REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 100
Makati City

CLEMENT YU,
Plaintif,
Civil Case No.
__________
-versus- FOR: Breach of Contract
with Damages

JOE CASTILLO,
Defendant.
x-----------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH
COMPULSORY COUNTER-CLAIM

COMES NOW, Defendant JOE CASTILLO, by and through

the undersigned counsel and to this most honorable court,
most respectfully aver and states that:

1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are ADMITTED.

2. Paragraph 5 is ADMITTED in so far as the amount of

contribution is concerned. The allegation respecting the
assumption of responsibility with regard to the workers,
professionals such as interior designer, contractor, architect
and construction is DENIED. The Joint Venture Agreement is
clear and categorical that defendants obligation is merely to
secure the services of an architect and contractor. This shall
be discussed further in defendants Special and Affirmative
Defenses.

3. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 are ADMITTED.

4. Paragraph 9 is DENIED. Contrary to the allegation of

plaintiff, defendant has no obligation to construct the
restaurant, his participation being limited only to the hiring
of services of an architect and a contractor. There is nothing
in the Joint Venture Agreement which provides solidary
liability of defendant and professionals he hired. There is
likewise no provision therein which obligates defendant to

1
guarantee the performance of the professionals he hired.
This shall be discussed further in defendants Special and
Affirmative Defenses.

5. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are DENIED. The truth of the

matter is that it was plaintiff who explicitly informed
defendant that he no longer wants the latter to be part of
the business. As a matter of fact, plaintiff blames the
defendant for the late opening of the restaurant despite
being fully aware that the delay was caused by the
contractor who did not finish the construction on time. This
shall be discussed further in defendants Special and
Affirmative Defenses.

6. Paragraph 12 is ADMITTED only as regards the

sending and receipt of the demand letter. The rest of the
allegations are DENIED.

7. Paragraphs 13 and 14 are DENIED considering that

as explained above, the delay in the opening of the
restaurant was due to the contractors fault, a fact known to
plaintiff. This shall be discussed further in defendants
Special and Affirmative Defenses.

8. Paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 are DENIED for lack of

knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity
of the allegation.

9. Paragraph 18 is ADMITTED.

10. Paragraph 19 is DENIED. As mentioned it was the

contractors delay in the construction which caused the
delay in the opening of the restaurant. As also mentioned,
defendants obligation is merely to secure the services of an
architect and a contractor. There is nothing in the Joint
Venture Agreement which provides that defendant
guarantees the performance of the professionals he hired.
This shall be discussed further in defendants Special and
Affirmative Defenses.

11. Paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 are DENIED for lack of

knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity
of the allegation.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

12. Defendant respectfully reiterates the foregoing

2
allegations and repleads the same as part and by way of
reference hereof.

13. With all due respect to the Honorable Court, the

instant Complaint must be dismissed for utter LACK OF
CAUSE OF ACTION.

14. As and by way of background, the parties entered

into a Joint Venture Agreement for the construction,
management and operation of a restaurant to be named
Joes Bistro.

15. In accordance with the JVA, defendant secured the

services of an architect and a contractor. As proof thereof,
attached herewith as Annexes 1 and 2 are the
Contract of Services entered into by defendant with Architect
Juan Dela Cruz and Engr. Joaquin Tuazon.

16. The construction of the premises began as

stipulated. Unfortunately, halfway through the construction,
Engr. Joaquin Tuazon absconded prompting defendant to file
a case against him. Attached herewith as Annex 3 are the
case records of Civil Case No. 08182015 entitled Joe Castillo
v. Engr. Joaquin Tuazon.

17. As a necessary consequence, construction of the

premises were halted. Despite this setback, defendant
undertook all the necessary measures to ensure the timely
delivery of the premises. To this end, he secured the services
of another contractor, Engr. Cardo Dalisay. Attached herewith
as Annex 4 is a copy of the Contract of Services between
defendant and Engr. Cardo Dalisay.

18. All of these events were duly reported and relayed

to plaintiff through several written communications.
Attached herewith as Annexes 5 and 6 are copies of
the letters sent to plaintiff and Annexes 5-A and 6-B
are the return cards with plaintiffs signature evidencing the
latters receipt. These letters, however, were not responded
to by plaintiff.

19. On May 5, 2016, Engr. Cardo Dalisay completed the

construction and delivered the premises. Defendant and
Engr. Dalisay personally went to plaintiff for him to sign the
turn over documents. It was at that point that plaintiff
informed defendant that he is now terminating the Joint
Venture Agreement and that he has hired a new chef and

3
service crew. This conversation was personally witnessed by
Engr. Dalisay who executed his Affidavit, a copy of which is
hereby attached as Annex 7.

