UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BANGLADESH BANK

Plaintiff,

v.

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING

CORPORATION, MARIA SANTOS DEGUITO,
ANGELA RUTH TORRES, LORENZO V. Case No. 19-cv-983
TAN, RAUL VICTOR B. TAN, ISMAEL S. (LGS)
REYES, BRIGITTE R. CAPIÑA, NESTOR O.
PINEDA, ROMUALDO S. AGARRADO, AFFIDAVIT OF
PHILREM SERVICE CORP., SALUD SERVICE
BAUTISTA, MICHAEL BAUTISTA,
CENTURYTEX TRADING, WILLIAM SO GO,
BLOOMBERRY RESORTS AND HOTELS,
INC. D/B/A SOLAIRE RESORT & CASINO,
EASTERN HAWAII LEISURE COMPANY,
LTD. D/B/A MIDAS HOTEL & CASINO, KAM
SIN WONG A/K/A KIM WONG, WEIKANG
XU, DING ZHIZE, GAO SHUHUA, and JOHN
DOES 1-25,

Defendants.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
CITY OF MAKATI ) S.S.

SWORN AFFIDAVIT

I, PATRIO T. SEÑERES JR., of legal age, Filipino, and with

residential address at 475-a Col. Bonny Serrano Ave., corner 5th Camarilal
Street, Murphy, Quezon City, Philippines, after being sworn in accordance
with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and I am not a party or

otherwise interested in this action.

2. I am a freelance paralegal with residential address at 475-a Col.

Bonny Serrano Ave., corner 5th Camarilal Street, Murphy, Quezon City,
Philippines.

3. I attempted to personally serve the following papers in this

action, including the Summons and Complaint, to MS. SALUD R.
BAUTISTA (“Ms. Bautista”), in her personal capacity and as President of
PHILREM SERVICE CORP. (“PHILREM”) and MR. MICHAEL S.
BAUTISTA (“Mr. Bautista”), in his personal capacity and as Treasurer of
PHILREM: (i) Civil Cover Sheet; (ii) Summons; (iii) Complaint; (iv) Rule
7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement; (v) the Court’s Order of February 15,
2019 (Dkt. 49); (vi) the Individual Rules and Procedures for Civil Cases of
United States District Judge Lorna G. Schofield; (vii) the Individual
Practices in Civil Cases of United States Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang;
(viii) a Notice of Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons; and
(ix) a Waiver of the Service of Summons.
 4. Based on the General Information Sheet (“GIS”) for 2017 of
PHILREM filed at the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Ms.
Salud Bautista is the President of PHILREM and Mr. Michael Bautista is the
Treasurer of PHILREM1.

5. During the 6th Public Hearing of the Senate Blue Ribbon

Committee on the $81-M Money Laundering Case2”, the transcript stated
that the residential address of Ms. Bautista and Mr. Bautista is located at No.
392 Columbia Street, Greenhills East, Mandaluyong City, Philippines.

6. On 28 March 2019 at around six in the morning (6:00 a.m.), I

went to Santuario De San Jose church located at Buffalo Street cor. Duke
Street, East Greenhills, Mandaluyong City, Philippines (“Santuario De San
Jose”), to attend a church mass.

7. After the church mass at around seven in the morning (7:00

a.m.), I asked a security guard roaming around the vicinity of Santuario De
San Jose, for the directions going to Columbia Street.

8. The security guard asked me to state my business for asking the

directions going to Columbia Street.

9. I told the security guard that I wanted to go to Ms. Salud

Bautista and Mr. Michael Bautista’s (“Spouses Bautista”) house, to
personally give some documents.

10. The security guard then informed me that he is familiar with

Spouses Bautista’s house and said that it is the house located at No. 392 in
Columbia Street.

11. I was advised by the security guard to proceed at Gate 3

Greenhills East (“Gate 3”) so I can enter the house of Spouses Bautista
located at No. 392 Columbia Street, Greenhills East, Mandaluyong City,
Philippines.

1 A copy of PHILREM’s General Information Sheet for the year 2017 is attached
hereto as Annex “A”.
2
https://www.scribd.com/document/310084897/TRANSCRIPT-6th-Public-
Hearing-of-the-Senate-Blue-Ribbon-Committee-on-the-81-M-Money-Laundering-Case.
 12. I went to Gate 3 and spoke to two (2) security guards, SG
Maligo and SG Pablo, whom I identified through their name tags, to allow
me to pass through Gate 3 so I can go to the house of Spouses Bautista.

13. SG Maligo asked me to leave an Identification Card and

instructed me to write my name, the time I in and my purpose for visiting the
house of Spouses Bautista. The information was written on Greenhills East
Gate 3’s Visitors Pedestrian Logsheet3 (“Visitors Pedestrian Logsheet”).

14. While I was writing on the Visitors Pedestrian Logsheet, I

overheard SG Maligo talking to someone on the phone and said that
“Ma’am, Sir Patrio will give some documents for Sir”.

15. After SG Maligo’s conversation on the phone, I was instructed

by him that I am allowed to proceed to the house of Spouses Bautista. SG
Maligo told me that the house at No. 392, Columbia Street, has a green gate.

