Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 21
IMUS, CAVITE

ORLANDO M. MATEO
Petitioner,

-versus- Civil Case no. 6902-18

ROBIN MCDOWALL, ET. AL.,

Respondents.

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

ANSWER
(AD CAUTELAM)

Respondents, ROBIN MCDOWALL, CARL BAWALAN, ROBERTO

RAPADAS, MAXIMO CARO AND MIGUEL M. HERNANDEZ, through
counsel, most respectfully submits this Answer (Ad Cautelam), for the
consideration and guidance of this Honorable Office, and in support
thereof, most respectfully aver:

1. Absent any admission on any of the asseverations set forth by

Complainant in his Complaint and subsequent Motions, Defendants file the
instant Answer (Ad Cautelam) through undersigned counsel under special
ad cautelam appearance, to raise the following allegations that would merit
the outright dismissal of the instant action;

2. First, the instant Complaint, together with all

consequent Motions filed by Complainant must be dismissed
outright - Venue in the instant case being improperly laid.

3. At the onset, the instant Complaint and the subsequent Motions

filed in consonance thereto must be dismissed outright, the venue being
improperly laid in the case at bar. Rule 1, Section 5 of the Interim Rules of
Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies1 provides, thus;

SEC. 5. Venue. – All actions covered by these

Rules shall be commenced and tried in the
Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over
the principal office of the corporation,
partnership, or association concerned. Where the
principal office of the corporation, partnership or
association is registered in the Securities and Exchange
Commission as Metro Manila, the action must be filed in
the city or municipality where the head office is located.
(Emphasis ours)

4. The above-cited provision states that in intra-corporate

disputes, the action must be filed before the Regional Trial Court which has
jurisdiction over the principal office of the Corporation, Partnership or
association concerned.

5. In the case at bar, the principal place of business of Riviera

Golf Club, Inc. is in Silang, Cavite. While Silang does not have its own
Regional Trial Court to hear and try cases that emanates within its
territorial jurisdiction, the Supreme Court appropriated the Regional Trial
Court of Tagaytay to take cognizance over all cases that arises therefrom.
This being the case, Complainant obviously filed the instant Complaint and
its subsequent Motions before the improper venue - the Honorable
Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay having the territorial jurisdiction over the
instant case and not the Regional Trial Court of Imus.

6. As such, the instant complaint including the Motion and

Supplemental Motion/Prayer for Issuance of Ex-Parte Temporary
Restraining Order filed by Complainant must be dismissed outright on the
ground of improper venue.

1 A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC. March 13, 2001

 7. Second, without necessarily subscribing to the
Honorable Court’s Jurisdiction, the instant Complaint, together
with all consequent Motions filed by Complainant must be
dismissed outright for Complainant’s failure to state a cause of
action - failing to implead Riviera Golf Club, Inc. as the Real Party
in Interest.

8. In the case before us, it is clear that the act of herein

defendants in their capacity as members of the Nomination and Election
Committee of the Riviera Golf Club, Inc. (hereafter referred to as
“NOMELEC” for brevity) in disqualifying Complainant’s nomination, was
really that of Riviera Golf Club, Inc, (hereafter referred to as “Riviera” for
brevity). Therefore, this case cannot prosper for failure to implead the
proper party and Real Party in Interest, that is, the Riviera Golf Club, Inc.
It bears stressing that the NOMELEC is not an independent entity, but a
committee specifically created by the Corporation to handle its electoral
affairs. Thus, it being a Committee created under the explicit powers of the
Corporation, it is by all intents and purposes, an extension of the
Corporation. Needless to say, all actions made by the Committee are
actually those of Riviera Golf Club, Inc, which Complainant failed to
implead herein.

9. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every action

must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-
interest, i.e., the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.2

10. The supreme court in a catena of cases pronounced that if a

suit is not brought in the name of or against the real party in interest, a
motion to dismiss may be filed on the ground that the complaint states no
cause of action.

11. At the inception of the present case, Riviera was not impleaded
as a defendant. Without its inclusion as party, there can be no final
determination of the present case. The Corporation possess such an

2 RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, Sec. 2.

interest in the controversy that a final decree would necessarily affect the
alleged rights involved herein, so that the courts cannot proceed without its
presence. Its interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief
sought is inextricably intertwined with that of the other parties.

