Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

8th Judicial Region
BRANCH 26
San Juan, Southern Leyte

___________________, CIVIL CASE No. R-690

Plaintiff, for:

-versus- DAMAGES AND

ATTORNEY’S FEES
__________________ and
_____________________ ,
Defendants.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

ANSWER with COUNTERCLAIM

DEFENDANTS, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court

respectfully aver: THAT---

1. Paragraph 1 of the complaint with respect to the personal

circumstances of the parties is admitted.

2. Paragraph 2 of the complaint is admitted as to the capacity

of parties to sue and be sued.

3. Paragraph 3 of the complaint with respect to the conduct of

search and seizure operation in the plaintiff’s house on 6 July 2006 at
about 8:15 PM is admitted. However, while plaintiff alleges that the
said search and seizure operation was conducted “without his
presence”, still the same was conducted pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 126
of the Rules of Court; meaning, it was made in the presence of the
lawful occupant thereof (the wife of plaintiff) or any member of his
family, and in the presence of two (2) barangay officials residing in
the same locality.

4. Paragraphs 4 of the complaint is denied for being plain

hearsay, since plaintiff admitted in par. 3 of the complaint that he was
not present during the raid; thus, he has no personal knowledge as to
the truth of his self-serving allegation as to what happened during the
search and seizure operation.
 2

5. Paragraph 5 of the complaint is denied. There was no

abuse of rights (Art. 19, NCC) against herein plaintiff who was not
present during the search and seizure operation. On the other hand,
he alleged that his wife was forced to sign a confiscation report
against her will. if she was indeed aggrieved, she ought to have been
impleaded by the plaintiff in this complaint as an indispensable
party, who is the real party in interest in this case. Pursuant to
Section 4, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the husband
and wife shall sue or be sued jointly. In the instant case, plaintiff did
not implead his wife.

6. Paragraph 6 of the complaint is denied. Granting ex

arguendo that they were misled by herein defendants, why did they
not recant or withdraw their signatures in the Waiver of Detention
which they personally subscribed before MCTC Judge Francisco M.
Puray, Jr. and witnessed by the court interpreter.

7. Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the complaint are denied. If

plaintiff incurred alleged litigation expenses and attorney’s fees and
suffered moral damages, he himself is to be blamed for filing the
present selective, discriminating, malicious, unfounded, unwarranted
and false complaint against herein defendants, and plaintiff is not
entitled to exemplary damages for the aforestated reasons.

8. Paragraph 10 is admitted, as indeed, the herein defendants

are being haled in court as a result of their regular performance of
duty as policemen in enforcing a search warrant validly issued by a
court of law.

AFFIRMATIVE AND SPECIAL DEFENSES

9. The Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

claim for damages, which is capable of pecuniary estimation. Batas
Pambansa 129 (Judiciary Organization Act of 1980), as amended by
Republic Act No. 7691 (Expanding Jurisdiction of the MTC, etc.), in
par. (8) vests jurisdiction to the Regional Trial Court civil cases in
which demand for money or the value of the property involved
exceeds P100,000.00. It provides: “in all other cases in which the
demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses, and cost, or the value of the property in
controversy exceeds P100,000.00 xxx”

9.1. However, Section 5 of RA 7691 states that “after five years

from the effectivity of this Act, the jurisdictional amounts mentioned in
Section 19(3), (4) and (8); and Sec. 33(1) of BP 129 as amended by
this Act, shall be adjusted to P200,000.00. Five (5) years thereafter,
such jurisdictional amounts shall be adjusted further to P300,000.00
xxx.”
 3

9.2. RA 7691 took effect on 25 March 1994. The jurisdictional

amounts mentioned in Sec. (8) of BP 129 as amended by this Act
shall be adjusted to P200,000.00 from 1999 to 2004, and
P300,000.00 from 2004 to 2009.

9.3. Clear from paragraph (8) of BP 129 that this Court has
jurisdiction of civil cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest,
damages of whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and
costs, or the value of the property exceeds three hundred thousand
pesos (P300,000.00). Plaintiffs’ monetary demand on defendants in
this case exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses and costs, is NIL!

