Answer: Regional Trial Court in Cities

Republic of the Philippines
12th Judicial Region Branch XIV

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
Cotabato City
RIDZ ULAMA Civil Case No.______

Plaintiff,
Vs.
COTABATO BUILDERS, For: Breach of Contract
Represented by President Engr. Fai Sal
Defendant,
X --------------------------------------------------X
ANSWER
DEFENDANT COTABATO BUILDERS represented by Pres.
Engr. Fai Sal through counsel respectfully aver:
1. That Par. 1 up to 6 are admitted such that an agreement was
entered into between the parties of this case and that same
amount was paid by the plaintiff as declared.
2. That par. 7 is denied with qualification such that the project house
is 95% complete as shown in Annex 1 .The attached Annex 2
from the complaint is maliciously presented before the court the
fact being that the unit is almost 95% complete and the image
presented by the complainant is a February 2020 image.
3. Par. 8 and 9 were admitted with qualification such that the

defendant failed to continue with the construction by reason loss
of necessary materials and equipment to operate due to
fortuitous event (flood) which wiped out the vault of the Office
containing all its money and render all the materials and
equipment of the company not usable anymore. (Please see
attached Annex 2)
4. That Par. 10 is denied the fact being that the complainant never
had any supporting evidence to substantiate this claim. Further,
the claim of visiting the office and sending emails and phone calls
is insanely improbable the fact being that the Office was
devastated by severe flood. (Please see attached Annex 3)
5. That Par 11 and 12 is denied with qualification the defendants

failed to make good of the remaining 5 percent comprising only
of the interior minor designs for reasons not his fault and even if
by exercising diligence of a good father of the family will not
prevent the happening of the fortuitous event. In Nakpil vs CA,
Nos. L-47851 and L- 47896, 3 October 1986, 144 SCRA 596 four
(4) requisites must concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the
obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the
event must be either unforseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event
must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his
obligation in a normal manner; and, (d) the debtor must be free
from any participation in or aggravation of the injury to the
creditor. Hence in the instant case, it is impossible for the
defendant to continue the fact that all the money, equipment and
machineries were drowned in flood which of course is
unforeseeable or unavoidable.
6. That Par 13 is denied with qualification that indeed there is non-

fulfillment of the stipulation of the contract but it is one of a
fortuitous event and is beyond the knowledge of the defendant.
7. That despite knowledge of the loss of the financial assets as well

as the equipment and machineries of the defendant the
undersigned wantonly and maliciously file this complaint
grounded on breach of contract and used in evidence false
photos of an unfinished project alleging among others that it was
only 80% complete which in truth and in fact already 95% finish
which is suggestive of inherent bad faith (Please see Annex 4).
Thus, cited in the case of California Clothing Inc. and Ybanez vs
Quinones GR No. 175822, October 23, 2013
“Under the abuse of rights principle found in Article 19 of

the Civil Code, a person must, in the exercise of legal right
or duty, act in good faith. He would be liable if he instead
acted in bad faith, with intent to prejudice another.Good
faith refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the
acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention
to abstain from taking an unconscionable and
unscrupulous advantage of another. Malice or bad faith, on
the other hand, implies a conscious and intentional design
to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral
obliquity”
BY WAY OF COMPULSORY COUNTER CLAIM
8. Thus, due to this complaint answering defendants were

constrained to engage the services of counsel for ₱65,000.00 to
defend itself, especially that plaintiff prays for the award of actual
damages, moral damages and attorney’s fee as well as cost of
the suit to include ₱2,000.00 appearance fee of counsel per
hearing and is expected to spend another ₱50,000.00 in the
event the case may proceed.
9. That due to the unscrupulous use of the photo which was taken
last February 2020 and was used as evidence by the plaintiff is
a manifest bad faith giving rise to a claim of moral damages in
the amount of ₱200,000.00 for the injury sustained by the
company to include its besmirched reputation which for a long
time is untarnished.
10. The statement of summary of evidences, object and/or

documentary. For the answering defendants are as follows:
a. Annex 1- Photo of the 98% complete project mansion to

