You are on page 1of 47

Affidavit of Complaint - Acts of Lasciviousness

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)


CITY OF MUNTINLUPA ) S.S
x----------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, Ayaw Kho, a registered nurse, 24 years old, Filipino, single and a resident
of Digos, Davao Del Sur, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
do hereby despose and state that:

1. On July 20, 2017, at about 10:00 pm, I was working and doing my reports
at Digos Doctor’s Hospital when suddenly Luod Kha hugged me with one
hand touching my “pepe” (private part);

2. I stood up and distanced myself from him. He motioned me to come near


him, so I called our supervisor named Mrs. AAA and asked for help;

3. Mrs. AAA asked me what the man did to me, got mad and scolded at
Luod Kha;

4. Mrs. AAA and I sought help from Melanie Luz Labana and Arturo Bunyi
Carceres of the VAWC Helpdesk of the barangay. In the presence of my
Mrs. AAA, Melanie Labanza, a personnel of the Barangay VAWC
Helpdesk and PI Arandia, the chief of the Women and Children’s Protection
Desk of the Digos City Police Station took my statement regarding the
incident (herein attached as Annex “A”);

5. I am therefore executing this affidavit freely and voluntarily in support of


my intent to file a case for ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS against Luod
Kha.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25th of July, 2017 in
Digos City, Davao Del Sur, Philippines.

Ayaw Kho
Complainant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME before this 25th of July, 2017 in Digos


City, Davao Del Sur, Philippines. I further certify that I have personally examined
the herein complainant and I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed and
understood his affidavit.
Atty. Juan Dela Cruz
Counsel for plaintiff
Counter-affidavit - Acts of Lasciviousness

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)


CITY OF MUNTINLUPA ) S.S
x----------------------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, Luod Kha, a registered nurse, 30 years old, Filipino, single and a resident
of Digos, Davao Del Sur, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
do hereby despose and state that:

1. That I am the person who is accused by Ayaw Kho of ACTS OF


LASCIVIOUSNESS;

2. That paragraph 1 of the complaint-affidavit of Ayaw Kho dated July 25,


2017 is denied. The truths of the matter are as follows: On July 20, 2017, at
about 10:00 pm, I and Ayaw Kho went inside BBB’s room to administer her
medicines and check her vital signs. CCC then accused them of not
administering the medicines properly and on time. I told Ayaw Kho that they
should not be told how to administer the medicines because they knew what
they were doing and that they would be accountable should anything happen
to BBB. A heated argument ensued between me and Ayaw Kho. Ayaw Kho
told to me that I was an arrogant nurse. I replied that if Ayaw Kho had any
complaint, she could report the matter to the hospital. The alleged hugging
Ayaw Kho and touching her private part is blatantly untrue and the filing of
the case was motivated by the argument she had with me.

3. That paragraph 2 and 3 is also denied. That Mrs. AAA was mad and
scolded me due to our heated argument with Ayaw Kho and not because of
fondling the latter;

4. I am therefore executing this counter-affidavit freely and voluntarily in


support of my intent to file a case for DAMAGES against Luod Kha for
unfounded allegations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26th of July, 2017 in
Digos City, Davao Del Sur, Philippines.
Luod Kha
Defendant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME before this 26th of July, 2017 in Digos


City, Davao Del Sur, Philippines. I further certify that I have personally examined
the herein complainant and I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed and
understood his affidavit.
Atty. Leonardo Santos
Counsel for plaintiff
Reply Affidavit - Acts of Lasciviousness

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)


CITY OF MUNTINLUPA ) S.S
x----------------------------------------x

REPLY-AFFIDAVIT

I, Ayaw Kho, a registered nurse, 24 years old, Filipino, single and a resident of
Digos, Davao Del Sur, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do
hereby despose and state that:

1. I hereby reiterate all the positions and arguments contained in my


Complaint-affidavit as may be considered material and relevant in this
Reply-affidavit.

2. As can be gleaned in the Counter-affidavit submitted by herein defendant,


he merely concentrated on evading his liabilities by denying his acts through
false representation.

3. Respondent wanted to prove and convince this Honorable court that the
story he had invented as shown in paragraph 2 of his Counter-affidavit will
save them all and hide their true guilt.

4. That there was no such thing as heated argument between me and Luod
Kha which he claim that this was the reason why I filed a case against him.

5. That he will concentrate on this idea believing that this is the best defense
he can use to evade his liabilities by denial of his acts through false
representation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 7th of August, 2017
in Digos City, Davao Del Sur, Philippines.

Ayaw Kho
Complainant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME before this 7th of August, 2017 in Digos


City, Davao Del Sur, Philippines. I further certify that I have personally examined
the herein complainant and I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed and
understood his affidavit.

Atty. Juan Dela Cruz


Counsel for plaintiff
Annulment-of-deed-of-sale

Republic of the Philippines


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
11th Judicial Region
Branch 8, Davao City

JUANITO TARONA,
Plaintiff Civil Case No. _____________

-versus-

ANICIA VALDEZ-TALLORIN,
Defendant For: Annulment of Tax
Declaration No. 0089

X ------------------------------------------------- X

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff by the undersigned counsel, respectfully alleges:

1. That the plaintiff, JUANITO TARONA, is of legal age, single, Filipino


citizen and a resident of #13 Bolton St., Davao City;

2. That the defendant, ANICIA VALDEZ-TALLORIN, is of legal age, single,


Filipino citizen and a resident of #95 F. Torres St., Bajada, Davao City,
where he may be served with summons and other court processes;

3. That the plaintiff alleged that unknown to them, in 1981, the Assessor’s
Office of Davao City cancelled Tax Declaration 463 in the name of their
father, Juanito Tarona (Juanito), covering 6,186 square meters of land in
Ma-a, Davao City;
4. The cancellation was said to be based on an unsigned though notarized
affidavit that Juanito allegedly executed in favor of defendant TALLORIN;

5. In place of the cancelled one, the Assessor’s Office issued Tax Declaration
0089 in the name of TALLORIN;

6. That the plaintiff further alleged that, without their fathers affidavit on file, it
followed that his tax declaration had been illegally cancelled and a new one
illegally issued in favor of TALLORIN;

7. The unexplained disappearance of the affidavit from official files,


TARONAS concluded, covered-up the falsification or forgery that caused
the substitution.

