Special Power of Attorney: Selected Pleadings, Petitions, Motions and Other Judicial and Legal Forms

SELECTED PLEADINGS, PETITIONS, MOTIONS AND OTHER JUDICIAL
AND LEGAL FORMS
Republic of the Philippines.....)

City of Iligan…………………..) s.s.
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

THAT I, Juan D. Degalion, of legal age, Filipino citizen, with
postal address at Door 4, Uledo Apartment, Tambo, Iligan City,
respectively does hereby name, constitute and appoint, Maria P.
Pangilinan, of legal age, Filipino citizen, with postal address at
Door 5, Espona Apartment, Tibanga, Iligan City to be my true and
lawful attorney-in-fact, for me and in my name, place and stead, to
do and perform the following special powers, to wit:
1. To represent me in the pre-trial conference and
subsequent hearings of the above-entitled case, with special
power to make admissions and/or to make and submit as well as
accept and approve compromise agreements/proposals upon
such terms and conditions and under such covenants as he may
deem fit, and to undergo mediation, and other alternative dispute
resolution;
2. To sign, deliver, receive, accept any documents, and

make the necessary follow-ups which may be necessarily relative
to above case;
HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto my said attorney-
in-fact full power and authority to do and perform any and every
act and thing whatsoever requisite, necessary or proper to be
done in and about the premises as fully to all intents and purposes
as I might or could do if personally present and acting in person;
and
HEREBY RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING all that my said
attorney-in-fact shall lawfully do and cause to be done under and
by virtue of these presents.
(signed)
Juan D. Degalion
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:
(signed) (signed)
Chub A. Pangilinan Mtess D. Dematura
2
AND LEGAL FORMS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, personally appeared Mr.

Juan Degalion with GSIS I.D. Nos. 12345678, at Tibanga, Iligan
City on January 14, 2016, known to me and to me known to be the
same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and
acknowledged to me that the same is his free and voluntary act
and deed.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 3rd day of November
2016, at Iligan City, Philipines.
ATTY. PEDRO T. DAHON

Notary Public for Iligan
Unit 1, X Building, Tibanga, Iligan
Appointment No. 123, Until Dec. 31, 2016
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10—Iligan
PTR No. 1234567; 01/10/10—Iligan
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/05
MCLE No. I - 001234; 9/09/15
MCLE No. II – 005678; 9/09/15
Serial No. of Commission M-123
Doc. No. 11;
Page No. 22;
Book No. V ;
Series of 2016
3
AND LEGAL FORMS
Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
12th Judicial Region
Branch 3
Iligan City
CERTIFICATE OF SALE
(Real Estate Mortgage under Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118)
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that by virtue of a Real Estate

Mortgage Contract under Act 3135, as amended by Act 4118,
executed on the day of 29 of March, 2016 by Aimee San Juan,
Mortgagor, in favor of Mortgagee, Aya Emba, to secure payment
of the principal sum of PhP 1,200,000.00, plus attorney’s fees,
sheriff’s fees, and other necessary legal expenses, etc. and by
virtue of a Deed of Assignment of said mortgage, subsequently
executed by the Mortgagee Aya Emba on the 25th day of July,
2016, in favor of Joahna Mamalangcas, Assignee, the
undersigned Ex-officio Sheriff of RTC Branch 2 sold at public
auction on this 8th day of August, 2016, to the highest bidder
Maricel Santos, with residence address at #10 Bonifacio St., Iligan
City, for the total sum of ONE MILLION AND THOUSAND
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php 1,200,000.00) the real
property mentioned in said mortgage, which are particularly
described as follows, to wit:
“A parcel of land (Lot 1 of the subdivision plan

(LRC) Psd-11111, being a portion of Lot 1-B,
described on plan Psd-12222, LRC (GLRO) Rec. No.
(NA), situated in 3 Rizal St., Iligan City. Bounded on
the N., points 1 to 2 by Lot 1, Block 1; on E points 2
to 3 by Road Lot on the S., points 3 to 4 by Lot 5, and
on the W., points 4 to 5 by Lot 6, points 5 to 6 by Lot
4 and points 6 to 1 by Lot 2, all of Block 1, all of the
subdivision plan. Beginning at a point marked “1” on
the plan, being N. 14 deg. 20 E, 53.29. m. from Mon.
#1, Rizal, Iligan City.
thence, N. 87 deg. 09’E., 13.88 m. to point 2;

thence S. 3 deg. 14’ E., 17.64m. to point 3;
thence S. 88 deg. 01’W., 13.88m. to point 4;
thence N. 2 deg. 48’W., 2.45m. to point 5;
thence N. 4 deg. 05’ W. 8.43m. to point 6;
thence N. 2 deg. 17’W., 6.55m. to the point of
beginning;
4
AND LEGAL FORMS
containing an area of TWO HUNDRED (200) square

meters, more or less. All points referred to are
indicated on the plan and are marked on the ground
by P.S.. cyl. Conc. Mons. 15x60 cm.s; bearings true,
date of the original survey, December 5, 1926 and
February 5, 1956.”
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that the said highest bidder

Maricel Santos paid to the Office of the Clerk of Court of this Court
the said sum of PhP 1,200,000.00 representing the total/sale price
of the mortgaged real property above-described, on August 8,
2016, under Official Receipts Nos. 123445678 and ONE MILLION
AND TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P1,200,000.00 -
Fees) in full satisfaction of the obligation under the Mortgage/ and
the Deed of Assignment mentioned above.
This Certificate of Sale is issued to said highest bidder

Maricel Santos, under the guarantee prescribed by law.
It is hereby required of said highest bidder Maricel Santos

that a statement of the amount of any assessments or taxes which
may have been paid on account of this purchase, and such other
liens chargeable to a redemptioner, WITH PROOFS THEREOF,
all in accordance with Sec. 30 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
should be submitted to this Office, for purposes of computing the
actual amount payable by the mortgagor/redemptioner, in case of
redemption.
Iligan City, Philippines, August 8, 2016.
_________________________
Ex-officio Sheriff
APPROVED:
_____________________
Executive Judge
5
AND LEGAL FORMS

12TH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 01
Iligan City
ABC Inc., represented by its

duly elected President, Rodolfo
E. Enrique,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 112098
-versus-
For: DAMAGES BASED ON
Mr. Jose R. Rosario., BREACH OF CONTRACT
Defendant. with PRAYER FOR
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND
TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
x----------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM BREACH OF
CONTRACT
WITH PRAYER FOR PRELIIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO)
PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully states that:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under

the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with principal address
at #1136-A, A. Maceda Street, Tibanga, Iligan, and acting through
its duly authorized representative Mr. Rodolfo E. Enrique,
President. Plaintiff is represented herein by the undersigned
counsel with office address at Unit 1, X Building, Tibanga, Iligan
where plaintiff may be served with pertinent court processes and
notices. A copy of the SEC registration and the authorizing board
resolution are attached as Annex “A” and “B”;
2. Defendant is a sole proprietor operating under the

name and style of Junrix Merchandise and owned and registered
under the name of Mr. Jose R. Rosario. Defendant resides at No.
24 Evangelista Street, Santolan, Iligan City where he may be
served with pertinent court processes and notices;
6
AND LEGAL FORMS
BREACH OF CONTRACT
3. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and

sale of athletic gears under the tradename and brand
“SPORTSMAXX”. A copy of the trademark and trade name
registration of plaintiff is attached as Annex “C” and made an
integral part hereof;
4. On April 4, 2016, plaintiff and defendant executed an

Exclusive Distributorship Agreement (hereafter “Contract”) which
shall be effective for a period of five (5) years or from 2016 until
2019. A copy of the Contract is attached as Annex “D” and made
an integral part hereof;
5. Under the Contract, the parties agreed that defendant

shall be the exclusive distributor of plaintiff’s SPORTSMAXX
products for the specific areas covering Iligan and Marawi
(“Distribution Territory”) while plaintiff shall retain sale and
distribution rights in the areas outside the Distribution Territory of
defendant, viz:
Butuan, Gingoog, and Cagayan de Oro City
6. On or about September 22, 2016, plaintiff discovered

that defendant, either by himself or through his agents, have been
actively, knowingly and deliberately engaging in the sale and
distribution of SPORTSMAXX products of plaintiff in Pampanga,
an area outside the Distribution Territory of defendant, by entering
into consignment agreements with retail stores in that area, in
clear violation of the Contract;
DAMAGES
7. As a consequence of defendant’s acts, plaintiff

suffered and continues to suffer damages in the form of lost and
unrealized income in the amount of one million pesos (Php
1,000,000.00) per month;
8. Plaintiff wrote a letter dated September 24, 2016 which

was received by defendant on September 30, 2016 demanding
that the latter cease and desist from the foregoing violation,
however, defendant ignored the demand without offering any valid
or justifiable reason;
7
AND LEGAL FORMS
9. By reason of defendant’s refusal to abide by the terms

of the Contract, plaintiff was compelled to litigate, and for the
purpose, engaged the services of the undersigned law firm for a
fee of one hundred thousand pesos (Php 100,000.00) for which
defendant should be held liable, including the costs of suit.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
10. Unless restrained during the pendency of the present

action, defendant will continue to violate the rights of plaintiff under
the Contract and plaintiff will continue to suffer more damages as a
result thereof. In light of this, plaintiff avers as follows:
(a) Plaintiff has a good and valid cause of action;
(b) Plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the

whole or part of such relief consists of restraining the commission
or continuance of the act or acts complained of, perpetually;
(c) The commission, or continuance of the acts

complained of during the litigation, would probably work injustice
to plaintiff or cause plaintiff irreparable injury to its business and
reputation
(d) Defendant is doing or is procuring or suffering to be

done, the acts complained of in violation of the rights of the plaintiff
respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to
render the judgment ineffectual;
(e) Plaintiff is ready and willing to file a bond executed to

the enjoined defendant, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to
the effect that the plaintiff will pay to such party all damages which
the latter may sustain by reason of the injunction or temporary
restraining order if the court should finally decide that the applicant
was not entitled thereto.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays as follows:
1. Upon the filing of this action, a temporary restraining

order be issued ex parte and thereafter a writ of preliminary
injunction issue, restraining defendant or any of his agents and
representatives from selling and/or distributing and attempting to
sell and/or distribute the SPORTSMAXX products of plaintiff
outside the Distribution Territory as stipulated under the Contract,
during the pendency of the action, upon such bond which shall be
8
AND LEGAL FORMS
posted by the plaintiff in the amount to be fixed by this Honorable

Court;
2. After hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff

and against defendant:
(a) Ordering defendant to pay the following sums to

plaintiff:
i. Php 1,000,000.00 (one million pesos)– for and

as actual damages for lost and unrealized
profits;
ii. Php 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand pesos)

– for and as attorney’s fees as well as costs of
suit.
(b) Ordering defendant to render an accounting of all

his sales for SPORTSMAXX products in areas outside his
Distribution Territory, and to remit all profits realized by him
to plaintiff;
(c) Making the writ of preliminary injunction that may

have been rendered permanent.
Plaintiff prays for such other reliefs as may be just and

equitable under the circumstances
Iligan City, November 4, 2016.
(signed)
Counsel for Plaintiff
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10—Iligan
PTR No. 1234567; 01/10/10—Iligan
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/05
MCLE No. I - 001234; 9/09/15
MCLE No. II – 005678; 9/09/15
9
AND LEGAL FORMS
VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM

SHOPPING
I, Rodolfo E. Enrique, of legal age, do hereby state that: I

represent the plaintiff in the pleading/document entitled Complaint
for Breach of Contract with Damages and Prayer for Preliminary
Injunction and TRO and in such capacity, caused this Complaint to
be prepared; I have read its contents and affirm that they are true
and correct to the best of my own personal knowledge; I hereby
certify that there is no other case commenced or pending before
any court involving the same parties and the same issue and that,
should I learn of such a case, I shall notify the court within five (5)
days from my notice.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument on

November 4, 2016.
(signed)
Rodolfo E. Enrique
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in the City of

Iligan on this 4th day of November, 2016, affiant exhibiting before
me his Government Issued ID No. 7916445 issued on April 1,
2015 at Iligan City.

IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10—Iligan
PTR No. 1234567; 01/10/10—Iligan
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/05
MCLE No. I - 001234; 9/09/15
MCLE No. II – 005678; 9/09/15
Doc. No. 11;

Page No. 22;
Book No. V ;
Series of 2016
10
AND LEGAL FORMS

Region X
Branch 1, City of Iligan
FELICISIMO C. DE JESUS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 40865
- versus -
For: UNLAWFUL
EMMAN IGWEBUKE DETAINER
OBIEGBU,
Defendant.
x ----------------------------------- x
ANSWER
(WITH COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS CLAIM)
COMES NOW, defendant, through the undersigned counsel,

and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:
1. Defendant denies any knowledge as regards the
personal circumstances of the plaintiff for lack of knowledge of his
identity for the reason that the one with whom he entered a
Contract is a certain Fernando A. Ortiz, neither did he personally
met said plaintiff;
2. Answering defendant admits the averments in

paragraph 2 of the complaint as regards the personal
circumstance of the defendant;
3. Defendant denies any personal knowledge as regards

the ownership of the plaintiff over the subject premises, again for
lack of knowledge since the one with whom he entered with a
Contract of Lease is a certain Fernando Ortiz;
4. That defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 4

of the Complaint as regards the existence of Contract of Lease;
5. That defendant specifically deny the allegations of the

plaintiff in paragraph 5 of his Complaint as regards the alleged
increase of rentals to P18,500.00 for being a brazen lie, as the
truth of the matter is that the agreed rental increase is only
P16,500.00 and not P18,500.00 as claimed by the plaintiff through
his attorney-in-fact as evidenced by the BPI Deposit Slips dated
2015 to 2016 evidencing payment of the rentals by the defendant
in the amount of P16,500 under the account of Corazon De Jesus
11
AND LEGAL FORMS
(plaintiff’s daughter as per advise of their attorney-in-fact which are

hereto attached as Annexes “1”—“1-g” hereof;
6. That defendant specifically deny the allegations of the

plaintiff in his complaint more particularly paragraph 6 as regards
the alleged eight (8) months unpaid rentals again for being a
deviation from truth, as the truth of the matter is that defendant
has no back rentals to the plaintiff as a matter of fact he is fully
paid until October 24, 2016 as evidenced by the BPI Deposit Slips
dated March 24, 2016 and October 25, 2016 which are hereto
attached as Annexes “2” & “3” hereof;
Further, the undersigned counsel even sent a letter Reply to

the plaintiff’s Attorney-in-fact Atty. Romeo Ortiz De Belen informing
him that all the rentals by the defendant have been fully paid until
October 24, 2016, and deposited under the account of Corazon
De Jesus as agreed upon (who is the daughter of the plaintiff).
Copy of Letter Reply is hereto attached as Annex “4” hereof;
7. That defendant specifically denies the averments of

the plaintiff in paragraphs 7,8 & 9 of his Complaint for being a
concoction of truth, as the truth of the matter is that again the
defendant paid his rental up to October 24, 2016, which were
deposited by him under the account of Corazon De Jesus as
evidenced by the BPI Deposit Slips (Annexes “2” & “3” of the
Answer).
SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Defendant herein hereby adopts, incorporates and re-pleads

the foregoing allegations, and made the same as integral parts
hereof.
8. The plaintiff has no cause of action against the herein
answering defendant;
9. That defendant entered into a Contract of Lease with a

certain Fernando Ortiz;
10. Also, the Honorable court should take judicial notice

that one of the incorporators of the plaintiff corporation is already
dead, and the three other members of the Board of Directors are
still abroad, hence, it would be quite impossible for them to
execute the said Secretary’s Certificate/Board of Resolution if
there is any, not to mention that the same should be authenticated
by the Philippine Embassy abroad which is a requirement under
the law and the rules on evidence;
12
AND LEGAL FORMS
11. Defendant did not receive any demand letter from the
plaintiff, neither does she personally know the person who signed
the alleged registry return card appended to the complaint. Even
the contents of the said demand letter is defective since it failed to
comply with Sec. 2 of Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
since it merely gives the defendant an alternative remedy to
vacate or pay reasonable fee for the use of premises;
12. Due to the institution of the present unfounded and

unwarranted complaint, defendant suffered sleepless nights,
serious anxiety in which she should be awarded the amount of
P100,000.00 as moral damages;
13. Defendant was forced to litigate and engage, and did

engage, the services of the undersigned counsel for which she
committed to pay the sum of P25,000.00, as and by way of
attorneys fee, and P3,500.00 for every hearing of the case.
CROSSCLAIM
14. Defendant reiterates, repleads and incorporates by

reference all the foregoing insofar as they are material and
additionally submit that he is entitled to indemnity and/or
contribution from co-defendant Fernando Ortiz in the event that he
is made liable to plaintiff because co-defendant Fernando Ortiz
acted as the duly authorized agent of plaintiff in the lease of the
property and, acting as such, received consideration, in the form of
the lease price, from defendant.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is more respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Court that, after hearing, judgment be
rendered:
a) Dismissing the instant Complaint;
b) Ordering the plaintiff to pay the herein defendant the

following sums:
1. P100,000.00 as moral damages;
2. The sum of P25,000.00 as and by way of

attorney’s fees, and P2,000.00 as appearance
fee for every hearing of the case;
3. Costs of suit.
13
AND LEGAL FORMS
Such other relief and remedies which may be deemed just and
equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Iligan City; November 4, 2016.
(signed)
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10—Iligan
PTR No. 1234567; 01/10/10—Iligan
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/05
MCLE No. I - 001234; 9/09/15
MCLE No. II – 005678; 9/09/15
14
AND LEGAL FORMS

SHOPPING
I, Felicisimo C. De Jesus, of legal age, do hereby state
that: I represent the plaintiff in the pleading/document entitled
Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim and Cross Claim, and in
such capacity, caused this pleading to be prepared; I have read its
contents and affirm that they are true and correct to the best of my
own personal knowledge; I hereby certify that there is no other
case commenced or pending before any court involving the same
parties and the same issue and that, should I learn of such a case,
I shall notify the court within five (5) days from my notice.

November 4, 2016.
(signed)
Felicisimo C. De Jesus

(signed)
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10—Iligan
PTR No. 1234567; 01/10/10—Iligan
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/05
MCLE No. I - 001234; 9/09/15
MCLE No. II – 005678; 9/09/15
Doc. No. 11;

Page No. 22;
Book No. V ;
Series of 2016
15
AND LEGAL FORMS
Copy furnished through registered mail:
ATTY. ROMEO ORTIZ DE BELEN

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Suite 101, Pacific Irvine Bldg.,
2746 Zenaida St., Brgy. Poblacion
Iligan City
Registry Receipt No. 0001223
Iligan City Post Office
aDate November 4, 2016
EXPLANATION
The foregoing Answer and its attachment were served on

Atty. Romeo Ortiz De Belen by registered mail instead of personal
service as counsel for petitioner due to time constraints, and for
lack of the undersigned’s office personnel thereby rendering
personal service thereof inconvenient and impracticable.
(signed)
16
AND LEGAL FORMS

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Amado P. Policarpio, a messenger of Atty. Pedro T.

Dahon, with office address at Unit 1, X Building, Tibanga, Iligan,
after being duly sworn, deposes and states:
That on November 4, 2016, I served a copy of the following

pleadings/papers by registered mail in accordance with Section
10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court:
Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim and Cross Claim
in Case No. 40865 entitled Felicisimo C. De Jesus v Emman

Igwebuke Obiegbu for Unlawful Detainer by depositing a copy in
the post office in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to Atty.
Romeo Ortiz De Belen at Suite 101, Pacific Irvine Bldg., 2746
Zenaida St., Brgy. Poblacion,Iligan City with postage fully paid, as
evidenced by Registry Receipt No. 0001223 attached and with
instructions to the post master to return the mail to sender after ten
(10) days if undelivered.
TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this

Affidavit on November 4, 2016, in the City of Iligan, Philippines.
(signed)
Amado P. Policarpio
Affiant

me his Government Issued ID no. 00789 issued on April 2, 2016 at
Mindanao State University-Marawi.
(signed)
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10—Iligan
PTR No. 1234567; 01/10/10—Iligan
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/05
17
AND LEGAL FORMS
MCLE No. I - 001234; 9/09/15

MCLE No. II – 005678; 9/09/15
Doc. No. 11;

Page No. 22;
Book No. V ;
Series of 2016
18
AND LEGAL FORMS

Region X
Branch 1, City of Iligan
Mr. X,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE No. 112098
-versus-
For: SUM OF MONEY WITH
Mr. Y, DAMAGES
Defendant.
x----------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
COMES NOW, the defendant, through the undersigned

counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully move for
a bill of particular on the following grounds and avers:
1. That the plaintiff, in his complaint, seeks to recover

damages allegedly suffered by him, in the amount of Php
1,000,000.00;
2. That plaintiff failed to allege the nature of said

damages, the manner in which he suffered the same, and what
computation he used to arrive at the alleged amount, with
sufficient definiteness, and/or particularity to enable defendant to
properly prepare his responsive pleading and/or trial.
WHEREFORE, defendant prays that plaintiff be ordered to

amend the complaint or to submit a Bill of Particular, stating with
definiteness the nature of said damages, the manner in which he
suffered the same, and what computation he used to arrive at the
alleged amount, with sufficient definiteness.
Such other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and

equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Iligan, November 4, 2016.
(signed)
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10—Iligan
19
AND LEGAL FORMS
PTR No. 1234567; 01/10/10—Iligan

Roll No. 12345; 5/05/05
MCLE No. I - 001234; 9/09/15
MCLE No. II – 005678; 9/09/15
REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OF HEARING
THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

BRANCH 1, ILIGAN

Iligan City
Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Court for its

consideration and approval immediately upon receipt hereof and
kindly include the same in the court’s calendar for hearing on
Friday, November 11, 2016 at 2:00PM.
Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard

on Friday, November 11, 2016 at 2:00PM.

Counsel for Defendant

Iligan City
Date November 4, 2016
20
AND LEGAL FORMS
EXPLANATION

(signed)
21
AND LEGAL FORMS



Motion for Bill of Pariculars
in Case No. 112098 entitled Mr. X v Mr. Y for Sum of Money and
Damages by depositing a copy in the post office in a sealed
envelope, plainly addressed to Atty. Romeo Ortiz De Belen at
Suite 101, Pacific Irvine Bldg., 2746 Zenaida St., Brgy.
Poblacion,Iligan City with postage fully paid, as evidenced by
Registry Receipt No. 0001223 attached and with instructions to
the post master to return the mail to sender after ten (10) days if
undelivered.


(signed)
Amado P. Policarpio
Affiant

(signed)
22
AND LEGAL FORMS
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10—Iligan

PTR No. 1234567; 01/10/10—Iligan
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/05
MCLE No. I - 001234; 9/09/15
MCLE No. II – 005678; 9/09/15
Doc. No. 11;

Page No. 22;
Book No. V ;
Series of 2016
23
AND LEGAL FORMS

BRANCH 05
Iligan City
MANININGIL C. AKO,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 123456
-versus-
For: COLLECTION OF SUM OF
DAMING UTANG INC., MONEY WITH DAMAGES
Respondent.
x----------------------------------------x
MOTION TO DISMISS
COMES NOW the Respondent, DAMING UTANG INC.,
through the undersigned counsel, appearing especially and solely
for this purpose, and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully
moves for the dismissal of the Complaint on the following ground
that THE HONORABLE COURT HAS NOT ACQUIRED
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDING
PARTY.
DISCUSSION
A cursory reading of the Summons and Return of Service
would readily show that the copies of the Summons dated 01
November 2016 and the Complaint and its corresponding annexes
were allegedly delivered and tendered upon the Movant DAMING
UTANG INC. through a certain Maria B. Walangkinalaman alleged
to be the authorized personnel of Movant DAMING UTANG INC.,
Iligan City on 26 October 2016. Copies of the said Summons and
Return of Service that form part of the records on the case are
hereto pleaded as integral part of this Motion;
Said service of Summons, however, constitutes an improper
service of summons amounting to lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the herein Movant Corporation DAMING UTANG INC.
since the summons was improperly served upon a person who is
not one of those persons named or enumerated in Section 11,
Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure upon whom service
of summons shall be made;
The material provision on the service of summons provided
for in Section 11 of Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
reads as follows:
24
AND LEGAL FORMS
"Section 11. Service upon domestic private

juridical entity.- When the defendant is a corporation,
partnership or association organized under the laws of
the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may
be made on the president, managing partner, general
manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house
counsel." (underscoring ours)
It bears no further emphasis that the service of the summons
was done on a person who is not included in the exclusive
enumeration provided for under the said Section, as service was
done only on an alleged authorized personnel of the Movant
Corporation;
This new revision of the Rules of Court for the service of
summon is a clear departure from the old rule as stated in Section
13, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which provided that:
"SECTION 13. Service upon private domestic
corporation or partnership. - If the defendant is a
corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines
or a partnership duly registered, service may be made
on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent,
or any of its directors."
It must be equally noted that the changes in the new rules
are substantial and not just general semantics as the new rules
restricted the service of summons on persons clearly enumerated
therein. In effect, the new provision makes it more specific and
clear such that in the case of the word "manager", it was made
more precise and changed to "general manager", "secretary" to
"corporate secretary", and excluding therefrom agent and director;
The designation of persons or officers who are authorized to
accept summons for a domestic corporation or partnership is
under the new rules, limited and more clearly specified, departure
from which is fatal to the validity of the service of the summons
and resulting in the failure of the court to acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the respondent corporation.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Complaint
with respect to the Movant Corporation be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
This 30th day of October 2016 at Iligan City, Philippines.
25
AND LEGAL FORMS
(signed)
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10—Iligan
PTR No. 1234567; 01/10/10—Iligan
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/05
MCLE No. I - 001234; 9/09/15
MCLE No. II – 005678; 9/09/15
NOTICE OF HEARING
THE CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Branch 05
Iligan City

Iligan City
Greetings!
Please take notice that the foregoing Motion to Dismiss shall

be submitted for the consideration and approval of the Honorable
Court on Friday, November 4, 2016, or as soon as counsel or
matter may be heard.
PEARLA MAY ANGELA L.

PLAZA
Copy furnished:

Iligan City
26
AND LEGAL FORMS

EXPLANATION

(signed)
27
AND LEGAL FORMS



Motion to Dismiss
in Case No. 123456 entitled Maniningil C. Ako vs. Dami Utang Inc.
for Collecion of Sum of Money with Damages by depositing a copy
in the post office in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to Atty.

