REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 150, MAKATI CITY

MODESTA R. SABENIANO,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No.
- versus - R-MKT-20-00787-CV

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF

THE RITZ TOWERS
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
x-----------------------------------------x

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RITZ TOWERS

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. (hereinafter “RTCAITHE
RITZ”), et al., by and through the undersigned Law Firm, unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully submits the instant Motion Opposition
and avers: That - -

PREFATORY STATEMENT

“It is said that a little learning is a dangerous thing; and that he who
acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. There would seem to be more
than a grain of truth in these aphorisms; and they appear to find validation in
the proceeding at bench, at least” (In Re: Joaquin T. Borromeo, Ex. Rel.
Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, A.M. No. 93-
7-696-0, 21 February 1995).

A. Plaintiff Miserably Failed to

Comply towith Rule 7, Section 5 of
the 1997 Rules of Court By Failing
to Certify the Instant Complaint
Against Forum-Shopping.
 1. Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court require,

Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The

plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the
complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for
relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a
complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he
should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim
has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five
(5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint
or initiatory pleading has been filed.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements

shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint
or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of
a false certification or non-compliance with any of the
undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court,
without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and
criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly
constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same
shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and
shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for
administrative sanctions.” (Emphasis supplied)

2. A reading of the instant Complaint would show that the

plaintiff miserably failed to comply with this rule.

B. Plaintiff Has Been Deliberately

Engaged in Forum-Shopping When
She Filed Several Cases Against
The Board of Directors/Trustees
and/or the Officers of RTCAI In
Different Tribunals Involving
Similar, if not the Same, Issues as
the Present “Complaint”.

3. Forum shopping is an act of a party, against whom an adverse

judgment or order has been rendered in one forum, of seeking and possibly
getting a favorable opinion in another forum, other than by appeal or special
civil action for certiorari. It may also be the institution of two or more
actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition
that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. The
established rule is that for forum shopping to exist, both actions must
involve the same transactions, same essential facts and circumstances and
must raise identical causes of actions, subject matter, and issues.

4. Forum shopping unnecessarily burdens courts with heavy

caseloads, unduly taxes the manpower and financial resources of the
judiciary and trifles with and mocks judicial processes, thereby adversely
affecting the efficient administration of justice. Forum shopping is
contumacious, as well as an act of malpractice that is proscribed and
condemned as trifling with the courts and abusing its processes. A violation
of the rule against forum shopping warrants prosecution for contempt of
court and constitutes a ground for summary dismissal of the actions
involved, without prejudice to appropriate administrative action against the
counsel.1

5. To guide this Honorable Court of the history of the multiple

cases filed by the plaintiff against the defendants, the undersigned attached a
certified true copy of the Consolidated Answer with Compulsory
Counterclaims2 filed by the same Defendants in the case docketed as
“Modesta R. Sabeniano, represented herein by her Attorney-in Fact,
Mercy Alpasan, v. The Board of Directors of the Ritz Towers
Condominium Association, Inc., et at., (Civil Case. No. 15-1415, RTC-
Makati, Branch 141/148), which is the latest case which was dismissed in
relation to the same parties.

6. In summary, Plaintiff had previously initiated the following

cases against the Board and/or officers of RTCAI, thus:

i. “Modesta R. Sabeniano v. Board of Directors of the

Ritz Towers Condominium Association, Inc. (RTCAI),
its President Daniel Gomez, Jr.”, HLURB Case No.
NCRHOA – 102609-1234;

1
Sps. Cruz v. Sps. Caraos, G.R. NO. 138208, 23 April 2007, 521 SCRA 510.
2
Annex “1___”, with attachments.
 ii. “Modesta R. Sabeniano v. Daniel Gomez Jr., Stewart
Chongson, Ancheta Tan, Vicente Quimbo, Vicente
Villegas, David Wheeler, Jenny Paradise and Leslie
James Croyston”, HLURB Case No. NCRHOA –
101812-1749;

iii. “Modesta R. Sabeniano v. Daniel A. Gomez, Jr., the

President of The Ritz Towers Condominium
Association, Inc.”, Civil Case No. 10-440, RTC-Makati,
Branch 149;

iv. “Modesta R. Sabeniano v. Daniel Gomez Jr., Stewart

Chongson, Ancheta Tan, Vicente Quimbo, Vicente
Villegas, David Wheeler, Jenny Parodies and Leslie
James Croyston”, Civil Case No. 10-633, RTC-Makati,
Branch 66;

v. “Modesta R. Sabeniano v. Daniel Gomez Jr., then

President of the Ritz Towers condominium, Inc.”, Civil
Case No. 13-055, RTC-Makati, Branch 62;

vi. “Modesta R. Sabeniano, represented by her Attorney-

in-Fact, Mercy Alpasan v. the Board of Directors of the
Ritz Towers Condominium Association, Inc., its former
President, Daniel A. Gomez, Jr. and its incumbent
President Armita Rufino”, Civil Case No. 15-847, RTC-
Makati, Branch 149;

vii. Modesta R. Sabeniano, represented herein by her

Attorney-in Fact, Mercy Alpasan, v. The Board of
Directors of the Ritz Towers Condominium Association,
Inc., et at., Civil Case. No. 15-1415, RTC-Makati,
Branch 141/148.

7. In a long line of cases on forum shopping, the Supreme Court

has held that absolute identity of the parties is not required, it being enough
that there is substantial identity of the parties. 3 Indeed, “[a]bsolute identity
of parties is not required, and where a shared identity of interest is shown
by the identity of relief sought by one person in a prior case and the second
person in a subsequent case, such was deemed sufficient.”4

8. It can be clearly seen from the foregoing cases that there is

identity of parties with the present Complaint, wherein the plaintiff is again

3
Araneta v. Araneta, G.R. No. 190814, 9 October 2013, 707 SCRA 222, citing Luis Ao-As v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 128464, 20 June 2006, 491 SCRA 339
4
Heirs of Sotto v. Palicte, G.R. No. 159691, 13 June 2013, 698 SCRA 294
Modesta R. Sabeniano, and defendants therein are members of the Board of
RTCAI, its former president/s.