WHEREFORE it is respectfully prayed that:

a. The tax declaration no. 0089 be annulled and reinstate the tax declaration no.
463;
b. That the defendant be ordered to pay damages and attorney’s fees;

City of Davao, October 17, 2017

Atty. Jay Walker


Counsel for plaintiff
Annulment-of-tax-declaration

Republic of the Philippines


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
11th Judicial Region
Branch 8, Davao City

JUANITO TARONA,
Plaintiff Civil Case No. _____________

-versus-

ANICIA VALDEZ-TALLORIN,
Defendant For: Annulment of Tax
Declaration No. 0089

X ------------------------------------------------- X

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff by the undersigned counsel, respectfully alleges:

8. That the plaintiff, JUANITO TARONA, is of legal age, single, Filipino


citizen and a resident of #13 Bolton St., Davao City;

9. That the defendant, ANICIA VALDEZ-TALLORIN, is of legal age, single,


Filipino citizen and a resident of #95 F. Torres St., Bajada, Davao City,
where he may be served with summons and other court processes;

10. That the plaintiff alleged that unknown to them, in 1981, the Assessor’s
Office of Davao City cancelled Tax Declaration 463 in the name of their
father, Juanito Tarona (Juanito), covering 6,186 square meters of land in
Ma-a, Davao City;
11. The cancellation was said to be based on an unsigned though notarized
affidavit that Juanito allegedly executed in favor of defendant TALLORIN;

12. In place of the cancelled one, the Assessor’s Office issued Tax Declaration
0089 in the name of TALLORIN;

13. That the plaintiff further alleged that, without their fathers affidavit on file, it
followed that his tax declaration had been illegally cancelled and a new one
illegally issued in favor of TALLORIN;

14. The unexplained disappearance of the affidavit from official files,


TARONAS concluded, covered-up the falsification or forgery that caused
the substitution.

WHEREFORE it is respectfully prayed that:

c. The tax declaration no. 0089 be annulled and reinstate the tax declaration no.
463;
d. That the defendant be ordered to pay damages and attorney’s fees;

City of Davao, October 17, 2017

Atty. Jay Walker


Counsel for plaintiff
Civil-complaint-for-recovery-of-possession

Republic of the Philippines


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
11th Judicial Region
Branch 8, Davao City

Harry Potter Corporation,


Plaintiff Civil Case No. _____________

-versus-

Ron Weasley and John Doe,


Defendant For: Recovery of Possession

X ------------------------------------------------- X

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges:

1. Plaintiff is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under


Philippine laws with principal office at San Pedro St., Davao City, Philippines. For
purposes of this action, plaintiff may be served with all orders, notices and other
processes through the office address of its undersigned counsel;

2. Defendant RON WEASLY is of legal age, Filipino and may be served with
summons, orders and other processes of this Honorable Court at (his/her) last
known address at Bolton St., Davao City, Philippines;

3. Defendant JOHN DOE, whose real name and address is presently unknown
to Plaintiff, is herein joined as an alternative party defendant being the person in
whose possession or custody the mortgaged chattel subject of this action may have
been transferred or could be found considering that the subject chattel, by its
nature, is easily transferable;

4. On June 1, 2017, for value received, Defendant RON WEASLEY executed


and delivered to the Plaintiff a Promissory Note in the sum of One Hundred
Thousand (P 120, 000.00), Philippines Currency, payable in six months (6 months)
successive monthly instalments in the amount of P20, 000.00 each according to the
schedule of payment indicated in said Promissory Note, a copy of which hereto
attached as Annex "A" made an integral part hereof;

5. In order to secure the payment of the above mentioned Promissory Note and
other obligations defined in the Chattel Mortgage Contract, Defendant RON
WEASLEY executed in favor of the herein plaintiff on the same date, a Chattel
Mortgage over the motor vehicle described below, a copy of which is hereto
attached as Annex "B" and made integral part hereof:

Make: 956 ABC Motor No.: 00214789

Series: 2017 Chassis No.: 00222111

Type of Body: Plate No.: MMK 143

CR No.: 67890 MVRR No.: 0922345

6. That the above-described motor vehicle is presently in the possession of the


Defendants RON WEASLEY or the defendant JOHN DOE, or their agents,
representatives or persons acting in their behalf, and are unlawfully, maliciously
and wrongfully detaining it;

7. Defendant RON WEASLEL defaulted in complying with the terms and


conditions of the said Promissory Note and Chattel Mortgage (Annexes "A" and
"B") by failing to pay (his/her) instalments due since October 1, 2017 for this
reason, plaintiff demanded from said Defendant the payment of (his/her)
outstanding account but Defendant still failed and refused to do so. Copy of
Plaintiff's demand letter dated October 1, 2017 is hereto attached as Annex "C" and
made an integral part hereof;

8. Thus, pursuant to the provisions of the Chattel Mortgage, plaintiff initiated a


Petition for Extra-Judicial Foreclosure of Chattel Mortgage under Act 1508 with
the Office of the (City/Provincial) Sheriff of Davao City, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Annex "D" and made an integral part hereof;

9. Despite the foreclosure however, and despite notice and demand to the
Defendant RON WEASLEY to surrender the subject motor vehicle subject for
foreclosure, Defendant failed and continued to fail to surrender the same without
any legal or justifiable cause. A copy of the said demand letter dated October 1,
2017 is hereto attached as Annex "E";

10. By virtue of the unjustifiable failure and refusal of the Defendant to turn-
over the possession of the subject chattel / motor vehicle for purposes of
foreclosure, plaintiff was constrained to institute the instant action and secure the
services of the undersigned counsel for attorney's fees equivalent to eighty percent
( 80 %) percent of the total amount due and outstanding on the Promissory Note
and Chattel Mortgage, liquidated damages and expenses incurred in relation with
the manual delivery of the above-described motor vehicle, including the expenses
for the payment of the premium on the replevin bond filed in support of the prayer
for the issuance of a warrant for the seizure thereof;

11. Plaintiff is entitled to the immediate possession of the mortgaged motor


vehicle described above, which Defendants are wrongfully detaining for the
purpose of defeating plaintiff's mortgage lien thereon;

12. That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a
fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of executed or preliminary attachment,
or otherwise placed under custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such
seizure or custody;

13. That the estimated actual market value of the said motor vehicle is P 125,
000.00;

14. Plaintiff is ready, willing and able to put up a good and solvent bond of
double the actual market value of the above-described motor vehicle conditioned
on the return of the same to the Defendants if such return be adjudged, and for
payment of such sum as they may recover from the plaintiff in the instant action.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court:

a) To forthwith issue a Writ of Replevin for the immediate seizure and


recovery of possession of the afore-described chattel / motor vehicle, complete
with all its accessories and equipments, together with the Registration Certificate
thereof, with authority to break open and enter any premises where the same may
be found and to direct the manual delivery thereof to the plaintiff in accordance
with law for purposes of foreclosure, and after due hearing, to confirm the said
seizure and delivery to plaintiff;
b) Or, in the event that manual delivery of the said motor vehicle cannot be
effected, to render judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the Defendants,
ordering them to pay plaintiff jointly and severally the principal sum of P 120,
000.00, plus liquidated damages, penalties, and interests until fully paid;

c) In either case, to order Defendants to pay Plaintiff the sum of eighty percent
(80 %) percent of the total amount due as Attorney's Fees, and to reimburse
plaintiff its expenses for getting a replevin bond, litigation expenses as may be
proved during trial, and other expenses incurred in the seizure of the said motor
vehicle, and the cost of suit.