(signed)
Amado P. Policarpio
Affiant

(signed)
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10—Iligan
PTR No. 1234567; 01/10/10—Iligan
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/05
MCLE No. I - 001234; 9/09/15
28
AND LEGAL FORMS
MCLE No. II – 005678; 9/09/15

Doc. No. 11;

Page No. 22;
Book No. V ;
Series of 2016
29
AND LEGAL FORMS

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
En Banc
RONALD BELEN, DANTE

PANTINO,
WENECITO URGEL, RICKY BINDOL
AND ARIEL LALAP,
Petitioner,
CA-GR SP No. ______
-versus-
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION (FIFTH DIVISION)
AND TOYOTA MOTORS PHILS.
CORP.,
JOSEPH MATTHEW SOBREVEGA,
DAVID GO AND MICHINOBU
SUGATA,
Respondent.
x ---------------------------------------------- x
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI
PETITIONERS, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court,

respectfully states that:
I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
This is an action to set aside the twin decisions of the

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) issued
on December 22, 2011 and February 7, 2012 with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction there being no plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A
certified true copy of the decisions under review is attached as
ANNEX A.
II.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES
Notice of the said decision of the NLRC Fifth division issued

on December 22, 2011 was received by the petitioner on January
30
AND LEGAL FORMS
16, 2012. Petitioners filed its motion for reconsideration within the
reglementary period. NLRC Fifth Division issued a resolution
February 7, 2012 was received by herein lead counsel on
February 27, 2012.
This petition for Certiorari is filed within the 60-day period.
III.
PARTIES
Petitioners, RONALD BELEN, DANTE

PANTINO,WENECITO URGEL, RICKY BINDOL AND ARIEL
LALAP, are all of legal ages and with present address at the
following:
RONALD BELEN – Phase 1, National Highway Brgy.

Halang,
Calamba City, Laguna
DANTE PANTINO – Blk. 132 Lot 1, Brgy. Sta. Lucia,

Dasmariñas, Cavite
WENECITO URGEL – Blk. 14 Lot 66, Brgy. Nicolasa Virata,

Cavite
RICKY BINDOL – Blk 1-7, Lot 15, Brgy Sta. Cruz-1,

Dasmariñas, Cavite
ARIEL LALAP – Brgy. Sirang Lupang, Calamba City,

Laguna
They may also be served with pleadings, processes and

notices, through undersigned counsel, at Unit-F Bartolazo
Building, 800 J.P Boulevard, Brgy. Malusak, Sta. Rosa City,
Laguna.
Public respondent NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION (FIFTH DIVISION) is impleaded herein being the
quasi-judicial body which rendered the Decision/Resolution
subject of this Petition. It may be served with summons and
processes at PPSTA Bldg., Banaue, Quezon City.
Respondent TOYOTA MOTORS PHILS. CORP. is an entity

engaged in the automotive industry and with office address at
Toyota special Economic Zone, Santa Rosa-Tagaytay Hi-way,
Santa Rosa City, Laguna. It may be served with summons and
notices at its counsel on record – Dela Rosa & Nograles at 22nd
31
AND LEGAL FORMS
Floor, Philippine Stock Exchange Centre West Tower, Exchange

Road Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Individual respondents JOSEPH MATTHEW SOBREVEGA,

DAVID GO AND MICHINOBU SUGATA are impleaded in their
capacity as OIC HR Manager, Executive Vice President and
President, respectively, of respondent corporation, for having been
the persons responsible for illegal dismissal of complainants. They
may be served with summons and notices at the same address as
the respondent corporation.
IV.
FACTS OF THE CASE AND ANTECENDENT PROCEEDINGS
Petitioners RONALD BELEN, DANTE

PANTINO,WENECITO URGEL, RICKY BINDOL AND ARIEL
LALAP, are members of the minority union TMPCWA who were
made to explain against the similarly worded charges, among
others, of inciting or participating in riots, disorders, illegal strikes
or concerted actions against the interest of TOYOTA. Immediately,
the petitioners were placed under preventive suspension and there
after dismissed.
After the parties submitted their respective pleadings, the

labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the herein respondents, and without
finding whether the petitioners incited others or participated in riot
concerted activities, or illegal strike, it simply made conclusion that
petitioners were guilty of serious misconduct for disrespecting their
superiors and for causing disturbance in the production.
Petitioner’s appealed and was dissmissed. And affirmed the

decision of labor arbiter Napoleon V. Fernando dated March
30,2011. Petitioners filed a timely motion for reconsideration to no
avail. Hence, the instant petition for certiorari to annul and reverse
the NLRC’s twin decision.
V.
CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issues of law raised are:
1. Whether or not NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION (NLRC) committed grave abuse of discretion in
32
AND LEGAL FORMS
ruling that petitioners’ dismissal is valid on account of serious

misconduct.
2. Whether or not NLRC committed grave abuse of

discretion in ruling that petitioners were validly placed under
preventive suspension, and that the suspension of petitioner
bindol is legal.

discretion in violating the petitioners’ right to due process that in
ruling that petitioners disrespected their superiors despite absence
of specific charge.

discretion in ruling that petitioners were afforded procedural due
process despite the fact that no hearing was conducted to afford
the petitioners ample opportunity to explain their side.

discretion in ruling that respondent did not commit unfair labor
practice.

discretion in ruling that petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs
prayed for.
VI.
DISCUSSION
ABSENCE OF UNLAWFUL INTENT OR MALICE ON THE

PART OF PETITIONERS TO WARRANT THE CONCLUSION OF
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT
The COURT ruled that the employer has to show unlawful

intent or malice on the part of the petitioners to validly dismiss
them based on serious misconduct.
Misconduct is improper or wrongful conduct. It is the

transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a
forbidden act; a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and
implies wrongful intent not mere error of judgement. Under
Article 282 of the labor code, serious misconduct is just cause for
termination by employer.
However, All told the respondents and the NLRC failed to

cite the specific evidence on records that would show malice or
33
AND LEGAL FORMS
unlawful intent on each petitioner that would warrant the

conclusion that they committed serious misconduct.
PETITIONERS WERE INVALIDLY PLACED UNDER

PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION
Here, it was established that ECHANO, the junior officer,

arbitrarily stopped the production. On the Other hand, the
conclusion that petitioner caused disturbance in the production
lines is without substantial evidence on records. There is absence
of specific evidence on records that the ordinary rank and file
employees manning the production lines were incited by the
petitioners to do riots, concerted activities or strike. Likewise, there
is absence of proof that petitioners engaged in concerted activities
to stop production.
Indeed, the conclusion reached by the labor Arbiter and the

NLRC that petitioners were validly placed under preventive
suspension is without factual and legal basis because the
petitioners were not shown to have posed serous or imminent
threat to the lives and property of respondent.
ILLEGAL SUSPENSION OF BINDOL
The COMMISSION failed to cite specific evidence on

records that would support the validity of the 30-days suspension
of BINDOL, therefore his suspension should be considered illegal
and unjustified.
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS IN RULING THAT

PETITIONERS’ DISRESPECTED THEIR SUPERIORS
The COURT ruled that there is violation of due process

where the employee concerned is dismissed based on an act that
he was not properly charged.
Similarly, in the case at bar, the NLRC went beyond the

charges leveled against the petitioners because the notice to
explain failed to show that petitioners were charged for having
disrespected their superiors and for which their dismissal is being
sought.
The evidence as shown on the records, failed to show

credible substantial evidence against petitioner on the conclusion
that they committed serious misconduct when they disrespected
their superior.
34
AND LEGAL FORMS
NO HEARING WAS CONDUCTED FOR THE PETITIONERS TO

CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST THEM
In the case at bar, the NLRC’s conclusion that petitioners

were afforded procedural due process is likewise unsupported by
substantial evidence, in the absence of the minutes of hearings
conducted where the petitioners were amply given the opportunity
to confront the witnesses against them particularly the junior
officers who belatedly executed affidavits in behalf of the
respondents, and whose interest lies on their employer Toyota.
The self-serving affidavits of the junior officers were

executed on December 14, 2010 or on about the filing of the
position paper on December 20, 2010, thus, the petitioners were
unable to rebut the allegations against them in the plant level.
The purported investigation conducted is not hearing in the

purview of the law because there is absence of credible proof in
said investigation that the respondents’ witnesses were made to
confront with the petitioners and their witnesses.
RESPONDENT TOYOTA COMMITED UNFAIR LABOR

PRACTICE
The NLRC improperly concluded that unfair labor practice

was not committed by respondent TOYOTA; but manufacturing
evidence against the hapless complainant and bloating the
evidence to make it appear that complainants left their workplace,
shouted expletives against junior officers, created disturbance,
riot, concerted activities and illegal strike are acts constitutive of
union interference to destroy the minority union to which the
petitioners belong.
The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC failed to see the obvious.
The respondent’s intended to destroy the minority union by
dissmissing its active union officers and members, by concocting
and manufacturing evidence to justify their dissmisal via bias
witnesses such as the junior officers.
Hence, unfair labor practice was committed by the

respondent TOYOTA.
PETITIONERS ARE ENTIRLED TO THE RELIEFS PRAYED

FOR
An employee who has been illegally dismissed is entitled to

reinstattement to his former position without loss of seniority rights
35
AND LEGAL FORMS
and to payment of full backwages corresponding to the period

from his illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement.
Moral damages are recoverable when the dismissak of an

employee is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act
oppresive to labor, or is done in a manner contary to good morals,
good customs or public policy. Exemplary damages may be
awarded if the dismissal is effected in wanton, oppressive or
malevolent manner.
Hence, with the foregoing, individual respondents JOSEPH

MATTHEW SOBREVEGA, DAVID GO and MICHINOBU SUGAT,
who are the persons responsible for committing unfair labor
practice; and personally liable with TOYOTA MOTORS PHILS.
For their acts constituing Unfair Labor Practice, individual

respondents should also be recommended for criminal
prosecution.
VII.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable

Court:
a) Annul and reverse the NLRC’s twin decisions and

enter a new one declaring the petitioners’ dismissal illegal and
unjustified;
b) Order the petitioners’ reinstatement to their former

positions with fullbackwages without loss of seniority rights;
c) Award moral, exemplary and nominal damages

including attorneys fees;
d) Other equitable remedies are likewise prayed for.
City of Santa Rosa, laguna for Manila, April 26, 2012.
BANZUELA & ASSOCIATES

Counsel for Petitioners
Unit F Bartolazo Bldg., JP Rizal Blvd.,
Brgy. Malusak, Sta. Rosa, Laguna
Email: law_equity2003@yahoo.com
36
AND LEGAL FORMS
Telephone: (049) 302-54-34
BY:
(signed)
NAPOLEON C. BANZUELA, JR
Roll of Attorney #34312
PTR No. 1702848 01/05/12 Sta. Rosa, Laguna
IBP Lifetime Roll No. 01926 06/29/00 Albay Chapter
MCLE 111 COMPLIANCE CERT. NO. 0008659
17 February 2010
EXPLANATION
In compliance with section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of

Civil Procedure, copies of the foregoing Petition for Certiorari will
be served to parties concerned through registered mail due to time
and distance constraints and no office messengers making
personal service thereof impracticable.
NAPOLEON C. BANZUELA, JR.
Copy Furnished:
DELA ROSA & NOGRALES

Counsel for private respondents
22nd Floor, Philippine Stock Exchange Centre
West Tower, Exchange Road
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

Fifth Division
PPSTA Bldg., Banaue
Quezon City.
37
AND LEGAL FORMS

SHOPPING
I, WENECITO URGEL, of legal age, Filipino, with address at

Blk. 14 Lot 66, Brgy. Nicolasa Virata, Cavite, after being sworn to
in accordance with law, depose and state, that:
I am one of the petitioners and the duly authorized
representative of all the petitioners in the above –entitled case;
I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing
Petition for certiorari and have read and understood the contents
therein are true as regarding the facts to the best of my personal
knowledge and authentic documents.
I hereby certify that there is no other case commenced or
pending before any court involving the same parties and the same
issue and that, should I learn of such a case, I shall notify this
honorable court within five (5) days from my notice.
I received copy of notice of the said decision of the NLRC
Fifth division issued on December 22, 2011 was received by the
petitioners on January 16, 2012. The motion for reconsideration of
the said resolution was filed on January 26, 2012. NLRC Fifth
Division issued a resolution February 7, 2012 was received by
herein lead counsel on February 27, 2012.
April 27, 2012.
WENECITO URGEL
Affiant

Quezon City on this day of April 27, 2012, affiant exhibiting before
me his Government Issued ID no. BIR TIN ID No. 152-128-295-
000 issued on 09/02/2003, that he is the same person who
personally signed the foregoing Petition for Certiorari before me
and acknowledge that he executed the same in his own, true, free,
voluntary act and deed.
38
AND LEGAL FORMS
ATTY. CRIS T. PACULANANG

Notary Until Dec. 31 2012
PTR No. 6048211 1-5-2012
Roll No. 49756/QC
MCLE Comm. No.05/26/10-7-09 QC
No. 37 Camaro St. Fairview QC
Doc. No. 1
Page No. 2
Book No. I
Series of 2016.
39
AND LEGAL FORMS

National Capital Region
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Makati City, Branch No. 61
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Criminal Case No. 666
- versus -
Rodney Cruz y Perex,

