Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
Branch 6
Davao City

ELLEN MERRIAM G. CRUZ

Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. ____
-versus- FOR: Damages
JOHN LLOYD E. CRUZ
Defendant
X----------------------X

ANSWER
(In Re: SUMMONS received on January 06, 2020)

DEFENDANT, through undersigned counsel, and in answer to

Plaintiff’s complaint, respectfully alleges:

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. That Defendant admits paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the

Complaint with the additional averment that she may be served with
all court processes through the undersigned counsel;

2. That Defendant cannot possibly comment as to the

veracity of Plaintiff’s statement in paragraph 4 of the complaint, she
not having been in the place and time mentioned in said paragraph,
in that, granting that Plaintiff indeed was bumped at 9:05 PM on
August 6, 2019 by X while Plaintiff was alongside pedestrian
lane/sidewalk along Roxas-Boulevard road. To Defendant’s
knowledge, there is no such pedestrian lane or sidewalk in that area
because of the presence of a footbridge and a signages saying:
BAWAL TUMAWID and NO JAYWALKING;

Please refer to attached pictures on Annexes “1”, “6” and

“6-1” showing that Plaintiff was not allowed to cross that
portion of the road.

3. Also, that Plaintiff appears to be changing his tune and is

obviously telling a lie to this Honorable Court in his statements in
paragraphs 4 and 5 of this new complaint:
In this new complaint, the Plaintiff said:
 “For cause of action against Defendant Cruz, it is
hereby stated that on August 6, 2019 at around 9:05
in the evening, Plaintiff was alongside pedestrian
lane/sidewalk along Roxas-Boulevard road;
That while Plaintiff was walking along the
sidewalk, the Mitsubishi owned by Cruz was
driven by her driver, X a resident of Editiorial
Extension Catalunan Grande, Davao City.”

While in the first complaint1 which, incidentally, was

dismissed by this Honorable Court Davao March 2, 2016
basically for lack of proper verification and certification against
forum-shopping, the Plaintiff said:

“For cause of action against Defendant Cruz, it is

hereby stated that on August 6, 2019 at around 9:05
in the evening, while I was crossing along Roxas-
Boulevard Road, Casimiro, coming from the side
of Halal Restaurant Davao City, Plaintiff was
bumped by the Mitsubishi driven by X, a resident
of Editiorial Extension Catalunan Grande, Davao
City.”

Obviously, Plaintiff is trying to change his story from

“while I was crossing along Roxas-Boulevard Road, Casimiro,
coming from the side of Halal Restaurant Davao City” to ,
“Plaintiff was alongside pedestrian lane/sidewalk along
Roxas-Boulevard road. That while Plaintiff was walking
along the sidewalk…”

He wants us to believe now that he was not violating any

City Ordinance against jay walking. He wants us to believe
that it was not his violation of a City Ordinance that caused his
being bumped by the vehicle driven by X.

In his sworn affidavit2 before the Prosecutor A, ELLEN

MERRIAM G. ADARNA said that he “was crossing along
Roxas-Boulevard Road, coming the side of Halal Restaurant,
Davao City3”, when he was allegedly bumped.

1
Annex 7, Original Complaint, as amended, for case ----------
2
Annex 8, Sworn Affidavit of ELLEN MERRIAM G. ADARNA dated September 16, 2019
3
Annex 8, paragraph 1
 Also, according to the report4 prepared by the Vehicle
Traffic Investigation Unit of Davao City dated August 7, 2019,
ELLEN MERRIAM G. ADARNA was actually crossing, viz:

“… when upon reaching on a certain place of

incident, the front portion of the same hit a
pedestrian while crossing on the abovementioned
place of incident going to Urci Townhomes…”5

4. That again, Defendant cannot possibly comment on the

veracity of paragraph 6 of the Complaint for not having been in the
averred place at the time. Granting, however, without admitting, that
the Plaintiff was bumped by X at the spot mentioned, it is worth-
noting why Plaintiff opted NOT to use the footbridge erected for his
safety. Instead, he crossed the road where he was not allowed to;

5. That Defendant could not comment on the veracity and

accuracy of paragraph 7 except for the fact that it tells us about a
printout coming from the website of Google;

6. That Defendant could not comment on the veracity and

accuracy of paragraphs 8 and 9 due to lack of information and
knowledge of the same, the truth being that Plaintiff’s alleged
emotional suffering is personal to him and that Defendant has not
been shown any proof to validate it;

7. That defendant denies paragraph 10 of the complaint as

the figures mentioned are unsubstantiated and that the purported
Annex “C”, and sub-Annexes are not properly referenced and the
purported figures are nowhere to be found. As such, defendant will
have no basis in forming any judgment as to their authenticity and
veracity;

8. That paragraph 11 is also being denied for being

unsubstantiated, the truth being that as mentioned in the special and
affirmative defenses;

