Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 0
Las Pinas City
BN,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

CIVIL CASE NO.

For: DAMAGES

ED
Defendant.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----x

ANSWER
(In Re: SUMMONS received on May 31, 2016)
COMES NOW the Defendant, by the undersigned counsel, and in
answer to Plaintiff's complaint, respectfully alleges:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1.

That Defendant admits paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Complaint

with the additional averment that she may be served with all
court processes through the undersigned counsel;

2.

That Defendant cannot possibly comment as to the veracity of

Plaintiffs statement in paragraph 4 of the complaint, she not
having been in the place and time mentioned in said paragraph,
in that, granting that Plaintiff indeed was bumped at 9:05 PM on
August 6, 2015 by X while Plaintiff was alongside pedestrian
lane/sidewalk along Alabang-Zapote road. To Defendants
knowledge, there is no such pedestrian lane or sidewalk in that
area because of the presence of a footbridge and a signages
saying: BAWAL TUMAWID and NO JAYWALKING;
Please refer to attached pictures on Annexes 1, 6 and
6-1 showing that Plaintiff was not allowed to cross that
portion of the road.

3.

Also, that Plaintiff appears to be changing his tune and is

obviously telling a lie to this Honorable Court in his statements in
paragraphs 4 and 5 of this new complaint:
In this new complaint, the Plaintiff said:
For cause of action against Defendant Domingo, it is
hereby stated that on August 6, 2015 at around 9:05 in the
1 | Answer BT v. ED

evening,
Plaintiff
was
alongside
pedestrian
lane/sidewalk along Alabang-Zapote road;
That while Plaintiff was walking along the sidewalk,
the Mitsubishi owned by Domingo was driven by her
driver, X a resident of Editiorial Extension 4th Estate
Antonio Paranaque City, Metro Manila.

While in the first complaint1 which, incidentally, was

dismissed by this Honorable Court last March 2, 2016
basically for lack of proper verification and certification
against forum-shopping, the Plaintiff said:
For cause of action against Defendant Domingo, it is
hereby stated that on August 6, 2015 at around 9:05 in the
evening, while I was crossing along Alabang Zapote
Road, Casimiro, coming from the side of Cecilles
Restaurant Las Pinas City, Plaintiff was bumped by
the Mitsubishi driven by X, a resident of Editiorial
Extension 4th Estate Antonio Paranaque City,Metro
Manila.

Obviously, Plaintiff is trying to change his story from while

I was crossing along Alabang Zapote Road, Casimiro,
coming from the side of Cecilles Restaurant Las Pinas
City to , Plaintiff was alongside pedestrian
lane/sidewalk along Alabang-Zapote road. That while
Plaintiff was walking along the sidewalk
He wants us to believe now that he was not violating any
City Ordinance against jay walking. He wants us to believe
that it was not his violation of a City Ordinance that caused
his being bumped by the vehicle driven by X.
In his sworn affidavit2 before the Prosecutor A, BT said that
he was crossing along Alabang Zapote Road, coming
the side of Cecilles Restaurant, Las Pinas 3, when he
was allegedly bumped.

1 Annex 7, Original Complaint, as amended, for case ---------2 Annex 8, Sworn Affidavit of BT dated September 16, 2015
3 Annex 8, paragraph 1
2 | Answer BT v. ED

Also, according to the report4 prepared by the Vehicle Traffic

Investigation Unit of Las Pinas City dated August 7, 2015, BT
was actually crossing, viz:
when upon reaching on a certain place of incident, the
front portion of the same hit a pedestrian while crossing
on the abovementioned place of incident going to Urci
Townhomes5

4.

That again, Defendant cannot possibly comment on the veracity

of paragraph 6 of the Complaint for not having been in the
averred place at the time. Granting, however, without admitting,
that the Plaintiff was bumped by X at the spot mentioned, it is
worth-noting why Plaintiff opted NOT to use the footbridge
erected for his safety. Instead, he crossed the road where he was
not allowed to;
5.

That Defendant could not comment on the veracity and

accuracy of paragraph 7 except for the fact that it tells us
about a printout coming from the website of Google;

6.

That Defendant could not comment on the veracity and accuracy

of paragraphs 8 and 9 due to lack of information and knowledge
of the same, the truth being that Plaintiffs alleged emotional
suffering is personal to him and that Defendant has not been
shown any proof to validate it;

7.

That defendant denies paragraph 10 of the complaint as the

figures mentioned are unsubstantiated and that the purported
Annex C, and sub-Annexes are not properly referenced and
the purported figures are nowhere to be found. As such,
defendant will have no basis in forming any judgment as to their
authenticity and veracity;
8.

9.

That paragraph 11 is also being denied for being

unsubstantiated, the truth being that as mentioned in the
special and affirmative defenses;

That paragraph 12 is also being denied for being unsubstantiated.

