ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIM

RAIZA DAWN D. DAYOT

Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE NO. 12368

-versus-

EARL AARON P. REYES

Defendant,

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

ANSWER WITH SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIM

NOW COMES the defendant in the above entitled case, and to this Honorable Court most respectfully
alleges:

1. Defendant admits the averment in paragraph 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the complaint;

2. Defendant specifically denies the allegation in paragraph 6 of the complaint, the truth being that on
November 22, 2018, Daeny Rys by accepting the instrument, engaged and assented that she will
pay it according to the tenor of her acceptance as drawee of the bills of exchange.

3. Defendant also admits the allegations in paragraph 7 of the complaint, that plaintiff repeatedly sent
demand letters to defendant in which such purpose is for the enforcement of the alleged liability of
herein defendant. BUT it is of note that herein defendant did not heed to such demand by plaintiff
since the former maintains that Daeny Rys accepted said bills of exchange thereby making the
same primarily liable and not defendant.

By way of special and affirmative defenses, defendant avers:

1. That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with, since even for the sake
of argument that the drawee, Daeny Rys, did not accept the aforesaid negotiable document, the
necessary proceedings on dishonor had not been duly taken by the plaintiff, such that a notice of
dishonor was not given to herein defendant.

2. That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff’s pleading has been extinguished since assuming
arguendo that the proper proceedings for dishonor was duly taken by the plaintiff, the obligation of
herein defendant, as the party secondarily liable, is thereby negated by the stipulation provided in
the bills of exchange which states: “sans recourse against the drawer”.

2.1. That the drawee, Daeny Rys, had freely and voluntarily accepted the same negotiable
instrument which patently carries a “negativing stipulation”, removing said secondary liability of the
drawer, the defendant.

By way of counterclaim, defendant alleges:

1. That by virtue of this unwarranted and improvident act initiated by the plaintiff, defendant was
forced to engage counsel in the sum of P25,000.00.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the complaint be dismissed and

defendant be awarded the amount of P30,000.00 by way of attorney’s fees and other costs of the suit.
 Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Manila, Philippines, May 27, 2000.

Attorney for the Defendant

_______________________
Address

P.T.R. No.______ Date & Place of Issue______

IBP O.R. No._____ Date & Place of Issue_____

(Under oath if document is denied.)

(Copy furnished with Proof of Service and Explanation)

ANSWER WITH SPECIFIC DENIAL OF DOCUMENT UNDER OATH

THAT Defendant specifically denies under oath the genuiness and due execution of the instrument a copy of
which is attached to Plaintiff’s complaint as Annex “A”, the truth being that his signature thereon is forged and that he
did not in fact sign the said instrument.

Attorney for the Defendant

_________________________
Address

P.T.R. No. ________ Date & Place of Issue________

IBP O.R> No. ______ Date & Pace of Issue________

VERIFICATION
(Or Oath of the Defendant)

______________________
Defendant

JURAT

MOTIONS

(NOTE: All motions must be addressed to the other/adverse party; it must contain a notice of hearing and
proof of service or an explanation why personal service was not resorted to.