Accused.
x ---------------------------------------- x
APPLICATION FOR PROBATION
THE ACCUSED, with assistance of counsel, respectfully

applies for probation pursuant to the provisions of Presidential
Decree No. 968, as amended.
In support of this application, the accused respectfully

submits the following:
1. Accused-applicant is of legal age and currently gainfully

employed at Mindanao State University. On September 2, 2016,
he/she pleaded “guilty” to the crime of Malicious Mischief;
consequently, this Honorable Court in its Order dated September
30, 2016, sentenced accused-applicant to suffer (30) days of
imprisonment.
2. Accused-applicant humbly submits that he/she

possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
enumerated under Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 968,
specifically:
2.1. He/she has not been convicted of any crime against

national security or public order;
2.2. He/she has not been previously convicted by final

judgment of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less
than one (1) month and one (1) day and/or a fine of not less than
Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00);
40
AND LEGAL FORMS
2.3. He/she has not previously applied for nor had been
previously placed under probation under Presidential Decree No.
968.
2.4. He/she has not started to serve her sentence and, to

date, has not filed any Notice of Appeal from the Order of
conviction.
3. Finally, granting this application will not in any way

depreciate the seriousness of the crime charged nor cause any
undue risk that during the period of probation, accused-applicant
will commit another crime. Moreover, accused-applicant does not
need any correctional treatment requiring commitment to an
institution.
WHEREFORE, accused-applicant respectfully prays that

his/her application for probation be GRANTED and that he/she be
placed under probation under such terms and conditions
necessary to attain and ensure the objectives of the law and
which, under the circumstances, are fair, just and reasonable in
the sound discretion of this Honorable Court.
Makati; October 10, 2016.
Rodney P. Cruz
Accused-Applicant
Makati City
41
AND LEGAL FORMS
VERIFICATION
Republic of the Philippines )

City of Makati ) s.s.
Rodney Cruz y Perez, after having been duly sworn in

accordance with law, deposes and states that:
1. He is the plaintiff in the pleading/document entitled
(pleading/document being verified);
2. He has caused its preparation;
3. He has read it and the allegations therein are true and

correct of his own knowledge or based on authentic records.
Rodney P. Cruz
Affiant

Makati on this day of October 10, 2015, affiant exhibiting before
me his Government Issued ID no. 123 issued on October 5, 2016
at Makati City.
(signed)
Atty. Nadine Lustre
Notary Public
Until December 1, 2016
PTR No. 123
Issued at Makati City
On October 10, 2016
Doc. No. 12
Page No. 3
Book No. 54
Series of 2016.
42
AND LEGAL FORMS
REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OF HEARING
THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

MeTC Branch 61
Makati City
Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Court for its

consideration and approval immediately upon receipt hereof and
kindly include the same in the court’s calendar for hearing on
Friday, October 27 at 8:30 in the morning.
Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard

on Friday, October 27, 2016 at 8:30 in the morning.
Prosecutor Nadine Lustre

Counsel for Plaintiff
Office of the Prosector, Makati City
Copy furnished through personal service:
Atty. Kim Domingo

Counsel for the Defendant
Domingo Law Office
Makati City
43
AND LEGAL FORMS
DEED OF SALE
I, Donald Trump, Filipino, single, and resident of Tibanga,

Iligan City, for and inconsideration of the amount of ONE MILLION
PESOS (1,000,000,00Php), paid to me today by Hillary Clinton,
Filipino, single andresident of Pala-o, Iligan City, do hereby SELL,
TRANSFER and CONVEY absolutely and unconditionally unto
said Hillary Clinton that certain parcel(s) of land, together with the
buildings and improvements thereon situated in the City of Makati,
and more particularly described as follows:
(Description: A house and lot located at 277

12 St., Pala-o, Iligan City, with an area of four
hundred eleven (411) square meters, in good
condition and accurately separated from other
properties by means of a concrete
compound.)
It is hereby declared that the boundaries of the foregoing

land are visible by means of concrete compound; that the
permanent improvements existing thereon consist of a house and
lot; that the land is assessed for the current year at P1,000,000.00
as per Tax Declaration No. 123, and the buildings and/or
improvements , at P250,000.00 as per Tax Declaration No. 124, of
the City Assessor of Iligan.
The above described real estate, not having been registered

under Act No. 496 nor under theSpanish Mortgage Law, the
parties hereto have agreed to register this instrument under the
provisions ofSec. 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as
amended.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this deed this

7thday of July, 2016 at Makati City.
Donald Trump
Vendor
With my consent:
Paris Hilton
Vendor’s Wife
44
AND LEGAL FORMS
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:
(signed) (signed)
Tom Cruz Brad Pitt
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the City of Iligan,

Philippines this 4th day of July, 2016 personally appeared the
following:
Names ID Type / No. Date/Place Issued
Donald Trump 12-12-12 04/08/16, Iligan City

Hillary Clinton 13-13-13 04/08/16, Iligan City
known to me and to me known to be the same persons who

executed the foregoing Deed of Sale consisting of two (2) pages
including this page, and they acknowledged to me that the same
is their free and voluntary act and deed.
WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL at the place

and on the date first herein above written.
(signed)
Atty. Nadine Lustre
Notary Public
Until December 1, 2016
PTR No. 123
Issued at Makati City
On October 10, 2016
Doc. No. 02;

Page No. 2;
Book No. 03
Series of 2016.
45
AND LEGAL FORMS

7th Judicial Region
RTC Branch No. _______
Mandaue City
MR. XXXX SMITH,

Petitioner,
Special Proceedings No. ____
- versus -
For: Judicial Recognition
MRS. XXXX SMITH, And/Or Enforcement Of A
and/or Civil Registrar General, Foreignjudgment
duly represented By Carmelita
N. Ericta, and/or
the Local Civil Registrar of
Mandaue City
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - – – - - - - - - - - - ----x/
PETITION
COMES NOW, petitioner, through undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Court, hereby alleges:
1. Petitioner Mr. XXX Smith is an American citizen,

divorced, and a resident of ________ where notices and summons
can be served;
2. Respondent Mrs. XXX Smith is a Filipino citizen, and a

resident of________ where summons, notices and court
processes may be served;
3. Respondent Civil Registrar General of the National

Statistics Office with office address at Ground Floor, Solicarel
Building I, Ramon Magsaysay Blvd., Sta. Mesa Manila where it
may be served with summons and court processes. Said
government agency is represented by its Administrator and Civil
Registrar General of the National Statistics Office, Carmelita N.
Ericta. The said office is included as an indispensable party
respondent of the instant case.
4. Respondent Mandaue City Civil Registrar is

represented by ____________________ of legal age, married and
with office address at the Cebu City Civil Registrar, Ground Floor,
Cebu City Health Building, Gen. Maxilom Ave. Extension, Cebu
46
AND LEGAL FORMS
City. The said office is included as an indispensable party

respondent of the instant case.
5. Petitioner and private respondent got married on

_____________ at Mandaue City. Attached is a copy of the
Certificate of Marriage marked as Annex “A.”
6. The parties have one child, Child Smith who was born
on ________ in Mandaue City Hospital. Attached is a copy of his
birth certificate marked as Annex "B".
7. However, the marriage was marred by frequent

quarrels and recurring arguments and it was difficult for them to
reconcile their differences.
8. Petitioner filed for divorce at the Superior Court of

____ and on __________, Judge
Superior Court of _________ Hon. Judge ___ issued a Final
Judgment of Divorce. Attached is a copy of the Final Judgment of
Divorce marked as Annex “C.”
9. That _____ is a US territory and the ____, US Code

Annotated allows divorce. Attached as Annex “D” is Title 19
Personal Relations provisions of the law;
10. Aliens may obtain divorces abroad which may be

recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to
their national law.
11. Under , paragraph 2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code,

states to wit,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is
validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the
Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine
law. (Emphasis supplied)
12. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court in the case of

Republic vs. CiprianoOrbecido III (GR No. 154380, Oct. 5, 2005)
ruled that “before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by
our own courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a
fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it.”
13.That the Dissolution of Status secured by petitioner conforms to
the _____ US Law;
47
AND LEGAL FORMS
14.That it is but just and fair for the Philippine government to

recognize and enforce the divorce secured by the petitioner so as
not to create a legal anomaly by allowing the foreign husband to
remarry but the Filipina wife to continue to be bound in the
marriage that does not exist or is already nullified in Guam law;
15. Lastly, the Supreme Court in Gerbert R. Corpuz vs.

Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas et. al. (G.R. No. 186571, August 11,
2010) recognized that the foreign spouse has the legal interest to
file the petition for judicial recognition of divorce decree and that
the “(t)he recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made
in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of special
proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is
precisely to establish the status or right of a party or a particular
fact. Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can serve as the
appropriate adversarial proceeding[41] by which the applicability of
the foreign judgment can be measured and tested in terms of
jurisdictional infirmities, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud,
or clear mistake of
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed that the divorce/ Dissolution of Status obtained by
petitioner be judicially recognized and that an order be issued
directing the public respondent Civil Registrar General and the
Mandaue Registrar to annotate the divorce/Dissolution of Status in
their marriage certificate.
Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.
Cebu City, Philippines, ___________.
LEPITEN AND BOJOS LAW OFFICE

Counsels for Petitioner
21-F Don Pedro Rodriguez St.,
Capitol Site, Cebu City, Philippines
By:
ATTY. ANNA FIONAH L. BOJOS
MCLE Compliance No. III-0007402
Jan. 14, 2010
Roll No. 54798
PTR No. 10147955, Jan. 3, 2012, Cebu Province
IBP No. 872164, Jan. 3, 2012
Cebu City
Tel. No. (6332)2548005
48
AND LEGAL FORMS
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
Branch ________
Pagadian City
IN THE MATTER OF
CANCELLATION/
CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE
CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH OF
ANABELIO BAGUIO GALISA
ANABELIO BAGUIO GALISA

Petitioner, Special Proc. No.
_________
-versus-
CIVIL REGISTRAR OF PAGADIAN

CITY, AND ALL
PERSONS/ENTITIES
WHO/WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED
THEREBY,
Respondents.
PETITION
Petitioner, through the undersigned counsel and to this
Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:
1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino, married, a resident of
Lumbia District, Pagadian City, Zamboanga Del Sur; whereas
Respondent - Civil Registrars are public officers in-charge of the
registration and cancellation/correction of entries in the civil
registrar where the fact of birth of the said petitioner was
registered, which registrar is located at the Local Civil Registry
Office of the Municipality of Labason, Zamboanga Del Norte;
2. Petitioner was born on February 22, 1979 at Labason,

Zamboanga Del Norte, Philippines, which fact of birth was
registered on before the Office of Civil Registry of the Municipality
of Labason, Zamboanga Del Norte under Civil Registry No. 81.
Copy of the Certificate of Live Birth of Anabello Galesa Baguio is
hereto attached as Annex “A;”
49
AND LEGAL FORMS
3. Prompted by the misbelief that he is born out of

wedlock, could not utilize the surname of his father – Paterno
Baguio, and that it is more convenient and easy to process the
registration his birth if his parents were living together and
married.;
4. Petitioner were using the name ANABELLO GALESA

BAGUIO in his application for the registration of birth, when the
truth of the matter is that his father left them and both his parents
were not legally married and all his school records and marriage
contract is that, he is using the name ANABELIO BAGUIO
GALISA. Copy of the Certification of Live Birth issued by the Local
Civil Registrar attesting to the fact that Petitioner has been under
the name of ANABELLO GALESA BAGUIO Annex “B;”
5. As a result, “REGISTRY NO. 81” referring to the Local

Civil Registry No. of herein petitioner which was entered as –
ANABELLO GALESA BAGUIO, and wants to change to
ANABELIO BAGUIO GALISA, of his Certificate of Live Birth for he
is using said name for all his official records and can be
misleading. Civil Registry No. 81 in Annex “A” is hereto bracketed
and marked as Annex “A-1”;
6. In order to correct the aforementioned misinformation

and erroneous entries in his Certificates of Live Birth, Petitioner
hereto files the instant Petition pursuant to Rule 108 of the
Revised Rules of Court;
7. Paterno Baguio, the father of the above-petitioner, who

had permanently left them and did not acknowledge nor admit
paternity over the said child as he did not sign the Letter of
Acknowledgment in the Certificate of Live Birth of Anabello.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed to this Honorable Court that an Order be issued directing
the herein Respondent – Civil Registrars to correct the
information supplied as “REGISTRY NO. 81”, particularly the
printed name of the herein Petitioner from ANABELLO GALESA
BAGUIO to ANABELIO BAGUIO GALISA in the Certificate of Live
Birth said Petitioner.
SUBMITTED, this ___ day of September 2015 at Pagadian

City, Zamboanga Del Sur, Philippines.
50
AND LEGAL FORMS
MAYUS RYAN D. ANDO

Counsel for the Petitioner
IBP No. 1007988 / 4-22-2015
PTR No. 2565834 / 5-18-2015
MCLE No. (Admitted to the Bar last 27 April 2015)
560 Datoc cor. Sanson St., Gatas District,
Pagadian City
51
AND LEGAL FORMS

BRANCH 01
Iligan City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES,
Plaintiff, CRIMINAL CASE NO.

2016-1234
-versus-
For: MURDER
MANANAK A. SAK,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------x
INFORMATION
The undersigned prosecutor accuses MANANAK A. SAK of

the crime of murder, defined and penalized under ART. 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, committed as follows, to wit:
That on or about 2nd day of November2016, at

about eleven o’clock in the evening (11 p.m.), in the
City of Iligan, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, with evident intent
to kill, did the and there willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously, suddenly, unexpectedly, and
treacherously, assault, attack and wound NASAKSAK
A. RAY from behind with the use of a bolo, rendering
him unconscious, and continued to inflict mortal
wounds on the said NASAKSAK A. RAY while the
latter was already unconscious and unable to defend
himself, causing his instantaneous death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Iligan City, Philippines, November 4, 2016
ATTY. IKUKULONG B. KITA

Assistant City Prosecutor
52
AND LEGAL FORMS
WITNESSES:
UNANG A. SAKSI PANGALAWANG B.

