Regional Trial Court

Republic of The Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 16, Quezon City
URICIO ARAMBALA and

ELLA ARAMBALA
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL CASE NO. Q-4281996

-versus- For: DAMAGES BASED ON
QUASI-DELICT
S/SGT. KENNETH PAMAN,

Defendant.
x-------------------------------------x
ANSWER
COMES NOW the Defendant, by the 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 additional

averment that he may be served with all court processes through the undersigned
counsel;
2. That defendant denied the veracity and accuracy of paragraph 4 of the complaint
except for the fact that plaintiff’s motorcycle was bump against the multicab and
Plaintiff Ella Arambala was thrown and thus hitting her head on the road
pavement. Defendant averred that he did not act negligently and recklessly in
operating the multicab, the truth being that as mentioned in the special and
affirmative defenses;
3. That defendant admits paragraph 5 of the complaint with additional averment that
upon the happening of the incident, he immediately contacted the police station
through the Philippine emergency hotline number to report the said accident
while Emilda Salambit is performing first aid to the plaintiffs. It was about 11:30 in
Page 1 of 5
the evening when the defendant was able to head home after cooperating to the
police for the investigation of said incident;
4. That defendant denied paragraph 6 of the complaint. The defendant denied that
he was driving too fast, the truth being that as mentioned in the special and
affirmative defenses;
5. That paragraph 7 of the complaint is admitted;
7. That defendant denied paragraph 9 due to the lack of information and knowledge
of the same, the truth being that defendant has not been shown any proof to
validate it;
8. That paragraph 10 is also being denied for lack of basis, the truth being that as
mentioned in the special and affirmative defenses;
9. That defendant denied paragraph 11 of the complaint for being unjustifiable, the
truth being that as mentioned in the special and affirmative defenses;
10. That defendant denied paragraph 12 of the complaint for being baseless, the
amount of which is exorbitant and unconscionable;
12. That defendant denied paragraph 14 of the complaint for being baseless, the
amount of which is exorbitant and unconscionable
DEFENSES
13. As SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, the defendant alleges:
13.1 That as shown in the Traffic Accident Report, a presence of skid marks of the
motorcycle revealed that plaintiff was over speeding before the collision.
Plaintiff Uricio Arambala was the cause of the collision since he already saw
the multicab driven by the defendant ahead of time, he had the opportunity to
take precaution to avoid the accident, but failed to do so.
13.2 Defendant alleges that the collision was ultimately the fault of Arambala. He
points out that Arambala applied brakes on his motorcycle when he saw the
multicab; that he should have accelerated his speed instead of hitting the
brakes to avoid the collision.
Page 2 of 5
13.3 That the following claims are unsubstantiated and are therefore baseless:
13.3.1 Lost income (30,000.00): According to the Employees Compensation

Program, an injury or death of a covered employee in an accident while
he is going to, or coming from, the workplace shall be considered
compensable under the ECP. Therefore, no loss of income incurred.
13.3.2 Substantial repair of the motorcycle (17, 000.00): There are no

supporting documents presented
13.3.3 Lost profit (10,000.00): Alleged Annexes are not found
13.4 That the claim for damages in favor of the plaintiff is excessive and
unconscionable. The moral damages must commensurate with the loss or
injury suffered. In the case of San Andres v. Court of Appeals (116 SCRA 85
[1982]) the Supreme Court ruled that while the amount of moral damages
is a matter left largely to the sound discretion of a court, the same when
found excessive should be reduced to more reasonable amounts,
considering the attendant facts and circumstances. Moral damages,
though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are in the category of an
award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered
and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.
13.5 That the claim for Attorney’s Fees (P100,000.00) is not only baseless. The
amount of which is exorbitant and unconscionable;
COUNTERCLAIMS
14. As COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS against the Plaintiff, the defendant alleges:
14.1 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.
TIMELINES
15. That this ANSWER is submitted seasonable, or within the 15 days from the date of
receipt on February 12, 2020, today being February 25, 2020.
PRAYER
Page 3 of 5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable
Court render judgement as follows:
1. DISMISS the complaint for utter lack of merit and for being baseless;
2. 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
3. GRANT such other relief consistent with the law and equity, and for costs
Quezon City, February 25, 2020.
NARCISSO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Defendant
7-C Crispina Ave., Quezon City Village,
Pamplona III, 1740 Quezon City
E-mail: [email protected]
By:
ATTY. MARIO NARCISSO

Roll No. 56274
PTR No. 10999105-J/01-04-2020
IBP No. 1017158/01-04-2020
MCLE Compliance No. V-0020347
dated April 11, 2019
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. GABRIEL LOYOLA

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
Roll No. 12345
PTR NO. 20888208-J/01-15-2020
IBP NO. 2051258/01-04-2020
MCLE Comp. No. IV-000333
dated April 15, 2019
Mr. & Mrs. Uricio Arambala

#438 San Diego Street, Sampaloc Manila
Page 4 of 5
EXPLANATION
A copy of this ANSWER was sent to the Plaintiff and his Counsel through
registered mail as personal service is impracticable.
ATTY. MARIO NARCISSO
Page 5 of 5

Regional Trial Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Trial Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Trial Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of The Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

URICIO ARAMBALA and

CIVIL CASE NO. Q-4281996

S/SGT. KENNETH PAMAN,

COMES NOW the Defendant, by the undersigned counsel and in answer to

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. That defendant admits paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Complaint with additional

5. That paragraph 7 of the complaint is admitted;

6. That paragraph 8 of the complaint is admitted;

11. That paragraph 13 of the complaint is admitted;

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

13.3.1 Lost income (30,000.00): According to the Employees Compensation

13.3.2 Substantial repair of the motorcycle (17, 000.00): There are no

13.3.3 Lost profit (10,000.00): Alleged Annexes are not found

14. As COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS against the Plaintiff, the defendant alleges:

Quezon City, February 25, 2020.

NARCISSO LAW OFFICE

ATTY. MARIO NARCISSO

ATTY. GABRIEL LOYOLA

Mr. & Mrs. Uricio Arambala

ATTY. MARIO NARCISSO

You might also like