prove that the plaintiff falsely and maliciously accused the
defendant of the 80% completeness and that only minor
indoor architectural designs is wanting specifically under
the small bedroom.
b. Annex 2-Photo showing the entire office swept by flood
leaving all machineries, equipment and money inside the
vault useless.
c. Annex 3- Photo showing the inside of the office in
shambles making all communication means such as
phones, telephones or computers not functional
d. Annex 4. – Adopted as Annex 4 from the Annex 2 of the
complaint to show the picture taken February 2020.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully
prayed that the Affirmative Defenses and counter-claim be granted
by this honorable court. It is further prayed that after due hearing
plaintiff be ordered to reimburse answering defendants the amount
of ₱65,000.00 as attorney’s fees ₱2,000.00 per hearing and award
of moral damages in the amount of ₱200,000.00
Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for.
Respectfully submitted, Cotabato City, March 9, 2021.
ATTY. KEVIN PAUL M. LAVIÑA, LlM

Counsel for the Defendants
Roll of Attorney No. 12345
IBP O.R. No. 120093/01-11-2020
MCLE Compliance No. VI-000456/11-06-20, Pasig City
3rd Door ABC Bldg, Notre Dame College of Cotabato, Cotabato City
PTR No. 120019
Issued at Cotabato City on 01/12/21
Notarial Commission No. 17(2020-2022)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES}

CITY OF COTABATO } S.S.
X----------------------------------------------------X
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM

SHOPPING
I, ENGR. FAI SAL, Filipino, of legal age, with postal address at LCT
Hardware, Don Rufino Alonzo Street, Cotabato City after having been
duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and hereby state:
That I am representing the Cotabato Builders the defendant in this
case.
That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer with

Special and Affirmative Defense and Compulsory Counter-Claim
That I have read the same and understood the contents thereof which
are all true based on authentic documents and my personal
knowledge. That this pleading is not filed to harass, cause
unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of litigation and the
factual allegations therein have evidentiary support, or if specifically so
identified will likewise have evidentiary support after reasonable
opportunity for discovery.
That I further certify that I have not commenced any complaint similar
to the compulsory counter-claim pleaded with any office, quasi-judicial
agency or court;
That if I hereafter learn that a similar complaint or counter-claim is filed

or pending in any office, quasi-judicial agency or court. I undertake to
report the same within period of five (5) days to this Court upon notice.
AFFIANTS FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

ENGR. FAI I. SAL
Attorney-in-fact
DI No. NO2-00009
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 9th day of March

at Cotabato City, Philippines. Affiant personally appeared and known
to me with the competent evidence or proof of their identity above
indicated.
Doc. No. 01 ATTY. KEVIN PAUL M. LAVINA

Page No. 01 Notary Public
Book No. 04 Commission Extended until 6/12/2022
Series No. 03 Roll of Attorney No. 12345
IBP O.R. No. 120093/01-11-2020
MCLE Compliance No. VI-000456/11-06-20, Pasig City
rd
3 Door ABC Bldg, Notre Dame College of Cotabato,
Cotabato City
PTR No. 120019
Issued at Cotabato City on 01/12/21
Notarial Commission No. 17(2020-2022)
Copy Furnished:
SANTURING LAW FIRM

DEFGH Bldg. Don I Sero Street
Cotabato City

Answer: Regional Trial Court in Cities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Answer: Regional Trial Court in Cities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Answer: Regional Trial Court in Cities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

12th Judicial Region Branch XIV

RIDZ ULAMA Civil Case No.______

3. Par. 8 and 9 were admitted with qualification such that the

5. That Par 11 and 12 is denied with qualification the defendants

6. That Par 13 is denied with qualification that indeed there is non-

7. That despite knowledge of the loss of the financial assets as well

“Under the abuse of rights principle found in Article 19 of

BY WAY OF COMPULSORY COUNTER CLAIM

8. Thus, due to this complaint answering defendants were

10. The statement of summary of evidences, object and/or

a. Annex 1- Photo of the 98% complete project mansion to

Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for.

Respectfully submitted, Cotabato City, March 9, 2021.

ATTY. KEVIN PAUL M. LAVIÑA, LlM

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES}

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM

That I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer with

That if I hereafter learn that a similar complaint or counter-claim is filed

AFFIANTS FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 9th day of March

Doc. No. 01 ATTY. KEVIN PAUL M. LAVINA

SANTURING LAW FIRM

You might also like