legal forms theodore te 2009

LEGAL FORMS 2007

ON WRITING, LEGALLY(2009 Revision)

THEODORE O. TE

Intended for Exclusive Use of the University of the Philippines College of Law

Bar Examination Candidates for 2009 in the Professional Enhancement Program-Bar Review 2009

Any other use, without permission of the author, is prohibited and all legal rights are reserved.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contentsii

On Writing, Legallyv

I. COMMON FORMS

A. Caption and Title1

B. Prayer1

C. Jurat1

D. Verification2

E. Certification against Forum Shopping2

F. Combined Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping2

G. Combined Verification, Certification against Forum Shopping, and Statement of Material Dates3

H. Request for and Notice of Hearing3

I. Proof of Personal Service3

J. Proof of service by registered mail (with Explanation for failure to serve personally)4

K. Place, date, signature, address, Roll number, IBP receipt number, PTR number4

L. Acknowledgement5

M. Notice of Appeal5

II. PLEADINGS AND OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL PROCEDURE

A. Complaint (and other initiatory pleadings)

1. Complaint for ejectment with damages6

2. Complaint for sum of money7

3. Complaint for Replevin8

4. Complaint to set period of years for lease9

B. Answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaims

1. Answer with compulsory counterclaim10

2. Answer with counterclaim and cross-claim12

C. Pre-trial Brief13

D. Motions

1. Motion to Dismiss (with Request for and Notice of Hearing)15

2. Motion for leave of court to file pleading (with explanation for service by registered mail)16

3. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings17

4. Ex parte motion to set for trial18

5. Motion for postponement19

6. Motion for extension of time20

7. Motion to declare defendant in default21

8. Motion to lift order in default22

E. Special Civil Actions

1. Certiorari (with Injunction and/or TRO), Prohibition and Mandamus

a. Certiorari23

b. Prohibition24

c. Mandamus25

2. Quo warranto, Interpleader, Quieting of Title, and Declaratory Relief

a. Complaint in Interpleader26

b. Action to Quiet (or Remove Cloud on) Title27

c. Action for Declaratory Relief28

d. Quo Warranto29

III. PLEADINGS AND OTHER LEGAL FORMS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

A. Complaint-Affidavit and Counter-Affidavit

1. Complaint-Affidavit30

2. Counter-Affidavit31

B. Information and Complaint

1. Information (with Certificate of Preliminary Investigation or Inquest)

a. Bigamy33

b. Theft34

c. Attempted Rape35

d. Frustrated Murder36

C. Motions

1. Motion to Quash Information37

2. Motion to Quash Search Warrant38

3. Motion to Suppress Evidence39

4. Motion for Bail40

D. Application for Bail41

IV. PLEADINGS AND OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS COMMON TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

A. Offer of Evidence and Opposition/Comment to Offer

1. Formal Offer of Evidence42

2. Comment/Opposition to Offer43

B. Demurrer to the Evidence

1. Criminal cases44

2. Civil cases45

C. Notice of Lis Pendens46

D. Appearance as Counsel47

E. Withdrawal as Counsel

1. Withdrawal with conformity of client48

2. Withdrawal without conformity of client48

F. Substitution of Counsel49

G. Notice of Appeal49

V. PLEADINGS AND LEGAL DOCUMENTS ON DOMESTIC CASES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

A. Petition for Habeas Corpus50

B. Petition for Adoption51

C. Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with Application for Provisional Orders52