9. There is also identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed

for by plaintiff in the foregoing cases. In said cases, plaintiff prayed for the
following reliefs:

a. In “Modesta R. Sabeniano v. Board of Directors

of the Ritz Towers Condominium Association, Inc. RTCAI),
its President Daniel Gomez, Jr.”, HLURB Case No.
NCRHOA–102609-1234, plaintiff prayed, among others, for:

i. Order, direct and command respondents to restore

her water supply;

ii. Dismiss the alleged water charges and its interest for
lack of merit and/or without due process of law, in violation
of R.A. 4726 and jurisprudence rendering them null and void
and of no legal effect;

iii. Declare the cut off of the water to Unit 901A supply
ordered by respondents in violation of R.A. 4726 and/or in
violation of the constitutional right to due process of
complainant and members of her household rendering it null
and void and of no legal effect whatsoever and

iv. Declaring any provision of the By-Laws of RTCAI

and the Master Deed and Declaration of Restrictions if any,
authorizing the cut off of water supply to Unit 901A in
violation of R.A. 4726 and hence, null and void;
The HLURB properly dismissed the 2009 HLURB
Complaint in its Decision dated 29 July 20115 and denied
plaintiff’s appeal for lack of merit in its Decision dated 19
March 2012.6

b. In “Modesta R. Sabeniano v. Daniel A. Gomez,

Jr., the President of The Ritz Towers Condominium
Association, Inc.”, Civil Case No. 10-440, RTC-Makati,
Branch 149, plaintiff prayed, among others, for:
“x x x the issuance of “a Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction ordering, directing and commanding
the defendant to produce or open for inspection and copying
by plaintiff or by her authorized representative/s various
corporate records”
5
A copy of the HLURB Decision dated 29 July 2011 is sub-marked as shall be submitted by the plaintiff with its responsive
pleading, pursuant to this Honorable Court’s Order dated 21 February 2020.Annex “9” of Annex “2” (Consolidated Answer with
Compulsory Claims 25 January 2016)
6
A copy of the HLURB Special Division Decision dated 19 March 2012 is sub-marked as Annex “10” of Annex “2”
(Consolidated Answer with Compulsory Claims dated 25 January 2016) shall be submitted by the plaintiff with its responsive
pleading, pursuant to this Honorable Court’s Order dated 21 February 2020.
 On 7 July 2010, defendant therein filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint (For being Moot and Academic and For
Non-Compliance with the Rules on Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education). On 13 August 2010, the Honorable Court
ordered the dismissal of the case finding that “[t]he parties
herein, during the hearing held on May 12, 2010 entered into
an agreement, the terms and conditions of which are contained
in the Order of even date…the terms of conditions of the
agreement appears to have been complied with by both
parties.”7

c. In “Modesta R. Sabeniano v. Daniel Gomez Jr.,

then President of the Ritz Towers Condominium, Inc.”, Civil
Case No. 13-055, RTC-Makati, Branch 62, plaintiff prayed,
among others, for:
“the supposed cutting of water supply to her
condominium unit and the imposition of five percent (5%)
interest per month on unpaid fees be declared a gross abuse of
authority and ultra vires act of defendant.”

On 23 August 2013, during the scheduled Pre-Trial of

the case, the Honorable Court ordered the dismissal of the
case “for failure of the plaintiff to timely file the required Pre-
Trial Brief”.8

d. In “Modesta R. Sabeniano v. Daniel Gomez Jr.,

Stewart Chongson, Ancheta Tan, Vicente Quimbo, Vicente
Villegas, David Wheeler, Jenny Parodies and Leslie James
Croyston”, Civil Case No. 10-633, RTC-Makati, Branch 66,
plaintiff prayed, among others, for the Honorable Court to
nullify, among others, the increase of Eight Pesos (Php8.00) in
the annual assessment dues from Fifty Seven Pesos (Php57.00)
to Sixty Five Pesos (Php65.00) and the amendment of Section
4, Article V of the By-LawsSection 3, Article II of the Master
Deed and Declaration of Restrictions of the RTCAI, which
provides;

“SECTION 3. Membership and Annual Assessment –

Upon becoming a member of the Association, a unit
owner shall pay a membership fee at the rate of P50
per square meter of the area of the unit. The Board of
directors shall have the power to fix the annual
assessment based on the proposed budget of operating
7
A copy of the Order dated 13 August 2010 is sub-marked as Annex “12” of Annex “2attached as Annex “__” to Annex
“__” (Consolidated Answer with Compulsory Claims dated 25 January 2016)(Consolidated Answer with Compulsary Counterclaims”.
8
A copy of the Order dated 23 August 2013 2013 shall be submitted by the plaintiff with its responsive pleading, pursuant to
this Honorable Court’s Order dated 21 February 2020.is sub-marked as as Annex “22” of Annex 2 (Consolidated Answer with
Compulsory Claims dated 25 January 2016)
 expenses of the Association for the year. The Board of
Directors shall have the power to increase the rate of
annual assessment by twenty (20) per cent without a
vote of the members; any increase in the rate of
annual assessment over twenty (20%) per cent must be
approved by the affirmative vote of the members
owning a majority of the common interest in the
Association. The annual assessment may not be
decreased by either the Board of Directors or by the
members without the affirmative vote of the members
owning or holding two-thirds (2/3) of the common
interest in the Association”

On 24 September 2012, the Honorable Court ordered

the DISMISSAL of the case “FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE”.9

e. In “Modesta R. Sabeniano v. Daniel Gomez Jr.,

Stewart Chongson, Ancheta Tan, Vicente Quimbo, Vicente
Villegas, David Wheeler, Jenny Paradise and Leslie James
Croyston”, HLURB Case No. NCRHOA – 101812-1749,
Plaintiff prayed, among others, for:

i. To declare the elections of the members of the Board

on 16 June 2010, the members’ ratification of all acts,
decision, resolution of the Board of Directors and of
Management, and the amendment of Section 4,
Article V, of the By-Laws as null and void; and

ii. To order Defendants to produce and provide

complainant copies of the minutes of annual meeting.
On 17 April 2015, the HLURB ordered the case “DISMISSED
with PREJUDICE” upon an Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw the
Complaint filed by plaintiff.