There is no such document attached to the complaint as Annex
D which contains the amount P29,693. The Certificate of
Employment is dated February 6, 2015 way before the date
of the purported accident of August 6, 2015. Also, its purpose is
not related at all to the filing of this claim for damages. The
4 Annex 9, Police Report dated August 7, 2015
5 Annex 9, sub-marking 9-1

3 | Answer BT v. ED

certification says: this employment certification has been

issued upon the request of BT for his credit card
application.
10.

That paragraphs 13 and 14 are denied for lack of basis to form a

belief as to their truth and veracity there being no proof shown to
substantiate them, the truth being that as mentioned in the
special and affirmative defenses;

11. That defendant could not make an informed comment respecting

paragraphs 15 and 16 as the defendant has not received any of
the purported notices;
12. That paragraph 17 is denied for lack of basis to form a belief as to
its truth and veracity there being no proof shown to substantiate
it, the truth being that as mentioned in the special and affirmative
defenses; and
13. That paragraphs 18 and 19 are likewise denied for lack of
basis to form a belief as to its truth and veracity there being
no proof shown to substantiate it, the truth being that as
mentioned in the special and affirmative defenses.

DEFENSES
14. As SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, the defendant alleges:
COMPLAINT LACKS A VALID AND COMPLIANT
CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING;
HONORABLE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION
14.1 The CERTIFICATION and VERIFICATION AGAINST FORUM
SHOPPING was defective and incomplete as the
mandatory paragraph under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Certification against forum-shopping. - The plaintiff
or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint
or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in
a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously
filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced
any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in
any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best
of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a
complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c)
if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar
action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the

4 | Answer BT v. ED

court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory

pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements
shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be
cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and
after hearing. The submission of a false certification or
non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall
constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to
the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If
the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful
and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground
for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute
direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative
sanctions. (emphasis supplied)

The VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST

FORUM SHOPPING prepared by the complainant violates the
above rule, specifically letter (c) which states that:
(c) if he should thereafter learn that the
same or similar action or claim has been filed
or is pending, he shall report that fact within
five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein
his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading
has been filed.
There is no such certification/statement made by the
Plaintiff.
In his VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM
SHOPPING, BR mentioned only the following:
xxx
I, BT, Filipino, of legal age, with office address at ABC,
Zapote-Alabang Road, Talon Uno, Las Pinas City, Metro
Manila, under oath depose and state:
1 That I am the Complainant in the above-captioned case;
2 That I caused the preparation of the Complaint;
3 That all allegations therein are true and correct based
on my own personal knowledge and based on authentic
records.
I certify that That:
i

A Complaint of Reckless Imprudence resulting to Serious Physical

injuries was filed by herein Complainant against a certain X,
(driver of herein Respondent) , with the Office of the Prosecutor
of Las Pinas City and after the finding of probable cause, an

5 | Answer BT v. ED

Information was filed the Municipal Trial Court (MRT) Branch 0 of

Las Pinas City;
On April 7, 2016, I already received an Order from MTC
Branch 0 setting on May 19, 2016, the Arraignment of the
accused in criminal case with number 0;
ii A similar Complaint for Damages was filed by herein Complainant
with the RTC Branch 0, Las Pinas City covered by Civil Case No. 0,
however, the Court dismissed the case in an Order dated March
2, 2016, the dispositive portion of which states: WHEREFORE,
for non-compliance with Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure the instant Complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice. A copy of the Order is hereto attached as Annex A.
xxx

With all due respect, plaintiffs non-compliance alone is

a solid ground to dismiss the complaint outright.
14.2

Time and again, the Supreme Court has ruled

sustaining this basic rule. It is therefore respectfully
submitted that the instant complaint be dismissed
outright. One example is the case of De Formoso v.
PNB6 citing Oldarico S. Traveno v. Bobongon
Banana Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative7,
wherein the High Court said:
xxx
4) As to certification against forum shopping, noncompliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in
verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent
submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to
relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or
presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons."
(emphasis supplied)

LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION AS PLAINTIFF COMES TO

COURT WITH UNCLEAN HANDS, THEREFORE NOT
ENTITLED TO DAMAGES
14.3

By his very own admission in his first complaint,

complainant said in paragraph 4 :

6 G.R. No. 154704 dated June 1, 2011

7 G.R. No. 164205 dated September 3, 2009
6 | Answer BT v. ED

4. For cause of action against Defendant ED, it is hereby

stated that on August 6, 2015 at around 9:05 in the
evening, while I was crossing along Alabang
Zapote Road, Casimiro, coming from the side of
Cecilles Restaurant Las Pinas city, Plaintiff was
bumped by the Mitsubishi driven by X, a resident of San
Antonio Paranaque city, Metro Manila;