Other relief as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises are likewise
prayed for.

October 17, 2017, Davao City, Philippines,

Atty. Hermione Granger


Counsel for plaintiff
Complaint - VAWC

Republic of the Philippines


Department of Justice
CITY PROSECUTION OFFICE

Charice Ford
Complainant, Docket No: __________

-versus-

Xander Ford
Respondent. For: Violation of R.A. 9262
Violence Against Women and
Children

X ------------------------------------------------- X

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, Charice Ford, of legal age, Filipino, married to the respondent, and a resident of
#3 Notre Dame Avenue, Cotabato City, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state:

1. I am the same person who is the complainant in the instant case;

2. I know the person of XANDER, being my husband and who is currently in


active service of the ABC Company, where he may be served with office
summons, notices and processes;

3. That we were married on February 10, 2006 at Regional Trial Court – Branch 13
before the sala of Hon. Judge XYZ. The copy of marriage certificate is hereto
attached as Annex “A”;

4. That our lawful marriage, we begot two (2) children. The first child is Jake Ford
who was born on December 2, 2006 and our second child is Zyrus Ford was born
on December 3, 2009. Copies of their certificate of live birth are hereto attached
and marked as Annexes “B” and “C” respectively;

5. That in the beginning of our marriage, we lived harmoniously as husband and


wife and parents to our children until later on my husband had shown and
displayed irrational behavior not expected from a mature and responsible husband
and father to our children;

6. That while he was in the Armed Forces of the Philippines assigned at Camp
Bonifacio, Taguig City, he used to regularly go home and visit us;

7. That when he transferred his service to the PNP starting March 2011, he did not
go home regularly and did not even spare sometime to visit us, worst is he did not
even send support to us;

8. I was constrained to seek legal assistance from the Public Attorney’s Office
which immediately assisted me in preparing and sending demand letter requesting
an amount of Seven Thousand Pesos Php 7, 000 shall be directly deducted from
the net pay of my husband and the amount be sent to me in form of a check. The
copy of the said letter is hereto attached as Annex “C”;

9. That his act of continuous failure to give support since year 2011 tantamount to
economic abuse which is defined under R.A. 9262 of Violence against Women and
their Children;

10. That on August 24, 2011, I found out, to my surprise, that he is already married
with another woman in the name of Mrs. Liza Dizon, a copy of their Certificate of
Marriage is hereto attached as Annex “D”;

11. That although the respondent is legally married to the complainant and the
marriage is legally subsisting; he contracted subsequent marriage which is a
violation of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code;

12. That the acts of marrying another woman and cohabiting with several women
caused substantial and emotional distress to me and our children which are in
violation of paragraph (h) Section 5 of R.A. 9262;

13. Moreover, our continuous suffering of mental and emotional anguish, public
ridicule and humiliation upon his contracting of his subsequent marriage and denial
of financial of financial support to our children is a violation of paragraph (i)
Section 5 of R.A. 9262;

14. That because of this criminal act and gross misconduct, my husband deserves
to suffer from consequences of his act and be discharged from service which shall
serve as an exemplary act as a PNP Officer and especially as a husband and parent;

15. That I cause the preparation of this affidavit to support my complaint.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 10th of October of
2017 at Cotabato City, Philippines.

CHARICE FORD
Complainant-Affiant

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th of October 2017.

Atty. Juan Dela Cruz


City Prosecutor
Murder - Complaint

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Judicial Capital Region
Caloocan, Metro Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO. __

JEREMIAS PEREDA FOR: MURDER

Accused,

X---------------------------------------------------------X

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

The undersigned accused JEREMIAS PEREDA of the crime of MURDER,


defined and penalized under ART. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as
follows:

That on or about the 16th day of August 2017, in the city of Caloocan, Metro
Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, armed with a short firearms (sic), with intent to kill, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot KIAN DELOS SANTOS, in
muddy and dark alley near his house, at the back penetrating through the
neck which cause(d) the instant death of said victim and that he had no
chance to avoid or defend himself from the attack.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines, August 17, 2017

ATTY. JUAN DELA CRUZ


City Prosecutor

WITNESSES:
1. LEILA HONTIVEROS
20 Block 4 Mars St. Caloocan City, Metro Manila
2. FRANKLIN TRILLANES
33 Block 6 Pluto St. Caloocan City, Metro Manila

CERTIFIACTION

I hereby certify that foregoing complaint is filed pursuant to the Rules of


Criminal Procedure, the accused not having opted to avail himself of his right to
preliminary investigation and not having executed a waiver pursuant to the Revised
Penal Code. I further certify that this complaint is being filed with the prior
authority of the City Prosecutor.

Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines

ATTY. JUAN DELA CRUZ


City Prosecutor

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME before this 27th of August, 2017 in


Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines.

ATTY. JUANA CRUZ


City Prosecutor
Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch _
San Juan City Hall

ANGELINA JOLIE,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. _______

- versus- For: Declaration of


Nullity of Marriage

BRAD PITT,
Defendant
x--------------------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION

COMES NOW, the plaintiff together with the undersigned counsel to this
most honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT;

1. Petitioner is of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of 143 Argonne St., San
Juan City while respondent is likewise of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident
of 91 Tripoli St. cor. London St. Project 8, Quezon City, where he may be served
with summons, orders and other legal processes of this Honorable Court;

2. Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, having been legally married on
July 24, 2008 at Sto. Nino Parish Shrine, in Bago Bantay Quezon City, a copy of
their marriage certificate is hereto attached as Annex “A”;

3. Three (3) children were born in wedlock namely, Chelsea, aged 8 years old,
Beatrice, aged 6 years old and William, aged 4 years old. A copy of his Certificate
of Live Birth is hereto attached as Annex “B”;

4. That the parties acquired the following properties during marriage namely, a
mansion in Forbes Park, 5 cars, P 25,000,000 in the bank, an Italian Restaurant
attached as Annex “C”.

5. Petitioner and Respondent met sometime in 2007 at the Hollywood where they
were both actors;
6. The Petitioner and Respondent became romantically involved immediately after
the Karaoke night through the match making efforts of their companions. This
situation went on for several occasions.

