You are on page 1of 3

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 1, City of Manila

MARIA TERESA A REYES,


Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. 16136524
-versus- For: Damages

JUAN B DELA CRUZ,


Defendant.

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

ANSWER

COMES NOW, the defendant JUAN B DELA CRUZ through the


undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court respectfully avers:

1. That Defendant ADMITS paragraph 1,2 and 3 of the complaint with


the additional averment that he may be served with all court processes
through the undersigned counsel;

2. That Defendant specifically DENIES the allegation in paragraph 5


and 6, having said that the subject motor vehicle of the latter had been lent to
the defendant and the subject motor vehicle was being used by the
Defendant as temporary car going to his work and never used it in bar
hopping. That defendant does not, at the moment, all the records of
payments he made to plaintiff, so that he also does not have information
sufficient to form a belief as the truth of the allegations in paragraph 5 of the
complaint and, therefore, DENY them.
3. That Defendant ADMITS the allegation in paragraph 7 and 8 of the
complaint, except the allegation that the accident was a result of drunk
driving. The Defendant challenged the result of the Drunk Driving Test,
because the Police Officer unlawfully obtained the evidenced. The machine
may even be defective and fail to operate effectively, so it may give
inaccurate results.

4. That Defendant ADMITS his obligation to pay the Plaintiff the


estimated damage of the car in paragraph 9 and 10.

5. That the defendant specifically DENIES the allegations in paragraph


11,12, 13,15,16,17 and 18. That the Defendant already pay all the estimated
damages to the plaintiff in the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Eight Thousand
Two Hundred Seven pesos and 33 centavos (Php258,207.33)

6. That the Defendant specifically DENIES the allegation in paragraph


14, that on July 18, 2015, at around 3:00pm at Guadalupe Nuevo. On July
18, 2015, it was Saturday and considering that the violence was committed
at 3 o’clock in the afternoon where usually voluminous number of person
was outside of their house, it would be impossible for the Defendant commit
the violence against the Plaintiff and if ever the Defendant commits the
violence it is impossible that no one will notice or witness it.

7. That defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form


a belief as to the veracity of the averments in paragraph 4 of the complaint;

By way of COUNTERCLAIM, it repleads by way of reference all its


material allegations in the preceding paragraphs hereof.

1) By filing the unfounded action, defendant was constrained to engage


the services of the undersigned counsel to protect its interest, thereby
incurring litigation expenses, as well as attorney’s fees in the amount
of not less than P100,000.00. It is only just that it recovers said
amount from plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that judgment be


rendered as follows:

1) On the complaint, ordering the complaint to be dismissed; and

2) On its counterclaim, ordering plaintiff to pay defendant the sum of not


less than P100,000.00 representing attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation.

City of Manila, December 4, 2018.

NAZARENE LAW OFFICE


Counsel for the Defendant
Suite 258 The Tower
Malate, Manila

By:
ISRAELITO STA. CRUZ
Roll No. 98765
IBP No, 12345/1-3-2012/Manila
PTR No. 34567/1-3-2012/Manila

Copy furnished:

JOSELITO ANGAT
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 1234 Laurel Building
Sampaloc, Manila

You might also like