NAGSAKSI
CERTIFICATE OF PRELIMINARY INVESIGATION
I hereby certify that a preliminary investigation in this case

was conducted by me in accordance with law; that I examined the
Complainant and her witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to
believe that the offense charged had been committed and that the
accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed
of the Complaint and of the evidence submitted against him and
was given the opportunity to submit controverting evidence; and
that the filing of this Information is with the prior authority and
approval of the City Prosecutor.
ATTY. IKUKULONG B. KITA

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 4th day of

November 2016 at Iligan City, Philippines.
ATTY. VICON B. De GUZMAN

City Prosecutor
53
AND LEGAL FORMS

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 1
Dasmarinas City, Cavite

Plaintiff,
Criminal Case No. CR-06-
- versus – 8527
Miguel E. Santolan For: Unjust Vexation

Accused.
MOTION TO QUASH WARRANT OF ARREST
COME NOW accused, by counsel and unto this Honorable

Court, most respectfully move to quash the information filed
against the defendants on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
the subject matter.
ARGUMENTS
Defendants are indicted for committing the crime of "Unjust

Vexation" that is punished under the Article 287, Paragraph 2 of
the Revised Penal Code; Said provision states that:
"Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by
arrestomenor or a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or
both."(emphasis ours)
Defendants, however, most respectfully submit that this

Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
offense for the reason that article 287, paragraph 2 of the revised
penal code that punishes "unjust vexations" cannot be a basis of
any criminal prosecution for being NULL AND VOID AND patently
unconstitutional on its face because of the FOLLOWING reasons:
a) Said penal provision condemns no specific or

definite act or omission thus failing to define any crime or
felony;
b) Said penal provision is so indefinite, vague and

overbroad as not to enable it to be known what ACT is
forbidden;
54
AND LEGAL FORMS
c) Such vagueness and overbreadth result to

violation of the due process clause and the right to be
informed of the nature of the offense charged;
d) such vagueness and overbreadth likewise

amount to an invalid delegation by Congress of legislative
power to the courts to determine what acts should be held to
be criminal and punishable.
e) a criminal or penal legislation must clearly define

or specify the particular act or acts punished.
It is a well-established doctrine that a criminal or penal

legislation must clearly define or specify the particular acts or
omissions punished. As early as 1916, in the case of "United
States vs. Luling, 34 Phil. 725, our Honorable Supreme Court had
the occasion to hold that:
"In some of the States, as well as in England, there

exist what are known as common law offenses. In the
Philippine Islands no act is a crime unless it is made so by
statute. The state having the right to declare what acts are
criminal, within certain well defined limitations, has a right to
specify what act or acts shall constitute a crime, as well as
what act or acts shall constitute a crime, as well as what
proof shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and then
to put upon the defendant the burden of showing that such
act or acts are innocent and are not committed with any
criminal intent or intention."(emphasis and underscoring
ours, cited in the fairly recent case of Dizon-Pamintuan v.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 111426, July 11, 1994)
(emphasis and underscoring ours).
Two years later, this was followed by a scholarly exposition

by Justice Johnson in the case of In re: R. MCCULLOCH DICK, 38
Phil. 41, April 16, 1918, where he stated that:
"x xx In the Philippine Islands no act is a crime unless

it is made so by law. The law must specify the particular act
or acts constituting the crime. If that were not so, the
inhabitants could not know when they would be liable to be
arrested, tried and punished. Otherwise the mandatory
provisions of the law, that all criminal laws shall be
prescribed, would prove to be a pitfall and a snare. The
inhabitants of the Philippine Islands, whether citizens,
denizens or friendly aliens, have a right to know, in advance
of arrest, trial and punishment, the particular acts for which
55
AND LEGAL FORMS
they may be so tried. They cannot be arrested and tried, and

then be informed for the first time that their acts have been
subsequently made a crime, and be punished therefor. x x
x"(emphasis and underscoring ours).
Justice (later Chief Justice) Fernando in his concurring

opinion in the case of PEOPLE v. CABURAL, G.R. No. L-34105,
February 4, 1983, also made a similar observation, stating that:
"The maxim Nullumcrimennullapoena sine lege has its

roots in history. It is in accordance with both centuries of civil
law and common law tradition. Moreover, it is an
indispensable corollary to a regime of liberty enshrined in our
Constitution. It is of the essence then that while anti-social
acts should be penalized, there must be a clear definition of
the punishable offense as well as the penalty that may be
imposed - a penalty, to repeat, that can be fixed by the
legislative body, and the legislative body alone. So
constitutionalism mandates, with its stress on jurisdictio
rather than guvernaculum. The judiciary as the dispenser of
justice through law must be aware of the limitation on its own
power." (emphasis and underscoring ours).
The rationale of said doctrine that a criminal or penal

legislation must clearly define or specify the particular act or acts
punished is ably explained by the United Stated Supreme Court in
the case of LANZETTA v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 306 U.S.
451, where it held that:
"x xx It is the statute, not the accusation under it, that

prescribes the rule to govern conduct and warns against
transgression. x xx No one may be required at peril of life,
liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal
statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State
commands or forbids. x xx" (emphasis and underscoring
ours).
Article 287, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code condemns no

SPECIFIC act or omission!Therefore, it does not define any crime
or felony.
Paragraph 2 of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code does

not define, much less specify, the acts constituting or deemed
included in the term "unjust vexations" resulting to making the said
provision a sort of a "catch-all" provision patently offensive to the
due process clause;
56
AND LEGAL FORMS
The right to define and punish crimes is an attribute of

sovereignty. Each State has the authority, under its police power,
to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of criminal
procedure. Pursuant to this power to define and punish crimes, the
State may not punish an act as a crime unless it is first defined in a
criminal statute so that the people will be forewarned as to what
act is punishable or not. The people cannot be left guessing at the
meaning of criminal statutes;
Moreover, Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code defines

felonies (delitos) as "acts or omissions" punishable by law. Article
287, Par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code condemns no specific act
or omission! Therefore, it does not define any crime or felony!
Philippine Jurisprudence is replete with examples that would
readily show that Art. 287, Par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code has
not been used to prosecute a well-defined or specific criminal
act.Instead, it was used as a "catch-all" provision to prosecute acts
which are not expressly made criminal by any other provision of
the Revised Penal Code. This is anathema to criminal due process
that requires notice of what specific act or omission is punished by
law;
An examination of the annals of our jurisprudence would

likewise show that Art. 287, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code has
not been used to punish a specific act:
a) In People v. Reyes, 60 Phil. 369, August 23, 1934,

accused were found guilty of unjust vexation by their act of
disturbing or interrupting a ceremony of a religious character;
b) In Lino v. Fugoso, 77 Phil. 983, January 30, 1947, it

was used to prosecute the accused of unjust vexation committed
by stopping the jeep driven by the complainant in a threatening
attitude and without any just cause therefor and telling him to stop
driving for the City of Manila while the strike of city laborers was
still going on;
c) In People v. Reyes, 98 Phil. 646, March 23, 1956, it

was held that the act of seizing, taking and holding possession of
passenger jeep belonging to complainant, without the knowledge
and consent of the latter, for the purpose of answering for the debt
of the said owner, constitutes unjust vexation;
d) In People v. Yanga, 100 Phil. 385, November 28,

1956, accused was convicted of unjust vexation for the act of
compelling the complainant to do something against his will, by
holding the latter around the neck and dragging him from the
latter's residence to the police outpost;
57
AND LEGAL FORMS
e) In People v. Abuy, G.R. No. L-17616, May 30, 1962,

the accused was prosecuted for unjust vexation for the act of
embracing and taking hold of the wrist of the complainant;
f) In People v. Carreon, G.R. No. L-17920, May 30,

1962, accused was convicted of unjust vexation by the act of
threatening the complainant by holding and pushing his shoulder
and uttering to the latter in a threatening tone the following words:
"What inspection did you make to my sister in the mountain when
you are not connected with the Bureau of Education?"
g) In People v. Gilo, G.R. No. L-18202, April 30, 1964, the

Court held that the absence of an allegation of "lewd design" in a
complaint for acts of lasciviousness converts the act into unjust
vexation;
h) In Andal v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-

29814, March 28, 1969, accused were found guilty of unjust
vexation under an information charging them with the offense of
offending religious feelings, by the performance of acts notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the faithful;
i) In People v. Maravilla, G.R. No. L-47646, September

19, 1988, a accused was convicted of unjust vexation for the act of
grabbing the left breast of the complainant against her will; and
j) Recently in Kwan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

113006, November 23, 2000, the act of abruptly cutting off the
electric, water pipe and telephone lines of a business
establishment causing interruption of its business operations
during peak hours was held as unjust vexation;
From the above-cited cases, it clearly appears that Art. 287,

par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code does not punish a specific
act.Instead, any and all kind of acts that are not specifically
covered by any other provision of the Revised Penal Code and
which may cause annoyance, irritation, vexation, torment, distress
or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed may
be punished as unjust vexation; art. 287, par. 2 of the revised
penal code suffers from A CONGENITAL DEFECT OF vagueness
and must be stricken down.
The term "unjust vexation" is a highly imprecise and relative

term that has no common law meaning or settled definition by prior
judicial or administrative precedents; Thus, for its vagueness and
overbreadth, said provision violates due process in that it does not
give fair warning or sufficient notice of what it seeks to penalize;
58
AND LEGAL FORMS
This kind of challenge to the constitutionality of a penal

statute on ground of vagueness and overbreadth is not entirely
novel in our jurisdiction. In an en banc decision in the case of
GONZALES v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-27833, April 18, 1969, re:
Constitutionality of Republic Act No. 4880, our Honorable
Supreme Court had the occasion to rule that the terms "election
campaign" and "partisan political activity" which are punished in
said R.A. 4880 would have been void for their vagueness were it
not for the express enumeration of the acts deemed included in
the said terms. The Supreme Court held:
"The limitation on the period of "election campaign"or

"partisan political activity" calls for a more intensive scrutiny.
According to Republic Act No. 4880: "It is unlawful for any
person whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any group
or association of persons, whether or not a political party or
political committee, to engage in an election campaign or
partisan political activity except during the period of one
hundred twenty days immediately preceding an election
involving a public office voted for at large and ninety days
immediately preceding an election for any other elective
public office. The term 'candidate' refers to any person
aspiring for or seeking an elective public office regardless of
whether or not said person has already filed his certificate of
candidacy or has been nominated by any political party as its
candidate. The term 'election campaign' of 'partisan political
activity' refers to acts designed to have a candidate elected
or not or promote the candidacy of a person or persons to a
public office . . ."
"If that is all there is to that provision, it suffers from the

fatal constitutional infirmity of vagueness and may be
stricken down. x xxxxxxxxxxx.
"There are still constitutional questions of a serious

character then to be faced. The practices which the act
identifies with "election campaign" or"partisan political
activity" must be such that they are free from the taint of
being violative of free speech, free press, freedom of
assembly, and freedom of association. What removes the
sting from constitutional objection of vagueness is the
enumeration of the acts deemed included in the terms
"election campaign" or "partisan political activity." (emphasis
and underscoring ours).
Article 287, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code punishes

"unjust vexations" and that is all there is to it! As such, applying the
incontestable logic of the Supreme Court in said case of
59
AND LEGAL FORMS
GONZALES v. COMELEC would lead us to the inescapable

conclusion that said penal provision suffers from the fatal
constitutional infirmity of vagueness and must be stricken down;
In the case of Connally v. General Construction Co., 269

U.S. 385, cited by our own Supreme Court en banc in the case of
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Assn., Inc. v. City Mayor
of Manila, G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 1967), the United States
Supreme Court ruled:
"That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense

must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it
what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is
a well-recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary
notions of fair play and the settled rules of law; and a statute which
either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that
men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential
of due process of law." (emphasis and underscoring ours).
In fact, it is worst in the case of the 2nd Paragraph of Article

287 of the Revised Penal Code because it punishes "unjust
vexations" without even defining or enumerating the acts
constituting the said crime thus leaving men of common
intelligence necessarily guessing at its meaning and differing as to
its application in complete disregard of constitutional due process;
Our Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. NAG TANG HO,

43 Phil. 1, held that one cannot be convicted of a violation of a law
that fails to set up an ascertainable standard of guilt. Said ruling
cites the landmark case of U.S. v. L. COHEN GROCERY CO., 255
U.S. 81, where the United States Supreme Court in striking down
Section 4 of the Federal Food Control Act of August 10, 1917, as
amended, as unconstitutional, stated that:
"The sole remaining inquiry, therefore, is the certainty

or uncertainty of the text in question, that is, whether the
words 'that it is hereby made unlawful for any person willfully
... to make any unjust or unreasonable rate or charge in
handling or dealing in or with any necessaries,' constituted a
fixing by Congress of an ascertainable standard of guilt and
are adequate to inform persons accused of violation thereof
of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. That
they are not, we are of opinion, so clearly results from their
mere statement as to render elaboration on the subject
wholly unnecessary. Observe that the section forbids no
specific or definite act. It confines the subject matter of the
investigation which it authorizes to no element essentially
60
AND LEGAL FORMS
inhering in the transaction as to which it provides. It leaves

open, therefore, the widest conceivable inquiry, the scope of
which no one can foresee and the result of which no one can
foreshadow or adequately guard against. In fact, we see no
reason to doubt the soundness of the observation of the
court below in its opinion to the effect that, to attempt to
enforce the section would be the exact equivalent of an effort
to carry out a statute which in terms merely penalized and
punished all acts detrimental to the public interest when
unjust and unreasonable in the estimation of the court x xx
(emphasis and underscoring ours).
Recently, in COATES v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, 402 U.S.