7. Not long after, their sexual encounters resulted to the Petitioner getting
pregnant;

8. Even before their marriage, the Petitioner had observed that the Respondent
displayed eccentricity and irresponsibility to the extent that he oftentimes
would not care for her feelings. However, in the hope that the Respondent
would change once they get married, Petitioner gave in to the pressure of marrying
the Respondent despite not knowing him too well;

9. At the time of the celebration of their marriage, Respondent was suffering


from psychological incapacity and not truly cognitive of his marital
obligations. The facts and circumstances being that:

a. During their relationship before the marriage, Brad was a “party boy.”
After quitting on becoming an actor, he often went out with friends to drink
until the wee hours of the nights in various bars in San Pablo City. He would
often go out together with his friends to meet new girls.

b. Brad showed signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a husband and


a father. He preferred to spend more time with his peers on whom he
squandered his money. Petitioner thought that after they got married,
Brad will change, and become responsible in handling a married life. But
instead, during their marriage, Brad continued to have hard drinks with
female companions on the beachor in the compound of Col. Hombrebueno,
Brad’s father, if the former is not around. He drinks with female
companions at least three times a week. Their children were only attended to
and taken care of by the yayas;

c. Respondent is also an incorrigible liar. Many times during their


marriage, the Respondent lied to the Petitioner regularly almost about
everything. Sometime in 2000, the Respondent lied about getting a job as
an insurance sales agent. Numerous times, the Respondent told
the Petitioner that he was going to work, while in fact, he just went to his
parents’ house to drink and play mahjong with his friends. When the
Petitioner confronted him about the matter, Brad threw a fit and told her
that he wanted to do anything he likes with his time just like before they
got married;

10. Petitioner tried everything possible to persuade Respondent to change


for the better specially his violent personality so that they could build their
family, live together harmoniously as husband and wife, fulfill their marital
vows and discharge their reciprocal obligation to consummate the essential duties
of their union in order to establish a happy home.

11. Petitioner engaged a clinical psychologist, Dr. Strange, who conducted


a psychological evaluation on the ability of respondent to cope with the
essential obligations of marriage. After the evaluation, Respondent was
found to be psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations borne from his immaturity, which affected her sense of rational
judgment and responsibility.

12. These traits reveal her psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family
Code of the Philippines and is more appropriately labeled “Histrionic
Personality Disorder coupled with Dependent Personality Disorder”
associated with severe inadequacy that renders her psychologically
incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of a wife ;

13. That said psychological defect or illness is grave, serious and incurable;

14. Petitioner is filing this petition to declare his marriage a nullity. Respondent
showed no concern for his obligation towards his family in violation of Art. 68 of
the New Family Code which provides that husband and wife are obliged to
live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity and render mutual
help and support. Petitioner is also filing this case under Art. 36 of the same
Code as the respondent manifested apparent personality disorder and
psychological dysfunction, i.e. his lack of effective sense of rational
judgment and responsibility by being psychologically immature and failing
to perform his responsibilities as a husband;
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered declaring


the nullity of the marriage of Petitioner with the Respondent pursuant to Article 36,
and the annulment of the same marriage based on Article 45 (5) of the
Family Code of the Philippines. Other reliefs and equitable under the premises
are also prayed for.

August 16, 2017 San Pablo City, Philippines

LK LAW FIRM
Suite 204, Puso ng Baguio
Session Road, San Juan City

By:
DIAMOND SUPNET KELSCH
IBP: 994543, 2/17/13, San Juan City
PTR No. 23434, 1/16/13; San Juan City
Roll No. 34534, 4/8/12; Manila
MCLE Compliance No. IV-443456, 7/7/14; San Juan City
Telefax No. (074) 442 -3495-08653, Mobile no. 09173435235

LAUREL LIMNMAYOG
IBP: 99434543, 2/17/12, San Juan City
PTR No. 23434, 1/16/12; San Juan City
Roll No. 34534, 4/8/11; Manila
MCLE Compliance No. IV-45546, 7/7/14; San Juan City
Telefax No. (074) 442 -3495-08653, Mobile no. 09394354456

Copy Furnished:
Office of the City Prosecutor (Personal Service)
Justice Hall, San Juan City
Petition for nullity - Answer

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch _
San Juan City Hall

ANGELINA JOLIE,
Plaintiff, Civil Case No. _______

- versus- For: Declaration of


Nullity of Marriage

BRAD PITT,
Defendant
x--------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER

Defendant, BRAD PITT, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully avers the following in response to the Petition
for Declaration of Nullity.

1. Paragraph 9.a is DENIED. The truth of the matter is that Defendant went out
with his friends to drink occasionally but not often and he does this only to
unwind.

2. Paragraph 9.b is DENIED. The truth of the matter is that Defendant is not
immature or irresponsible. Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant is squandering his
money with his peers as well as having drinks with female companions were mere
stories invented by the former. Defendant also denies the lack of attention to their
children as he continually supports the latter such as attending their events at
school, birthdays and several family occasions.

3. Paragraph 9.c is DENIED. The truth of the matter is that Defendant is not an
incorrigible liar. Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant lied about getting a job as an
insurance sales agent and going to his parents’ house to drink and play mahjong
were blatant lies. These are also stories invented by the Plaintiff in order to
strengthen his petition. Defendant also denies that he threw a fit and told Plaintiff
that he wanted to do anything he likes with his time just like before they got
married.

4. Paragraph 11 is ADMITTED. Defendant admits having a consultation with Dr.


Strange and the latter found that the Defendant is suffering from Narcissistic
Personality Disorder. However the findings were insufficient to establish his
supposed psychological incapacity. The Defendant denies that Narcissistic
Personality Disorder is grave enough to prevent him from complying with the
essential marital obligations.

5. Defendant avers that he can still satisfactorily perform the essential marital
obligations provided for under Articles 68 to 73 of the Family Code as regards the
husband and wife as well as those under Articles 220, 221, and 225 of the same
Code in regard to parents and their children. The Defendant contends that he
continues to render support to his wife and children such as giving them
allowances. Thus, his illness is NOT GRAVE enough to bring about the disability
in his part to assume essential obligations of marriage.

6. Defendant also contends that Plaintiff has not proven that the alleged
Psychological Incapacity is existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage
mandated by the Supreme Court in the case of Navarro, Jr. vs. Cecilio-Navarro,
G.R. No. 162049, April 13, 2007. The Plaintiff merely stated in her petition found
in paragraph 8 that even before their marriage, the Plaintiff had observed that the
Defendant displayed eccentricity and irresponsibility to the extent that
she oftentimes would not care for her feelings. Such statement are untrue
and mere invented stories.

