DIGESTS

CRIMINAL CASE

G.R. No. 224886, September 4, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ROGER RACAL@ RAMBO
Facts:
On August 15, 2006, Racal was charged with the crime of murder as defined and
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended. The accusatory
portion of the Information reads, thus:
That on or about the 19th day of April 2006, at about 4:20 A.M., more or less, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused, armed with a knife, with deliberate intent, with treachery and evident premeditation, and with intent to kill,
did then and there, suddenly and unexpectedly, attack, assault, and use personal violence upon the person of one Jose "Joe" Francisco by stabbing
the latter, at his body, thereby inflicting a fatal wound and as a consequence of which he died.

The RTC ruled that the evidence for the defense is insufficient to convince the court that
Racal was indeed deprived of his mind and reason at the time when he committed the crime as to
exempt him from criminal liability because his depression and psychotic features are not the kind
of insanity contemplated by law. The trial court found the circumstance of treachery to be
present, but ruled out the presence of the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.

Racal filed a Motion for Reconsideration contending that the trial court failed to
appreciate the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended
party and voluntary confession of guilt on the part of Racal. However, the RTC denied the
Motion for Reconsideration in its Order dated December 15, 2011.

Aggrieved by the ruling of the RTC, Racal appealed to the CA. In his Appellant's Brief,
Racal reiterated his defense of insanity contending that, at the time he stabbed the victim, he
snapped into a fatal episode of temporary loss of rational judgment and that such a predisposition
to "snap" was testified upon by his expert witnesses.

The CA held that the prosecution proved all the elements of the crime necessary to
convict Racal for the murder of Francisco.

Issue: Whether or not the CA correctly upheld the conviction of herein appellant, Racal, for
murder.

Ruling:

Murder

To successfully prosecute the crime of murder, the following elements must be

established: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing
was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and
( 4) that the killing is not parricide or infanticide.

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 1

 In the present case, the prosecution was able to clearly establish that (1) Francisco was
stabbed and killed; (2) appellant stabbed and killed him; (3) Francisco's killing was attended by
the qualifying circumstance of treachery as testified to by prosecution eyewitnesses; and, ( 4) the
killing of Francisco was neither parricide nor infanticide.

Treachery

The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a
swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to
resist or escape. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present:
(1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the
accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack
employed by him.

There is no denying that appellant's sudden and unexpected onslaught upon the victim,
and the fact that the former did not sustain any injury, evidences treachery.

Insanity

In People v. So,24 which is a case of recent vintage, this Court ruled that an inquiry into
the mental state of an accused should relate to the period immediately before or at the very
moment the felony is committed. Hence, the results of the psychiatric tests done on appellant and
testified to by the defense witnesses, may not be relied upon to prove appellant's mental
condition at the time of his commission of the crime.

In any case, during cross-examination, Dr. Gilboy testified that for a number of years up
to the time that appellant killed Francisco, he had custody of and served as the guardian of his
sister's children. He took care of their welfare and safety, and he was the one who sends them to
and brings them home from school. Certainly, these acts are not manifestations of an insane
mind.
On his part, Dr. Gerong testified, on direct examination, that he found appellant to have
"diminish[ ed] capacity to discern what was wrong or right at the time of the commission of the
crime. "Diminished capacity" is not the same as "complete deprivation of intelligence or
discernment." Mere abnormality of mental faculties does not exclude imputability. Thus, on the
basis of these examinations, it is clearly evident that the defense failed to prove that appellant
acted without the least discernment or that he was suffering from a complete absence of
intelligence or the power to discern at the time of the commission of the crime.

Furthermore, appellant's act of treachery, that is by employing means and methods to

ensure the killing of Francisco without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim
might make, as well as his subsequent reaction of immediately fleeing after his commission of
the crime and, thereafter, evading arrest, is not the product of a completely aberrant mind.

In other words, evidence points to the fact that appellant was not suffering from insanity
immediately before, simultaneous to, and even right after the commission of the crime.