9. That paragraph 12 is also being denied for being

unsubstantiated. There is no such document attached to the
complaint as Annex “D” which contains the amount P29,693. The
Certificate of Employment” is dated February 6, 2019 – way before

4
Annex 9, Police Report dated August 7, 2019
5
Annex 9, sub-marking “9-1”
the date of the purported accident of August 6, 2019. Also, its
purpose is not related at all to the filing of this claim for damages.
The certification says: “this employment certification has been
issued upon the request of ELLEN MERRIAM G. ADARNA for his
credit card application.” That paragraphs 13 and 14 are denied for
lack of basis to form a belief as to their truth and veracity there being
no proof shown to substantiate them, the truth being that as
mentioned in the special and affirmative defenses;

10. That defendant could not make an informed comment

respecting paragraphs 15 and 16 as the defendant has not received
any of the purported notices;

11. That paragraph 17 is denied for lack of basis to form a

belief as to its truth and veracity there being no proof shown to
substantiate it, the truth being that as mentioned in the special and
affirmative defenses; and

12. That paragraphs 18 and 19 are likewise denied for lack of

basis to form a belief as to its truth and veracity there being no proof
shown to substantiate it, the truth being that as mentioned in the
special and affirmative defenses.

DEFENSES
13. As SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, the
defendant alleges:

COMPLAINT LACKS A VALID AND COMPLIANT

CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING;
HONORABLE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION

14. The CERTIFICATION and VERIFICATION AGAINST

FORUM SHOPPING was defective and incomplete as the mandatory
paragraph under Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure provides:

“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)

The “VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST

FORUM SHOPPING” prepared by the complainant violates the
above rule, specifically letter (c) which states that:
“… (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.”
There is no such certification/statement made by the Plaintiff.

In his “VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST

FORUM SHOPPING”, BR mentioned only the following:
xxx

“I, ELLEN MERRIAM G. ADARNA, Filipino, of

legal age, with office address at ABC, Roxas-
Boulevard Road, Talon Uno, Davao City, Davao del
Sur, under oath depose and state:
 1. That I am the Complainant in the above-
captioned case;
2. That I caused the preparation of the
Complaint;
3. That all allegations therein are true and
correct based on my own personal knowledge
and based on authentic records.

I certify that That:

(i) A Complaint of Reckless Imprudence resulting to

Serious Physical injuries was filed by herein
Complainant against a certain X, (driver of herein
Respondent) , with the Office of the Prosecutor of
Davao City and after the finding of probable cause,
an Information was filed the Municipal Trial Court
(MRT) Branch 0 of Davao City;

On April 7, 2016, I already received an Order from

MTC Branch 0 setting on May 19, 2016, the
Arraignment of the accused in criminal case with
number 0;

(ii)A similar Complaint for Damages was filed by

herein Complainant with the RTC Branch 0, Davao
City covered by Civil Case No. 0, however, the
Court dismissed the case in an Order dated March
2, 2016, the dispositive portion of which states:
“WHEREFORE, for non-compliance with Section 5,
Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure the
instant Complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice.” A copy of the Order is hereto attached
as Annex “A”.”

xxx

With all due respect, plaintiff’s non-compliance alone is a

solid ground to dismiss the complaint outright.

14.2 Time and again, the Supreme Court has ruled sustaining
this basic rule. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the instant
complaint be dismissed outright. One example is the case of De
Formoso v. PNB6 citing Oldarico S. Traveno v. Bobongon Banana
Growers Multi-Purpose Cooperative7, wherein the High Court said:
xxx

4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-

compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in
verification, is generally not curable by its
subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless
there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of
"substantial compliance" or presence of "special
circumstances or compelling reasons." (emphasis
supplied)

LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION AS PLAINTIFF COMES TO

COURT WITH UNCLEAN HANDS, THEREFORE NOT
ENTITLED TO DAMAGES
14.3 By his very own admission in his first complaint,
complainant said in paragraph 4 :
“4. For cause of action against Defendant ED, it is
hereby stated that on August 6, 2019 at around
9:05 in the evening, while I was crossing along
Roxas-Boulevard Road, Casimiro, coming from
the side of Halal Restaurant Davao City,
Plaintiff was bumped by the Mitsubishi driven
by X, a resident of Catalunan Grande, Davao
City;

Plaintiff admitted crossing the portion that pedestrians

are NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS. There is a footbridge
constructed for that very purpose. The fact that he was
allegedly hit by an incoming vehicle while doing an
illegal act of CROSSING A RESTRICTED AREA is to his
own undoing. He was violating the law. As such, if there
is anyone who must be held accountable and responsible,
it should be Ellen Merriam G. Adarna, the Plaintiff;

The illegal act of ELLEN MERRIAM G. ADARNA of

crossing in the restricted area is also supported by the
police report dated August 7, 2019 (Annex 9) and his own
sworn affidavit executed before Prosecutor A on
September 16, 2019 (Annex 8).