7. The Defendant raises by way of an affirmative defense that the petition FAILS
TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION. Hence, Defendant respectfully prays that the
petition be DISMISSED.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Petition be dismissed for failure to


state a cause of action.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

San Juan City, Philippines, August 29, 2017.

VIRTUCIO LAW OFFICE


Counsel for Respondent 14th Floor Philamlife Tower
8767 Paseo de Roxas
Paseo de Roxas, Makati City
Tel. No. 702-5930 to 02
Email: vloffice@gmail.com
By:
CHRISTOPHER JOHN VIRTUCIO
Roll No. 37489
IBP No. 457133/1-3-2014/Manila
PTR No. 32414131/1-3-2014/Manila
Petition for nullity - Judicial Affidavit Defendant

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

I, BRAD PITT, of legal age, born on December 18, 1963, married,


employed as actor at TV 5, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with
law, hereby depose and state:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

That in accordance with A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, which prescribes the use
of judicial affidavits to serve as the direct examination testimony of the witness, on
the basis of which the adverse party may conduct their cross-examination on such a
witness, I hereby execute this judicial affidavit in a question and answer format;

That conformably with section 3 (b) of the said A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, I
also state that it was Atty. Daenerys Targaryen, with office address at San Juan
City, Philippines, who conducted the examination of the undersigned affiant;

That conformably also with section 3 (c) thereof, I hereby state under the
pain of perjury that in answering the questions asked of me, as appearing herein
below, I am fully conscious that I did so under oath, and that I may face criminal
liabilities for false testimony or perjury;

AND UNDER OATH, AVERS THE FOLLOWING:

1. Q: Please state your name and other personal circumstances for the
record.

A: My name is BRAD PITT of legal age, born on December 18, 1963,


married, employed as actor at TV 5.

2. Q: Are you the same BRAD PITT, the defendant in this case?

A: Yes ma’am.

3. Q: Do you know the plaintiff in this case, ANGELINA JOLIE?

A: Yes ma’am. She was my wife.

4: Q: Are you still cohabiting with ANGELINA JOLIE?

A: No, we have been living separately.


5: Q: Do you agree with the allegations of ANGELINA JOLIE against
you?

A: No ma’am. I hereby deny Paragraph 9.a of the said petition. The


truth of the matter is that I just went out with my friends to
drink occasionally only to unwind.

I also deny Paragraph 9.b. The truth of the matter is that I am not
immature or irresponsible. Plaintiff’s allegations that I am
squandering his money with his peers as well as having drinks with
female companions were mere stories invented by the former.
I also deny the lack of attention to our children as I continually
support the latter such as attending their events at school, birthdays
and several family occasions.

Moreover, I also deny Paragraph 9.c. The truth of the matter is that
I am not an incorrigible liar. Plaintiff’s allegations that I lied about
getting a job as an insurance sales agent and going to my parents’
house to drink and play mahjong were blatant lies. These are also
stories invented by the Plaintiff in order to strengthen his petition.
I also deny that I threw a fit and told Plaintiff that I wanted to do
anything I like with my time just like before we got married.

6. Q: Have you engaged with a psychologist named Dr. Strange with


ANGELINA JOLIE?

A: Yes ma’am.

7. Q: How was your engagement with Dr. Strange?

A: It was found out that I am suffering of Narcissistic Personality


Disorder. However these findings were insufficient to establish my
supposed psychological incapacity as I can still comply with my
marital obligations.

8. Q: How can you prove that you still comply with your marital
obligations?

A: I continually support and care my wife and children such as giving


them allowances.

9. Q: Are you willing to sign this affidavit consisting of four (4) pages,
to certify that all the statements you made are true.

A: Yes ma’am.

---------END OF STATEMENT----------
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand below this 31th day of
August, 2017 at San Juan City, Philippines.

Brad Pitt
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 31th day of August, 2017


at San Juan City, Philippines. Further, I certify that I personally examined the
herein affiant that he voluntarily executed and fully understood his statements.

Atty. Peter Parker


Administering Officer

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission expires Dec. 31, 2019


IBP No. _____, 1/2/2017, San Juan City
P.T.R. No. _____, 2/2/2017, San Juan City

DOC NO. _____


PAGE NO. _____
BOOK NO. _____
SERIES 2017
ATTESTATION

I, Atty. Daenerys Targaryen, associate of TOG law office, on my oath as the


Investigator-on-Case (IOC), hereby depose and states:

That I have personally conducted the foregoing examination to the witness-


affiant Brad Pitt at our office TOG law office, San Juan City, Philippines;

That I have faithfully recorded and translated into English language the
questions asked of him/her and the corresponding answers that he/she gave in
response to the questions asked;

Neither I nor any other person/s coached this witness-affiant regarding the
answers given by her.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand below this 31th day of


August, 2017 at San Juan City, Philippines.

Atty. Daenerys Targaryen


Investigator

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 31th day of August, 2017


at San Juan City, Philippines. Further, I certify that I personally examined the
herein affiant that she voluntarily executed and fully understood his statements.

Atty. Peter Parker


Administering Officer

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission expires Dec. 31, 2019


IBP No. _____, 1/2/2017, San Juan City
P.T.R. No. _____, 2/2/2017, San Juan City

DOC NO. _____


PAGE NO. _____
BOOK NO. _____
SERIES 2017
Petition for nullity - Judicial Affidavit Petitioner

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

I, ANGELINA JOLIE, of legal age, born on June 4, 1975, married,


employed as actress at GMA 7, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with
law, hereby depose and state:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

That in accordance with A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, which prescribes the use
of judicial affidavits to serve as the direct examination testimony of the witness, on
the basis of which the adverse party may conduct their cross-examination on such a
witness, I hereby execute this judicial affidavit in a question and answer format;

That conformably with section 3 (b) of the said A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, I
also state that it was Atty. Jon Snow, with office address at San Juan City,
Philippines, who conducted the examination of the undersigned affiant;

That conformably also with section 3 (c) thereof, I hereby state under the
pain of perjury that in answering the questions asked of me, as appearing herein
below, I am fully conscious that I did so under oath, and that I may face criminal
liabilities for false testimony or perjury;

AND UNDER OATH, AVERS THE FOLLOWING:

1. Q: Please state your name and other personal circumstances for the
record.

A: My name is ANGELINA JOLIE of legal age, born on June 4,


1975, married, employed as actress at GMA 7

2. Q: Are you the same ANGELINA JOLIE, the plaintiff in this case?

A: Yes sir.

3. Q: Do you know a certain BRAD PITT?

A: Yes sir. He was the man I married on August 23, 2014.