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 2

CIVIL CASE

Gr. 225402, September 04. 2017

Encarnacion Construction and Industrial Corporation

vs.
Phoenix Ready Mix Concrete Development and Consturction, Inc

Facts:

On January 27 and March 25, 2009, Phoenix entered into two (2) separate Contract
Proposals and Agreements (Agreement) with ECIC for the delivery of various quantities of
ready-mix concrete. The Agreement was made in connection with the construction of the
Valenzuela National High School (VNHS) Marulas Building. ECIC received the ready-mix
concrete delivery in due course. However, despite written demands from Phoenix, ECIC refused
to pay.

Hence, Phoenix filed before the RTC the Complaint for Sum of Money against ECIC for
the payment of P982,240.35, plus interest and attorney's fees. In its Answer with Counterclaim,
ECIC claimed that it opted to suspend payment since Phoenix delivered substandard ready-mix
concrete, such that the City Engineer's Office of Valenzuela (City Engineer's Office) required the
demolition and reconstruction of the VNHS building's 3rd floor. It contended that since the
samples taken from the 3rd floor slab failed to reach the comprehensive strength of 6,015 psi in
100 days, the City Engineer's Office ordered the dismantling of the VNHS building's 3rd floor,
and thus, incurred additional expenses amounting to P3,858,587.84 for the dismantling and
reconstruction.

The RTC found that Phoenix fully complied with its obligation under their Agreement to
deliver the ready-mix concrete. Meanwhile, the RTC denied ECIC's counterclaim for failure to
pay the necessary docket fees.

Aggrieved, ECIC appealed 23 to the CA, arguing that it paid the necessary docket fees
for its counterclaim well within a reasonable time from its filing or on June 18, 201024 and that
it did not waive its right to question the strength of the delivered concrete which, based on
various tests, was substandard.

The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. Dissatisfied, ECI C moved for reconsideration,
which the CA denied in a Resolution31 dated June 29, 2016; hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in denying ECIC's counterclaim for damages.

Ruling:

The petition lacks merit.

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 3

 In the present petition, ECIC maintains that it is entitled to its counterclaim because the
Agreement it signed with Phoenix, particularly Paragraph 15 thereof, is void for being a contract
of adhesion; and, the ready-mix concrete Phoenix delivered for the 3rd floor slab of the VNHS
building was substandard, causing it to incur additional expenses to reconstruct the building's 3rd
floor.

In this case, there is no proof that ECIC was disadvantaged or utterly inexperienced in
dealing with Phoenix. There were likewise no allegations and proof that its representative (and
owner/proprietor) Ramon Encarnacion (Encarnacion) was uneducated, or under duress or force
when he signed the Agreement on its behalf. In fact, Encarnacion is presumably an astute
businessman who signed the Agreement with full knowledge of its import. Case law states that
the natural presumption is that one does not sign a document without first informing himself of
its contents and consequences.36 This presumption has not been debunked.

Further, the Court finds that the terms and conditions of the parties' Agreement are plain,
clear, and unambiguous and thus could not have caused any confusion. Paragraph 15 of the
Agreement provides that:

xx xx Any claim on the quality, strength, or quantity of the transit

mixed concrete delivered must be made at the time of delivery. Failure to
make the claim constitutes a waiver on the part of the SECOND PARTY
for such claim and the FIRST PARTY is released from any liability for
any subsequent claims on the quality, strength or [sic] the ready mixed
concrete.

Based on these terms, it is apparent that any claim that ECIC may have had as regards the
quality or strength of the delivered ready-mix concrete should have been made at the time of
delivery. However, it failed to make a claim on the quality of the delivered concrete at the
stipulated time, and thus, said claim is deemed to have been waived.

