Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pre Trial
Pre Trial
BEN SAAC,
Accused,
x-----------------------------------------------x
1. The identity of the one charged in the information and the identity of the one
arraigned is one and the same;
3. The time and place of the alleged commission of the offense which was on June
08, 2018 between 5:30 in the morning to 1:15 in the afternoon;
4. That he was able to inflict slight physical injuries upon the victim via self defense
when the victim violently and unceremoniously forced him out of his abode by
collaring him and at the same time intensely squeezing his testicles.
1. That he called the victim out loud as a paramour thereby inflicting emotional and
psychological violence against her. The truth of the matter was that, by his very
nature, he is a quiet person and that his wife Catalina was the noisy and bossy type;
2. That he went to the house of the victim on the date the incident happened
purposely to harass her, but rather he went to their home to visit his children and at
same time proposed a peace offering towards his spouse by saying that the Php
1,800.00 he was renting his temporary abode by the seaside after he was ejected from
their home through temporary protection order issued by the court was already
sufficient to buy at least a sack of rice for the family’s consumption and it was
needless for him to live separately considering that they can patched up things and
resume living a peaceful existing together like they have being used to for more than
twenty (20) years;
3. That he was carrying the recovered hunting knife purposely to harm his spouse.
The truth of the matter was that he was always having the knife tucked by his side
considering the fact he resided by the seaside alone and the knife was merely for his
own protection;
5. The accused totally denies the offense charged, specifically Section 5 (h) of RA
9262 involving his infliction of substantial emotional, psychological and physical
violence against the victim;
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the infliction of slight physical injuries to the victim via self
defense falls within the
Plaintiffs’ claim
4. Mr. Naliponguit, to fully pay his debt with Oro Solid Hardware, Inc.,
executed a Deed of Assignment of Receivables in favor of the latter to, first:
extinguish all his liabilities with Oro Solid, and second: transfer all his rights and
interests to collect from Edison in favor of Oro Solid;
5. Oro Solid, as assignee of Mr. Naliponguit and through its attorney-in-fact Mr.
Cipriano Puyo, filed a case for collection of sum of money against Edison purportedly
to collect the Php 14,000,000.00 obligation of the latter and accompanied with a
prayer for preliminary writ of attachment together with a demand for reimbursement
of actual expenses for the filing of the case and attorney’s fees;
6. The application for the writ of preliminary attachment was anchored on false
representation and fraud allegedly committed by Edison against Mr. Naliponguit prior
to, contemporaneously with, or subsequently after the signing of the above-mentioned
MOA and/or consequent project implementations.
Defendant’s Claim
1. That the Plaintiffs lack any cause of action against the defendants since
Honorable Court failed to acquire Jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants due
to the defective substituted service of summons effected Sheriff Edwin Macabaya;
2. That the Plaintiffs failed to state their causes of action considering that Mr.
Ian Daryll B. Magat, the signatory of the Subcontracting Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) with Mr. Wilt F. Naliponguit, was never an employee of Edison, there being
no official record evidencing this fact, nor was he a legitimate Attorney-in fact of
Edison since the Special Power of Attorney his authority deemed emanate was
fictitious, fraudulent, forged and falsified as strongly asserted by the supposed issuer,
Mr. Elpidio Uy, through his sworn statement or even by mere cursory examination,
thereby avoiding all documents, deeds and agreements produced by the same,
including the above mentioned MOA;
3. That Edison moved to drop Mr. Eldonn Ferdinand Uy as defendant of the case
since he is not a proper proper party in interest considering that Edison is a sole
proprietorship owned and registered under the name of Elpidio Uy creating, therefore,
no legal link between the plaintiffs and Mr. Eldonn Ferdinand Uy;
4. That the defendants unnecessarily suffered damages and vindicated the same
through its compulsory counter claim and demand for payment of damages, to wit:
Edison is willing to settle the case amicably based on the terms that are
reasonable and consistent with the proffered its answer. It is likewise open to submit
the case for alternative mode of dispute resolution.
Based on the pleadings of plaintiffs and defendants, the following are the
admitted facts:
2. That Ian Daryll B. Magat is a resident of # 2405 St. John the Baptist Street,
Kauswagan, Cagayan de Oro City at the time the alleged Special Power of Attorney
was executed and not at # 121 Le Mireche Subdivision, E. Rodriquez, Quezon City he
indicated therein;
3. That Mr. Magat was arrested for a the crime of forgery and falsification and
presently under bail;
4. That Edison has no official record of business dealings with ATK Builders,
nor with Mr. Nalipongit prior to or at the time the complaint was filed;
5. That the Special Power of Attorney appointing Mr. Ian Daryll B. Magat as
attorney-in-fact of Edison was contested in a criminal case as: spurious, fictitious,
fraudulent, falsified and forged;
6. That the Memorandum of Agreement entered into between Mr. Ian Daryll B.
Magat and ATK Builders, through Mr. Wilt F. Naliponguit, was acknowledged and
notarized wanting of any proof of identification of both parties presented before
notary public;
9. That Mr. Eldonn Ferdinand Uy was and is not the registered owner of Edison
since the same is a sole proprietorship owned by Mr. Elpidio and registered under this
name;
10. That the original application for the preliminary writ of attachment was
denied by the original Judge of the case, the Honorable Judge Emmanuel Pasal, based
on insufficiency of evidence and for failing the meet all the requisites for its issuance
under the Rules of Court;
11. That the two bounced checks presented as evidence supporting the issuance
of the writ of preliminary attachment were dated February 13 and 18, 2015 or on or
about the same date the questioned Memorandum of Agreement was notarized which
was on February 13, 2015, hence prior to the commencement of the supposed project
implementation;
12. That the certification issued by the District Engineer of Misamis Oriental
pertaining to the completion rate of specified projects of Edison is not indicative, nor
a conclusive proof of the alleged subcontracting agreement between ATK Builders
and Edison;
13. That the total value of the properties attached or levied exceeded the
amounted to more than Php 14,000,000.00;
14. That the defendants posted a counter bond in cash amounting to Php
8,000,000.00 while the plaintiff bought only an attachment bond with Alpha
Insurance and paid a total premium of 128,000.00 to enforce the writ of attachment;
15. That the attached vehicles were delivered and stored at a storage yard
owned by the plaintiffs; and
16. That the attached vehicles sustained various damages while under custody
of the Sheriff and/or the plaintiff.
ISSUES
2. Whether or not Mr. Elpidio Uy executed a Special Power of Attorney making Mr.
Ian Daryll B. Magat his attorney-in-fact in contracting a subcontracting MOA;
b) Mr. Wilt F. Naliponguit and Oro Solid Hardware for Introducing falsified
documents in civil cases
6. Whether or not the two bounced checks drawn and dated on the same day the
alleged subcontracting MOA was notarized, February 15, 2015, can be appreciated as
evidence of Edison’s indebtedness to Mr. Naliponguit for the future works he will
perform as a project subcontractor of the former and considered as a badge of fraud
warranting the proper issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment;
That the