Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI
Bacolod City
-o0oPEDRO P. PADERNAL
Complainant,
-versus-

NLRC RAB CASE NO. VI-12-101113-

14
O LEDESMA & COMPANY INC.,
JENNY FARMS, INC., MARC AGRI VENTURES,
INC., JJL AGRI-CORP, LILIAN GREENFIELDS
AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, HOLY
CORP INVESTMENT CORP., UNIVERSAL REALTY
CORP., ERIC HI QUALITY AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORP.,
ARTURO LEDESMA, PRESIDENT/ADMINISTRATOR
Respondent/s,
x------------------------------------------------x
REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT
We, RICHARD D. AQUINO, ALEJANDRO P. MALIJOC
and JOSEPH E. LOBADO, all of legal age and residents of
Manapla, do hereby solemnly affirm, after being duly sworn
to in accordance with law submit this Rejoinder-Affidavit, as
follows
1. We have gone through the Reply to the Joint
Counter-Affidavit which we received on May 27, 2015 filed
by complainant Enrico Pamplona and we are making this
affidavit in rejoinder thereto;
2. Unless specifically admitted by us hereunder, each
and every allegation made therein is denied as false;
3. We have no knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the circumstances and
allegations in paragraph 1 of the reply to the joint-counter
affidavit, but what is known to us is that the respondents
boat was the only boat chased by the Bantay Dagat. They
were spotted and caught in actual operation of Danish Seine
(Hulbot-hulbot), a fishing activity which is strictly prohibited
1

by the Fisheries Administrative Ordinance 246. It is not true

that we were chasing another fishing boat and that out of
frustration of not catching that boat we vented our ire
upon them and to at least show some result apprehended
them. Such is clearly an afterthought by the complainants,
unsubstantiated by any proofs and was only made by them
to harass, vex and to put undue pressure to us to prevent
the institution of any legal recourse in the enforcement of
environmental laws as provided by law.
According to the Rules of Court, A witness can testify
only as to those facts which he knows of his personal
knowledge and any testimony made outside of his personal
knowledge is hearsay. It must be noted that the only way
the complainant must have acquired the information
regarding the personal view of the Bantay Dagat during the
operation would be through a thoroughly intimate knowledge
of the operations of the Bantay Dagat, which they did not
have. This is so since there would have been no way that the
complainants must have known of the personal and inner
thoughts of the enforcing officers, much more know that
these
thoughts
were
antagonistic
towards
them.
Furthermore, these mental musing are incapable of being
proved in court.
2. We specifically and vehemently deny the allegations
stated in Paragraph 2 of the complainants Reply to the Joint
Counter Affidavit that they were not engaged in any unlawful
activity because in truth and in fact they were arrested as
they were caught in flagrante delicto using Danish Seine,
(hulbot-hulbot) to catch fish, a method strictly prohibited by
the Fisheries Administrative Ordinance 246. The said fishing
boat was operated by Mr. Enrico Pamplona together with his
6 crew members. They were arrested
by virtue of a
warrantless arrest( Rule 113 Section 5) and proper actions
were instituted against them. It can also be noted that they
freely participated in the investigation of the case. Moreover,
the complainants denial of the fact that they didnt have
any fishing paraphernalia at that time is also of no moment.
The Bantay Dagat is certain that when they approached the
fishing boat, the complainants immediately left the area,
abandoned their net and ran going to Ajuy. The
complainants allegations are mere general denials which
has the effect of an admission. The burden of proof in
proving the contrary rests upon the complainants however it
will be noted that their allegations are entirely baseless and
nothing more but a reiteration of their own made up stories.
2

3. With regard to the third allegation made by the

complainant in its reply to the joint-counter affidavit, the
same is likewise specifically denied. To reiterate, the herein
complainant was one of the respondents on a fisheries law
violation case filed before the honorable prosecutors office
last January 2015, with NPS Docket No. VI-14-IN V-15A00053, entitled RICHARD D. AQUINO, RICHEL P. ALAVARADO,
CHRISTOPHER P. LIBO-ON VS RICARDO TAN and ENRICO
PAMPLONA. A general denial without any sufficient proof
can never prevail over one who is certain and substantial.
Hence, the complainants allegations must fail.
4. The allegation of the crimes of UNLAWFUL ARREST,
GRAVE COERCION, THREATS and PHYSICAL INJURIES is
specifically and vehemently denied.
4.1 According to the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines, these are the following elements that must
concur in order for the crime of unlawful arrest to be
committed:
Elements
1. Offender arrests or detains another person;
2. The purpose of the offender is to deliver him to the proper
authorities;
3. The arrest or detention is not authorized by law or there is
no reasonable ground therefor.
From the provision stated above, we specifically and
vehemently deny the complainants allegations that we
committed the crime of unlawful arrest because not all the
elements required for one to commit such crime concurred.
In the case at hand, the Bantay Dagat arrested the
complainants for the purpose of delivering them to the
proper authority, however such action to arrest is authorized
by law since a Bantay Dagat has a primary responsibility to
secure, protect, and enforce the fisheries laws. Also such an
arrest was made pursuant to a reasonable and legal ground
as the complainants were caught inFlagrante Delicto using
Danish Seine, (Hulbot-Hulbot) to catch fish, a method strictly
proscribed by Fisheries Administrative Ordinance 246.
Hence, it is impossible for the respondents to commit such
crime.