Finally, it should be noted that ECIC failed to raise the alleged defect in the delivered
concrete well within a reasonable time from its discovery of the hairline cracks, as it notified
Phoenix thereof only 48 days after the last delivery date on April 29, 2009, and days after it was
already notified thereof by the City Engineer's Office.40 The lack of justifiable explanation for
this delay all the more bolsters the conclusion that ECIC indeed waived its right to make its
claim.
In any event, the evidence on record do not support ECIC's claim that the hairline cracks
that appeared on the 3rd floor slab of the VNHS building resulted from the substandard quality
of the delivered ready-mix concrete. While it was shown that the City Engineer's Office
inspected the site and approved the structural design before the delivered concrete for the 3rd
floor slab was poured, and that the results of the test conducted by the Philippine Geoanalytics
Testing Center from the samples taken showed that the hardened concrete failed to reach the
required comprehensive strength days after the pouring, ECIC, however, failed to account for the
period that intervened from the time the delivered concrete was poured to the time the hairline
cracks were observed. As the claiming party, it was incumbent upon ECIC to prove that the
hairline cracks were truly caused by the inferior quality of the delivered concrete. Besides,

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 4

Phoenix offered a more plausible explanation, i.e., that ECIC failed to observe the proper
procedure for applying and curing the delivered concrete during the intervening period. This
resulted in what Phoenix's witness described as "plastic (cement) shrinkage caused by the rapid
evaporation of the water component and other factors."

All told, ECIC failed to convincingly prove its counterclaim against Phoenix and thus, the same
was correctly denied by the CA.

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 5

ADMINISTRATIVE CASE

AC 8968, September 26, 2017

MA. VILMA F. MANIQUIZ vs. ATTY. DANILO C. EMELO

Facts:

Maniquiz alleged that Emelo violated his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) when he willfully notarized a fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale containing a
falsified signature of her sister-in-law, Mergelita Sindanom Maniquiz, as vendor of a parcel of
land in favor of spouses Leonardo and Lucena Torres, as the vendees. Even worse, Emelo
notarized said document without being authorized to act as a notary public for Cavite.

On January 11, 2011, a person connected with the Spouses Torres gave Maniquiz a copy
of said deed of sale. When she showed it to Mergelita, the latter was surprised and denied that
she ever signed the same. Also, they noticed that the document did not show the names of the
witnesses but only their signatures and the purported vendees failed to present any government-
issued identification documents. Emelo's notarial commission and roll of attorneys number were
likewise not indicated in the document. Thus, Maniquiz went to Emelo' s residence to confirm if
he indeed notarized said deed of sale. Emelo told them that he did notarize said document based
on a photocopy of Mergelita's passport which was shown to him by his kumpare, Leonardo
Torres, who personally appeared before him at that time.

Emelo, for his part, denied the accusations against him. In his belatedly filed Comment
on July 26, 2012, he argued that he was not remiss in his obligations as a notary public when he
notarized the subject deed of absolute sale since the parties actually appeared before him. He
likewise attested that a woman introduced herself to him as Mergelita Maniquiz, as evidenced by
her passport. As regards the issue of absence of notarial commission, he explained that for the
year 2007, he could not retrieve orders of his commission as they may have been destroyed when
his residential house was inundated by the typhoon Milenyo on September 28, 2006. He admitted
the notarization of said document without notarial commission and begged for clemency, kind
consideration, and forgiveness for the same.

On June 18, 2013, the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated

Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended Samson's suspension from the practice of law for two
(2) years.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Samson should be suspended.

Ruling:

The Court upholds the findings and recommendations of the IBP that Emelo should be
held liable for the questioned act.

Notarization is the act that ensures the public that the provisions in the document express
the true agreement between the parties. Transgressing the rules on notarial practice sacrifices the

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 6

integrity of notarized documents. The notary public is the one who assures that the parties
appearing in the document are indeed the same parties who executed it. This obviously cannot be
achieved if the parties' are not physically present before the notary public acknowledging the
document since it is highly possible that the terms and conditions favorable to the vendors might
not be included in the document submitted by the vendee for notarization. Worse, the possibility
of forgery becomes real. It should be noted that a notary public's function should not be
trivialized; a notary public must always discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed
with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity, and with carefulness and faithfulness.

Notaries must, at all times, inform themselves of the facts they certify to. And most
importantly, they should not take part or allow themselves to be part of illegal transactions.
Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when
he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary
action. For one, performing a notarial act without such commission is a violation of the lawyer's
oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he
is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in
deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath similarly proscribes. It cannot be overemphasized
that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act.

Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are
qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Hence, the requirements for the issuance of a
commission as notary public are treated with a formality definitely more than casual.

Canon 1 clearly mandates the obedience of every lawyer to laws and legal processes. A
lawyer, to the best of his ability, is expected to respect and abide by the law and, thus, avoid any
act or omission that is contrary to the same. A lawyer's personal deference to the law not only
speaks of his character but it also inspires the public to likewise respect and obey the law. Rule
1.0, on the other hand, states the norm of conduct to be observed by all lawyers. Any act or
omission that is contrary to, or prohibited or unauthorized by, or in defiance of, disobedient to, or
disregards the law is unlawful. Unlawful conduct does not necessarily imply the element of
criminality although the concept is broad enough to include such element.

Emelo' s failure to fulfill this basic undertaking constitutes a violation of his duty to
observe fairness and honesty in all his dealings and transactions. Indubitably, he fell short of the
demands required of him as a faithful member of the bar. His inability to properly discharge said
duty makes him answerable, not just to the private complainant, but also to the Court, to the legal
profession, and to the general public. Considering the crucial importance of his role in the
administration of justice, his misconduct certainly diminished the confidence of the public in the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court SUSPENDS Atty. Danilo C.

Emelo from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, REVOKES his notarial
commission, if presently commissioned, and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES him from
being commissioned as a notary public. The Court further WARNS him that a repetition of the
same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 7

 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
CEBU CITY

MARINA FRANCISCO,
Complainant
-versus-
ROGER RACAL @ RAMBO No.__________
Respondent
x________________________________________________________________x
AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT

I, MARIANA FRANCISCO, 40 years old, married, and a resident of

Number 99 Kamias Street, Mariana Subdivision, Cebu City, after having
been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby deposes and says
THAT:

1. I am the wife of Jose “Joe” Francisco, 50 years old, who was a

tricycle driver and also a resident of Number 99 Kamias Street,
Mariana Subdivision, Cebu City;

2. That on April 19, 2006, around 12 o’clock in the morning, my

husband Jose “Joe” Francisco left to fend for our family and drove
the tricycle that we owned to pick passengers along Lopez St. at
Sitio Alseca in Cebu City;

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 8

 3. That on April 19, 2006 on or about 4 o’clock in the morning I
received a call from a fellow tricycle driver of my husband, Allan
Salug, that my husband has been stabbed. The sworn statement of
Allan Salug is hereunto attached and made an integral part of this
complaint as Annex “A”;

4. That after such call I immediately left the house and go to where
my husband was. Upon my arrival, I saw my husband lying in the
ground, bathe in his own blood. Trembling and lost for words, I
asked the other drivers as to who was the culprit of the crime, to
which they answered without hesitation as one named Roger
Racal @ Rambo. I asked Romeo Maneto, a friend of ours who is
also a tricycle driver and has witnessed the event, where Roger is
and he said that he has already fled. Crying for help, I asked and
begged the people around us to help me bring my husband to the
nearest hospital to which Romeo Maneto, Alejandro Cruz and
Mario Carpio responded. The sworn statement of Romeo Maneto,
Alejandro Cruz and Mario Carpio are hereunto attached and
made an integral part of this complaint as Annex “B”, “C” and
“D”, respectively.

5. Upon arrival at the Medical City Hospital, Cebu City, Dr.

Elizabeth Perez, immediately attended my husband and after a
thorough examination, declared him dead on arrival. The medico-

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 9

 legal autopsy report hereunto attached and made an integral part
of the complaint as Annex “ E”;

6. I reported the stabbing incident at the nearest police station and

attached hereto is the original copy of the police blotter issued by
Police Inspector Juan Dela Cruz. Hereunto attached and made as
an integral part hereof as Annex “F” of the complaint;

7. I am therefore executing this affidavit freely and voluntarily in

support of my intent to file a case for MURDER and/or the
appropriate criminal case against Roger Racal @ Rambo, who is
50 years of age and a resident of Number 99 Kamias Street,
Mariana Subdivision, Cebu City.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 10th day

of May, 2006 at Cebu City, Philippines.