f. In “Modesta R. Sabeniano, represented by her

Attorney-in-Fact, Mercy Alpasan v. The Board of Directors of
The Ritz Towers Condominium Association, Inc. its former
President, Daniel A. Gomez, Jr. and its incumbent President,
Armita Rufino”, Civil Case No. 15-847, RTC-Makati, Branch
149, plaintiff prayed, among others, for:

i. “A writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction be

issued by the Honorable Court DIRECTING,
COMMANDING AND ORDERING defendants and
9
A copy of the Order dated 24 September 2012 is sub-marked as Annex “15” of Annex “2” (Consolidated Answer with
Compulsory Claims dated 25 January 2016)shall be submitted by the plaintiff with its responsive pleading, pursuant to this Honorable
Court’s Order dated 21 February 2020.
 their officers, employees, representatives or agents to
RESTORE and RECONNECT the water supply of
the plaintiff xxx”

ii. “After hearing to issue a Writ of Preliminary

Injunction.

iii. “During the pendency and trial of this complaint for

the Honorable Court to issue an Order/s for
defendants and their officers, employees,
representatives and agents to render accounting/s
with supporting documents on the matters specified
in the pertinent paragraphs of this complaint and to
testify thereof on said documents for transparency
and the right of information of plaintiff as RTCAI
member”

iv. “To order the defendant and their officers,

employees, representatives and agents to bring the
copies of the budgets for 2008 to 2015 and other
relevant documents related thereto and to testify on
them for transparency and on the right of information
of plaintiff”

v. Declaring as null and void the three (3) assessments

as violations of the right under Section 4 and 6 of
Article II of the Master Deed and Declaration of
Restrictions and Section 1 Article III of the 1987
Constitution for lack of factual basis and hence, the
assessments are not binding herewith”

vi. “Declaring as null and void the amended portion of

Section 4 Article V of the By-Laws of the RTCAI
authorizing defendants to cut-off the water supply of
plaintiff xxx”

vii. “Declaring the five percent (5%) interest per month

on the unpaid assessments as null and void
assessments xxx”

viii. “Declaring defendant’s water supply cut off as null

and void”
The Honorable Court, in its Order dated 30 October
10
2015, DISMISSED plaintiff’s 2015 Complaint for LACK
OF CAUSE OF ACTION.

g. In “Modesta R. Sabeniano, represented herein by

her Attorney-in Fact, Mercy Alpasan, v. The Board of
10
A copy of the Order dated 30 October 2015 shall be submitted by the plaintiff with its responsive pleading, pursuant to this
Honorable Court’s Order dated 21 February 2020.is sub-marked as Annex “24” od Annex “2” (Consolidated Answer with
Compulsory Claims dated 25 January 2016)
Directors of the Ritz Towers Condominium Association, Inc.,
et at.”, Civil Case. No. 15-1415, RTC-Makati, Branch
141/148149, plaintiff prayed for the following:

“1. (Nicky, please insert prayer from the

Complaint of this case)A writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction be issued by the Honorable
Court DIRECTING, COMMANDING AND
ORDERING defendants and their officers, employees,
representatives or agents to RESTORE and
RECONNECT the water supply of plaintiff to her Unit
at 901A, at the 9th Floor of the RTC, No. 6745 Ayala
Avenue, Makati City and to restore the use of the
elevator by plaintiff and her family members to carry
through the elevator their personal belongings and
drinking water supply from the basement or ground
floor to the 9th Floor of plaintiff’s Unit at the RTC, No.
6745 Ayala Avenue, Makati City to take effect upon
the filing of a bond by plaintiff in such amount to be
determined at the discretion of the Honorable Court to
answer and pay all damages which defendants may
sustain in the event it be finally decided thereto that
plaintiff was not entitled to Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction and the Writ of Preliminary
Injunction.
5. Finally, after hearings on the merit of this case for
the Honorable Court to render a judgment in favor of
plaintiff and against defendants;

5.1 Declaring as null and void the three (3)

assessments as violations of the right of plaintiff under
Sections 4 and 6 of Article III of the Master Deed and
Declaration of restrictions and Section 1, Article III of
the 1987 Constitution for lack of factual basis and
hence, the assessments are not binding to plaintiff
herewith;

5.2 Granting arguendo that said assessments

were initially valid, charging them to plaintiff was
unnecessary, unjustified, arbitrary, oppressive and
capricious because of the existence of excess funds of
RTCAI more than enough to finance the assessments
for years;

5.3 Declaring the continuous assessments,

beyond the one (1) year period from their respective
effectivity, granting arguendo there was such project,
 as null and void as the project was already finished or
completed and to continue charging assessments when
the project had already been finished or completed,
has no factual basis in violation of the rights of
plaintiff under Section 4 and 6 of Article III of the
Master Deed supra and Section 1, Article III of the
Constitution constituting confiscation of property;

5.6 Declaring as null and void the amended

portion of Section 4, Article V of the By-Laws of the
RTCAI authorizing defendants to cut off the water
supply of plaintiff as it is contrary to or in violation
Section 1, Article III of the Constitution; Section 20 of
R.A. 4726 in relation to its Section 10 thereof; Section
8 and 10 of Article III of the Master Deed in
conjunction with Article 10 of R.A. 4726; P.d.967 and
its IRR; the second purpose of the Articles of
Incorporation and jurisprudence enunciated in the
case of Liwag supra.

5.7 Declaring the five percent (5%) interest per

month on the unpaid assessment as null and void
assessments and/or as said interest rates as being
excessive, contrary to morals and the law rendered
said five percent (5%) interest monthly compounded as
“void ab initio” as ruled by the Supreme Court in the
case of Sps. Isagani Castro supra.
xxx”

The Honorable Court, it its Orders dated 18 th of April 2017

and and 25th of August April 2017 dismissed plaintiff’s Complaint for
failure to comply with Rule ______ II of the Interim Rules of Procedure
for Rules of Intra-Corporate Disputes.

