Answer

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
8th Judicial Region
Branch 44
Tacloban City

B,
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 2016-21-01

For: Sum of Money

-versus-

A,
Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ANSWER

Defendant A, through the undersigned counsels and to

this Honorable Court, respectfully avers that:
ADMISSIONS

1. The allegations in the introductory part and paragraphs 1 and

2 of the complaint regarding the personal circumstances of the
parties are admitted.

DENIALS

2. Defendant A specifically denies under oath the allegations in

paragraphs 3 and 4 as to the genuineness and due execution
of the alleged promissory note, Annex A thereof, which is
attached to the said complaint.

Answer

2.1. Defendant A, did not execute nor sign the

alleged
Promissory Note attached thereto.
The truth being the
signature
affixed
thereon was forged.

Answer

2.2. There was physical impossibility for the

defendant
to execute the alleged instrument
with the Plaintiff.
a.)Defendant A is the City Planning and
Development Coordinator of Tacloban City.
b.) In relation to the foregoing, a one yearscholarship program in Master in
Public Management major in Local
Governance and Development (MPMLGD) sponsored by the Development
Academy of the Philippines (DAP) was
granted to Defendant A, as required by
his work and position in the
government. The program started from
01 July 2015 to 01 August 2016
continuously and without interruption.
c.) On 30 June 2015, the defendant left
Tacloban to Manila for the above stated
purpose. It was evidenced by her
boarding pass issued by Philippine
Airlines, attached herein as Annex 1
and made an integral part hereof. A
copy of her Travel Order issued by the
Local Government of Tacloban City is
likewise attached herein as Annex 2
and made an integral part hereof.
d.)During the training, attendance of the
middle management students, from
which class the Defendant belong, are
strictly
monitored
by
the
administration of DAP for every
morning,
afternoon
and
evening
sessions. Absences are strictly not
allowed except for valid reasons to be
verified by DAP and supported by
necessary documents. In case of

Answer

failure to comply the required number

of training hours and sessions
conducted by the institution, a
Certificate of Completion will not be
issued to the student. The Certificate
of Completion awarded to Defendant A
is attached herein as Annex 3 and
made an integral part hereof.
e.) Evening sessions and lectures even
during weekends and legal holidays
were conducted most of the time since
most of the resource persons were only
out-sourced and class schedules
depend highly on the available time of
the speakers.
f.) Considering the strict monitoring of
attendance as well as the very rigid
trainings, and written or live case
studies that the defendant came across
during the entire period of the
training, it had been impossible for the
defendant to go back or to visit
Tacloban. The truth being that
Defendant A stayed at the DAP training
center in Tagaytay City for the entire
duration starting from 01 July 2015 to
01 July 2016. A copy of Certificate of
Attendance of the defendant is hereby
attached as Annex 5 and made an
integral part hereof.

3. The allegations in paragraph 5 are denied. Defendant A has

not received the attached demand letters and do not admit the
alleged incident that occurred.
4. Likewise, the allegations in paragraph 8 of the complaint are
denied.

Answer

5. The allegations in paragraphs a, b, c, d of the prayer are

denied.

AFFIRMATIVE ALLEGATIONS AND

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Non-compliance of Bar Matter No. 850

6. The case shall be dismissed because the counsel for

the Plaintiff did not indicate her MCLE Certificate of
Compliance or Certificate of Exemption in the complaint.
Under Rule 12 of Bar Matter No. 850 and Section 12 of the
MCLE Implementing Regulations1, non-compliance with the
MCLE requirements shall result to the dismissal of the case
and the striking out of the pleadings from the records.
7. The Supreme Court reiterated the above mentioned
rule by citing the findings of the OBC in the case of Arnado vs.
Atty. Homobono A. Adaza2, the OBC found that the respondent
had been remiss in his responsibilities as a lawyer. Pertinent
provision of the citation in the decision is as follows:
The OBC stated that respondent's failure to comply
with the MCLE requirements jeopardized the causes of his
clients because the pleadings he filed could be stricken of
from the records and considered invalid.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

1 Bar Matter No. 850, October 2, 2001

2 A.C. No. 9834, 26 August 2015

Answer

8. Defendants reiterate, replead and incorporate by reference

all of the foregoing insofar as they are material and
additionally submit that she is entitled to relief arising from
the filing of this malicious and baseless suit, as follows:

8.1.) Moral Damages amounting to Twenty

Thousand Pesos (P20, 000.00) because the
malicious filing of the complaint by plaintiff
besmirched the good reputation of the defendant
as government employee which caused her
anxiety, mental anguish, wounded feelings and
sleepless nights; and
8.2.)
Attorneys Fees amounting to Forty
Thousand Pesos (P40, 000.00) because she was
compelled to secure services of counsels to
vindicate her legal rights.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that
judgment be rendered:
a. DISMISSING the Complaint for lack of merit with costs
against the Plaintiff;
b. Awarding Defendant A of moral damages as stated on
the compulsory counterclaim;
c. With litigation expenses and attorneys fees against the
plaintiff.
Other reliefs which are just and equitable
under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.
Tacloban City, 24 November 2016.

SOLEX & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM

Counsel for the Defendant
3/F RR Apostol Arcade, P. Zamora cor. Sto. Nio Sts.
Tacloban City

Answer

ATTY. ROSE MAY CADIZ

Counsel for the Defendant
Roll of Attorneys No. 67600
IBP Receipt No. 456789; 07/26/2016
PTR No.234567; 02/21/2016; Tacloban City
MCLE V Compliance No. 7891; August 02, 2016

ATTY. MARIA CONSUELO C. COSCULLA

Counsel for the Defendant
Roll of Attorneys No. 67595
IBP Receipt No. 1234567; 06/26/2016
PTR No.234567; 02/20/2016; Tacloban City
MCLE V Compliance No. 4567; August 01, 2016

Copy Furnished:
ATTY. JACLYN L. SANO
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Roll No. 216543
IBP Lifetime No. 876543/ 1-22-14 ;
Leyte Chapter
Ptr. No. 9254780 / 1-5-14 Tacloban
City
#2 Dream Building, Campetic,
Palo, Leyte

Registry Receipt No.

Date:

VERIFICATION

I, A, of legal age, after having been duly sworn, hereby depose

and state that:
1.

I am the defendant in the above-captioned case.

Answer

2.

I have read and understood the contents hereof and

the allegations herein are true and correct of our
personal knowledge and based on authentic records.

A
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 24 th
day of November, 2016, affiant being personally known to
me and exhibiting her Tax Identification Card with TIN:
12345678 as competent proof of her identity.

Doc No. ____;

Page No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Series of 2016

ATTY. CASMER AMPASO

Notary Public for Leyte
Comm No: 2015-11-25 until 31 Dec 2016
Real St, Tacloban City
Roll of Atty.s No. 62924 / May
6, 2014
PTR No. 7835558 /01-07-15/Palo, Leyte
IBP Lifetime No. 12345/11-21-15/Leyte Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. 2345; August 01, 2016