D. Petition for Probate of Holographic Will54

VI. DEEDS, CONTRACTS AND OTHER CORPORATE LEGAL DOCUMENTS

A. Special Power of Attorney55

B. General Power of Attorney55

C. Contract of Lease56

D. Holographic Will57

E. Notarial Will57

F. Attestation Clause for a Notarial Will58

G. Acknowledgement of a Notarial Will58

H. Donation Inter Vivos59

I. Acknowledgment of Nominee Status with Assignment of Shares60

J. Secretarys Certificate61

K. Board Resolutions

1. Authority to Act61

2. Increase in number of directors and necessary amendment to the Articles of Incorporation61

L. Deed of Assignment62

M. Deed of Sale of Registered Land (unilateral)63

N. Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land (unilateral)64

O. Deed of Sale with Pacto de Retro (bilateral)65

P. Deed of Repurchase of land sold under Pacto de Retro66

Q. Deed of Sale with Mortgage67

R. Dacion en Pago (Deed of Assignment of Real Estate in payment of debt)68

S. Chattel Mortgage69

VII. APPEALS AND OTHER RESORTS TO APPELLATE COURTS IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PROCEDURE

A. Ordinary Appeals

1. in civil cases70

a. from MTC (in original jurisdiction) to RTC (in appellate jurisdiction)70

b. from RTC (in original jurisdiction) to CA70

2. in criminal cases

a. from MTC (as trial court) to RTC (in appellate jurisdiction)70

b. from RTC (as trial court) to CA70

c. from RTC (as trial court) to SC70

B. Petitions for Review

1. from RTC (as appellate court) or from quasi-judicial agencies to CA71

2. from RTC (on pure questions of law) or CA (in appellate jurisdiction) to SC71

VIII. FORMS RELEVANT TO THE WRITS OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA

A. Amparo

B. Habeas Data

ON WRITING, LEGALLYTherefore, its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. Genesis, 11:9, ESV

If brevity is the soul of wit, what now is to become of lawyers (and law students) who would nonchalantly write a 100-page document and dare call it a Brief?

The traditional notion of legal writing is that it is a competition to put together as many four to five-syllable words in a one-paragraph sentence. The language of the law mystifies and with this comes the power of the lawyer for the more obscure and obtuse the language, the greater the need for a lawyer.

History has given us many language handicaps and obstacles to clarity and precision. Throughout four or five years of law school, the law student, who eventually becomes a lawyer, is trained to think in archaic words and phraseslegalesewhich appear to have great legal significance but are actually too imprecise to help anyone understand what is going on. And to add to the Babelish situation, there are hundreds of words in a dead languageLatinthat have little relevance to the contemporary world.

There is a sea change, however, going on in legal writing. More and more, pleaders are asked to be clear and concise, precise not pedantic. Why waste five words when only three will do? But change, as always, is difficult and painful. Yet, it is an essential response to todays evolving legal profession. Indeed, when the most common means now of communicating is faster than sound SMS, with its own subculture and lingo, there must be a re-examination of the archaic and pedantic manner by which legal writing presents itself.

What this short introduction to the accompanying handbook of Pleadings, Petitions, Motions and Other Legal and Judicial Forms seeks to do is to put forth the need to write clearly and concisely, precisely but not pedantically. What this Forms book seeks to do is to assist the fledgling and seasoned legal pleader, drafter and advocate by presenting in the form they are required to appear, with words that are clear and concise, precise not pedantic.When a judges attention span is short and his reading backlog is long, the need to write concisely, clearly, precisely and not pedantically becomes absolutely urgent.

Writing concisely and not pedantically, however, does not mean that the legal writer ought to cut corners when it comes to substance as well as form; the only thing that that guarantees is a baleful stare and a rude dismissal from the judge. Not only must the writer know the arguments and the bases for his arguments, but she must also realize that these arguments need to be presented in a manner that is technically sufficient.

It is hoped that the forms presented here, with checklists of legal requirements and short annotations, will provide the impetus for demystifying legal writing and legal drafting. These forms come from actual forms used in the authors practice, some from worthy opponents and still some from traditional form books, with updates to fit the current state of the Rules.

While this handbook was produced, primarily, with bar examinees and the law intern or law student in mind, it is hoped that it might prove helpful as well when September ends and life, as a lawyer, begins in earnest.

Theodore O. Te

3rd Floor, Quezon Hall (Southwing),

University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City

I. COMMON FORMSA. Caption and Title

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Branch 1, Manila____________________,

Plaintiff,

-versus-

Civil Case No._______________

For _______________________

______________________,

Defendant.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xB. Prayer

PRAYER

WHEREFORE it is respectfully prayed, after notice and hearing, that the defendant be ordered to pay the plaintiff the amount of One Million Pesos (Php.1,000,000) for actual and compensatory damages, Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php.50,000) for moral damages, Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php.50,000) for exemplary damages, and Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php.50,000) for attorneys fees.

Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.C. Jurat

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me in the City of _______________ on this day of _________________, affiant exhibiting before me his Government Issued ID no. _______________ issued on __________________ at _____________________.

(Sgd.) N. O. TARIO

Notary Public

Until __________________

PTR No. _______________

Issued at ______________

On ___________________

Doc. No.

Page No.

Book No.

Series of 2007.

D. Verification

VERIFICATION

Republic of the Philippines)

City of _______________) s.s.