6. The above-mentioned reliefs plaintiff sought in the foregoing

cases, are essentially the same reliefs sought in the present “Urgent Motion
and Manifestation with Injunction to Grant the Immediate Reconnection of
the Ten (10) Months Disconnected Water Supply and the Removal of all the
Liens on the Condominium Title No. 91072 of Unit 901A Ritz Towers, Ayala
Avenue, Makati City, Done by the RTCAI”.

7. The various cases previously filed by plaintiff, which involve

practically the same parties as this case, are directly related to, or deal with
the same issues as, the instant pleadingComplaint, which all relate to her
questioning the duly approved Special Assessments imposed by the
defendants in the 2010s, her refusal to pay the same, and her insistence that
the Board of Directors/Trustees of the Ritz Towers Condominium
Association, Inc. must be elected by ballot.

8. The Supreme Court, in Pilar Development Corporation v.

Court of Appeals,11 ruled:

“Hornbook is the rule that the identity of causes of

action does not mean absolute identity. Otherwise, a party
could easily escape the operation of res judicata by changing
the form of the action or the relief sought. The test to determine
whether causes of action are identical is to ascertain whether
the same evidence will sustain both actions, or whether there is
an identity in the facts essential to the maintenance of the two
actions. If the same facts or evidence would sustain both, the
two actions are considered the same, and a judgment in the
first case is a bar to the subsequent action.”(Emphasis
supplied)

9. In fact, in the latest dismissed case, docketed as Modesta R.

Sabeniano v The Board of Directors of Ritz Towers, et al. (Civil Case No.
15-1415), was dismissed by the Hon. Judge Corpus-Mañalac for the
following reason/s:

Decision dated 18 April 201712:

“_______________________________________”“
WHEREFORE, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED for
violation of Section 5, Rule 7 or the RFules of Court in
relation to Section 4 of the Rule II of the Interim Rules of
Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies

SO ORDERED”

(Nicky, copy dispositive portion of the Decision dated 18 April

2017).

Order dated 25 August 201713, denying Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration:

“From a mere reading of the reliefs prayed for in the

previously filed case, no stretch of imagination is requires for
one to readily see the identity in the issues and causes of
11
G.R. No. 155943, 28 August 2013, 703 SCRA 43, 53
12
A copy of which is attached as Annex “3__”.
13
A copy of which is attached as Annex “4__”.
 action, aside from the identity of parties in the previously filed
cases and in the present case. And since plaintiff failed to state
these previously filed cases (except for Civil Case No. 15-847)
in the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping
of the instant complaint, plaintiff violated Section 5 Rule 7 of
the Rules of Court in relation to Section 4 Rule II of the
Interim Rules warranting the dismissal of this case. This court,
thus, sees no reason to deviate from the assailed Ordered dated
April 18, 2017.”

10. Moreover, the Regional Trial Court of Makati (Branch 148),

through the Honorable Judge Soriano reiterated the following in his
Decision and Orders in the same case:

Decision dated 15 November 201914:

“The records show that the Complaint filed by the

plaintiff was dismissed, on the ground of forum shopping. x x
x”

Order dated 24 April 201915,

“The records show that the present case for Declaration

of Nullity of the Assessment, five percent (5%) interest per
month compounded, amended By-Laws, water supply cut-off,
and ultra-vires acts, and violation of Section 1, Article III of
the Constitution, R.A. 4726, P.D. 957 and its IRR, Master
Deed, Articles of Incorporation, Accounting, Production of
Documents, Declaration of Open Space and Water Facilities at
the RTCAI as Beyond the Commerce of Man, Restoration of
Water Supply with Prayer for the Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction,
filed by Modesta R. Sabeniano, has already been dismissed by
the RTC Branch 141 in its Orders dated [April]18, 2017 and
August 25, 2017.

There is no showing that the dismissal orders have

been appealed and/or is the subject of Motion for
Reconsideration. Clearly, the dismissal is now final and
executory.

In view of the same, the Court believes that it can no

longer act on two motions filed by the plaintiff. Accordingly,
the said two motions are DENIED DUE COURSE. No other
motions or request from the plaintiff in relation to the principal

14
Annex “F” of Plaintiff’s “Urgent Motion and Manifestation with Injunction to Grant the Immediate Reconnection of
the Ten (10) Months Disconnected Water Supply and the Removal of all the Liens on the Condominium Title No. 91072 of
Unit 901A Ritz Towers, Ayala Avenue, Makati City, Done by the RTCAI.”
15
Annex “51”.
 complaint shall be entertained by the Court.” (emphasis
supplied)

Order dated 11 October 201916,

“In the order of the Court dated April 24, 2019, it

denied the two motions filed by the plaintiff on jurisdictional
grounds, considering that the principal complaint in this case
has already been dismissed and the dismissal has already
become final and executory. x x x

It must also be noted that in the aforesaid order, the

Court emphasized that no other motions or request from the
plaintiff in relation to the principal complaint shall be
entertained by the Court. X x x

Accordingly, plaintiff is directed to desist and

refrain from filing any other motions, letters and/or
pleading in relation to the principal complaint and the
withdrawn counterclaims. Otherwise the Court may be
constrained to cite her in contempt.” (emphasis supplied)

Order 12 February 202017,

“Taking not of the Order dated October 11, 2019, the

“Urgent Supplemental Manifestation and Iteration with
Injunction of Earlier Motion to Reconnect Water Supply and
the Removal of All the Liens on the Condominium Title No.
91072A of Ritz Towers” filed under date of January 6, 2020
by plaintiff Modesta R. Sabeniano is NOTED without
action.”

11. It must be pointed out that the abovementioned Order dated 12

February 2020 was issued to resolve the very same “Urgent Supplemental
Manifestation and Iteration with Injunction of Earlier Motion to
Reconnect Water Supply and the Removal of All the Liens on the
Condominium Title No. 91072 of Unit 901A Ritz Towers”, filed by the
plaintiff with RTC 14818.