4: Q: How did you meet with the defendant?

A: We met sometime in 2007 at the Hollywood where we are both


actors.
5: Q: Are you still cohabiting with BRAD PITT?

A: No, we have been living separately.

6. Q: Do you have a proof of your marriage with BRAD PITT?

A: Yes. I have a NSO Certified Marriage of Contract as my Exhibit


“A”.

7. Q: Did you have children with BRAD PITT?

A: Yes sir. We had three (3) children namely, Chelsea, aged 8 years
old, Beatrice, aged 6 years old and William, aged 4 years old.

8. Q: What is the reason of your separation?

A: I observed that BRAD PITT displayed eccentricity and


irresponsibility to the extent that he oftentimes
would not care for my feelings. That, at the time of
the celebration of our marriage, BRAD PITT is suffering from
psychological incapacity and not truly cognitive of his
marital obligations.

9. Q: How come you have said in your petition that BRAD PITT is
suffering from psychological incapacity?

A: During our relationship before the marriage, Brad was a “party


boy.” After quitting on becoming an actor, he often went out with
friends to drink until the wee hours of the nights in various bars
in San Pablo City. He would often go out together with his
friends to meet new girls;

Brad showed signs of "immaturity and irresponsibility" as a


husband and a father. He preferred to spend more time
with his peers on whom he squandered his
money. I thought that after we got married, Brad will change, and
become responsible in handling a married life. But instead, during
their marriage, Brad continued to have hard drinks with female
companions on the beach or in the compound of Col.
Hombrebueno, Brad’s father, if the former is not around.
He drinks with female companions at least three times a
week. Their children were only attended to and taken care of by the
yayas;

That Brad is also an incorrigible liar. Many times during our


marriage, Brad lied to me regularly almost about everything.
Sometime in 2000, the Brad lied about getting a job as an insurance
sales agent. Numerous times, the Brad told me that he was
going to work, while in fact, he just went to his parents’ house
to drink and play mahjong with his friends. When I confronted him
about the matter, Brad threw a fit and told me that he wanted to do
anything he likes with his time just like before we got married;

10. Q: Was BRAD PITT able to confer with a psychologist?

A: Yes sir. The name of the psychologist was Dr. Strange.

11. Q: What are the findings of Dr. Strange?

A: Dr. Strange conducted a psychological evaluation on the


ability of Brad to cope with the essential obligations of
marriage.

After the evaluation, Brad was found to be


psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations borne from his immaturity, which affected his
sense of rational judgment and responsibility.

12. Q : Are you willing to sign this affidavit consisting of five (5) pages,
to certify that all the statements you made are true.

A : Yes sir.

---------END OF STATEMENT----------
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand below this 30th day of
August, 2017 at San Juan City, Philippines.

ANGELINA JOLIE
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 30th day of August, 2017


at San Juan City, Philippines. Further, I certify that I personally examined the
herein affiant that he voluntarily executed and fully understood his statements.

Atty. Tony Stark


Administering Officer
NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission expires Dec. 31, 2019


IBP No. _____, 1/2/2017, San Juan City
P.T.R. No. _____, 2/2/2017, San Juan City
DOC NO. _____
PAGE NO. _____
BOOK NO. _____
SERIES 2017
ATTESTATION

I, Atty. Jon Snow, associate of GOT law office, on my oath as the


Investigator-on-Case (IOC), hereby depose and states:

That I have personally conducted the foregoing examination to the witness-


affiant Angelina Jolie at our office GOT law office, San Juan City, Philippines;

That I have faithfully recorded and translated into English language the
questions asked of him/her and the corresponding answers that he/she gave in
response to the questions asked;

Neither I nor any other person/s coached this witness-affiant regarding the
answers given by her.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand below this 30th day of


August, 2017 at San Juan City, Philippines.

Atty. Jon Snow


Investigator

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 30th day of August, 2017


at San Juan City, Philippines. Further, I certify that I personally examined the
herein affiant that she voluntarily executed and fully understood his statements.

Atty. Tony Stark


Administering Officer

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission expires Dec. 31, 2019


IBP No. _____, 1/2/2017, San Juan City
P.T.R. No. _____, 2/2/2017, San Juan City

DOC NO. _____


PAGE NO. _____
BOOK NO. _____
SERIES 2017
Replevin - Affidavit of Complaint

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch _
Manila City Hall
Taft Avenue, Manila

AVIS RENT-A-CAR (PHILIPPINES), INC., CIVIL CASE NO. ___


represented by its General Manager
SERAFIN CHRISTENSEN,
Plaintiff, FOR: DAMAGES
WITH
ATTORNEY’S FEES,
and
-versus- REPLEVIN

JOHN DOE, Defendant


x--------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the plaintiff together with the undersigned counsel to this
most honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT;

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is a domestic corporation duly organized under existing Philippine laws


with office at 311 Casal St., Quiapo, Metro Manila . The same is represented
herein by SERAFIN CHRISTENSEN, the General Manager. Said representative
is of legal age, Filipino, single and with office address as aforementioned above
where he may be served with writs and processes of this Honorable Court;

2. Defendant is likewise of legal age, American and a resident of Room 1024 of


Sofia Hotel, Manila, Philippines where they may be served with summons and
other writs and processes of this Honorable Court;

3. The parties have the legal capacity to sue and be sued;

4. That his case need not pass through the Katarungang Pambarangay as it falls
within the exception since the plaintiff is a juridical person whose office is located
at Quiapo, Manila and that as provided under the law, only natural persons shall be
parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents.
(Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules);
CAUSES OF ACTION

5. That plaintiff entered in a contract for the company with the defendant to rent a
car for a week;

6. That the car rented by the defendant is FORD ECHO MODEL 2015 with Plate
No. LOI-203;

7. That they agreed that the said car will be rented out from October 1-7, 2016;

8. That, however, the car was not returned by the defendant on the date agreed
upon;

9. That upon failure to return the car on time, the plaintiff sent a demand letter to
the defendant by the latter did not act on it nor respond. Copy of the demand letter
is hereto attached as Annex “A”;

10. That after the lapse of three (3) days, the defendant still did not return the said
car to the prejudice of the plaintiff;

11. That due to the failure of the defendant to heed to the first demand letter, the
plaintiff sent a final demand letter. Copy of the final demand letter is hereto
attached as Annex “B”;

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

12.That due to the defendant’s failure to return the rented car on time, even after
several demands, the plaintiff suffered losses and probable income had it been
returned as agreed upon. As such, plaintiff is entitled for compensation for
damages suffered by the plaintiff in the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 150, 000) as the daily rent car is Php 5,000 multiplied
by thirty (30) days from October 08, 2016, the date when it was agreed to be return
to the time this case is instituted.