20. It is crystal clear from the foregoing that defendant

is not liable for the delay in the construction of the
restaurant, and that, the delay, if any, was due to the fault of
Engr. Tuazon.

21. In any case, Paragraph 1 of Section IV obligates

defendant only to secure the services of an architect
and contractor:

IV. JOES CONTRIBUTION

1. JOE shall provide and allocate

FIFTEEN MILLION PESOS
(P15,000,000.00) for the construction of
the restaurant. This amount shall be
used to secure the services of a
reputable architect who shall
design the restaurant and a
contractor who shall construct the
same according to the design
specifications prepared by the architect;
PROVIDED that the PARTIES shall both
agree on the architectural design before
commencement of the construction.
(underscoring and emphasis added)

22. It is beyond doubt, however, that defendant fully

complied with the said provision as evidenced by Annexes
1, 2 and 4.

23. Most importantly, there is NOTHING in the

aforecited provision which obligates defendant to be
solidarily liable with the professionals he hired. As
mentioned, defendants obligation is ONLY TO SECURE THE
SERVICES of an architect and an engineer. He is not even
obligated to guarantee the performance of the professionals
he hired.

24. The delay, if any, therefore must be attributed to

Engr. Joaquin Tuazon and not to herein defendant.

25. For this reason, it is crystal clear that plaintiff HAS

NO CAUSE OF ACTION against herein defendant considering

4
that the latter has fully complied with his obligation.

26. Again the JVA is very clear, defendants obligation

under Paragraph 1 of Section IV is merely to secure the
services of an architect and contractor, nothing more,
nothing less.

27. The delay caused by Engr. Tuazon cannot be

attributed to herein defendant absent any guarantees or
provision for solidary liability between defendant and the
professionals he hired.

28. There is also no truth to the allegation that

defendant failed to present himself for work. As mentioned,
it was plaintiff who personally informed defendant that he is
now terminating the Joint Venture Agreement and that he
has hired a new chef and service crew. This was personally
witnessed by Engr. Cardo Dalisay as evidenced by his
attached sworn statement.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

29. Defendant respectfully reiterates the foregoing

allegations and repleads the same as part and by way of
reference hereof;

30. The filing of the instant baseless complaint, has

caused mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings,
moral shock and similar injury to defendant, who is therefore
entitled to moral damages in the amount of One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00) and exemplary damages
in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php
100,000.00)

31. As a consequence of plaintiffs unfounded claims,

which forced defendant to litigate and protect its interests
and secure the services of counsel, defendant suffered
damages in the form of attorneys fees in the amount of Fifty
Thousand Pesos (Php 50,000.00), and an additional Five
Thousand Pesos (Php 5,000.00), and travel and
accommodation expenses for every appearance in court, and
expenses of litigation in an amount of not less than Twenty
Thousand Pesos (Php 20,000.00), all of which should be
assessed against the Plaintiff as penalty for filing such
unfounded and baseless complaint.

PRAYER

5
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant
respectfully prays of the Honorable Court the instant
complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and that plaintiff be
ordered to pay Defendant the following counterclaims:

a. Php 100,000 and Php 100,000.00 as moral and

exemplary damages, respectively;

b. Php 50,000.00 and an additional Php 5,000.00, plus

travel and accommodation expenses for every
appearance in court, as and by way of attorneys
fees; and

c. Php 20,000.00 as litigation costs.

Other relief just and equitable under the premises are

likewise prayed for.

Makati City, May 22, 2017.

REALYN M. AUSTRIA
Attorneys Roll No.: ___________
IBP Lifetime No.:
_____________
MCLE Compliance No. ________

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Makati ) S.S.

VERIFICATION
I, JOE CASTILLO, Filipino, of legal age, single and
resident of 23 St., Number Ave., Makati City, after having
been duly sworn to in accordance with law do hereby depose
and say:

1. That I am the Defendant in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing

Answer and have read the allegations contained therein;

3. The allegations in the said Answer are true and

correct of my own knowledge and authentic records;

6
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my
signature this 22nd day of May 2017, in the City of Makati.

JOE CASTILLO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22nd day of

May, 2017, in the City of Makati, affiant exhibiting to me his
Drivers License Nos. 09232013 issued by the Land
Transportation Office on August 18, 2016 at the City of
Manila.

ROY CARREON
Notary Public
Attorneys Roll No.:
___________
IBP Lifetime No.:
_____________
MCLE Compliance No.
________

Doc. No. ________

Page No. ________
Book No. ________
Series of 2017.

ANNEX 1

CONTRACT OF SERVICES
(ARCHT. JUAN DELA CRUZ)

7
 ANNEX 2

CONTRACT OF SERVICES
(ENGR. JOAQUIN TUAZON)

8
9