6
G.R. No. 154704 dated June 1, 2011
7
G.R. No. 164205 dated September 3, 2009
He already caused so much trouble not only to the driver
but also to the defendant.

Annex “1” presents 5 pictures that show where the

alleged incident happened. Sub-marking “1-A” shows
that there is supposed to be a free-flowing of vehicle and
as such no pedestrians must either stay or cross in the
area.
Annex “2” shows the map of the alleged place in
accident. It proves that there is a footbridge that should
have been used by the Plaintiff but he did not – contrary
to law. Sub-marking “2-A” shows the specific place.

Annex “3” is also submitted concerning the statement of

the driver stating the place of incident (sub-marking “3-
A”) and the fact that Defendant paid P15,000.00 (sub-
marking “3-B”) despite the fact that is was the Plaintiff
who was at fault.

Annex “4” is further submitted to show the sketch on the

exact place of accident (sub-marking “4-A). Like that of
Annex “2”, Plaintiff was in a place where he was not
supposed to be.

Annexes “5”, “5-1” and “5-2”, the bio-data and

credentials of driver Robert A. Doronio, are hereby
presented herewith to prove that Defendant exercised the
diligence of a good father in the selection of said driver be
he was hired. As shown on sub-making “5-A”, Mr.
Doronio has been driving professionally since 1989.

Annexes “6” and “6-1” are pictures showing that Plaintiff

was not allowed to cross the portion of the road.
Specifically, sub-marking “6-A” says: “BAWAL
TUMAWID” and sub-marking “6-1-A” says: “NO
JAYWALKING”.
Under Section 2 of Rule of the Rules of Court, a cause of
action is defined as an act or omission by which a party
violates a right of another. From the foregoing, it was
actually the Plaintiff who violated the right to safely of
others. It was he who violated the law thereby causing
damage to others. With all due respect, it is he who must
actually pay.
 BASELESS AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS
14.4 The following claims are unsubstantiated and are therefore
baseless:
Hospital Expenses, Professional Fees, Miscellaneous:
Alleged Annexes are not found and/or referenced.

Lost Income (P89,100): There are no supporting

documents presented.

Check up and x-rays: There is no supporting document

presented.

Moral & Exemplary damages (P600,000): the actual

damages being unsubstantiated, claims moral &
exemplary damages are left without basis.

EXORBITANT AND UNCONSCIONABLE LEGAL FEES

14.5 The claim for Attorney’s Fees (P100,000) is not only
baseless. The amount is exorbitant and unconscionable.

COUNTERCLAIMS

15. As COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS against the Plaintiff,

the Defendant alleges:
15.1 That to protect her right she is forced to defend herself by
engaging the services of an attorney for P50,000 plus
P4,000 fee per appearance; and
14.2 That the plaintiff’s unfounded and frivolous suit has
caused the defendant mental anguish, sleepless nights
and suffering as well as public humiliation and
embarrassment, for which she claims moral damages of
P300,000 and exemplary damages of P100,000.

TIMELINESS

16. That this ANSWER is submitted seasonably, or within the 15

days from the date of receipt on May 31, 2016, today being June
15, 2016.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

this Honorable Court render judgment as follows:
 1. DISMISS the complaint due to a defective certification against
forum-shopping and lack of jurisdiction;
2. DISMISS the complaint for lack of cause of action;

3. DISMISS the complaint for utter lack of merit and for being
baseless;

4. ORDER the plaintiff to pay defendant attorney’s fee of P50,000

and P4,000 fee per appearance, plus moral damages of P300,000
and exemplary damages of P100,000; and

5. GRANT such other relief consistent with law and equity, and
for costs.

Davao City, February 14, 2020.

SANTOALLA and Associates Law Offices

Counsel for the Petitioner
Doors 5 & 6, Tropicana Building,
J.P. Laurel Avenue, Lanang, Davao City
Tel. Nos.: (082) 282-3662
[email protected]

By:

ATTY. STEPHANIE M. SANTOALLA

IBP NO. 071717, 12/12/19, Davao City
PTR NO. 071717, 12/12/19, Davao City
ROLL ATTORNEY NO. 11077
MCLE Comp. No. IV-0004785, 3/2/19

Copy furnished:

ATTY. ERVEN JOHN P. CLAROS

Counsel for the Plaintiff
2/F, ABC Building, Bajada,
Davao City, Davao del Sur, 8000

ELLEN MERRIAM G. ADARNA

Roxas-Boulevard Road,
 Talon Uno, Davao City,
Davao del Sur, 8000

EXPLANATION

A copy of this ANSWER was sent to the Plaintiff and his

Counsel through registered mail as personal service is impracticable.