611, the United States Supreme Court passed upon the issue of
constitutionality of a Cincinnati, Ohio, ordinance that provides that:
It shall be unlawful for three or more persons to

assemble, except at a public meeting of citizens, on any of
the sidewalks, street corners, vacant lots, or mouths of
alleys, and there conduct themselves in a manner annoying
to persons passing by, or occupants of adjacent buildings.
Whoever violates any of the provisions of this section shall
be fined not exceeding fifty dollars ($50.00), or be
imprisoned not less than one (1) nor more than thirty (30)
days or both. Section 901-L6, Code of Ordinances of the
City of Cincinnati. (emphasis and underscoring ours).
In hammering down the constitutionality of the above-cited

Cincinnati, Ohio ordinance in its landmark decision, the United
States Supreme Court held that:
Conduct that annoys some people does not annoy

others. Thus, the ordinance is vague, not in the sense that it
requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but
comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense
that no standard of conduct is specified at all. As a result,
men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning. Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S.
385, 391.
It is said that the ordinance is broad enough to

encompass many types of conduct clearly within the city's
constitutional power to prohibit. And so, indeed, it is. The city
is free to prevent people from blocking sidewalks,
obstructing traffic, littering streets, committing assaults, or
engaging in countless other forms of antisocial conduct. It
can do so through the enactment and enforcement of
ordinances directed with reasonable specificity toward the
61
AND LEGAL FORMS
conduct to be prohibited. It cannot constitutionally do so

through the enactment and enforcement of an ordinance
whose violation may entirely depend upon whether or not a
policeman is annoyed.(emphasis and underscoring ours).
Same things can be said of Art. 287, par. 2 of the Revised

Penal Code that punishes unjust vexations. As previously shown,
the term"unjust vexations" is broad enough to encompass many
types of acts or conduct. But while these acts of types of conduct
are within the State's police power to prohibit and punish, it cannot
however constitutionally do so when its violation may entirely
depend upon whether or not another is vexed or annoyed by said
act or conduct and whether or not said act or conduct is unjust is
the estimation of the court;
ARTICLE 287, PAR. 2 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE IS

AN INVALID DELEGATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER to
DEFINE what acts should be held to be criminal and punishable.
The failure of Art. 287, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code to define
or specify the act or omission that it punishes likewise amounts to
an invalid delegation by Congress of legislative power to the
courts to determine what acts should be held to be criminal and
punishable. Potestasdelegata non delegarepotest. What has been
delegated cannot be delegated. This doctrine is based on the
ethical principle that such as delegated power constitutes not only
a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the
instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the
intervening mind of another (United States v. Barrias, 11 Phil. 327,
330);
Congress alone has power to define crimes. This power as

an attribute of sovereignty may not be delegated to the courts.
When a criminal legislation leaves the halls of Congress, it must
be complete in itself in that it must clearly define and specify the
acts or omissions deemed punishable; and when it reaches the
courts, there must be nothing left for the latter to do, except to
determine whether person or persons indicted are guilty of
committing the said acts or omissions defined and made
punishable by Congress. Otherwise, borrowing the immortal words
of Justice Isagani Cruz in Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court
(148 SCRA 659), the law becomes a "roving commission," a wide
and sweeping authority that is not "canalized within banks that
keep it from overflowing," in short a clearly profligate and therefore
invalid delegation of legislative powers;
Art. 287, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code fails to set an

immutable and ascertainable standard of guilt, but leaves such
standard to the variant and changing views and notions of different
62
AND LEGAL FORMS
judges or courts which are called upon to enforce it. Instead of

defining the specific acts or omissions punished, it leaves to the
courts the power to determine what acts or types of conduct
constitute "unjust vexation". Moreover, liability under the said
provision is also made dependent upon the varying degrees of
sensibility and emotions of people. It depends upon whether or not
another is vexed or annoyed by said act or conduct. As previously
intimated, one cannot be convicted of a violation of a law that fails
to set up an immutable and an ascertainable standard of guilt.
Conclusion
In view of all the foregoing, Defendants submit that Art. 287,

par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code that punishes "unjust vexations"
is unconstitutional on its face for its fatal failure to forbid a specific
or definite act or conduct resulting to its congenital vagueness and
overbreadth which are anathema to constitutional due process and
the right to be informed of the nature of the offense charged;
Moreover, by leaving it to the judiciary to determine the "justness"
or "unjustness" of an act or conduct that is not clearly defined or
specified by law constitutes a fixing by Congress of an
unascertainable standard of guilt and therefore an invalid
delegation, if not an abdication, of legislative power;
Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that Art. 287, par. 2 of the
Revised Penal Code, being facially unconstitutional, cannot be a
basis of any criminal prosecution. As such, there is no offense to
speak of and consequently, this Honorable Court cannot acquire
any jurisdiction whatsoever to try the defendants of the charge of
"unjust vexation".
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, in the interest of

justice and to uphold the rule of law, accused Miguel Santolan
respectfully prays that the Warrant of Arrest be quashed that this
case be outrightly dismissed.
Other forms of relief that are just and equitable under the
premises are also prayed for.
Makati City for Dasmarinas City, Cavite. 5 November 2015.
(signed)
APOLLO X.C.S. SANGALANG
IBP Lifetime No. 06518;
IBP-PPLM Chapter
63
AND LEGAL FORMS
PTR No. MKT 4232795 - 1/7/2025

MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020939
Role of Attorney No. 40222
NOTICE OF HEARING, EXPLANATION AND COPY

FURNISHED:
The Hon. Branch Clerk of Court

RTC Branch 90
Hon. Emmanuel L. Rivera

Office of the City Prosecutor
Hon. Vimar M. Barcellano

City Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor
NOTICE OF HEARING
Greetings:
Please take note that this Motion to Quash Information will

be submitted for the consideration of this Honorable Court on
December 24, 2015.
EXPLANATION
There being no messenger employed by the undersigned to

effect personal service considering that he is preoccupied with
other equally important cases, copy of the foregoing Position
Paper shall be sent to the Respondent via LBC.
64
AND LEGAL FORMS

12TH Judicial Region
REGIONAL TRAIAL COURT
Iligan City
Branch 7

Plaintiff,
-versus- Crim. Case No 16-456
PETRA MAHALIMUYAK, For: Libel

Accused,
x-------------------------------------------x
MOTION TO SUPPRESS ILLEGALLY SEIZED EVIDENCE
The ACCUSED, through undersigned counsel and unto this

Honorable Court, respectfully moves for the suppression of objects
seized on 25 October 2016, based on the following conditions:
1. Search Warrant No. 1234 was served on the 15th day

and is, thus, void;
2. The motor vehicle seized does not fall within the

property that may be lawfully seized.
Discussion
Search Warrant No. 1234 was

Served beyond the 10 day period,
thus, should be void
3. Rule 126, Sec 10 of the Revised Rules of Court

provides that a search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from
its date. Thereafter, it shall be void.
4. Search Warrant No. 1234 is dated 10 October 2016. It

was served on the accused on the 15th day from its date, which is
25 October r 2016. This is certified to by the Sworn Inventory and
Return executed by Major Robert Dela Rose, the leader of the
searching team (copy of which is already part of the records). A
search was made on the same day, 25 November 2016; pursuant
to said search, certain objects were seized and delivered to the
65
AND LEGAL FORMS
court. Contrary to law, the Search Warrant is void and must be

quashed.
5. No valid seizure may be made under a void warrant.

For this reason, the following objects must be suppressed:
personal computer, printed material of the published article in
question, motor vehicle, and other write ups.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed for that all object

seized under the void Search Warrant No. 1234 be
INADMISSIBLE under the exclusionary rule in Article III, Section
3(2) In relation to section 2 of the 1987 Constitutuion.
Iligan City, Philipines, November 21, 2016.
DMJ LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Accused
Rm. 201 Rizal Towers,
Tibanga, Iligan City
By:
Roderick R. Duforte
IBP No. 08-12334
PTR No. 08-13323
Roll No. 09-11232
NOTICE OF HEARING
Office of the City Prosecuter

Hall of Justice
Iligan City
Branch Clerk of Court

Iligan City
Branch 7
66
AND LEGAL FORMS
GREETINGS:
Please submit this Motion to Suppress Evidence on

November 25, 2016 at 2:00 PM for the consideration and approval
of this Honorable Court.
Roderick R. Duforte
EXPLANATION
A copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Illegally Seized

Evidence was filed and served upon the prosecution via personal
service.
Roderick R. Duforte
67
AND LEGAL FORMS
DEED OF CONDITIONAL SALE
This Agreement is made and executed by and between

DOMINGO MAYLUPA, of legal age, Filipino, married to Josefa
Maylupa, and residing at 2254, Aguinaldo Street, Iligan City,
hereinafter called the VENDOR, and SPOUSES GREGORIO
WALANGLUPA and MAGDALENA C. WALANGLUPA, both of
legal age, Filipino citizens, and residents of Purok 4, Barinaut,
Iligan City, hereinafter called the VENDEES.
WITNESSETH:
That the VENDOR is the absolute owner of a one (1) parcel

of land situated in Kiwalan, Iligan City, and which is more
particularly described as follows, to wit:
TRANSFER CERTFICATE OF TITLE NO. T-64-638 (a.f.) – CITY

OF ILIGAN
“A parcel of land Lot 3517-E-6, Psd-10051979 a

portion of Lot 3517-E Psd-10-049139, surveyed for
SPOUSES JOSEFA AND DOMINGO MAYLUPA; Land
Use: (Orchard), Location: Kiwalan, Iligan City, Island of
Mindanao. Boundaries: NW., along lines 3-6-7 by
Road, along lines 7 to 10 by Lot 3517-C, Psd-10-
049139, along lines 10 to 13 by Lot 3517-E-2, Psd-10-
051979, along line 13-14 by Lot 3517-C, Psd-10-
049139, along lines 14 to 16 by Road, NE., along line
16-17 by Alley Lot 3517-H, Psd-049139; Along Lines
17 to 23 by Lot 3517-E-5; Along lines 23 to 26 by Lot
3517-E-4, both of Psd-051979; Along line 26-27 by
Alley Lot 3517-H, Psd-10-049139; Along lines 27 to 30
by Lot 3517-G, Psd-10-049139; Along lines 30 to 32 by
Alley Lot 3517-H, Psd-10-048139; Along line 32-33 by
Lot 3517-E-3; Along lines 33 to 35 by Lot 3517-E-1,
both of Psd-051979; Along line 35-36 by Alley Lot
3517-H, Psd-10-049139; Along line 36-37 by Road.
NE., along lines 37 to 39 by Lot 3517-B; Along line 39-
40 by Lot 3517-A, both of Psd-10-049139. Along lines
40 to 42 by Lot 3618; Along line 42-1 by Lot 5226;
Along line 1-2 by Lot 5226. All of Cad. 292; Iligan
Cadastre. Along lines 2-3-4 by Lot 3516. x x x
containing an area of TWELVE THOUSAND SIXTY
SIX (12,066) SQUARE METERES, more or less. x x x”
68
AND LEGAL FORMS
WHEREAS, the VENDEES have agreed to purchase portion

of the above-described property and the VENDOR has agreed to
sell the same to the VENDEES, said portion is more particularly
described as follows, to wit:
“Lot : 3517-E-6-F,
Portion of : LOT 3517-E-6, PSD-10-
051979
As surveyed for : SPS. JOSEFA AND
DOMINGO MAYLUPA
Land Use : ORCHARD
Location : Kiwalan. Iligan City
Boundaries :NE. & NW.along lines 1-2-3 by

ROAD SE. & NE., along
lines 3-4-5 by Lot 3517-C,PSD-10-049139
SE., along line 5-6 by LOT 3517-E-6-
H, SW., along line 6-7
by Lot 3516 CAD 292 ILIGAN
CADASTRE NW., along lines 7-8-1 by LOT
3517-E-6-G,
Area : EIGHTY ONE (81) SQUARE

METERS. xxx”
That the said sale is subject to the terms and conditions

herein below specified:
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of

TWO HUNDRED TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED
PESOS (₱202,500.00), Philippine Currency, to be paid in the
manner hereinbelow specified, the VENDOR hereby sells,
transfers, and conveys unto and in favor of the VENDEES, their
heirs and assigns, the above-described property belonging to the
VENDOR. The aforesaid sum of ₱202,500.00 shall be paid in the
following manner:
a) ₱130,000.00 – upon signing of the Deed of Conditional

Sale; and
b) The Balance of ₱ 72,500.00, Philippine Currency shall be

paid within in one (1) year counted from the date of the
execution of this instrument.
That in the event the VENDEES shall fail to pay the

remaining balance in full within the agreed period of time, the
VENDOR shall have the right to adjust the selling price to
69
AND LEGAL FORMS
whatever be the prevailing fair market price at the time the

VENDEES shall resume payment of whatever balance remaining;
That the VENDEES further agree to pay the VENDOR

whatever back rentals incurred of the above-described property
retroactive to the date of this agreement or on the date the
downpayment was paid as appearing in the receipt;
That the VENDOR shall execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in

favor of the VENDEES upon full payment of the said balance and
obligate himself to deliver to the VENDEES the separate title of
the above-described property, with all expenses at the sole
account of the VENDEES, free from all liens and encumbrances.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our
signatures this 4th day of November 2016 in Iligan City,
Philippines.
DOMINGO MAYLUPA GREGORIO WALANGLUPA

