Gr.2 Answer

Republic of the Philippines
Regional Trial Court

First Judicial Region
Branch ___
Vigan City, Ilocos Sur
CONSUEL DELA CRUZ,

Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. ___________

-versus- For: DAMAGES
BASED ON QUASI-
DELICT
DINO GARCIA and

MANUKAN BAKBAKBAK CORPORATION,
Defendants
x-----------------------------------x
ANSWER
COMES NOW the Defendant Dino Garcia, by the undersigned

counsels, and in answer to plaintiff’s complaint, most 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, in that, granting that
plaintiff indeed was bumped at 8:00 AM on March 1, 2021 by defendant
while plaintiff was crossing along the national highway of Bantay, Ilocos
Sur. To Defendant’s knowledge, the plaintiff was not on the pedestrian lane
when she crossed;
Please refer to attached pictures on Annex “1” showing that Plaintiff was not
allowed to cross that portion of the road.
3. That defendant denies paragraph 5 as plaintiff failed to establish
that defendant, in a careless, reckless and imprudent manner, was driving the
vehicle at a speed greater than what is reasonable and proper, causing the
incident.
4. That defendant denies paragraph 6 of the Complaint as the

figures mentioned are unsubstantiated and that the purported Annexes “B”,
“C”, and “D” 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;
5. That defendant denies paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 for being

unsubstantiated, the truth being that as mentioned in the special and
affirmative defenses;
6. That defendant could not make an informed comment

respecting paragraphs 12 and 13 as the defendant has not received any of the
purported documents attached to the Complaint as Annexes “E” and “F”;
7. That defendant denies paragraphs 14, 15, and 16 for being

unsubstantiated, the truth being that as mentioned in the special and
affirmative defenses;
8. That defendant denies paragraph 17 is 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;
9. That defendant could not comment on the veracity and accuracy

of paragraph 18 due to lack of information and knowledge of the same, the
truth being that plaintiff’s alleged mental anguish, severe anxiety and
psychological torture is personal to her and that defendant has not been
shown any proof to validate those;
DEFENSES
10. As SPECIAL AND AFFIRAMTIVE DEFENSES, the

defendant Dino Garcia alleges:
LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION AS PLAINTIFF COMES TO COURT

WITH UNCLEAN HANDS, THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO
DAMAGES
2
10.1 Plaintiff claimsin Paragraph 11 of her Complaint that
while she was approaching the pedestrian lane, defendant
driver did not show any sign of slowing down his speed.
10.2 Defendant argues that it is not liable to pay damages

because the injuries sustained by the plaintiff was the
result of her own negligence. There was no finding that
defendant failed to exercise the necessary precaution in
driving the vehicle. As a matter of fact, a closed-circuit
television (CCTV) footage of JDC Auto Repair Shop
located at the scene of the incident showed that plaintiff
was not in the pedestrian lane when she crossed the road.
The CCTV footage along with the Affidavit executed by
the owner of the repair shop, Juan Dela Cruz, who
extracted the footage, is herein attached as Annex 1.
Hence, the injuries that the respondent sustained could
only be faulted to her.
10.3 The fact that she did not cross at the pedestrian lane is
determinative of who is at fault for the injuries that she
sustained. Judicial notice may be taken that the
designated area where a pedestrian may cross is the
pedestrial lane. The purpose of the said lane is to give
warning or precaution to drivers that they have to be
observant of possible pedestrians crossing the said lane.
Hence, the plaintiff’s act of crossing the street outside the
designated area was the very reason why she was hit by
the defendant. Besides, the greenlight was “on” when
defendant accidentally hit her.
10.4 It is also noteworthy that that there was no report that the
defendant was overspeeding nor was violating any traffic
rules at the time the accident happened. Plaintiff’s claim
that defendant was over speeding was just a self-serving
and relative statement. The truck might have appeared to
her to be driven at a speed greater than the limit, but the
truth is, defendant was driving within the speed limit.
10.5 From the above discussion, it is clear that defendant did

not lack precaution in driving the delivery truck.
Defendant was not overspeeding nor was violating any
traffic rules when he hit the plaintiff. She crossed the
street while the greenlight is “on” and clearly, she took
the risk of crossing the street even though vehicles were
3
flowing along the national highway of Bantay, Ilocos
Sur.
BASELESS AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS
10.6 The following claims are unsubstantiated and are

therefore baseless:
Hospital Expenses, Professional Fees, Miscellaneous:

Alleged Annexes are not found and/or referenced.
Lost Income: There are no supporting documents

presented.
Moral Damages: the actual damages being

unsubstantiated, claims moral & exemplary damages are
left without basis.
EXORBITANT AND UNCONSCIONABLE LEGAL FEES
10.7 The claim for attorney’s fees (Php 50,000) and litigation
expenses (Php 25,000) are not only baseless. The
amounts are exorbitant and unconscionable.
COUNTERCLAIMS
11. As COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS against the plaintiff,

the defendant alleges:
11.1 That to protect his right, he is forced to defend himself by

engaging the services of an attorney for P20,000 plus
P2,000 fee per appearance; and
11.2 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 he claims moral damages of
Php 100,000 and exemplary damages of Php 20,000.
TIMELINESS
12. That this ANSWER is submitted seasonably, or within the 15

days from the date of receipt on May 24, 2021, today being May 27, 2021.
4
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that this

Honorable Court render judgment as follows:
1. DISMISS the complaint for lack of cause of action;
2. DISMISS the complaint for utter lack of merit and for being baseless;
3. ORDER the plaintiff to pay defendant attorney’s fee of Php 20,000

and Php 2,000 fee per appearance, plus moral damages of Php
100,000 and exemplary damages of Php 20,000; and
4. GRANT such other relief consistent with law and equity, and for
costs.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 27th of May 2021 at Vigan City,

Ilocos Sur, Philippines.
BUENAVISTA, VIRTUDES, AND ASSOCIATES

LAW OFFICE
Counsel for the Defendant
Unit 0123 ABC Building
Quezon Avenue, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, Philippines
Telephone no: 722-9999
By:
(sgd.)
KAYE-ANN B. BUENAVISTA
Counsel for the Defendant
Roll No. 12233, 20 January 2020
IBP Lifetime No. 0223341
PTR No. 1234567, 7 January 2021, Ilocos Sur
MCLE Certificate No. 887766, 31 December 2022
Email address: [email protected]
(sgd.)
ERNALYN R. ALARCA
Counsel for the plaintiff
Roll No.: 123456, 10 January 2020
PTR No.: 56464 Vigan City
IBP No.: 45245 Vigan City
MCLE Compliance No.: 50437
Email Add: [email protected]
5
Copy furnished:
ATTY. GERALD D. GALLARDO

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 0012 Plaza Maestro Building

Barangay I, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, Philippines
ATTY. ERNALYN R. ALARCA

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 0012 Plaza Maestro Building

Barangay I, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, Philippines

Gr.2 Answer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Gr.2 Answer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

CONSUEL DELA CRUZ,

CIVIL CASE NO. ___________

DINO GARCIA and

COMES NOW the Defendant Dino Garcia, by the undersigned

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

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

2. That defendant cannot possibly comment as to the veracity of

4. That defendant denies paragraph 6 of the Complaint as the

5. That defendant denies paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 for being

6. That defendant could not make an informed comment

7. That defendant denies paragraphs 14, 15, and 16 for being

8. That defendant denies paragraph 17 is for lack of basis to form

9. That defendant could not comment on the veracity and accuracy

10. As SPECIAL AND AFFIRAMTIVE DEFENSES, the

LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION AS PLAINTIFF COMES TO COURT

10.2 Defendant argues that it is not liable to pay damages

10.5 From the above discussion, it is clear that defendant did

BASELESS AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS

10.6 The following claims are unsubstantiated and are

Hospital Expenses, Professional Fees, Miscellaneous:

Lost Income: There are no supporting documents

Moral Damages: the actual damages being

EXORBITANT AND UNCONSCIONABLE LEGAL FEES

11. As COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIMS against the plaintiff,

11.1 That to protect his right, he is forced to defend himself by

11.2 That the plaintiff’s unfounded and frivolous suit has

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

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that this

1. DISMISS the complaint for lack of cause of action;

3. ORDER the plaintiff to pay defendant attorney’s fee of Php 20,000

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 27th of May 2021 at Vigan City,

BUENAVISTA, VIRTUDES, AND ASSOCIATES

ATTY. GERALD D. GALLARDO

Unit 0012 Plaza Maestro Building

ATTY. ERNALYN R. ALARCA

Unit 0012 Plaza Maestro Building

You might also like