REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

GERALDINE M. SALIVA
Appellant, CA GR CV NO. 2557

—versus— RTC CIVIL CASE NO. 11593776

COLLEGE OF LAW, DE LA SALLE
UNIVERSITY AND LEGAL FORMS FOR: Specific Performance Case
PROFESSOR.,
Appellee.
x————————————————x

COMMENT ON THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF

Pursuant to the Notice of this Honorable Court, Appellee, Legal Forms Professor,
by counsel most respectfully submits her Comment on the Appellant’s Brief:

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. During the second semester of the school year 2017-2018, Appellee gave the
Appellant a failing mark for the course Legal Forms.
2. That the appellant failed because of her own doings, specifically not attending
class and not taking the required exams to pass the course.
3. A case for specific performance was filed by the Appellant against the
Appellee.
4. On November 25, 1994, the RTC judge ruled in favor of the private
respondent. The dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered dismissing the case, no right

accrues to the Plaintiff, for a passing grade, for she is responsible
for failing the course, LEGAL FORMS, for not taking the
examinations and not passing the requirements.
SO ORDERED.”

5. That the appellant timely appealed the said decision of Manila RTC=.
6. The timely Motion for Reconsideration was found unmeritorious, and the
same was denied. The dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the dispositive portion of the decision dated

November25, 1994, is affirmed.
 SO ORDERED.”
7. The appellant then filed this appeal with the Court of Appeals.

II. ARGUMENTS/ GROUNDS TO DENY OR DISMISS THE APPEAL

A. IT IS THE BURDEN OF THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT THE

APPELLEE FAILED THE FORMER DESPITE ATTENDING CLASS
AND TAKING THE REQUIRED EXAMINATIONS

1. In civil cases, it is upon the Plaintiff to prove her claim and case by
preponderance of the evidence.
2. The Plaintiff did not present evidence to substantiate her claim.
3. The Judicial Affidavit of the witness Ann Louis Panaga holds no water since
the witness is incompetent to testify as to the grade of the Appellants output
and exams. The statements in the Judicial Affidavit can also be struck down
on the ground of being hearsay.
4. Aside from the Judicial Affidavit, the Appellant did not present actual
documents to show that her outputs and exams are satisfactory.

B. THE COURT DID NOT COMMIT A MISTAKE IN FINDING THAT

GERALDINE M. SILVA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FAILING THE
COURSE, LEGAL FORMS FOR NOT TAKING THE EXAMINATIONS
AND NOT PASSING THE REQUIREMENTS.

1. The Appellant did not present satisfactory evidence to corroborate her claims.
2. The Court cannot find basis to uphold the claim of the Appellant, thus the
dismissal was proper.

III. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the premises considered, Appellant respectfully pray that this

Honorable Court:

1. AFFIRM the decision dated April 28, 1995 on denying the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by the appellant against the appellee.
2. Appellant be held liable for any damages or attorney’s fee, if any.

Appellee further prays for such other relief as may be just and equitable in the
premises.

Taguig City, Manila, Philippines, this 12th day of December 2018.

By Appellee’s Counsel:

ATTY. WENG SANTOS

Counsel for Appellee
Unit 1, BGC Tower
38th St., University Parkway, BGC
Taguig City, Philippines
Tel. No. (632) 1374527;
COPY FURNISHED (Personal):

GMS & ASSOCIATES LAW

OFFICE
Counsel for the Appellant
5th Flr., DOJ Agencies Bldg., NIA
Road, Corner East Avenue, Diliman
1104 Quezon City
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

GERALDINE M. SALIVA
Appellant, CA GR CV NO. 2557
—versus— RTC CIVIL CASE NO. 11593776
COLLEGE OF LAW, DE LA SALLE
UNIVERSITY AND LEGAL FORMS FOR: Specific Performance Case
PROFESSOR.,
Appellee.
x————————————————x

ORDER/NOTICE

TO: GMS & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Appellant
5th Flr., DOJ Agencies Bldg., NIA Road,
Corner East Avenue, Diliman
1104 Quezon City

GREETINGS:

Please submit your memorandum to this court within Fifteen (15) days from receipt
thereof in accordance to Rule 40 Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Failure to file the aforementioned memorandum would be a ground for the dismissal
of the appeal.

SO ORDERED.
Manila City, Metro Manila, Philippines __ December 2018.

MA. JUANITA IBASCO

Justice
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

GERALDINE M. SALIVA
Appellant, CA GR CV NO. 2557
—versus— RTC CIVIL CASE NO. 11593776
COLLEGE OF LAW, DE LA SALLE
UNIVERSITY AND LEGAL FORMS FOR: Specific Performance Case
PROFESSOR.,
Appellee.
x————————————————x

ORDER/NOTICE

TO: ATTY. WENG SANTOS

Counsel for the Appellee
5th Flr., DOJ Agencies Bldg., NIA Road,
Corner East Avenue, Diliman
1104 Quezon City

GREETINGS:

Please submit your memorandum to this court within Fifteen (15) days from receipt
of the Appellant’s Memorandum, in accordance to Rule 40 Section 7 of the Revised
Rules of Court.

SO ORDERED.
Manila City, Metro Manila, Philippines __ December 2018.

MA. JUANITA IBASCO

Justice