Plaintiff admitted crossing the portion that pedestrians

are NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS. There is a footbridge
constructed for that very purpose. The fact that he was
allegedly hit by an incoming vehicle while doing an
illegal act of CROSSING A RESTRICTED AREA is to his
own undoing. He was violating the law. As such, if there
is anyone who must be held accountable and
responsible, it should be BT, the Plaintiff;
The illegal act of BT of crossing in the restricted
area is also supported by the police report dated
August 7, 2015 (Annex 9) and his own sworn
affidavit executed before Prosecutor A on
September 16, 2015 (Annex 8).
He already caused so much trouble not only to the
driver but also to the defendant.
Annex 1 presents 5 pictures that show where the
alleged incident happened. Sub-marking 1-A shows
that there is supposed to be a free-flowing of vehicle
and as such no pedestrians must either stay or cross in
the area.
Annex 2 shows the map of the alleged place in
accident. It proves that there is a footbridge that should
have been used by the Plaintiff but he did not
contrary to law. Sub-marking 2-A shows the
specific place.
Annex 3 is also submitted concerning the statement
of the driver stating the place of incident (submarking 3-A) and the fact that Defendant paid
P15,000.00 (sub-marking 3-B) despite the fact that
is was the Plaintiff who was at fault.
Annex 4 is further submitted to show the sketch on
the exact place of accident (sub-marking 4-A). Like
that of Annex 2, Plaintiff was in a place where he
was not supposed to be.
7 | Answer BT v. ED

Annexes 5, 5-1 and 5-2, the bio-data and

credentials of driver Robert A. Doronio, are hereby
presented herewith to prove that Defendant exercised
the diligence of a good father in the selection of said
driver be he was hired. As shown on sub-making 5A, Mr. Doronio has been driving professionally since
1989.
Annexes 6 and 6-1 are pictures showing that
Plaintiff was not allowed to cross the portion of the
road. Specifically, sub-marking 6-A says: BAWAL
TUMAWID and sub-marking 6-1-A says: NO
JAYWALKING.
Under Section 2 of Rule of the Rules of Court, a
cause of action is defined as an act or omission by
which a party violates a right of another. From the
foregoing, it was actually the Plaintiff who violated the
right to safely of others. It was he who violated the law
thereby causing damage to others. With all due
respect, it is he who must actually pay.
BASELESS AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS
14.4 The following claims are unsubstantiated and are
therefore baseless:
Hospital
Expenses,
Professional
Fees,
Miscellaneous: Alleged Annexes are not found and/or
referenced.
Lost Income (P89,100): There are no supporting
documents presented.
Check up and x-rays:
document presented.

There

is

no

supporting

Moral & Exemplary damages (P600,000): the

actual damages being unsubstantiated, claims moral &
exemplary damages are left without basis.
EXORBITANT AND UNCONSCIONABLE LEGAL FEES
14.5 The claim for Attorneys Fees (P100,000) is not only
baseless.
The
amount
is
exorbitant
and
unconscionable.

8 | Answer BT v. ED

COUNTERCLAIMS
15. As COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS against the Plaintiff, the
Defendant alleges:
15.1 That to protect her right she is forced to defend herself
by engaging the services of an attorney for P50,000
plus P4,000 fee per appearance; and
14.2 That the plaintiffs unfounded and frivolous suit has
caused the defendant mental anguish, sleepless nights
and suffering as well as public humiliation and
embarrassment, for which she claims moral damages of
P300,000 and exemplary damages of P100,000.

TIMELINESS
16. That this ANSWER is submitted seasonably, or within the 15 days
from the date of receipt on May 31, 2016, today being June 15,
2016.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that
this Honorable Court render judgment as follows:
1. DISMISS the complaint due to a defective certification
against forum-shopping and lack of jurisdiction ;
2. DISMISS the complaint for lack of cause of action;
3. DISMISS the complaint for utter lack of merit and for being
baseless;
4. ORDER the plaintiff to pay defendant attorneys fee of
P50,000 and P4,000 fee per appearance,
plus moral
damages of P300,000 and exemplary damages of P100,000;
and
5. GRANT such other relief consistent with law and equity, and
for costs.
Las Pinas City, June 15, 2016.

9 | Answer BT v. ED

NARAG LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Defendant
7-C Crispina Ave., Las Pias Village,
Pamplona III, 1740 Las Pias City
E-mail: narag.law@gmail.com
By:
MARIO P. NARAG, JR.
Roll No. 56274
PTR No. 10999105-J/01-04-2016
IBP No. 1017158/01-04-2016
MCLE Compliance No. V-0020347
dated April 11, 2016
Copy furnished:
ATTY. XYZ
Counsel for the Plaintiff
XXXXX
BT
Zapote-Alabang Road,
Talon Uno, Las Pinas City

EXPLANATION
A copy of this ANSWER was sent to the Plaintiff and his
Counsel through registered mail as personal service is
impracticable.
MARIO P. NARAG, JR.

10 | Answer BT v. ED