C.K. Hilfiger, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, deposes and states that:

1. He is the plaintiff in the pleading/document entitled (pleading/document being verified)2. He has caused its preparation

3. He has read it and the allegations therein are true and correct of his own knowledge or based on authentic records.

(Sgd.) C.K. HILFIGER

PLUS: Jurat

NOTE: Pleadings required to be verified

1. All pleadings under the Rules of Summary Procedure

2. Complaints for

a. Forcible entry

b. Unlawful detainer

c. Replevin

3. Complaints with application for injunction or attachment

4. Answer to complaint or counterclaim based on actionable documents

5. Petitions for

a. Certiorari

b. Prohibition

c. Mandamus

d. Habeas Corpus

e. Change of NameE. Certification against Forum Shopping

CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING


City of _______________) s.s.

C.K. Hilfiger, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law deposes and states that:

1. He is the plaintiff in the case entitled (title of the case);

2. He certifies that he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues before any other court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency;

3. To the best of his knowledge, there is no such pending action or claim;

4. If he should learn that a similar action or claim has been filed or is pending he shall report such fact within five (5) days from the discovery to this Honorable Court.

(Sgd.) C.K. HILFIGERPLUS: Jurat

F. Combined Verification and Certification against Forum ShoppingVERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, C.K. Hilfiger, of legal age, do hereby state that: I am the Chief Executive Office of Alis Di-yan Company and in such capacity, caused this Complaint to be prepared; I have read its contents and affirm that they are true and correct to the best of my own personal knowledge; I hereby certify that there is no other case commenced or pending before any court involving the same parties and the same issue and that, should I learn of such a case, I shall notify the court within five (5) days from my notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument on _____________.


PLUS: JuratG. Combined Verification, Certification against Forum Shopping, and Statement of Material Dates

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, C.K. Hilfiger, of legal age, do hereby state that: I am the Chief Executive Office of Alis Di-yan Company and in such capacity, caused this Complaint to be prepared; I have received a copy of the [Order/Resolution/Decision] of the Court on 13 April 2007; I have read its contents and affirm that they are true and correct to the best of my own personal knowledge; I hereby certify that there is no other case commenced or pending before any court involving the same parties and the same issue and that, should I learn of such a case, I shall notify the court within five (5) days from my notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument on _____________.


PLUS: JuratH. Request for and Notice of hearing

REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Metropolitan Trial Court

Quezon City, Branch 39

Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Court for its consideration and approval immediately upon receipt hereof and kindly include the same in the courts calendar for hearing on Friday, 13 April 2007 at 8:30 in the morning.

ATTICUS FINCH

1 MockingBird Street

Timog Avenue, Quezon City

Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on Friday, 13 April 2007 at 8:30 in the morning.

(Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERECounsel for Defendant

2 The Firm

Laguna Street, Quezon CityI. Proof of personal serviceCopy furnished through personal service:

Atty. Mitch McDeere

Counsel for the Defendant

2 The Firm

Laguna Street, Quezon CityJ. Proof of service by registered mail (with Explanation for failure to serve personally)

Copy furnished through registered mail:

Atty. Mitch McDeere

Counsel for the Defendant2 The Firm

Laguna Street, Quezon CityRegistry Receipt No. ________

Post Office ________________

Date _____________________EXPLANATION

The foregoing (designation of pleading, motion, etc.) and its attachment were served on Atty. Mitch McDeere by registered mail instead of personal service as counsel for petitioner only has one messenger and personal service would have resulted in the motion not being filed on time to the detriment of petitioner.

(Sgd.) ATTICUS FINCH


City of _______________) s.s.

AFFIDAVIT

I, HARPER LEE, a messenger of Atty. Atticus Finch, with office address at __________________, after being duly sworn, deposes and states:

That on ______________________, I served a copy of the following pleadings/papers by registered mail in accordance with Section 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court:

Nature of Pleading/Paper

________________________

________________________

in Case No. _________________ entitled ____________________ by depositing a copy in the post office in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to (name of party or his/her attorney) at _______________ with postage fully paid, as evidenced by Registry Receipt No. _____________________ attached and with instructions to the post master to return the mail to sender after ten (10) days if undelivered.

TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Affidavit on 13 April 2007, in the City of Manila, Philippines.

(Sgd.) HARPER LEE

Affiant

PLUS: JuratK. Place, date, signature, address, Roll number, IBP receipt number, PTR number, MCLE Compliance or Exemption Number, Contact DetailsCity of Manila, 13 April 2007.

