Sample Pleadings

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Third Judicial Division MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT ui!uin"o Bulacan

############### CORPORATION$ Plain"i%%$ &v'rsus& CI(IL CASE NO) #####

##########################$ INC$ D'%'ndan") #&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&#

E#*lana"ion %or Non&A**'aranc' +i"h O**osi"ion and Pra,'r "o R'l'as' arnish'd A-oun" .R'/ Mani%'s"a"ion and Mo"ion da"'d Jun' 01$ 20034

COMES NO+$ Plain"i%%$ through the undersigned counsel, by way of opposition to the Manifestation and Motion unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges, that:

Explanation for Non-Appearance on the Motions Scheduled Hearing

With due respect and indulgence of this Honorable Court, herein Plaintiff failed to appear on the scheduled hearing [1] on defendant s Manifestation and Motion because receipt of which by the herein Plaintiff was on the same !ery date wherein the instant case was set for hearing" # copy of $efendant s Manifestation and Motion is hereto attached as

#nne% 5A6 showing the date of receipt thereof by the herein &awfirm"

'y way of (pposition to the aforecited Manifestation and Motion, the arguments raised are absurd and bereft with legal bases"

Arguments raised are mere rehash or the same arguments raised in all proceedings this case went thru from the MTC to the higher courts.

)he arguments raised by the defendants are *ust only repetitious of their arguments raised in the entire proceedings from Municipal )rial Court up to the +upreme Court" )he Court of #ppeals, and the +upreme Court howe!er stood with the decision of the M)C"

)o

show

defendant s

repetitious

and

rehash

arguments,

said

arguments are hereby ,uoted in !erbatim:

In the present case, defendant is not withholding possession of the subject warehouse as it had already vacated the same after the expiration of the contract of lease on July 16, 200 ! "hus, defendant alleged in its #nswer the following$ %&! 'erein defendant admits allegations mentioned in

paragraphs 6 and ( of the )omplaint with *ualification that there is no more obligation on the part of the defendant to pay rentals considering that it has already vacated the subject premises after the expiration of the )ontract of +ease,

-! #s already stated above, the defendant has already vacated the subject premises after the expiration of the )ontract of +ease and it is no longer in possession thereof, hence, allegations in paragraph . of the )omplaint is specifically denied, xxxxxxxxxx 10! )ontrary to the allegations of the plaintiff in paragraph - of its )omplaint, herein defendant is no longer in possession of the subject premises as it had already vacated the same after the expiration of the )ontract of +ease on July 16, 200 ,/ "he foregoing admissions made by the defendant in its #nswer only shows that it had already vacated the warehouse subject matter of this case as early as July 16, 200 of the contract of lease! "his 16, fact is after the expiration supported certifying by a

)ertification dated

January

200&,

that 1

defendant, had already vacated the warehouse 0nown as +ot 1# as early as July 16, 200 ! !"

$espite

this

argument,

the -egional )rial Court.MalolosCity on

+eptember /0, 0//1 adopted in toto the appealed decision, dispositi!e portion of which is hereby ,uoted:

#$efendants allegation that it has %acated the warehouse upon the expiration of the contract is selfser%ing and& in the face of the factual findings of the trial court& deser%es no pro'ati%e %alue at all. (remises considered& the appealed decision is

here') A**+,ME$ +N T-T-.

2ot contented with the abo!e -)C $ecision, defendant filed their Motion for -econsideration dated +eptember 11, 0//1 and elucidated the same arguments, to wit:

)hus, the -egional )rial Court issued an (rder dated (ctober 11, 0//1, dispositi!e of which read as follows:

#*or

resolution

is

defendants

motion

for

reconsideration of the decision dated Septem'er /!& !//0.

*inding

no

compelling

grounds

to

modif)

the

aforesaid decision& the instant motion is here') $EN+E$. This Court incorporates in this order the decision of Septem'er /!& !//0 ') wa) of further support in this denial.

#gain in attempt to re!erse the aforecited decision by the -egional )rial Court, defendant filed a Petition for -e!iew to the Court of #ppeals with the same arguments they raised in their appeal at the -egional )rial Court, to ,uote in !erbatim:

"he 2egional "rial )ourt gravely erred in affirming the decision of the 3unicipal "rial )ourt of 4uiguinto 5ulacan in the award of bac0 rentals, attorney6s fees and damages against the

defendant! 1"

)his argument raised by the defendant abo!e again sneered at by the Court of #ppeals" (n #pril 13, 0//4 the Honorable Court of #ppeals rendered a decision sustaining in its entirety both the decisions of the Municipal )rial

Court.5uiguinto 'ulacan and the -egional )rial Court.Malolos 'ulacan, dispositi!e portion of which is hereby ,uoted:

#2HE,E*-,E&

premises

considered&

the

petition

is

$+SM+SSE$ for lac3 of merit. The assailed decision dated Septem'er /!& !//0 of the ,egional Trial Court& 4ranch 55 of Malolos& 4ulacan which affirmed in toto the decision dated Ma) 55& !//0 of the Municipal Trial Court of 6uiguinto& 4ulacan is also A**+,ME$.