16
Annex “62”.
17
Attached as the last Annex to Plaintiff’s “Urgent Motion and Manifestation with Injunction to Grant the Immediate
Reconnection of the Ten (10) Months Disconnected Water Supply and the Removal of all the Liens on the Condominium Title
No. 91072 of Unit 901A Ritz Towers, Ayala Avenue, Makati City, Done by the RTCAI.”
18
Unmarked Annex after Annex “G-2” of Plaintiff’s pleading.
 12. Since the Hon. Judge Soriano refused to grant due course to her
“Urgent Supplemental Manifestation and Iteration with Injunction of
Earlier Motion to Reconnect Water Supply and the Removal of All the
Liens on the Condominium Title No. 91072 of Unit 901A Ritz Towers”, the
Plaintiff resorted to forum-shopping (yet again) and initiated a new case with
this Honorable Regional Trial Court Branch 150, instead of appealing the
contested decision of RTC 148 with the Court of Appeals.

13. As plaintiff engaged in deliberate forum-shopping in initiating

this nuisance and harassment suit, the instant “Urgent Supplemental
Manifestation and Iteration with Injunction of Earlier Motion to
Reconnect Water Supply and the Removal of All the Liens on the
Condominium Title No. 91072 of Unit 901A Ritz Towers” must be
summarily dismissed WITH PREJUDICE, pursuant to Rule 7, Section 5
of the Revised Rules of Court. Indeed, the mere act of filing multiple suits
involving the same parties and the same causes of action for the purpose of
obtaining a favorable judgment amounts to forum shopping, which by itself
is already a valid ground to deny the instant Complaint.

14. Moreover, the cited Rule 7, Section 5 likewise states, “If the
acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate
forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice and shall constitute DIRECT CONTEMPT, as well as a cause
for administrative sanctions.” (emphasis supplied).

C. The Present Case Should Be Barred

On The Ground Of Res Judicata, As The
Regional Trial Court Had Previously
Decided Principal Issues Raised In
Plaintiff’s Instant ComplaintPleading.
___________________________________
_____________

15. Plaintiff, on several occasions, had previously filed several

cases and/or proceedings against RTCAI’s Board and its officers in other
courts or tribunals involving essentially the same parties and the same
issues.

First Adjudicated Case

a. In “Modesta R. Sabeniano v. Daniel Gomez Jr., then

President of the Ritz Towers Condominium, Inc.”,
docketed as Civil Case NO. 13-055, raffled to RTC-
Makati, Branch 62, plaintiff prayed, among others, for
 “the supposed cutting of water supply to her
condominium unit and the imposition of five percent
(5%) interest per month on unpaid fees be declared a
gross abuse of authority and ultra vires act of
defendant.”

b. Notably, the above reliefs sought are exactly the same

as the principal reliefs sought below in the instant
Complaint, thus:

i. “Declaring the five percent (5%) interest per

month on the unpaid assessments as null and
void assessments xxx”;
ii. “Declaring defendant’s water supply cut off as
null and void”;

c. Notably, the above case had been previously

dismissed by the RTC-Makati, Branch 62, “for failure
of the plaintiff to timely file the required Pre-Trial
Brief”.19 The dismissal of the plaintiff’s Complaint
therein is already final.

Second Adjudicated Case

a. In “Modesta R. Sabeniano v. Daniel Gomez Jr., Stewart

Chongson, Ancheta Tan, Vicente Quimbo, Vicente Villegas,
David Wheeler, Jenny Paredies and Leslie James Croyston”,
Civil Case No. 10-633, RTC Makati, Branch 66, plaintiff
prayed, among others, for the Honorable Court to nullify,
among others, the increase of Eight Pesos (Php8.00) in the
annual assessment dues from Fifty Seven Pesos (Php57.00) to
Sixty Five Pesos (Php65.00) and the amendment of Section 4,
Article V of the By-Laws;

b. The above relief sought is exactly the same as a principal relief

sought in the instant Complaint, to nullify, among others, the
increase of Eight Pesos (Php8.00) in the annual assessment
dues from Fifty Seven Pesos (Php57.00) to Sixty Five Pesos
(Php65.00) and the amendment of Section 4, Article V of the
By-Laws;

c. The above case was previously dismissed by the RTC-Makati

Branch 66, “for failure to prosecute” 20 and plaintiff’s Motion
for Reconsideration of the Order of dismissal was denied for
“utter lack of merit.”

19
A copy of the Order dated 23 August 2013 is attached as Annex “22” of defendants’ Answer.
20
A copy of the Order dated 24 September 2012 is attached as Annex “15” of defendants’ Answer.
 Third Adjudicated Case

a. In “Modesta R. Sabeniano, represented by her Attorney-in-

Fact, Mercy Alpasan v. The Board of Directors of the Ritz
Towers Condominium Association, Inc., its former President
Daniel A. Gomez, Jr. and its incumbent President, Armita
Rufino”, Civil Case No. 15-847, Makati Regional Trial Court,
Branch 149, plaintiff prayed for the following, among others:

i. “During the pendency and trial of this

complaint for the Honorable Court to issue an
Order/s for defendants and their officers,
employees, representatives and agents to
render accounting/s with supporting
documents on the matters specified in the
pertinent paragraphs of this complaint and to
testify thereof on said documents for
transparency and the right of information of
plaintiff as RTCAI member”
ii. “Declaring as null and void the three (3)
assessments as violations of the right under
Section 4 and 6 of Article II of the Master
Deed and Declaration of Restrictions and
Section 1 Article III of the 1987 Constitution
for lack of factual basis and hence, the
assessments are not binding herewith;”
iii. “Declaring as null and void the amended
portion of Section 4 Article V of the By-Laws
of the RTCAI authorizing defendants to cut-
off the water supply of plaintiff xxx”
iv. “Declaring the five percent (5%) interest per
month on the unpaid assessments as null and
void assessments xxx”
v. “Declaring defendant’s water supply cut off
as null and void”

b. Again, the above reliefs sought are exactly the same as the
principal reliefs sought in the instant Complaint. The above
case was dismissed by the RTC-Makati Branch 149 for “lack of
cause of action” in its Order dated 30 October 2015.21

Fourth Adjudicated Case

16. Again, In the case of Modesta R. Sabeniano v The Board of

Directors of Ritz Towers, et al. (Civil Case No. 15-1415), with the same
prayers, the Hon. Judge Corpus-Mañalac dismissing the case for failure to

21
A copy of the Order dated 30 October 2015 is attached as Annex “34” of defendants’ Answer.
comply with the rule requiring certification against forum-shopping, as
previously stated.