9.4. Even under the totality rule, the aggregate amount of

attorney’s fees of P50,000.00, appearance fee of P3,000, moral
damages of P150,000.00 and exemplary damages of P20,000.00 will
not sum up to P300,000.00. Hence, the same is below the necessary
P300,000.00 amount of demand that vests jurisdiction to this Court.

10. The complaint states no cause of action against the

defendants due to the absence of the elements/requisites of a valid
cause of action: (1) legal right of the plaintiff; (2) correlative obligation
of the defendants; and (3) act or omission of the defendants in
violation of the legal right of the plaintiff.

11. Even granting there is a cause of action, the court cannot

proceed for failure of the plaintiff to implead indispensable
parties, who are real parties in interest in this case. Pursuant to
Section 4, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the husband
and wife shall sue or be sued jointly. In the instant case, plaintiff did
not implead his wife as co-plaintiff.

12. The filing of this case is selective. Plaintiff deliberately and

maliciously did not include the other eleven (11) police officers, who
were members of the raiding team who actively participated in the
enforcement of the valid search warrant issued by the court of law.

COUNTERCLAIM

13. Defendants replead, adopt and incorporate by way of

reference all the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of their
answer.

14. Having been made to defend in an unfounded suit, the

defendants will be compelled to hire the services of a lawyer and
shall be obligated to pay the sum of P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees
and appearance fee of P3,500.00 per court appearance.
 4

15. The filing of this present malicious, unfounded, and false

complaint has caused the defendants to suffer sleepless nights,
mental anguish, besmirched reputation, disruption of government
service, and wounded feelings for which plaintiff is liable to pay
defendants the sum of P100,000.00 as moral damages; and in order
to deter others who maybe similarly situated as plaintiffs, the latter
should be adjudged to pay defendants the sum of P20,000.00 as
exemplary damages.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in favor of the
defendants and against the plaintiff, to wit:

1. Dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff with costs against

him;

2. On the permissive counterclaim, defendants pray for

judgment ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant
P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees and P3,500.00 per
appearance in court for this case; the sum of P200,000.00
as moral damages, and the sum of P20,000.00 as
exemplary damages.

Granting defendants such other reliefs and remedies just and

equitable in the premises.

Tacloban City for San Juan, Southern Leyte. ______________.

TAN IGANO GIRON EVANGELISTA ROA

[TIGERLAW]
Counsel for the Defendants
253 Avenida Veteranos, Tacloban City
By:

LEO S. GIRON
Roll No. 37379
IBP Lifetime Member No. 00733
PTR No. 6100976; 1-2-07; Tacloban City
 5

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Tacloban ) S.S.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

We, ___________________ & _____________________, both

of legal age, Filipino citizens, married and presently assigned in
Hinunangan Police Station, Hinunangan, Southern Leyte, after having
been first sworn according to law, hereby state:

We are the defendants in the above-entitled case; we have

caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer; we have read it and
the allegations therein are true and correct of our own personal
knowledge or based on relevant and authentic records.

That on the COUNTERCLAIM, we have not theretofore

commenced any action or filed any claim or pleading involving the
same or similar issues or subject matter in the Supreme Court, Court
of Appeals, lower courts or administrative bodies and quasi-judicial
agency and to the best of our knowledge, no such other action or
claim is pending therein; and if there is such other pending action or
claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and, if we
should thereafter learn hereafter that the same or similar action or
claim or pleading has been filed or is pending with the Supreme
Court, Court of Appeals, lower courts, administrative bodies or quasi
judicial agency; we shall undertake to report that fact within five (5)
days from knowledge thereof to the court wherein this aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

______________________ ________________________

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this

______________ at Tacloban City, Philippines.

Doc. No. ___

Page No. ___
Book No. ___
SERIES OF 20__

COPY FURNISHED: by personal service

____________________
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Tacloban City