Vendor Vendee
TIN – 160-212-903 TIN-926-025-422
With My Marital Consent:
JOSEFA MAYLUPA MAGDALENA C. WALANGLUPA

Wife (Vendor) Wife (Vendee)
TIN – 114-780-582 TIN-429-561-702
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF :
MARINA MAYALAM LORETO WALANGALAM
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

BEFORE ME, this 7th day of November 2016 in Iligan City,

Philippines, personally appeared the above-named persons who
exhibited to me their competent evidence of identification as
shown below their respective names, known to me to be the same
persons who executed the foregoing instrument and they
70
AND LEGAL FORMS
acknowledged to me that the same is their free and voluntary act

and deed.
This instrument relates to a Deed of Conditional Sale over

portion of a one (1) parcel of land consisting of three (3) pages
including this page had been signed by the parties and their
instrumental witnesses.
WITNESS MY HAND AND MY NOTARIAL SEAL on the

date, year and place above-written.
ATTY. IRENE J. LAURON

Notary Public
Until Dec. 31, 2016
PTR No. 8342754 issued in
Iligan City on 01-05-16
Roll No. 29334 -06-20-15
Doc. No. 8;
Page No. 2;
Book No. 1;
Series of 2016.
71
AND LEGAL FORMS

Branch 3, Iligan City
EDWARD CULLEN,
Intervenor,
CIVIL CASE NO. 16-01
-versus –
FOR: INTERVENTION
DANIEL PADILLA,
Plaintiff.
X- - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - - -- - -/
COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION
Intervenor, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court

respectfully states and prays that:
1. Intervenor, a Filipino citizen, of legal age, married to Bella
Stewart, a Filipino citizen and a resident of Iligan City, Philippines.
2. Herein intervenor is the true owner of the property which
is the subject of controversy in Civil Case No. 15-987, embraced in
the alleged new Transfer Certificate of Title No. 11919, originally
under TCT No. 12345, (hereto attached as Annex “A-1”) with an
area of 5,000 sq. meters located at Tibanga, Iligan City,
Philippines.
3. Said property in question was acquired by the intervenor
from James Reid on June 7, 2015 in consideration of one million
five hundred pesos (Php 1,500,000.00) as stated in the Deed of
Sale, registered under the name of James Reid and Kathryn
Bernardo, recorded in the Registry of Deeds in the province of
Lanao del Norte. Copy attached as Annex “A-2”.
4. The litigants in this case, (Plaintiff) as claimant and
(defendant) who is in actual use and possession of the property in
question, have no legal standing of their claims on the basis that
all transactions and performances subsequent to the transaction
executed between herein intervenor and Mr. Reid in relation to
their property in question described in the original title TCT No.
12345 and in TCT No. 11919 is presumed to be void considering
that said property was already sold to intervenor and now is the
subject of this complaint.
5. The intervenor, deeply affected of the fraudulent
transactions initiated by the irresponsible vendor (James Reid) of
the questioned property, which is the subject matter in this case,
caused him to initiate legal remedy for the relief and recovery of
72
AND LEGAL FORMS
damages inflicted to his person, and bring the matter to this

Honorable Court in a way of intervention.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that:
1. All transactions and performances executed by the
litigants in relation to the property in question, including related
documents in their position shall be declared void.
2. The litigants be ordered by this Honorable Court to
voluntarily turn-over the questioned property to the rightful owner
who is the intervenor in this case.
3. If voluntary turn-over of the property or waiver of the claim
by both plaintiff and defendants is both possible, ordered be made
against the litigants to pay for the damages and other litigation
expenses plus attorney’s fees in favor of the intevenor.
4. Further, it is prayed that intervenor be granted such relief
found to be consistent with the law and equity.
SIGNED this 5th day of October 2016 in Iligan City,
Philippines.
EDWARD CULLEN
Intervenor
ATTY. JOHAIRA B. MACARAYA

Counsel for the Intervenor
Macaraya-Macaraya Law Firm
Bara-as, La Ville
Iligan City, Philippines
73
AND LEGAL FORMS
CONTRACT OF SERVICE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT:
This CONTRACT OF SERVICES made and executed this

st
1 day of November 2016, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, by and
between:
The CITY GOVERNMENT OF ILIGAN, a

chartered city, created by virtue of Republic Act
No. 525, with principal office at Buhanginan Hill,
Pala-o, Iligan City, Philippines, represented
herein represented by AKO C. MAYER, City
Mayor, duly authorized by
SanguiniangPanlungsod Resolution No 10-793
series of 2010, hereinafter referred to as the
FIRST PARTY.
-and-
AHMAD U. ABDULJALIL, a member of

the Philippine Bar, of legal age, Filipino, married,
and with residence at Tibanga St., Iligan City,
Philippines, hereinafter referred to as the
SECOND PARTY.
-WITNESSETH-
1. That the FIRST PARTY is in need of the services of

the SECOND PARTY who shall perform work not performed by
the regular personnel of the FIRST PARTY;
2. That the SECOND PARTY signifies his intention to

enter into a contract of service, to which the FIRST PARTY has
accepted, in order to provide assistance to the latter;
3. That the SECOND PARTY hereby possesses the

education, experience and skill required to perform the job as
described therein;
4. That the SECOND PARTY hereby attests that he is not

related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity to the
appointing authority, that he has not been previously dismissed
from the government service by reason of an administrative
offense that she has not reached the compulsory retirement of age
of sixty-five (65);
74
AND LEGAL FORMS
5. That in view hereof, the FIRST PARTY hereby enters

into a contract of service with the SECOND PARTY as a Special
Operations Officer on contractual basis from November 1, 2016
to July 1, 2017 to be paid on a monthly basis at the rate of
TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P25, 000.00)ONLY;
6. That the SECOND PARTY is expected to perform the

following functions, to wit:
a. To act as observer in all of the proceedings relative to

the Bids & Awards Committee and to update the City Mayor on
such proceedings particularly with respect to the multi-million
Waterworks Expansion Project;
b. To perform such other duties and functions as may be

directed by the City Mayor;
c. To coordinate with SanguiniangPanlungsod Secretary

regarding any local legislation relating to the Waterworks
Expansion Project;
7. That the SECOND PARTY shall perform work at a time

and schedule to be agreed upon by both parties;
8. That it is understood that this contract does not create

an employer-employee relationship between the FIRST PARTY
and the SECOND PARTY; that the service rendered hereunder
are not considered and will not be accredited as government
service; and that the SECOND PARTY is not entitled to benefits
enjoyed by the regular personnel of the FIRST PARTY;
9. That the SECOND PARTY is required to submit a work

plan and comprehensive accomplishment report and its
recommendations at the end of each contract period, aside from
the monthly report, which will serve as a requisite for the renewal
of the contract, if necessary; It is understood that the services of
the SECOND PARTY is automatically terminated by the end of this
contract, unless a new contract shall have been entered into by
both parties in the exigency of the service and subject to
availability of funds;
10. That the SECOND PARTY shall inform the FIRST

PARTY at least one (1) month before he intends to terminate the
contract through personal reasons or otherwise; Accordingly, the
FIRST PARTY shall have the right to terminate the services of the
SECOND PARTY at any time for any breach of contract and/or
insufficiency of funds.
75
AND LEGAL FORMS
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, both parties have hereunto set

their hands this 1st day of November, 2016 in Iligan City,
Philippines.
CITY GOVERNMENT OF
ILIGAN
Represented herein by:
AKO C. MAYER Atty. AHMAD U. ABDULJALIL

City Mayor (Second Party)
(First Party)
Signed in the presence of:
UNANG A. SAKSI PANGALAWANG B. NAGSAKSI
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, for and in the above

jurisdiction, personally appeared the following:
Name CTC Number Date Place Issued
1. AKO C. MAYER 123456789 01/29/09 Iligan City

2. Atty. AHMAD U. ABDULJALIL 987654321 03/12/08 Iligan City
known to me to be the same persond who executed this

foregoing Contract of Service, consisting of three (3) pages,
including the page on which this acknowledgment is written, and
who acknowledged to me that the same is their free act and deed,
and is signed by them and their instrumental witnesses on each
and every page hereof
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL, this 1st day of November

2016 in Iligan City, Philippines
76
AND LEGAL FORMS
VICON B. De GUZMAN
Notary Public
21-B, Tibanga St., Iligan City
PTR No. 123456 / 01-15-15 / Iligan City
IBP No. 654321 / 01-13-15 / Iligan City
Attorney’s Roll No. 11112 2010
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020571
June 5, 2013
Doc. No. 50;

Page No. 15;
Book No. IX;
Series of 2016.
77
AND LEGAL FORMS
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
This Compromise Agreement is made and entered into by

the City of Iligan, Philippines by and between:
CROCODILE CREDIT INC., represented by

Ms. Lheila R. Desinko, with office address at
Room 123, 3rd floor, Maria Cristina Building,
Aguinaldo St., Iligan City, herein referred to
as “FIRST PARTY”
-and-
RODERICK R. DUFORTE, of legal age, and

a resident of Purok Davao, Tubod, Iligan
City, herein referred to as “SECOND
PARTY.”
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the SECOND PARTY has an outstanding

obligation to the FIRST PARTY in the total amount of ONE
HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (150,00PhP) representing
his loan to the FIRST PARTY based on its records;
WHEREAS, the SECOND PARTY has issued post-dated

checks to apply on account or as payment of his loan;
WHEREAS, post-dated checks were issued by the SECOND

PARTY, three (3) of which were subsequently dishonored by the
drawee bank for the reason that the checks were drawn against
“Insufficient Funds” and “Account Closed”;
WHEREAS, the FIRST PARTY thereafter filed a criminal

complaint for Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 before the City Prosecutor’s
Office against herein SECOND PARTY;
WHEREAS, the parties wish to reach a full and final

settlement of the SECOND PARTY’s outstanding obligation;
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the

foregoing premises, both parties have agreed to the following
terms and conditions, to wit:
78
AND LEGAL FORMS
1. The SECOND PARTY agrees to pay to the FIRST PARTY

the total amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(150,00PhP). The amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(50,000PhP) shall be paid in full within the month of November
2016 and the remaining shall be paid in ten (10) monthly
installment in the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (10,00PhP)
starting on December 2016;
2. Said payments hall be tendered by the SECOND PARTY

to the FIRST PARTY immediately upon the execution of this
agreement;
3. After the execution of this agreement and upon payment

by the SECOND PARTY, the FIRST PARTY shall file the
necessary Motion to the City Prosecutor’s Office to withdraw its
pending complaint filed against the SECOND PARTY without
prejudice to refile the complaint in case of non-compliance by the
SECOND PARTY;
4. Both parties agree that this agreement shall constitute as

the resolution of the Honorable Board regarding the pending
complaint.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed

this agreement on this 3rd day of November 2016 in Iligan City,
Philippines.
BY:
Ms. LHEILA R. DESINKO RODERICK R. DUFORTE
Antonino Trillanes Ricky Gadon
79
AND LEGAL FORMS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPPINES)

City of Iligan )S.S
BEFORE ME, a notary public in and for Iligan City on this 3rd
day of November 2016 personally appeared the following:
NAME GOVERNMENT DATE AND PLACE

ISSUED ID OF ISSUE
Ms. Lheila R. Desinko 123132131 3/12/14 Iligan City

Mr. Roderick R. 465465465 6/17/13 Iligan City
Duforte
Known to me and known to be the same persons who executed

the foregoing Compromise Agreement consisting of two (2) pages,
including this page, and they acknowledged to me the same is
their free and voluntary act and deed, as well as that of the party
he/she represents.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and

seal this 3rd day of November 2016 in Iligan City.
ATTY. ROBERTO B. DELA ROSE

Notary Public
IBP No. 112357, 2016
Roll No. 32547 4/30/09
MCLE Compliance No. 00325477
September 9-11, 2015, Number in process
Doc. No.: 00123-16

Page No.: 1325-16
Book No. 1216
Series of 2016
80
AND LEGAL FORMS
DEED OF SALE
I, CHRISTINE A. HERMOSA, Filipino, married to ROBIN D.