12. Furthermore, Riviera is an indispensable party in the case at

bar. An indispensable party is defined as one who has such an interest in
the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication cannot be made,
in its absence, without injuring or affecting that interest.3 In the recent
case of Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa sa Keihin (NLMK-OLALIA-
KMU) v. Keihin Philippines Corporation,4 the Court had the occasion to
state that:

Under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, "parties in

interest without whom no final determination can be had of an
action shall be joined as plaintiffs or defendants." If there is a
failure to implead an indispensable party, any judgment
rendered would have no effectiveness. It is "precisely when
an indispensable party is not before the court (that) an
action should be dismissed. The absence of an
indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of
the court null and void for want of authority to act, not
only as to the absent parties but even to those
present." The purpose of the rules on joinder of indispensable
parties is a complete determination of all issues not only
between the parties themselves, but also as regards other
persons who may be affected by the judgment. A decision valid
on its face cannot attain real finality where there is want of
indispensable parties.[32] (Underscoring supplied)

13. Similarly, in the case of Plasabas v. Court of Appeals,5 the

Court held that a final decree would necessarily affect the rights of

3 Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. Hon. Sorongon, G.R. No. 176709, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 613, 622-
623, citing Moldes v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 161955, 31 August 2005, 48 SCRA 697, 707.

4 G.R. No. 171115, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 179.

5 G.R. No. 166519, March 31, 2009, 582 SCRA 686.

indispensable parties so that the Court could not proceed without their
presence. In support thereof, the Court in Plasabas cited the following
authorities, thus:

"The general rule with reference to the making of parties in a

civil action requires the joinder of all indispensable parties
under any and all conditions, their presence being a sine qua
non of the exercise of judicial power. (Borlasa v. Polistico, 47
Phil. 345, 348) For this reason, our Supreme Court has held
that when it appears of record that there are other persons
interested in the subject matter of the litigation, who are not
made parties to the action, it is the duty of the court to
suspend the trial until such parties are made either plaintiffs or
defendants. (Pobre, et al. v. Blanco, 17 Phil. 156). x x x Where
the petition failed to join as party defendant the person
interested in sustaining the proceeding in the court, the same
should be dismissed. x x x When an indispensable party is
not before the court, the action should be dismissed.
(People, et al. v. Rodriguez, et al., G.R. Nos. L-14059-
62, September 30, 1959) (sic)
"Parties in interest without whom no final determination can be
had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or
defendants. (Sec. 7, Rule 3, Rules of Court). The burden of
procuring the presence of all indispensable parties is on
the plaintiff. (39 Amjur [sic] 885). The evident purpose of the
rule is to prevent the multiplicity of suits by requiring the
person arresting a right against the defendant to include with
him, either as co-plaintiffs or as co-defendants, all persons
standing in the same position, so that the whole matter in
dispute may be determined once and for all in one litigation.
(Palarca v. Baginsi, 38 Phil. 177, 178).

14. From all indications, Riviera is an indispensable party and

should have been impleaded, as a defendant in the complaint filed before
the Honorable Court as it would be directly and adversely affected by any
determination therein. To belabor the point, the causes of action, or the
acts complained of were the acts of Riviera as a corporate body made
through its Committee, the NOMELEC.

15. Evidently, the cause of action rightfully pertains to Rivera Golf

Club, Inc.

16. Moreover, considering that Complainant, is ultimately

challenging the disqualification made by the NOMELEC, he is assailing, in
effect, Riviera’s acts as a body corporate.

17. Therefore, the instant Complaint, together with all consequent

Motions filed by Complainant must be dismissed outright for Complainant’s
failure to state a cause of action - failing to implead Riviera Golf Club, Inc.
as the Real Party in Interest.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Office

that the above-captioned complaint be DISMISSED outright.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.


 Makati City for Imus, Cavite, 20 November 2019.

ALONSO AND ASSOCIATES

Unit 2503, 25th Flr., Phil. AXA Life Centre
Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue cor. Tindalo St.

By:

JOSABETH V. ALONSO
PTR No. 6615031/Makati City/01-03-18
 IBP No. 022741/Quezon City/01-03-18
Roll No. 34994
MCLEComp.No.V-0011644
11 November 2015

CHRISTOFFER ALLAN A. LIQUIGAN

PTR No.6615035/Makati City/01-03-18
IBP No. 022737/Makati City/01-03-18
Roll No. 63791
MCLEComp.No.V-0016759
02 March 2016

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. ROMANO M. DIAZ

Counsel for Plaintiff
Unit 5, Joy Building, Alabang-Zapote Road,
Pamplona II, Las Piñas City,
Metro Manila