16. Upon reaching the house of Spouses Bautista located at No.

392, Columbia Street, Greenhills East, I pressed a doorbell button at the
gate.

17. Afterwards, a house attendant opened the gate and asked me to

state my business.

18. I told the house attendant that I’m looking for Ms. Salud
Bautista and Mr. Michael Bautista, and that I need to personally give some
documents to Spouses Bautista.

19. The house attendant informed me that no one by the name of

Ms. Salud Bautista and Mr. Michael Bautista, lives in that house.

20. Afterwards, I left Greenhills East.

21. On the same day on 28 March 2019, at approximately seven

four in the evening (7:04 p.m.), I was at Gate 3 of Greenhills East.

3 A copy of Greenhills East Gate 3 Visitors Pedestrian Logheet is attached hereto as

Annex “B”.
 22. The security guard at Gate 3 identified himself as SG Jade
Ongol (“SG Ongol”). SG Jade Ongol told me to login my personal details
and purpose on the Visitors Pedestrian Logsheet4.

23. Another security guard identified himself as SG Christian

Sapingan (“SG Sapingan”), asked me to state my business.

24. I told SG Sapingan that I was at Gate 3 earlier this morning at

around seven in the morning (7:00 a.m.), and went to the house located at
No. 392 Columbia Street, Greenhills East, but was not able to personally
give some documents to Spouses Bautista because the house attendant said
that no one by the names of Ms. Salud Bautista and Mr. Michael Bautista
lives at that house.

25. I further explained to SG Sapingan that earlier in the morning

on 28 March 2019, the guard stationed at Gate 3 who identified himself as
SG Maligo, allowed me to pass through Gate 3 and told me to proceed to the
house of Spouses Bautista located at No. 392, Columbia Street, and told me
that the house has a green gate.

26. SG Sapingan then called someone on the phone and spoke to a

woman and I heard him say “Ma’am, there is a messenger that would like to
serve court documents upon Mrs. Salud Bautista and Mr. Michael Bautista.

27. SG Sapingan then told me that the person on the phone said that
no one by the names of Ms. Salud Bautista and Mr. Michael Bautista, lives
at that house, and further instructed SG Sapingan to ask me what company I
am connected with.

28. I told SG Sapingan that I am not connected with any company

and I am only delivering the court documents as a freelance individual.

29. SG Sapingan explained to me that I could not proceed to No.

392, Columbia Street nor could I proceed further than Gate 3 Columbia East,
because of a strict instruction given to SG Sapingan by the person he spoke
with on the phone.

4 A copy of Greenhills East Gate 3 Visitors Pedestrian Logheet is attached hereto as

Annex “C”.
 30. I asked SG Sapingan to allow me to look at the list of phone
numbers he used when he called the person who prevented my request to
proceed to No. 392, Columbia Street.

31. SG Sapingan told me that he could not allow me to look at the

list of phone numbers of the residents because it was for the protection of the
homeowners of Greenhills East.

32. Thereafter I left Greenhills East.

33. On 29 March 2019, at approximately seven fifty three in the

evening (7:53 p.m.), I was at Gate 3 of Greenhills East, and I immediately
logged in to the Visitors Pedestian Logsheet5.

34. A guard at Gate 3 gave me a visitor’s identification card.

35. A guard who identified himself as SG JV Abuera (“SG

Abuera”), asked where I was going and to state my business.

36. I told SG Abuera that I am going to the house of Ms. Salud

Bautista and Mr. Michael Bautista at No. 392, Columbia Street, Greenhills
East, to personally serve court documents.

37. Then I saw SG Abuera making a phone call.

38. After his phone call, SG Abuera informed me that no one by the
names of Ms. Salud Bautista and Mr. Michael Bautista lives at No. 392,
Columbia Street.

39. I asked SG Abuera when Ms. Salud Bautista and Mr. Michael
Bautista lived at No. 392, Columbia Street.

40. SG Abuera responded that since 2011, no one by the names of

Ms. Salud Bautista and Mr. Michael Bautista lived at No. 392, Columbia
Street.

5 A copy of Greenhills East Gate 3 Visitors Pedestrian Logheet is attached hereto as

Annex “D”.
 41. SG Abuera later on told me that Ms. Salud Bautista and Mr.
Michael Bautista moved to Makati City.

42. The contrary statement of SG Abuera saying that Spouses

Bautista does not live at No. 392, Columbia Street and that Spouses Bautista
moved to Makati, prompted me to ask SG Abuera if I can go to the house
located at 392, Columbia Street, so I could talk to the person who is
currently living in that house.

43. SG Abuera told me that I could not go further than Gate 3,

because SG Abuera was instructed by the person he spoke with on the
phone, not to allow me to enter Greenhills East.

44. I left Gate 3 of Greenhills East but on the same evening on 29

March 2019, at approximately nine twenty in the evening (9:20 p.m.), I went
back to Gate 3. The guard at Gate 3 questioned me and said, “why did you
came back here!” That I asked his name, but he refused to answer my
question and prevented me from seeing his name tag;

45. I left a copy of the Summons and Complaint upon a guard at

Gate 3, by leaving the Summons and Complaint in front of the guard, which
I understand is permitted because there have been three (3) previous
attempts on two (2) separate dates to serve upon Ms. Salud Bautista and Mr.
Michael Bautista, and PHILREM, through Ms. Salud Bautista as
PHILREM’s President and through Mr. Michael Bautista as PHILREM’s
Treasurer.