Atty. Mitch McDeere

Counsel for the Defendant2 The Firm, Laguna Street,

Quezon City, Metro Manila

(Telephone, Fax, Email)

Roll No.

IBP OR No., date and place of issue

PTR OR No., date and place of issue

MCLE Compliance/Exemption No.

L. Acknowledgment


City of Manila

) s.s.

BEFORE ME, this 13th day of April, 2007 in the City of Manila, Philippines, personally appeared ATTICUS FINCH, with [Valid Identification Document] (Drivers License No. N25-07-007777) issued by the [official agency] (Land Transportation Office) on 10 January 2007, known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing instrument, and who acknowledged to me that the same is his free act and deed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and affixed my Notarial seal on the day, year and place written.(Sgd.) N. O. TARIO

Notary Public

Until __________________

PTR No. _______________

Issued at ______________

On ___________________

Doc. No.

Page No.

Book No.

Series of 2007NOTE: If the instrument consists of 2 or more pages, include the following after the 1st paragraph:

This instrument, consisting of ___ pages, including the page on which this acknowledgment is written, has been signed on the left margin of each and every page thereof by ___________ and his witnesses (if any), and sealed with my Notarial seal.

NOTE: If the instrument conveys 2 or more parcels of land, include the following after the 1st paragraph:

This instrument relates to the sale (or mortgage) of ___ parcels of land, and consists of ___ pages including the page on which this acknowledgment is written, each and every page of which, on the left margin, having been signed by ______________ and his witnesses (if any), and sealed with my Notarial seal.

M. Notice of AppealNOTICE OF APPEAL

Defendant, ABC, by counsel, respectfully appeals to this Honorable Court the Decision of the lower court dated 13 April 2007, a copy of which he received on 26 April 2007.

Quezon City, 2 May 2007.


2 The Firm

Laguna Street, Quezon CityII. PLEADINGS AND OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL PROCEDUREA. Complaint (and other initiatory pleadings)

1. Complaint for ejectment with damages

[1] Regional Trial Court

National Capital Judicial RegionMETROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTQuezon City, Branch 33

ALIS DI-YAN COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 2222

- versus -

For: Ejectment

YOKO NGA,

Defendant.

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

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, by counsel, respectfully states that:

[2] 1. Plaintiff is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of France with business address at 111 Ocean Drive, Tuna Compound, Quezon City; Defendant is a Filipino, of legal age, single and currently resident of 112 Ocean Drive, Tuna Compound, Quezon City, where he may be served with summons and other pertinent processes.

[3] 2. Plaintiff owns that property located at 112 Ocean Drive, Tuna Compound, Quezon City which it leased to defendant under the terms and conditions stated in the Contract of Lease dated 1 January 2005, which contract expires on 31 December 2006. A copy of the contract is attached as ANNEX A.

3. Upon expiration of the contract, plaintiff informed defendant of its intention not to renew the lease as it would use the property for its business expansion; plaintiff then asked defendant to vacate the premises. A copy of plaintiffs letter to defendant is attached as ANNEX B.

[4] 4. Despite demand duly made and received, defendant has refused to vacate the premises and continues to occupy the property without plaintiffs consent. Resort to the Barangay conciliation system proved useless as defendant refused to appear before the Lupong Tagapamayapa. A Certification to File Action is attached as ANNEX C.

5. Defendants act of dispossession has caused plaintiff to suffer material injury because plaintiffs business expansion plans could not be implemented despite the arrival of machineries specifically leased for this purpose at the rental rate of US$500 per month. Defendants continued occupation of the premises has also forced plaintiff to sue and to incur legal expenses amounting to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).

[5] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment in its favor by ordering defendant to vacate the property and peacefully turn over possession to plaintiff and for defendant to pay plaintiff the amount of US$3,500 representing rentals on the machineries for seven (7) months and Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for Attorneys fees.

Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

[6] Quezon City; 13 April 2007.

[7] (Sgd.) ATTICUS FINCH

Counsel for Plaintiff[Address]PLUS:1. [8] Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping

2. Jurat

2. Complaint for sum of money

[1] Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial RegionREGIONAL TRIAL COURTBranch 101, Makati City

ESTA PADORA,

Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 000882

- versus -

For: Sum of Money

MANGGA GANTSO,

Defendant.