17. Under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of court, the dismissal of

said cases is an adjudication on the merits, thus:

“SEC. 3. Dismissal due to the fault of the plaintiff. If, for no

justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of
the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or
to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of time, or
to comply with these Rules or any order of the court, the
complaint may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant
or upon courts own motion, without prejudice to the right of
the defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a
separate action. This dismissal shall have an effect of an
adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by
the court” (Emphasis supplied)

18. In Mondonedo v. Court of Appeals22, the Supreme Court ruled:

“The Court finds no reversible error in the said

Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. Well-settled is the rule
that a dismissal for failure to appear at the pre-trial hearing is
deemed an adjudication on the merits, unless otherwise stated
in the order.

For non-appearance at the pre-trial a plaintiff may be

non-suited and a dismissal of the complaint for failure to
prosecute has the effect of an adjudication upon the merits
unless otherwise provided by the trial court”

19. Res Judicata applies when four (4) essential requisites are
present: (1) the former judgement or order must be final; (2) it must be a
judgment or order on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court
having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; and (4) there must
be, between the first and second actions, identity of parties, subject matter
and causes of action.

20. Indeed, the essential requisites of Res Judicata are present in

this case.

First, there were former final judgements rendered

by RTC-Makati;

22
G.R. No. 113349, 18 January 1996, 252 SCRA 28 as cited in Chingkoe v. Republic G.R. No. 183608, 31 July 2013 702
SCRA 677
 Second, said judgments were adjudication on the
merits;

Third, the RTC-Makati had jurisdiction over the

subject matter of the cases; and

Fourth, as discussed at length above, there is an

identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action
between the previous cases and the present case.

21. Based on the foregoing, the present case should be dismissed on

the ground of Res Judicata pursuant to Section 1 (f) Rule 16 of the Rules of
Court.

22. The foregoing affirmative defenses were properly pleaded in

defendants’ Answer. Defendant thus prays that a preliminary hearing be held
thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed, pursuant to Section 6, Rule
16 of the Rules of Court.

D. Not Being the Registered Owner of the

Subject Property, Plaintiff is Therefore
NOT a Real Party-in-Interest. Hence, the
Complaint Must be Dismissed for Failure
to State Cause of Action.

23. Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court lays down the

definition of a real party in interest as follows:

SEC. 2. Parties in interest. - A real party in interest is

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. Unless
otherwise provided by law or these Rules, every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.

24. To be a real party-in-interest, the interest must be ‘real’, which

is a present substantial interest as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a
future, contingent subordinate or consequential interest.23

25. The rule on real parties in interest has two (2) requirements,
namely: (a) to institute an action, the plaintiff must be the real party in
23
See Rayo v. Metrobank, 539 SCRA 571, 579
interest; and (b) the action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party
in interest. Interest within the meaning of the Rules of Court means material
interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the decree or judgment of the
case, as distinguished from mere curiosity about the question involved. One
having no material interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as the
plaintiff in an action. When the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, the
case is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action.24 

26. In Spouses Oco v. Limbaring,25 the Court expounded on the

purpose of this rule, to wit: Necessarily, the purposes of this provision are 1)
to prevent the prosecution of actions by persons without any right, title or
interest in the case; 2) to require that the actual party entitled to legal relief
be the one to prosecute the action; 3) to avoid multiplicity of suits; and 4)
discourage litigation and keep it within certain bounds, pursuant to public
policy.26

27. In all these cases, including the instant case, plaintiff made
it appear that she filed the Complaint/s as owner of the condominium
Unit 901-A. Nevertheless, a recent review of the records of RTCAI
would reveal that plaintiff is not the real and registered owner of the
condominium unit 901-A which would entitle her to any cause of action
against the defendants who are members of the board of directors of
RTCAI. Based on the Condominium Certificate of Title 27 No. 91072 of
Condominium Unit A-901 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Makati
City, the registered owner of the said condominium unit are Spouses
Niles S. Tanakatsubo and Myriam S. Tanakatsubo.

28. In the case of Strongworld Construction Corporation et al. v.

First Peoples Bank et al.28, the Supreme Court held in this wise:

“Jurisprudence states that if the 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. Section 1(g), Rule 16 of the 1997 Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure allows the filing of a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground that the Complaint states no cause of
action. Thus, in Aguila, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, we
pronounced:

A real party in interest is one who would be

benefited or injured by the judgment, or who is
24
 Goco v. CA, 631 Phil. 394, 403 (20 I 0).
25
 516 Phil. 691 (2006).
26
Id. at 699.
27
Attached to Plaintiff’s pleading as Annex “E” .
28
G.R. No. 148026; 27 July 2006
 entitled to the avails of the suit. This ruling is now
embodied in Rule 3, Section 2 of the 1997 Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure. Any decision rendered
against a person who is not a real party in interest
in the case cannot be executed. Hence, a complaint
filed against such a person should be dismissed for
failure to state a cause of action.

29. In this regard, the following provisions will explain that unit
ownership comes with it the membership in the Association.

a. Article II, Section 3 of the Master Deed and Declaration of

Restrictions of The Ritz Towers29 provides:

“The purchaser of a unit from the DECLARANT or any

other person acquiring title from him by any mode of
transmission of title to the unit shall automatically become a
member of the Association upon issuance of the
condominium certificate of title in his name by the Office of
the Register of Deeds of Makati, Metro Manila and shall
remain a member thereof until such time as his ownership
ceases. Membership and all incidents thereto shall be in
accordance with this Master Deed, the Articles of
Incorporation and the By-Laws of the Association.

b. The Articles of Incorporation of RTCAI30 provides:

“SEVENTH:-Every person or entity who is registered

owner of unit according to the title to the property as
registered with the Office of the Register of Pasig, at
Makati, Metro Manila, shall be a member of the
Association. The foregoing is not intended to include
persons or entities who hold an interest merely as security
for the performance of an obligation. Membership shall be
appurtenant to and may not be separated from ownership of
a unit, and a tenant of an owner shall not be a member even
if he is granted the privilege to use the facilities in
accordance with the rules of the Association adopted by the
Board pursuant to the By-Laws. Any member who ceases to
be a unit owner automatically ceases to be member of the
Association; these restrictions shall appear in the certificates
of membership issued by the Association.”

c. Article II, Section 1 of the By-Laws31 of RTCAI provides:

29
A copy of the Master Deed is attached as Annex “RRRRR” of the Complaint.
30
A copy of the Articles of Incorporation is attached as Annex “A” of the Complaint.
31
A copy of the By-Laws is attached as Annex “B” of the Complaint.
 “The members of the corporation shall consists of the
owners of units in the Ritz Towers Condominium Project.
Membership in the corporation, being an appurtenance of
ownership of a condominium unit, cannot be transferred,
conveyed, encumbered or otherwise disposed of separately
from the unit to which it appertains. Membership shall be
ascertained by verification of the owners as registered in the
Register of Deeds of Metro Manila, District IV. Any
member who ceases to be a registered owner of a unit shall
automatically cease to be a member of the corporation as of
the date of the cancellation of registration of his ownership
in the Register of Deeds.

30. In view of the foregoing, plaintiff has no personality to file the

Complaint to compleel the defendants to reconnect the water supply of the
subject unit and/or to remove the lien in the subject CCT as she is not the
registered owner of the condominium unit and therefore, not the real party
in-interest as contemplated under the Rules of Court and prevailing
jurisprudence. Indeed, there was a misrepresentation on the part of plaintiff
when she made it appear that she is the real party- in-interest in filing the
present case when in truth and in fact she is not. In fact, there is no showing
that she even resides in the unit, nor did she attach a special power of
attorney, duly notarized and consularized, to the instant case.

31.
32.
33. D. Plaintiff, Who Appeared To Reside Abroad During Most
Of The Time Material To This Case, And Not In Ritz, Has No Right To
Be Protected Insofar As The Restoration Of The Water Supply Sought.
34. ____________________________
35.
36. Plaintiff appears to have resided abroad during most of the time
material to the case. While Plaintiff’s unit may not have direct access to
water supply, Plaintiff is not, in any way, inconvenienced, damaged or
injured because she was not residing in the Philippines during most of the
time material to the cases mentioned above. In fact, it appears that she has
been actively prosecuting her case titled Sabeniano v. Citibank, N.A., New
York (Case No. 1:2016-cv-01723, Southern District of New York) docketed
with the courts of New York City, USA,32 where one can see from the dates
indicated therein that the plaintiff Modesta Sabeniano has been consistently
filing several “Letters” addressed to the judges of the New York City Courts,
insisting that they act on her Complaint, Amended Complaint, and all other

32
A copy of New York Court Docket Sheet is hereto attached as Annex “5__”. For lack of material time, the undersigned is not able
to secure a certified copy of this document, but merely relied on reports from publicly accessible court docketing systems of the
United States of America Courts.
sorts of motions, which she files by and for herself. It must further be noted
that in the same case, Citibank of North America has already filed a

EE. Plaintiff Must be Cited in Direct

Contempt of Court for Forum
Shopping and Unnecessarily
Burdening the Courts, as Well as the
Defendants, with These Vexatious
Cases that the Plaintiff Resorts To.

_______________________________________________________

37. The plaintiff has not only been abusing the leniency of the
courts here in the Philippines, but has likewise been filing numerous
motions, often without basis or merit, such as Inin the abovementioned
Sabeniano v. Citibank case. In fact, based on the online report mentioned
above, the New York Court, on 24 October 2017, already warned the
plaintiff Sabeniano, “Plaintiff Is on notice that any further vexatious filings
or litigation against Defendants may result In a Filing Injuction.” Surely
enough, Citibank of N.A. Filed a Cross Motion to Authorize Filing
Injunction against the plaintiff on 17 October 2019. Again, there appears to
be no entry of appearance of any legal counsel for the plaintiff Sabeniano for
the abovecited case with the New York Courts.

38. We reiterate the case of In Re: Joaquin T. Borromeo, Ex. Rel.

Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, A.M. No. 93-
7-696-0, 21 February 1995), which is instructive,

“It is said that a little learning is a dangerous thing; and

that he who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. There
would seem to be more than a grain of truth in these aphorisms;
and they appear to find validation in the proceeding at bench, at
least.

The respondent in this case, Joaquin T. Borromeo, is not

a lawyer but has apparently read some law books, and
ostensibly come to possess some superficial awareness of a few
substantive legal principles and procedural rules. Incredibly,
with nothing more than this smattering of learning, the
respondent has, for some sixteen (16) years now, from 1978 to
the present, been instituting and prosecuting legal proceedings
in various courts, dogmatically pontificating on errors
supposedly committed by the courts, including the Supreme
Court. In the picturesque language of former Chief Justice
Enrique M. Fernando, he has "with all the valor of ignorance,"
1 been verbally jousting with various adversaries in diverse
litigations; or in the words of a well-known song, rushing into
arenas "where angels fear to tread." Under the illusion that his
trivial acquaintance with the law had given him competence to
undertake litigation, he has ventured to represent himself in
numerous original and review proceedings. Expectedly, the
results have been disastrous. In the process, and possibly in aid
of his interminable and quite unreasonable resort to judicial
proceedings, he has seen fit to compose and circulate many
scurrilous statements against courts, judges and their
employees, as well as his adversaries, for which he is now
being called to account.