46. In the Philippines, substituted service is available if the

defendant cannot be served within a reasonble time. Substituted service may
be effected by leaving copies at the defendant’s office or regular place of
business with some competent person in charge thereof6.

47. For substituted service of summons to be available, there must

be several attempts to personally serve the summons within a reasonable

6
See Section 7, Rule 14 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure of the Philippines.
period. Under Philippines law, it is understood that several attempts means
at least three (3) tries, preferably on at least two different dates7.

48. I made three (3) attempts to personally serve upon Ms. Salud
Bautista and Mr. Michael Bautista, in their personal capacities and as
officers of PHILREM on the following dates: 28 March 2019 at 7:00 a.m.,
28 March 2019 at 7:04 p.m., and 29 March 2019 at 7:53 p.m.

49. In Robinson v. Miralles8, G.R. No. 163584, 12 December 2006,

the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that a substituted service of Summons
upon a guard of the village, where the Defendant lives, was valid. It was
established that the Defendant gave strict instruction to the guard, to prevent
the Server, entry to the village:

“Petitioner contends that the service of summons upon the

subdivision security guard is not in compliance with Section 7,
Rule 14 since he is not related to her or staying at her residence.
Moreover, he is not duly authorized to receive summons for the
residents of the village. Hence, the substituted service of
summons is not valid and that the trial court never acquired
jurisdiction over her person.

We have ruled that the statutory requirements of substituted

service must be followed strictly, faithfully, and fully and any
substituted service other than that authorized by the Rules is
considered ineffective. However, we frown upon an overly
strict application of the Rules. It is the spirit, rather than
the letter of the procedural rules, that governs.

In his Return, Sheriff Potente declared that he was refused

entry by the security guard in Alabang Hills twice. The
latter informed him that petitioner prohibits him from
allowing anybody to proceed to her residence whenever she
is out. Obviously, it was impossible for the sheriff to effect
personal or substituted service of summons upon petitioner.

7
See the Decision of the Philippine Supreme Court in the case entitled Ma. Imelda
M. Manotoc v. Court of Appeals with G.R. 130974 promulgated on 16 August 2006.
8 G.R. No. 163584, 12 December 2006.
 xxx

Considering her strict instruction to the security guard, she

must bear its consequences. Thus, we agree with the trial
court that summons has been properly served upon petitioner
and that it has acquired jurisdiction over her.” (Emphasis
supplied)

50. In Ong v. Co9, G.R. No. 206653, 25 February 2015, the

Philippine Supreme Court stated that a substituted service must have
sufficient details of the attempts undertaken specified in the return, to justify
substituted service. The sufficient details are as follows:

a) The server should state the specific number of attempts

made to perform the personal service of summons;
b) The dates and the corresponding time the attempts were
made; and
c) The underlying reason for each unsuccessful service.

51. In the same case in Ong v. Co10, G.R. No. 206653, 25 February
2015, the Philippine Supreme Court held that the substituted service upon
the security guard of the townhouse was not valid because the server’s return
utterly lacks sufficient detail of the attempts undertaken by the process
server to personally serve the summons on petitioner:

“The server’s return utterly lacks sufficient detail of the

attempts undertaken by the process server to personally serve
the summons on petitioner. The server simply made a general
statement that summons was effected after several futile
attempts to serve the same personally. The server did not
state the specific number of attempts made to perform the
personal service of summons; the dates and the
corresponding time the attempts were made; and the
underlying reason for each unsuccessful service. He did not
explain either if there were inquiries made to locate the
petitioner, who was the defendant in the case. These

9 G.R. No. 206653, 25 February 2015.

10 Id.
 important acts to serve the summons on petitioner, though
futile, must be specified in the return to justify substituted
service.

The server’s return did not describe in detail the person who
received the summons, on behalf of petitioner. It simply stated
that the summons was received "by Mr. Roly Espinosa of
sufficient age and discretion, the Security Officer thereat." It
did not expound on the competence of the security officer to
receive the summons.

Also, aside from the server’s return, respondent failed to

indicate any portion of the records which would describe
the specific attempts to personally serve the summons.”
(Emphasis supplied)

52. Thus, I understand that I am permitted by law to leave a copy of

the Summons and Complaint upon the guard of Gate 3 of Greenhills East,
and that I have sufficiently provided details of my attempts to personally
serve Summons upon Ms. Salud Bautista and Mr. Michael Bautista, and
PHILREM, through Ms. Salud Bautista as PHILREM’s President and
through Mr. Michael Bautista as PHILREM’s Treasurer.

53. I am executing this Affidavit to attest to the truth of the

foregoing.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this

_____ day of March 2019.

PATRIO T. SENERES JR.

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ____ day of

March 2019, affiant exhibiting to me his _________________________.
Doc. No. ______;
Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2019.