PADILLA, of legal age, and with residence and post-office address
at Disomangcop Subdivision, Marawi City for and in consideration
of the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P
500,000.00), paid to me today by SONG HYE KYO, Filipino, of
legal age, with residence and post-office address at Sarimanok,
Marawi City, DOES HEREBY SELL, TRANSFER, and CONVEY
absolutely and unconditionally unto said SONG HYE KYO that
certain parcel of land situated in Bangon, Marawi City and more
particularly described as follows, to wit:
“ A parcel of land, situated in the

Barangay of Bangon, Marawi City, Province of
Lanao del Sur. Bounded on the N by a field of
corns; on the S by Papaya Plantation; on the
W by a house owned by Councilor Alonto; and
on the E by Lot 1253 all of the subdivision
plan… containing an area of One Thousand
Ninety Nine (1,099) Square Meters,more or
less…”
That it is hereby declared that the boundaries of the

foregoing land are visible by means of cement post; that there are
no permanent improvements existing thereon; that the land is
assessed for the current year at P 17,000.00 as per Tax
Declarartion No. 033-8790 of the Provincial Assessor’s office of
Lanao del Sur.
The above-described real estate, not having been registered

under Act No. 496 nor under the Spanish Mortgage Law, the
parties hereto have agreed to register this instrument under the
provisions of Sec. 194 of the Revised Administration Code, as
amended by Act No. 3344.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed

this deed this 22nd day of May 2009, Sibulan, Negros Oriental,
Philippines.
CHRISTINE A. HERMOSA SONG HYE KYO

Vendor Vendee
With my Marital Consent:
81
AND LEGAL FORMS
ROBIN PADILLA
VHONG NAVARRO KWON SANG WOO
JOINT ACKNOWLEDGMENT
BEFORE ME this 23rd day of May 2009, at Marawi City,

personally appeared:
CHRISTINE A. HERMOSA with CTC No. 90877 issued at

Marawi City on January 26, 2009, and with two competent
evidence of identity: PRC ID No. 21245, and GSIS E-card No.
67345;
SONG HYE KYO with CTC No. 81745 issued at Marawi City
on February 16, 2009, and with two competent evidence of
identity: PRC ID No. 072278, and GSIS E-card No. 122009;
known to me and to be the same persons who executed the

foregoing instrument and she acknowledged to me that the same
is her voluntary act and free will.
This instrument consists of three (3) pages including this

page where this acknowledgment is written, signed by the parties
and their witnesses at the left hand margin of page 1 and at the
bottom portion of page 2 and refers to a Deed of Absolute Sale
executed by CHRISTINE A. HERMOSA and SONG HYE KYO.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and

affixed my notarial seal on this 4th day of July 2009 at Marawi City,
Lanao del Sur.
ATTY. SAMER P. ARATAWATA

Notary Public
My commission expires December 31, 2010
ROLL No. 87654- March 13, 2001
IBP O.R.No. 3828 / LIFE
PTR No. 12345670 –January 02, 2009
BOTH ISSUED IN DUMAGUETE CITY
Doc. No. 5480 ;
82
AND LEGAL FORMS
Page No. 356 ;

Book No. IV ;
Series of 2009
NO. 10
83
AND LEGAL FORMS

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 223, QUEZON CITY

Plaintiff,
Crim. Case No. Q-05-
-versus- 131745
SPO3 ISIDORO B. BOTE, For: FALSIFICATION OF

Accused. PUBLIC DOCUMENT
x ---------------------------------------- x
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
The Accused SONNY MANGALINDAN, through the

undersigned counsel, most respectfully submits its Demurrer to
Evidence and avers:
BASIS FOR THE DEMURRER
It is incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce evidence

sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) the commission of
the crime, and (b) the precise degree of participation therein by the
accused (Gutib vs. Court of Appeals, 312 SCRA 365). The
charges against an accused must be dismissed if there is no
competent or sufficient evidence adduced that would sustain the
charges against him, should the same be raised in a demurrer to
the evidence. Section 23, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides:
“Sec. 23 After the prosecution rests its case, the court may
dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on
its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be
heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with
or without leave of court.
x x x”
It is well-settled rule that conviction for a criminal offense

should be based on clear and positive evidence and not on mere
assumption. (Gaerlan vs. CA 179 SCRA 20). The burden lies
upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt rather that upon the accused to prove that he is
84
AND LEGAL FORMS
in fact innocent. (People vs. Lati, 184 SCRA 336). Failing in this,
the presumption of innocence will prevail. (Sec. 1 (a) Rule 115).
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION
The only witness for the prosecution was REYNALDO P.

CAMILLO. It cannot be overemphasized that the affidavit of the
complainant and the testimony of said witness showed that he had
no personal knowledge of the alleged theft that was committed on
01 January 2006. Moreover what is more dubious is that the
affidavit of said complainant was done on 04 February 2006, more
than one (1) month after the alleged incident took place. Said
witness did not see the alleged taking, stealing and carrying away
of the cash money since he was on vacation at Baguio City.
Complainant was miles away when the alleged taking, stealing
and carrying away of the cash money was done. It was highly
improbable for him to witness the incident. In complainant’s
affidavit, he based his accusation only on the information of his
grandson which is also the son of the accused that it was his
father who entered the room. There was no mention made that
accused was seen taking, stealing and carrying away the cash
money. The same information was given to him by his daughter
who is also the wife of the accused. In other words, there was no
witness at all who had seen the alleged alleged taking, stealing
and carrying away of the cash money. Noteworthy is the fact that
the grandson and the wife of the accused did not testify to
corroborate the testimony of the complainant. Hence, the basis of
the complainant in charging the accused for theft is not
substantiated considering that it is purely hearsay and have no
probative value whether objected to or not. It was emphasized by
the defense in their cross-examination of said witness that he had
no personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the
alleged taking, stealing and carrying away of the cash money. In
fact the complainant himself was having a hard time remembering
the exact amount of the cash money that was allegedly taken
whether it was P120,000.00 or P150,0000.00. There is no need to
discuss the other elements of theft since the prosecution was not
able to establish the alleged taking, stealing and carrying away of
the cash money.
Indeed, any oral or documentary evidence is hearsay by

nature if its probative value is not based on the personal
knowledge of the witness but on the knowledge of some other
person not on the witness stand. (2 Regalado, Remedial Law
Compendium, 1989 6th Rev. Ed., p. 486). By virtue of this legal
aphorism, no probative value can attach to the alleged confession
of Carlos albeit no objection thereto was interposed by the
defense. (People vs. Villahermosa, (CA) 67 O.G. 4929 citing
85
AND LEGAL FORMS
People vs. Cabral, et. Al. (unpub.) 58 Phil. 946; Vide, at p. 486).
Verily, in criminal cases the admission of hearsay evidence would
be a violation of the constitutional provision that the accused shall
enjoy the right of being confronted with the witnesses testifying
against him and to cross-examine them. Moreover the court is
without opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay statements by
observing the demeanor of the person who supposedly made
them (20 Am. Jur. 400-401; cited at 7-1, Francisco, Revised Rules
of Court, 1973 ed., p. 437). People vs. MeloSantos, 245 SCRA
569, July 3, 1995.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully

prayed that the Honorable Court that this Demurrer to Evidence be
granted and that the criminal charge of Theft against the accused
SONNY MANGALINDAN be DISMISSED.
Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City, Philippines, May 28, 2007.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Public Attorney’s Office
Rm. B-29 Hall of Justice, Quezon
City
By:
ATTY. CAROLINE L. TOBIAS

Public Attorney II
NOTICE OF HEARING
Hon. John Patrick Corpuz

Clerk of Court
Branch 223
Quezon City
86
AND LEGAL FORMS
Greetings!
Please submit the foregoing Demurrer to Evidence for the

approval and consideration of the Honorable Court on 29 May
2007 at 8:30 a.m.
CAROLINE L. TOBIAS
Copy Furnished:
Hon. John Patrick Corpuz

87
AND LEGAL FORMS

Region X
Branch 1, Iligan City
IN RE: QUIETING OF TITLE OVER

THE PROPERTY COVERED BY
TCT NO. 1234567-89
SCA No. 00012345
Mr. X,
Petitioner,
-versus-
Mr. Y,
Respondent.
x -------------------------------------------- x
PETITION
PETITIONER, by counsel, respectfully states that:
1. He is the registered owner of Cadastral Lot No. 434,

with an area of six hundred eighty-nine (689) square meters,
located at Rizal Avenue, Iligan City, Lanao Del Norte purchased
from Mr. Z for Php 3,000,000.00 (three million pesos) and covered
by TCT No. T-5066;
2. That the owner’s duplicate of TCT No. T-5066 in the

possession of Mr. Y and being used by him in publicly offering for
sale the aforesaid lot be cancelled, aforesaid lot particularly
described as follows:
“A parcel of land (Lot 23-A-4-B-2-A-3-A of the

subd. plan Psd-706, LRC x x x situated in Balintawak,
Caloocan, Rizal. Bounded on the E., along line 1-2, by
Lot. 23-A-4-B-2-A-3-D, on the SE., along line 2-3 by
Lot 23-A- 4-B-2-A-3-B, both of the subd. plan and on
the SW., NW., along line 3-4-1 by Lot 23-A-4-B-2-A-6,
Beginning at a point marked “1” on plan being N. 69
deg. 07’E., 1,306.21m. from BLLM No. 1, Caloocan
thence; S. 01 deg. 46’W., 25.16 m. to point 2; S 65
deg. 116.78 m. to point 3; N. 23 deg. 12’W., 23.85 m.
to point 4; N. 65 deg. 57’E. 127.39 m. to the point of
beginning; containing an area of TWO THOUSAND
EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR SQUARE METERS
AND EIGHTY SQ. DECIMETERS (2,834.80) more or
88
AND LEGAL FORMS
less. All pts. referred to are indicated on plan and are

marked on the ground by P.S. old points bearings true;
date of original survey, Date of subd. survey, Dec. 29,
1922 covered by TCT No. T-5066 in the Register of
Deeds of Iligan. The same is annotated on the title as
the only encumbrance thereon.
3. The existence of the alleged certificate of title in the

possession of Mr. Y is prejudicial and injurious to the title of the
petitioner, who is the lawful owner. Equity demands that the said
owner’s duplicate certificate of title be surrendered and cancelled,
as it is a cloud upon the title of the Mr. X.
WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that this

Honorable Court render judgment cancelling the owner’s duplicate
of TCT T-5066 in possession of Mr. Y.
Iligan City; November 9, 2016.
(signed)
Counsel for the Petitioner
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10—Iligan
PTR No. 1234567; 01/10/10—Iligan
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/05
MCLE No. I - 001234; 9/09/15
MCLE No. II – 005678; 9/09/15
89
AND LEGAL FORMS

SHOPPING
I, Mr. X, of legal age, do hereby state that: I am the plaintiff

in the pleading/document entitled IN RE: QUIETING OF TITLE
OVER THE PROPERTY COVERED BY TCT NO. 1234567-89 and
in such capacity, caused this Complaint to be prepared; I have
read its contents and affirm that they are true and correct to the
best of my own personal knowledge; I hereby certify that there is
no other case commenced or pending before any court involving
the same parties and the same issue and that, should I learn of
such a case, I shall notify the court within five (5) days from my
notice.

November 4, 2016.
(signed)
Mr. X

(signed)
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10—Iligan
PTR No. 1234567; 01/10/10—Iligan
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/05
MCLE No. I - 001234; 9/09/15
MCLE No. II – 005678; 9/09/15
Doc. No. 11;

Page No. 22;
Book No. V ;
Series of 2016
90
AND LEGAL FORMS

Iligan City
EXPLANATION

(signed)
Republic of the Philippines )

City of Iligan ) s.s.


IN RE: QUIETING OF TITLE OVER THE PROPERTY

COVERED BY TCT NO. 1234567-89
in Case No. 00012345 entitled Mr. X vs Mr. Y by depositing a copy

in the post office in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to Atty.
91
AND LEGAL FORMS

(signed)
Amado P. Policarpio
Affiant

(signed)
IBP No. 123456; 01/10/10—Iligan
PTR No. 1234567; 01/10/10—Iligan
Roll No. 12345; 5/05/05
MCLE No. I - 001234; 9/09/15
MCLE No. II – 005678; 9/09/15
Doc. No. 18;

Page No. 22;
Book No. VI;
Series of 2016
92

Special Power of Attorney: Selected Pleadings, Petitions, Motions and Other Judicial and Legal Forms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Power of Attorney: Selected Pleadings, Petitions, Motions and Other Judicial and Legal Forms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SELECTED PLEADINGS, PETITIONS, MOTIONS AND OTHER JUDICIAL

AND LEGAL FORMS

Republic of the Philippines.....)

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

2. To sign, deliver, receive, accept any documents, and

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public, personally appeared Mr.

ATTY. PEDRO T. DAHON

Republic of the Philippines

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that by virtue of a Real Estate

“A parcel of land (Lot 1 of the subdivision plan

thence, N. 87 deg. 09’E., 13.88 m. to point 2;

containing an area of TWO HUNDRED (200) square

IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that the said highest bidder

This Certificate of Sale is issued to said highest bidder

It is hereby required of said highest bidder Maricel Santos

Iligan City, Philippines, August 8, 2016.

Republic of the Philippines

ABC Inc., represented by its

PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully states that:

1. Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under

2. Defendant is a sole proprietor operating under the

3. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and

4. On April 4, 2016, plaintiff and defendant executed an

5. Under the Contract, the parties agreed that defendant

Butuan, Gingoog, and Cagayan de Oro City

6. On or about September 22, 2016, plaintiff discovered

7. As a consequence of defendant’s acts, plaintiff

8. Plaintiff wrote a letter dated September 24, 2016 which

9. By reason of defendant’s refusal to abide by the terms

10. Unless restrained during the pendency of the present

(a) Plaintiff has a good and valid cause of action;

(b) Plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the

(c) The commission, or continuance of the acts

(d) Defendant is doing or is procuring or suffering to be

(e) Plaintiff is ready and willing to file a bond executed to

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays as follows:

1. Upon the filing of this action, a temporary restraining

posted by the plaintiff in the amount to be fixed by this Honorable

2. After hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff

(a) Ordering defendant to pay the following sums to

i. Php 1,000,000.00 (one million pesos)– for and

ii. Php 100,000.00 (one hundred thousand pesos)

(b) Ordering defendant to render an accounting of all

(c) Making the writ of preliminary injunction that may

Plaintiff prays for such other reliefs as may be just and

Iligan City, November 4, 2016.

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM

I, Rodolfo E. Enrique, of legal age, do hereby state that: I

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument on

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in the City of

ATTY. PEDRO T. DAHON

Doc. No. 11;

Republic of the Philippines

COMES NOW, defendant, through the undersigned counsel,

2. Answering defendant admits the averments in

3. Defendant denies any personal knowledge as regards

4. That defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 4

5. That defendant specifically deny the allegations of the

(plaintiff’s daughter as per advise of their attorney-in-fact which are

6. That defendant specifically deny the allegations of the