13. That the actual value of the car is ONE MILLION NINETY THOUSAND
PESOS (Php 1,090, 000.00) and plaintiff is ready and willing to post a surety
redelivery bond, in the amount fixed by the court conditioned to answer for the
release of the same to the defendant if and when the return thereof will be adjudged
and for the payment of such sum as may be recovered by the defendant in the
action;
14. That due to the malicious failure of the defendant to return the rented car,
plaintiff was forced to institute the instant suit and hire the services of a lawyer to
protect its interest to whom it is obligated to pay FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 50,000.00) as acceptance fee plus THREE THOUSAND PESOS (Php 3,
000) per court appearance and other expenses relative thereto;
15. To deter others who are similarly bent, defendant should be assessed the
amount of Php 50, 000.00 representing the amount of exemplary damages;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that upon


filing, an order be issued;

1.For the seizure of the above property wherever it may be found and that the same
be delivered to the plaintiff;

2. That after due notice and hearing on the merits, defendant be ordered to pay
plaintiff the following:

a. For actual damages in the amount of Php 150, 000.00;

b. For exemplary damages Php 50, 000.00;

c. For attorney’s fees in the amount of Php 50, 000.00 plus Php 3, 000.00 per
court appearance;

d. Litigation expenses in the amount of Php 30, 000.00;

e. Cost of the suit;

Further, plaintiff pray for such other relief as the Honorable Court may deem
just and equitable under the premises.

Quiapo, Metro Manila, Philippines this 7th day of November 2016.

AVIS RENT-A-CAR (PHILIPPINES), INC.


Plaintiff

Represented by:
SERAFIN CHRISTENSEN
General Manager

Assisted by
ATTY. JUAN DE LA CRUZ
Counsel for the Plaintiff
MCLE Compliance Cert. No. V, 0001234, Jan. 30, 2015
PTR No. 1405432 / 01-06-16 / Metro Manila
IBP O.R. No. 872099 / 12-08-15 / Metro Manila
TIN No. 143-089-251 / Roll No. 41499
422, Sales Street, corner Ronquillo Street, Quiapo, Manila
Telephone/Fax No. (02)-733-4575
Cellular Phone No. 0998-123-4567
Email address: atty.juandelacruz@yahoo.com
Replevin - Answer

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch _
Manila City Hall
Taft Avenue, Manila

AVIS RENT-A-CAR (PHILIPPINES), INC., CIVIL CASE NO. ___


represented by its General Manager
SERAFIN CHRISTENSEN,
Plaintiff, FOR: DAMAGES
WITH
ATTORNEY’S FEES,
and
-versus- REPLEVIN

JOHN DOE, Defendant


x--------------------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER

COMES NOW, the defendant together with the undersigned counsel to this
most honorable court, MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT;

1. That paragraph 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 is denied. The truths of the matter are as


follows; That I am a former employee of AVIS RENT-A-CAR (PHILIPPINES)
INC., and the said company gave me an option to purchase the subject car at book
value pursuant to the company car plan and to offset the value of the car with the
proceeds of my retirement pay and stock option plan. That I sought the (1)
execution of a deed of sale over the subject car; and (2) determination and payment
of the net amount due to me as retirement benefits under the stock option plan.

I WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereby affix my signature this 10th day of November


2016 in the Manila, Philippines.

JOHN DOE
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 10th day of November 2016, in
the Manila, Philippines and I further certify that I have personally examined the
affiant and I convinced and satisfied that he voluntarily executed the foregoing
Answer and understood all the contents hereof and that they are true and correct as
to his own personal knowledge.

JET JUMBO ESPEJO


Counsel for Defendant
Replevin - Pre-trial Brief (Defendant)

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch _
Manila City Hall
Taft Avenue, Manila

AVIS RENT-A-CAR (PHILIPPINES), INC., CIVIL CASE NO. ___


represented by its General Manager
SERAFIN CHRISTENSEN,
Plaintiff, FOR: DAMAGES
WITH
ATTORNEY’S FEES,
and
-versus- REPLEVIN

JOHN DOE, Defendant


x--------------------------------------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully submits his Pre-Trial Brief, as follows:

I. STATEMENTS OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

1.1 Plantiff claims that he entered in a contract for the company with the defendant
to rent a car for a week;

1.2 That the car rented by the defendant is FORD ECHO MODEL 2015 with Plate
No. LOI-203; That they agreed that the said car will be rented out from October 1-
7, 2016;

1.3 That they agreed that the said car will be rented out from October 1-7, 2016;

1.4 That, however, the car was not returned by the defendant on the date agreed
upon;

1.5 That upon failure to return the car on time, the plaintiff sent a demand letter
to the defendant by the latter did not act on it nor respond. Copy of the demand
letter is hereto attached as Annex “A”;

1.6 That after the lapse of three (3) days, the defendant still did not return the said
car to the prejudice of the plaintiff;
1.7 That due to the failure of the defendant to heed to the first demand letter, the
plaintiff sent a final demand letter. Copy of the final demand letter is hereto
attached as Annex “B”;

1.8 That due to the defendant’s failure to return the rented car on time, even after
several demands, the plaintiff suffered losses and probable income had it been
returned as agreed upon. As such, plaintiff is entitled for compensation for
damages suffered by the plaintiff in the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 150, 000) as the daily rent car is Php 5,000 multiplied
by thirty (30) days from October 08, 2016, the date when it was agreed to be return
to the time this case is instituted.

1.9 That the actual value of the car is ONE MILLION NINETY THOUSAND
PESOS (Php 1,090, 000.00) and plaintiff is ready and willing to post a surety
redelivery bond, in the amount fixed by the court conditioned to answer for the
release of the same to the defendant if and when the return thereof will be adjudged
and for the payment of such sum as may be recovered by the defendant in the
action;

1.10 That due to the malicious failure of the defendant to return the rented car,
plaintiff was forced to institute the instant suit and hire the services of a lawyer to
protect its interest to whom it is obligated to pay FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 50,000.00) as acceptance fee plus THREE THOUSAND PESOS (Php 3, 000)
per court appearance and other expenses relative thereto;

1.11 To deter others who are similarly bent, defendant should be assessed the
amount of Php 50, 000.00 representing the amount of exemplary damages;

1.12 Defendant denied the accusations against him stating that he is a former
employee of AVIS RENT-A-CAR (PHILIPPINES) INC., and the said company
gave him an option to purchase the subject car at book value pursuant to the
company car plan and to offset the value of the car with the proceeds of his
retirement pay and stock option plan. That he sought the (1) execution of a deed of
sale over the subject car; and (2) determination and payment of the net amount due
to him as retirement benefits under the stock option plan.