4.2 With Regard to Grave Coercion, the Revised Penal

Code of the Philippines provides for the elements that must
concur in order to commit the crime of Grave Coercion:
Elements
1. A person prevented another from doing something not
prohibited by law, or that he compelled him to do something
against his will; be it right or wrong;
2. The prevention or compulsion be effected by violence,
threats or intimidation; and
3. The person that restrained the will and liberty of another
had not the authority of law or the right to do so, or in other
words, that the restraint shall not be made under authority
of law or in the exercise of any lawful right.
As provided by the provisions above, we specifically
and vehemently deny the allegations made by the
complainant with regard the commission of grave coercion.
In the case at hand, the complainants were prevented from
further fishing because such is an apparent violation of the
FAO 246. They were not prevented arbitrarily. As Bantay
Dagat officers, the respondents had to make sure the
effective enforcement of the ordinance and they were just
doing what was proper and legal. The complainants were not
threatened, nor forced in any way whatsoever, and as a
matter of fact they peacefully followed and participated in
the investigation. Lastly, the restraint made by the
respondents was made under the authority of law. Hence,
their allegations must fail.
As to the charge of Threats and Physical Injuries, the
same is specifically and vehemently denied. The crime
charged by the complainants is extremely broad and vague
in nature, and a close and thorough introspection of all
related penal laws would yield negative results as to the
crime alleged. In short, the crime alleged exists only in the
minds of the respondents and was fabricated. This is so since
if there was indeed a specific crime committed, the
respondents would know the exact offense to be charged.
Moreover, the issue of threats and physical injuries was
never brought up by the complainant in his counter-affidavit
According to the Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 116
section 9, The accused may, before arraignment, move for a
bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and
prepare for trial. This is in consonance with the constitutional
4

rights of the accused which states that the accused has the
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.
5.This case is a SLAPP suit. The rules of procedure on
environmental cases define a SLAPP suit as follows:
g) Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)
refers to an action whether civil, criminal or administrative,
brought against any persons, institution or any government
agency or local government unit or its officials and
employees, with the intent to harass, vex, exert undue
pressure or stifle any legal recourse that such person,
institution or government agency has taken or may take in
the enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the
environment or assertion of environmental rights.
6.Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 6 of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases states:
Section 2. SLAPP as a defense; how alleged.- In a SLAPP filed
against a person involved in the enforcement of
environmental laws, protection of the environment or
assertion of environmental rights, the defendant may file an
answer interposing as a defense that the case is a SLAPP
and shall be supported by documents, affidavits, papers and
other evidence; and by way of counterclaim, pray for
damages, attorneys fees, and cost of suit.
7.We would also reiterate the following damages that
the respondents asked for in our Joint Counter Affidavit with
Counterclaim, with the legal reasons for asking such:
7.1Moral Damages
As a consequence to the malicious and unjust filing of
this entirely unwarranted and unfair action by the
complainants, attended by extreme bad faith, the
respondents and their families have suffered sleepless
nights, mental anguish, serious anxiety, severe stress,
wounded feelings, besmirched reputation, and social
humiliation for which complainants will be made liable for
one hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) per
respondent.
7.2Exemplary Damages
As an award for institution of the unwarranted and
clearly unfounded suit against herein respondents,
5

complainants have acted in a wanton, reckless, and

malevolent manner and, by way of example or correction for
the public good, complainants should be made liable to pay
respondents exemplary damages in the total amount of two
hundred thousand pesos (Php 200,000.00)
It must also be noted by the court that the
complainants have committed perjury. The complainants
allegations in his affidavit were fabricated, self-serving and
unsubstantiated with any proof. The only proof presented by
the complainants is the medical certificate which the
complainant has also failed to present in their counter
affidavit in the criminal case filed against them by us. The
complainant has perjured himself because he invented all
these untruthful statements in his Complaint-Affidavit under
oath. Hence, it is only proper that the complainant should be
made to answer for the consequences of his unlawful act.
8.The present case filed against us was purely meant to
harass, vex, exert undue pressure, and stifle the legal
recourse that we have taken through our filing of criminal
charges against them for the violation of FAO 246 or using
Danish Seine (Hulbot-hulbot) as a mode of fishing. Their
complaint is nothing more than a SLAPP suit and is filed with
perjuries intended to maliciously prosecute us for acts that
we have not committed.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE premises considered, we are executing
this Joint Counter-Affidavit, to refute the baseless, malicious,
and false accusations against us for the crime of Unlawful
Arrest, Grave Coercion, Threats, and Physical Injuries.
We most respectfully pray that this case be DISMISSED
with award for damages to herein respondents, for lack of
casure of action and be considered by the Honorable
Prosecutor as a SLAPP Suit.
All other remedies that are just and equitable are
likewise prayed for.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set out hands
this ______, 2015 at Bacolod City.
ALEJANDRO P. MALIJOC
AQUINO

RICHARD

D.

Respondent
Respondent
JOSEPH E. LOBADO
Respondent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this____ of April,
2015 at Bacolod City. I have personally examined the affiants
and I
am satisfied that they voluntarily executed the
foregoing Joint Counter- Affidavit and that they have read
and fully understood the contents thereof.