#gain not contented with the $ecision of the Court of #ppeals, $efendant ele!ated the instant case to the +upreme Court by way of Petition for -e!iew and propounded the same arguments, to wit:

It has always been a consistent argument of the petitioner that an action for ejectment filed by the respondent should have been dismissed outright for lac0 of valid cause of action considering that the petitioner had already vacated the subject premises even before the filing of the complaint! 0"

6inally, in a -esolution dated May /0, 0//7, the Honorable +upreme Court denied said Motion for -econsideration, dispositi!e portion of which read as follows:

#Acting on (etitioners motion for reconsideration of the resolution dated *e'ruar) /7& !//7 which denied the petition and to su'mit a %alid %erification of nonforum shopping& the Court ,esol%es to $EN8 the motion with *+NA9+T8& no compelling reason ha%ing 'een adduced to warrant supplied;. the reconsideration sought. :Emphasis

$espite the abo!e, $efendant desperately filed a +econd Motion for -econsideration to the +upreme Court and used anew the same and repetitious argument:

It is worth mentioning that this case was originally an action for 7nlawful 8etainer or anejectment suit against a person who

had already vacated the premises even before the filing of the original complaint in the 3unicipal "rial )ourt of 4uiguinto, 5ulacan,

"he record of the case shows that the original complaint was filed on 9ovember 10, 200 , however, herein petitioner had already vacated the subject premises as early as July 16, 200 or after almost four :&; months from the time petitioner vacated the premises <"

)he +upreme Court outrightly denied the abo!e said +econd Motion for -econsideration pointing out that said +econd Motion is a prohibited pleading under the -ules of Court"

Clearly, the abo!e trial and appellate courts sustained and adopted en toto the original decision of the Municipal )rial Court of 5uiguinto 'ulacan"

2ot only that, $efendant ne!er surrendered the actual possession of the leased property to the herein Plaintiff during and within the trial stage of the instant case, and instead, chose to !indicate their rights if any, thru #ppeals and Petition for -e!iew to -egional )rial Court, Court of #ppeals and the +upreme Court" 6ortunately, the Courts had spo8en and ruled in fa!or to the herein Plaintiff"

)he +upreme Court had already ruled with finality in fa!or to the herein Plaintiff" Hence, any ,uestions on the merits of the instant case had already been put to rest and $efendant should ceased to be a 9humming bird: harping the same song o!er and o!er again"

Co-*u"a"ion o% "h' "o"al clai-s 7, "h' Plain"i%% is 7as'd on "h' MTC d'cision

6or defendants clarity on how the Plaintiff arri!ed at the total amount of claims pursuant to the M)C.5uiguinto 'ulacan decision dated May 11, 0//1 and (rder of ;%ecution, dispositi!e portion of which read as follows:

#2HE,E*-,E& for all the foregoing considered& =udgment is here') rendered> a. -rdering the defendant and all persons claiming rights under it& to immediatel) %acate the warehouse& with an area of <1/ s?uare 4ulacan& meters& and to more or less& located

at 6uiguinto&

surrender

possession

thereof to the plaintiff@ '. -rdering the defendant& to pa) the plaintiff& the amount of (557&7//.// as unpaid rentals from Aul) to -cto'er& !//1@ c. -rdering the defendant& to pa) the plaintiff& such amount of rentals& which ma) 'ecome due after -cto'er& !//1& at the rate of (!B&5</.// per month& until the defendant finall) %acates the premises@ d. -rdering the defendant& to pa) the plaintiff& the amount of (55&77/.//& representing unpaid penalt) for nonpa)ment of the said rentals& from Aul) to -cto'er& !//1@ e. -rdering the defendant& to pa) the plaintiff& such amount of penalt)& at 5/C of the amount of monthl) rentals as ad=udged herein& per month& which ma) 'ecome due after -cto'er& !//1& until such rentals are full) paid@ f. -rdering the defendant& to pa) the plaintiff& the amount of (</& ///.// as attorne)s fees. S- -,$E,E$..

'ased on the foregoing decision, Plaintiff s total claims as of <une 0//3 are hereby computed as follows, to wit:

STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AGAINST SAS AS PER COURT DECISION a"= -ental 6ee from <uly 17, 0//> to (ctober 17, 0//> P117, 7//"// b"= 1/? Penalty on -ental 6ee from <uly 17, 0//> to (ctober 17, 0//> 11,77/"// c"= -ental 6ee from (ctober 17, 0//> to <une 17, 0//3 @ 7A months B Php 03,14/"// per month= 1,3A0,0//"// d"= 1/? Penalty on -ental 6ee from (ctober 17, 0//> to <une 17, 0//3 13A,00/"// e"= #ttorneyCs 6ee 4/,///"// ........................ )otal P2$ 891$:10)00 DDDDDDDDDDDDDD

'ased on the foregoing computation, the garnished amount at the 'an8 of the Philippine Esland.+indalan under $efendant s#ccount 2o" AA0> is only T+O MILLION ONE HUNDRED ONE THOUSAND FI(E HUNDRED

SI;T< PESOS .P2$=0=$9:0)004) )here was a shortage of P04F, 10/"// which amount is still sub*ect for Plaintiff s reco!ery"

+HEREFORE$ for all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court that the Manifestation be DENIED for lac8 of merit"

Plaintiff hereby further prays that 'an8 of the Philippine Esland.+indalan 'ranch be ordered to release the garnished amount of T+O MILLION ONE HUNDRED ONE THOUSAND FI(E HUNDRED SI;T< PESOS .P2$

=0=$9:0)004 to the herein Plaintiff" +uch other relief and remedies are also prayed for as are *ust and e,uitable under the premises