate with
number ___________________, issued on ______________, issued by the City of
Davao.
Doc. No. :_______;
Page No.:_______;
Book No.:_______;
Series of 2010.

20

21