Respondent Borromeo's ill-advised incursions into

lawyering were generated by fairly prosaic transactions with
three (3) banks which came to have calamitous consequences
for him chiefly because of his failure to comply with his
contractual commitments and his stubborn insistence on
imposing his own terms and conditions for their fulfillment.
These banks were: Traders Royal Bank (TRB), United Coconut
Planters Bank (UCPB), Security Bank & Trust Co. (SBTC).
Borromeo obtained loans or credit accommodation from them,
to secure which he constituted mortgages over immovables
belonging to him or members of his family, or third persons. He
failed to pay these obligations, and when demands were made
for him to do so, laid down his own terms for their satisfaction
which were quite inconsistent with those agreed upon with his
obligees or prescribed by law. When, understandably, the banks
refused to let him have his way, he brought suits right and left,
successively if not contemporaneously, against said banks, its
officers, and even the lawyers who represented the banks in the
actions brought by or against him. He sued, as well, the public
prosecutors, the Judges of the Trial Courts, and the Justices of
the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court who at one time or
another, rendered a judgment, resolution or order adverse to
him, as well as the Clerks of Court and other Court employees
signing the notices thereof. In the aggregate, he has initiated or
spawned in different fora the astounding number of no less-than
fifty (50) original or review proceedings, civil, criminal,
administrative. For some sixteen (16) years now, to repeat, he
has been continuously cluttering the Courts with his repetitive,
and quite baseless if not outlandish complaints and contentions.

xxx
 Considering the foregoing antecedents and long standing
doctrines, it may well be asked why it took no less than sixteen
(16) years and some fifty (50) grossly unfounded cases lodged
by respondent Borromeo in the different rungs of the Judiciary
before this Court decided to take the present administrative
measure. The imposition on the time of the courts and the
unnecessary work occasioned by respondent's crass
adventurism are self-evident and require no further elaboration.
If the Court, however, bore with him with Jobian patience, it
was in the hope that the repeated rebuffs he suffered, with the
attendant lectures on the error of his ways, would somehow
seep into his understanding and deter him from further forays
along his misguided path. After all, as has repeatedly been
declared, the power of contempt is exercised on the
preservative and not the vindictive principle. Unfortunately the
Court's forbearance had no effect on him.

Instead, the continued leniency and tolerance extended to

him were read as signs of weakness and impotence. Worse,
respondent's irresponsible audacity appears to have influenced
and emboldened others to just as flamboyantly embark on their
own groundless and insulting proceedings against the courts,
born of affected bravado or sheer egocentrism, to the extent of
even involving the legislative and executive departments, the
Ombudsman included, in their assaults against the Judiciary in
pursuit of personal agendas. But all things, good or bad, must
come to an end, and it is time for the Court to now draw the
line, with more promptitude, between reasoned dissent and self-
seeking pretense. The Court accordingly serves notice to those
with the same conceit or delusions that it will henceforth deal
with them, decisively and fairly, with a firm and even hand, and
resolutely impose such punitive sanctions as may be
appropriate to maintain the integrity and independence of the
judicial institutions of the country.

WHEREFORE, Joaquin T. Borromeo is found and

declared GUILTY of constructive contempt repeatedly
committed over time, despite warnings and instructions given to
him, and to the end that he may ponder his serious errors and
grave misconduct and learn due respect for the Courts and their
authority, he is hereby sentenced to serve a term of
imprisonment of TEN (10) DAYS in the City Jail of Cebu City
and to pay a fine of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00). He
is warned that a repetition of any of the offenses of which he is
herein found guilty, or any similar or other offense against
courts, judges or court employees, will merit further and more
serious sanctions.”
 39. Lastly, Plaintiff appears to have resided abroad during most of
the time material to the case. While Plaintiff’s unit may not have direct
access to water supply, Plaintiff is not, in any way, inconvenienced,
damaged or injured because she was not residing in the Philippines during
most of the time material to the cases mentioned above. In fact, it appears
that she has been actively prosecuting her case titled Sabeniano v. Citibank,
N.A., New York (Case No. 1:2016-cv-01723, Southern District of New
York) docketed with the courts of New York City, USA,33 where one can see
from the dates indicated therein that the plaintiff Modesta Sabeniano has
been consistently filing several “Letters” addressed to the judges of the New
York City Courts, insisting that they act on her Complaint, Amended
Complaint, and all other sorts of motions, which she files by and for herself.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that plaintiff’s Urgent Supplemental Manifestation
and Iteration with Injunction of Earlier Motion to Reconnect Water
Supply and the Removal of All the Liens on the Condominium Title No.
91072 of Unit 901A Ritz Towers be DISMISSED OUTRIGHT on the
grounds of failure to attached a certification agai nst forum shopping,
for actual forum shopping, res judicata, and failure to state cause of
action. Moreover, the defendants pray that this HOnorable Court
exercise its judicial power citing the plaintiff IN DIRECT CONTEMPT
and to order her to pay the costs of suit.

OTHER RELIEFS, just and equitable, under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Makati City, 10 March 2020.

SAULOG & DE LEON LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Defendants
The Board of Directors of The Ritz Towers
Condominium Association, et al.
Units 1704 & 1705 88 Corporate Center
141 Valero Street corner Sedeño Street
Salcedo Village, Makati City
Tel Nos. 813-6145, 813-6149, 894-5015, 893-6112
33
A copy of New York Court Docket Sheet is hereto attached as Annex “7”. For lack of material time, the undersigned is not able to
secure a certified copy of this document, but merely relied on reports from publicly accessible court docketing systems of the United
States of America Courts. (https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Sabeniano-v-Citibank-N-A-New-York/nysd-1:2016-cv-01723?
fbclid=IwAR3vgIVErHqnY0pSGL3jfNee8FBpQyLECQbYnFCvFeS22tTvKF-2IG5XzRI
By:

ATTY. ISAAC D. DE LEON

PTR No. 8116710/01.02.2020/Makati City
IBP Lifetime No. 1006603/4.06.2015/Makati City
MCLE Compliance No. VI – 0010502; 07.03.18
Roll. 64291

COPY FURNISHED:

MODESTA R. SABENIANO
Plaintiff
901A Ritz Towers,
6745 Ayala Ave. Makati City

GREETINGS:

Please submit the foregoing motion for the consideration and approval
of the Honorable Court on 20 March 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in the morning.

ISAAC D. DE LEON

EXPLANATION

A copy of the foregoing Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss is

being served upon the above-named addressee through licensed courier
service due to lack of personnel to effectuate the preferred mode of service.
(Please disregard explanation if service of pleading was personally made.)

ISAAC D. DE LEON