MARIANA FRANCISCO
Affiant

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 10

 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 10th day of May 2006
at Cebu City, Philippines and I FURTHER CERTIFY that I have personally
examined the affiant and I am satisfied that he/she has read and personally
understood the contents of her foregoing “Complaint-Affidavit”.

ALLISON DE VERA
Prosecutor
Roll No. 12345-1999
IBP No. 808787-1/3/99
PTR No.12345- 1/3/17; Cebu City
MCLE Compliance III No. 001234
Issued on April 22, 2004

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 11

 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
MANILA

MARIA VILMA MANIQUIZ

Complainant

-versus-

ATTY. DANILO C. EMELO A.M. No. ______________________

Respondent For:Violation of the lawyer’s oath and
Code of Professional Responsibility

x________________________________________________________________x

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, MARIA VILMA MANIQUIZ of legal age, and with residence

address at Number 100 Manika Street, San Rosario Subdivision, Manila,
after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose
and state:

1) I am the cousin of MERGELITA SINDANOM MANIQUIZ,

registered owner of a parcel of land with improvements located
at19 Maningning Street, Santa Maria, Manila and covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12345, containing a total area of
EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED (8,800) SQUARE
METERS, more or less. A Copy of the Transfer Certificate of title

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 12

 is hereunto attached and made an integral part of this complaint
as Annex “A”;

2) That on January 11, 2011, Andres Maninog gave me a copy of a

deed of sale with regard to the above-mentioned property. The
sworn statement of Andres Maninog and the copy of the deed of
absolute sale is hereunto attached and made an integral part of
this complaint as “Annex B’ and “C”, respectively;

3) That upon knowing the same, I went to Atty. Emelo’s residence to

confirm if he indeed notarized said deed of sale. He told me that
he did notarize the document based on a photocopy of Mergelita’s
passport which was shown to him by his kumpare, Leonardo
Torres, who personally appeared before him at that time.

4) That I noticed that the notarized document did not show the
names of the witnesses but only their signatures and the
purported vendees failed to present any government-issued
identification documents. Atty. Emelo’s notarial commission and
roll of attorneys number were likewise not indicated in the said
document.

5) That I am filing an administrative complaint against respondent

ATTY. DANILO C. EMELO for violation of his oath as a lawyer
and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he knowingly

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 13

 notarized the deed of sale stated above without the formalities
required by law;

6) It must be stressed that Atty. Danilo Emelo owes candor, fairness

and good faith to the court, and is duty bound to uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the
law and legal processes. This is very explicit from the Code of
Professional Responsibility which respondent Atty. Emelo
promised to live by as a lawyer, which states that:

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE

CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESSES.

Rule 1.0 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral or deceitful conduct.
Xxx
7) With all the acts and omissions of respondent Atty. Emelo surely,
he should be accordingly punished and must suffer the penalty
sanctioned by law.

8) I am executing this Affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing

statements and in support of my prayer for the IMMEDIATE
SUSPENSION from the practice of law, for the REVOCATION of
notarial commission of ATTY. DANILO EMELO, who may be
served with notices and other processes from this Honorable

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 14

 Court through his address at Number 123 Overthetop Building,
Tulay Street, Manila, Philippines.

AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

IN WITNESS WHEREIF, I hereunto set my hand this, 20th day of

January 2011 at Manila.

MARIA VILMA MANIQUIZ

Affiant

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 15

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
MANILA ) S.S.

VERIFICATION

I, MARIA VILMA MANIQUIZ, of legal age, and with residence

address at Number 100 Manika Street, San Rosario Subdivision, Manila,
after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose
and state:

1. I am the complainant in the above-captioned case;

2. I caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Complaint;

3. I have read the contents of said Complaint and I attest that the
same are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and
based on the records in my possession.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th of

day of January 2011 in Manila.