II. ADMITTED FACTS

2.1 All allegations indicated in the pleadings submitted by the defendant.

III. PROPOSED ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

3.1 Whether or not there exists an option to purchase the subject car offered by the
company to the defendant.

IV. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE


4.1 Defendant intends to present one (1) or (2) witnesses to prove defendant’s
defenses set forth in the answer.

V. SPECIFIC TRIAL DATES

It is respectfully requested that the trial dates be set during the pre-trial conference
dates most convenient to this Honorable Court and to all parties.

Respectfully submitted.
August 8, 2017, Taft Avenue, Manila

JET JUMBO ESPEJO


Counsel for Defendant
MCLE Compliance Cert. No. V, 0005678, Jan. 30, 2015
PTR No. 1405431 / 01-06-16 / Metro Manila
IBP O.R. No. 872098 / 12-08-15 / Metro Manila
TIN No. 143-089-251 / Roll No. 41498
90 Malakas St, Diliman, Quezon City, 1100 Metro Manila
Telephone/Fax No. (02)-733-4576
Cellular Phone No. 0998-123-4568
Email address: attyjetjumboespejo@yahoo.com

Copy Furnished:

Regional Trial Court


Branch _
Manila City Hall
Taft Avenue, Manila

Atty. Juan Dela Cruz


Counsel for Plaintiff
Replevin - Pre-trial Brief (Plaintiff)

Republic of the Philippines


National Capital Judicial Region
Regional Trial Court
Branch _
Manila City Hall
Taft Avenue, Manila

AVIS RENT-A-CAR (PHILIPPINES), INC., CIVIL CASE NO. ___


represented by its General Manager
SERAFIN CHRISTENSEN,
Plaintiff, FOR: DAMAGES
WITH
ATTORNEY’S FEES,
and
-versus- REPLEVIN

JOHN DOE, Defendant


x--------------------------------------------------------------------x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

PLANTIFF, by counsel, respectfully submits his Pre-Trial Brief, as follows:

I. STATEMENTS OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

1.1 Plantiff claims that he entered in a contract for the company with the defendant
to rent a car for a week;

1.2 That the car rented by the defendant is FORD ECHO MODEL 2015 with Plate
No. LOI-203; That they agreed that the said car will be rented out from October 1-
7, 2016;

1.3 That they agreed that the said car will be rented out from October 1-7, 2016;

1.4 That, however, the car was not returned by the defendant on the date agreed
upon;

1.5 That upon failure to return the car on time, the plaintiff sent a demand letter
to the defendant by the latter did not act on it nor respond. Copy of the demand
letter is hereto attached as Annex “A”;

1.6 That after the lapse of three (3) days, the defendant still did not return the said
car to the prejudice of the plaintiff;
1.7 That due to the failure of the defendant to heed to the first demand letter, the
plaintiff sent a final demand letter. Copy of the final demand letter is hereto
attached as Annex “B”;

1.8 That due to the defendant’s failure to return the rented car on time, even after
several demands, the plaintiff suffered losses and probable income had it been
returned as agreed upon. As such, plaintiff is entitled for compensation for
damages suffered by the plaintiff in the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 150, 000) as the daily rent car is Php 5,000 multiplied
by thirty (30) days from October 08, 2016, the date when it was agreed to be return
to the time this case is instituted.

1.9 That the actual value of the car is ONE MILLION NINETY THOUSAND
PESOS (Php 1,090, 000.00) and plaintiff is ready and willing to post a surety
redelivery bond, in the amount fixed by the court conditioned to answer for the
release of the same to the defendant if and when the return thereof will be adjudged
and for the payment of such sum as may be recovered by the defendant in the
action;

1.10 That due to the malicious failure of the defendant to return the rented car,
plaintiff was forced to institute the instant suit and hire the services of a lawyer to
protect its interest to whom it is obligated to pay FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 50,000.00) as acceptance fee plus THREE THOUSAND PESOS (Php 3, 000)
per court appearance and other expenses relative thereto;

1.11 To deter others who are similarly bent, defendant should be assessed the
amount of Php 50, 000.00 representing the amount of exemplary damages;

1.12 Defendant denied the accusations against him stating that he is a former
employee of AVIS RENT-A-CAR (PHILIPPINES) INC., and the said company
gave him an option to purchase the subject car at book value pursuant to the
company car plan and to offset the value of the car with the proceeds of his
retirement pay and stock option plan. That he sought the (1) execution of a deed of
sale over the subject car; and (2) determination and payment of the net amount due
to him as retirement benefits under the stock option plan.

II. WILLINGNESS TO ENTER IN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

2.1 Plaintiff is open to settlement provided it is on just and reasonable grounds.

III. ADMITTED FACTS

3.1 All allegations indicated in the pleadings submitted by the plaintiff.

IV. PROPOSED ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED


4.1 Whether or not there exist a contract between the plaintiff and defendant with
regard to the rental of the car owned by the company.

4.2 Whether or not the defendant is liable for damages for not returning the said
car upon repeated demands.

V. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE

5.1 Plaintiff intends to present one (1) or (2) witnesses to prove plaintiff’s
allegations and claims set forth in the complaint.

VI. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

6.1 Demand letter (Exhibit “A”)

6.2 Final demand letter (Exhibit “B”)

VII. AVAILMENT OF MODES OF DISCOVERY

7.1 Plaintiff reserves the right to avail of the modes of discovery in addition to the
aforementioned request for stipulation.

VIII. APPLICABLE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

8.1 The plaintiff grounds its claims on the provision of the New Civil Code and
1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.

IX. SPECIFIC TRIAL DATES

It is respectfully requested that the trial dates be set during the pre-trial conference
dates most convenient to this Honorable Court and to all parties.

Respectfully submitted.
August 7, 2017, Taft Avenue, Manila

ATTY. JUAN DE LA CRUZ


Counsel for the Plaintiff
MCLE Compliance Cert. No. V, 0001234, Jan. 30, 2015
PTR No. 1405432 / 01-06-16 / Metro Manila
IBP O.R. No. 872099 / 12-08-15 / Metro Manila
TIN No. 143-089-251 / Roll No. 41499
422, Sales Street, corner Ronquillo Street, Quiapo, Manila
Telephone/Fax No. (02)-733-4575
Cellular Phone No. 0998-123-4567
Email address: atty.juandelacruz@yahoo.com
Copy Furnished:

Regional Trial Court


Branch _
Manila City Hall
Taft Avenue, Manila

Atty. JET JUMBO ESPEJO


Counsel for Defendant