Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Ninth Judicial Region
Branch 21
Pagadian |City
SPOUSES MARLON B. DAGANDAN
AND ANNABELLE V. DAGANDAN
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL CASE NO.5175-2k16

-versus-

-for-

ROBERT LAO and Z.C. GOLDEN

FOOD ENTERPRISES/DUNKIN
DONUTS, represented by its owner
EDUARDO GUERRA CHUA
Defendants,

JUDICIAL ABATEMENT OF
NUISANCE WITH A PRAYER
FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND/OR WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
PLUS DAMAGES

X----------------------------------------------/
Republic of the Philippines)
:
In the City of Pagadian.)S.s.
x-----------------------------------------/
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT OF
ROLANDO AGUILAR
This is the Judicial Affidavit, in lieu of his direct testimony, of MARLOB B.
DAGANDAN, Filipino citizen, of legal age, married, and a resident of Purok San
Francisco, Barangay San Jose, Pagadian City, whose examination was supervised and
taken by ATTY. FELIX M. ESCALANTE, JR. at his law office at Provincial
Capitol Complex, Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur on March 4, 2016
The questions were propounded upon him in the dialect and translated into
English; he answered the questions in the dialect, which were likewise translated into
English; when he answered such questions, he was fully conscious that he was under
oath, and he was aware that he may face criminal liability for giving a false testimony
and/or for perjury.
This direct testimony via judicial affidavit is being offered to prove the
following:
a.

That he is the petitioner in this instant case;

b.

That he is a an adjacent residential lot owner where the production of

the defendant DUNKIN is being undertaken;

c.

That defendant Eduardo G. Chua is owner of the land where the

defendant DUNKIN production building is located;

d.

That what was being established and constructed by the defendant

DUNKIN is not a warehouse but a production plant;

e.

That defendant DUNKIN production operation causes disturbance to

the peace and tranquility of the plaintiffs;

f.

That defendant DUNKIN disposed their waste directly to the canal;

and that the waste likewise stuck into the canal, thus emanating a very offensive and
foul odor; and,
g.
Question 1:

All other matters that are related to the instant case.

Question 1: In this statement that you are about to give in this

above-entitled case, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth?
Answer:

Yes I do.

Q2.

Please state your name and other personal circumstances:

A.

MARLON B. DAGANDAN, Filipino citizen, of legal age, married to

Annabelle V. Dagandan, and a resident of Purok San Francisco, Barangay San Jose,
Pagadian City.
Q3.

Do you know the defendants in this case?

A.

Yes I know them. They are Robert Lao and Eduardo Chua.

Q4.

Why do you know them?

A.

I know them because we were already knew and acquainted with each other

and that I personally knew defendant Robert Lao because he is the of owner of the
land which is adjacent to my land and I too knew defendant Eduardo G. Chua
because aside from the fact the he is the owner of Pagadian Dunkin Donut, he is also
owned Dunkin Donut exchange/store in Zamboanga City .
Q.5.

Why did you file the instant case?

A.

Because I and my family could no longer bear the offensive and foul odor we

experienced everyday.
Q6.

When did you experience this offensive and foul odor?

A.

I experienced this offensive foul odor way back in 2013.

Q.7.

what was the caused of the offensive and foul odor that you experienced?

A.

The waste disposed by the defendant DUNKIN.

Q.8.

How come then that in the year 2013, you did not object that your are

experiencing from an offensive and foul odor?

A.

Because at first the odor is tolerable.

Q.9. When and how does it started

A.

It started in 2013 when defendant DUNKIN applied a clearance/permit for the

construction of a building which is just an adjacent to my residential place

Q10.

Will you please narrate everything right from the start regarding the facts of

this offensive and foul odor

A.

Sir, at first, defendant DUNKIN through their representative, approached

and led me to believe that they will only construct a warehouse and as a
consequence, I together with the adjacent lot owners were made to sign a document,
signifying no objection as to the construction of the alleged warehouse;
Q.11. No objection? What do you mean by that?
A.

Meaning, I together with the other adjacent lot owners interpose no objection

as to the proposed construction of a warehouse building;

Q.12. What happened next?
A.

Defendant DUNKIN then was able to secure a Barangay Resolution from

Barangay San Jose, Pagadian City.

Q13.

What was this Barangay Resolution all about?

A.

It is a Barangay Resolution Bo, 015, Series of 2013, dated March 18, 2013

issued by the Barangay Council of Barangay San Jose, entitled A RESOLUTION

INTERPOSING NO OBJECTION OF PUTTING UP A WAREHOUSE FOR DUNKIN
DONUT OWNED BY ENGR. ROBERT LAO, LOCATED AT PUROK SAN
FRANCISCO, SAN JOSE DISTRICT, PROVIDED IT WILL COMPLY WIT THE
EXISTING LAWS, REGULATIPONS AND ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO SAID
OPERATION;
Q14

No objection? Did you mean that the Barangay Council of Barangay San Jose

interposes no objection as to the proposed construction of a warehouse building?

A.

Yes sir.

Q15.

Do you have proof and copy of this allege Barangay Resolution?

A.

I have sir and in fact, I have attached the copy of said barangay resolution in

the complaint and marked as Annex A .

Q16.

What happened next?

A.

Defendant Dunkin then began and started the construction of the propose

warehouse building.
Q17.

Please continue?

A.