MARIA VILMA MANIQUIZ

Doc No. Affiant
Page Number
Book No. NOTARY PUBLIC
Series of 2011

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 16

 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch _____
CAVITE

PHOENIX READY MIX

CONCRETE DEVELOPMENT
AND CONSTRUCTION,
Plaintiff Civil Case No. 123456
FOR: For: COLLECTION FOR A SUM
OF MONEY
- versus -

ENCARNACION
CONSTRUCTION &
INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,
Defendant
x -----------------------x

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, PHOENIX READY MIX CONCRETE DEVELOPMENT

AND CONSTRUCTION (hereinafter referred to as “Phoenix”), through
the undersigned counsel unto this Honorable Court, hereby respectfully
avers:

1. That plaintiff Phoenix is a corporation duly organized and existing

under and by virtue of Philippine laws, with principal business
address at 5th Floor, phoenix Building, 70 San Maria, Imus Cavite.
It is represented by the affiant signatory to the verification and

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 17

 certification who has been appointed by the Board of Directors as
its duly authorized representative to the file this case and to
represent it in all court proceedings. Hereto attached as Annex
“A” is the Secretary’s Certificate incorporating the Board
Resolution passed to that effect.

2. That on January 27 and March 25, 2009, Plaintiff Phoenix entered

into two (2) separate Contract Proposals and Agreements
(Agreement) with the defendant, ENCARNACION
CONSTRUCTION AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION
(ECIC) for the delivery of various quantities of ready-mix
concerete. The Agreement was made in connection with the
construction of the Valenzuela National High School (VNHS)
Marulas Building. The Agreement herein attached as Annex “B”
and form an integral part of this complaint;

3. That the ECIC received the ready-mix concrete delivery in due

course. However, despite written demands from Phoenix, ECIC,
refused to pay obligations without just and valid grounds to the
continued damage and prejudice of plaintiff, as evidenced by
Annex “C” – Demand Letters;

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 18

 4. That despite plaintiff's repeated demands, both written and
verbal, defendant corporation failed, neglected and refused to
fulfill its obligations;

5. That the plaintiff in order to enforce its rights and interests, has
sought the services of a legal counsel with attorney’s fees amounting
to Fifty Thousand Pesos (PhP 50,000.00) as evidenced by Annex “D”
– Contract for Legal Services;

6. That the plaintiff has paid for litigation expenses amounting to

Twenty Thousand Pesos (PhP 20,000.00) as evidenced by Annex “E”
– Official Receipt;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby respectfully prayed

before the Honorable Court to render decision in favor of the plaintiff and
order the defendant to pay the following:

a. the sum Eight Hundred Thousand and Four Hundred Ten Pesos
(PHP 810.410.00) plus interest at the rate of five percent (12%) per
month as stipulated in the Agreement;
b. attorney’s fees amounting to Fifty Thousand Pesos (PhP
50,000.00).

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 19

 c. litigation expenses amounting to Twenty Thousand Pesos (PhP
20,000.00).

Other reliefs and remedies deemed just and equitable under the
foregoing premises are likewise prayed for.

Imus, Cavite.

Counsel for Petitioner

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 20

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
PROVINCE OF CAVITE ) SS.
x----------------------------x

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

1. I, MARKANDY CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino, married, and a resident

of at 5th Floor, phoenix Building, 70 San Maria, Imus Cavite, after
being sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and say: I am a
Manager of plaintiff-corporation in the above-entitled case and am
authorized by plaintiff corporation to file this compliant; I caused the
preparation of the foregoing Complaint for Sum of Money and I have
read and understood the contents thereof and the allegations
contained therein are true and correct based on authentic records in
our possession

2. pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94, I

hereby certify that Plaintiff has not therefore commenced any other
action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, and to the best
of mu knowledge, no such action or processing is pending in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any tribunal or agency, and
if I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals; or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that
within five (5) days therefrom;

MARKANDY CRUZ

Affiant

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 21

 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of ____ , at
_____________, affiant exhibiting to me her CTC No. 03861181 issued at
Manila on __________and Passport No. _______, thus satisfactorily having
proven her identity to me.

Doc No. ____

Page No. _____

Book No. _____

Series of _____

CONNIE MACAPAGAO Page 22