During the construction of said warehouse, I together with my wife were

puzzled because a chimney was installed on its roof; also, a pipe was installed
directly to the drainage/canal at the entrance of the warehouse, serving as waste
disposal;;
.
Q18.

What did you do then?

A.

I took some pictures of the chimney and the pipe that was leading to the

drainage.
Q.19. Do you have a picture copies of the chimney and installed pipe?
A.

I have sir and the picture copies were incorporated and attached in the

complaint and marked as Annexes B, C and D

Q20. What happened then?
A.

After the building was completed, it was only then that I together with my

wife realized and learned that in reality, what was built by defendant DUNKIN was
not really a warehouse but a production plant/building;
Q21.

When you realized and learned that was really built was not a warehouse but

a production plant, did you lodge any formal complaint against the defendant
DUNKIN?
A.

None sir.

Q22.

Why? What is the reason that you did not file any formal complaint against

the defendant DUNKIN?

A.

Because when defendant DUNKIN started its production operations, at first,

the smell and odor of its cooked products was tolerable.

Q23.
A.

Please continue?
The smoke however, coming out from the chimney of its warehouse

penetrated into the our masters bedroom, which is just five (5) meters away
considering that the chimney was constructed with a height that is almost of the
same level to that of my rooftop;

Q24. When the smoke of the chimney coming from the production operation of the
defendant DUNKIN, did you complaint about?
A.

No sir,

Q25.

Why? What is the reason that you did not complaint about it?

A.

Because I made a full renovation of my masters bedroom, I have sealed all

the windows and installed an air condition;

.
Q26. What happened next?
A.

Because of the day to day operation of defendant DUNKIN, the volume of

waste that are disposed to the canal increased. The waste likewise stuck into the
canal and it emanates a very offensive and foul odor.
Q.27. What did you do then?
A.

On June 10, 2013, I wrote a letter addressed to the defendant DUNKIN,

though their branch manager regarding the offensive and foul odor
Q28. Did the defendant DUNKIN reply to your letter regarding the offensive and
foul odor?
A.

None sir;

.
Q29. What did you do next?
A.

Because I could no longer bear the continuous disturbance caused and the

continuous offensive and foul odor emanating from defendant DUNKIN, I together
with some adjacent residential owners filed a formal complaint before the Office of
the Punong Barangay of Barangay San Jose Pagadian City.
Q.30. you mentioned that together with some adjacent residential owners, who are
these residential owners?
A.

They are Silvestre Rendon, Virginia Madrancca, Alexaner Sambrano, Erlinday

Zapanta, Aprilyn Villas and Philippine Jesse Bayking

Q31.

You said that you, together with some adjacent residential owners filed a

formal complaint, who is or who are the respondent then in your formal complaint?
A.

Defendant DUNKIN, Civil Engr. Bebot Maghinay and Roy Paras.

Q.32. Who are these respondents?

A.

Civil Engr. Bebot Maghnay is the liaison officer of defendant DUNKIN, while

Roy Paras is an architect who designed and constructed the production plant of the
defendant DUNKIN
Q.33. What happened next?
A.

When we filed the formal complaint before the Office of the Punong Barangay

of Barangay San Jose, we also furnished the Office of the City Mayor of Pagadian,
City Health Office of Pagadian and the City Engineers Office, a copy of our formal
complaint;
Q.34. What happened then to your formal complaint?
A.

No action had been taken by the Barangay. Neither there was a precautionary

or corrective measure undertaken by the offices of government concerned against

defendant DUNKIN even up to the filing of complaint before the courts of law
Q.35. What action then did you undertake when no action had been taken by the
Office of the Punong Barangay of Barangay San Jose, Pagadian City?
A.

I gathered the necessary evidences needed to support my complaint

Q36.

What are these evidences?

A.

Aside from the pictures, letter, barangay resolution, formal complaint I earlier

mentioned, I was able to get a certified Xerox copy from the original of the defendant
DUNKIN business;
Q.37. When was this business permit issued?
A.

The business permit of the defendant DUNKIN was issued on January 20,

2015.
Q.38. What else then mentioned in the business permit?
A.

The said business permit will expire on December 31, 2015 and it even

mentioned the nature of business.

Q39.

Nature of business? What do you mean by that?

A.

The business permit mention that TO OPERATE THE FOLLOWINT

BUSINESS/IES PRODUCTION;
Q.40. When was then your reaction to the nature of business?
A.

The business permit contradicts the Barangay Resolution Bo, 015, Series of

2013, dated March 18, 2013, because at the start, defendant DUNKIN misled me and
the adjacent residential owners and the local government unit of Barangay San Jose,

Pagadian City, into believing that they will only construct a warehouse, when in
reality, what was really built is a production plant

Q.41. Do you wish to add something more to your testimony?

A.

I have nothing more to add sir.

Q42. Are you willing to affix your signature to attest to the truthfulness of your
allegations in this Judicial Affidavit?
A.

Yes sir, I am.

MARLON B. DAGANDAN
Affiant-Complainant
JURAT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 7th day of March

2016 at Pagadian City, Philippines, affiant having personally appeared before me and
to known to be the very same person who executed the foregoing Judicial Affidavit.

ATTESTATION
I hereby attest to the fact that I conducted and supervised the
examination of herein witness and that I have faithfully recorded or
caused to be recorded the questions I asked and the corresponding
answers that the affiant gave; and finally that I nor any other person then
present or assisting me coached the witness regarding the latter's
answers.