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

COMPLAINT


[2] 1. Plaintiff is a Filipino, of legal age, and resident of 6750 Forbes Park, Makati City; defendant is also a Filipino, of legal age and resident of 6752, Forbes Park, Makati City, where he may be served with summons and other processes.

[3] 2. Sometime in January 2005 and over a period of six (6) months, defendant borrowed certain amounts from plaintiff. Defendant promised to pay these amounts on an installment basis monthly. These amounts now total Nine Hundred Thousand Pesos (P900,000.00).

[4] 3. Despite repeated demands, both oral and written, defendant failed or has refused to pay any amount to plaintiff as no installment payment has even been made. A copy each of plaintiffs two (2) demand letters is attached as ANNEX A and B.

4. Resort to the Barangay Conciliation process proved fruitless as defendant failed to appear, despite notice on him to appear. Thus, a Certification to File Action, a copy of which is attached as ANNEX C, was issued by the Barangay Chairman.

5. Defendants obligation is due and demandable and plaintiff is entitled to the payment of the entire amount of Nine Hundred Thousand Pesos (P900,000.00) plus legal interest.

6. By reason of defendants unreasonable failure or refusal to pay his due and demandable obligation, plaintiff was forced to engage the services of counsel to vindicate his rights thereby committing himself to pay legal expenses amounting to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).

[5] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment in his favor through a Decision directing defendant to pay him NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P900,000.00), with legal interest, as ACTUAL DAMAGES and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as Attorneys Fees.


[6] Quezon City for Makati; 13 April 2007.


Counsel for Plaintiff

[Address]

PLUS: [8] Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping3. Complaint for Replevin


National Capital Judicial RegionREGIONAL TRIAL COURTBranch 101, Makati City

HURTS RENT-A-CAR,

represented by AKIN NAYAN,

Plaintiff,


- versus -

YOKO NGA,

Defendant.

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

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully states that:

[2] 1. Plaintiff is the general manager of Hurts Rent-A-Car with offices at Makati City; defendant is a Tongan, temporarily residing at Bayview Hotel, Roxas Boulevard, Manila.

[3] 2. Hurts Rent-A-Car is the registered owner of a Honda CRV with license plate number XLV-675, which defendant, on 3 March 2005, rented from plaintiff for a period of one (1) week.

[4] 3. On 15 March 2005, plaintiff demanded from defendant the return of the car but defendant failed and refused to do so.

4. The car has not been taken for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant to law nor has it been seized on execution or attachment. Its present value is approximately Nine Hundred Thousand Pesos (P900,000.00).

5. Plaintiff is ready, willing and able to give bond in defendants name in double the value of the property for the return of the property to defendant should that be adjudged or for the payment of such sum that defendant may recover from plaintiff in this action.

[5] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that the writ of replevin issue directing the Sheriff or any other authorized officer to take possession of the car and dispose of it in accordance with the Rules of Court and, after hearing, judgment be rendered declaring plaintiff to be lawfully entitled to the possession of the car and sentencing defendant to pay its value.

[6] Quezon City for Makati City; 13 April 2007.

[7] (Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERECounsel for the Plaintiff

[Address]PLUS: [8] Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping4. Complaint to set period of years for lease


National Capital Judicial RegionREGIONAL TRIAL COURTBranch 161, Pasig City

NANG UUPA,

Plaintiff,


- versus -

NAGPA PAUPA,

Defendant.

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

COMPLAINT


[2] 1. Plaintiff and Defendant are both Filipino citizens and of legal age; plaintiff resides at 1-A, Cruz Street, Pasig City while defendant resides at 2 Frisco Street, Pasig City, where he may be served with summons.

[3] 2. On 1 January 2003, defendant leased to plaintiff the premises at 1-A Cruz Street, Pasig City for a monthly rental of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) to be paid within the first five (5) days of each month.

3. There is no fixed period for the lease agreement except that rentals are to be paid by the month.

[4] 4. Plaintiff has been paying the rentals as they fall due each month, without fail. However, on 4 April 2006, defendant gave notice to plaintiff that he is terminating the lease agreement by the end of August 2006.

5. Considering that the period of lease has not been fixed, this Honorable Court may fix a longer period of time as the lessee has been occupying the place for a period of three (3) years. A period of two (2) years is reasonable considering that the lessee has no place to transfer to immediately and that he has introduced substantial improvements to the premises amounting to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).

[5] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court fix a period of years for the lease between plaintiff and defendant.

[6] Quezon City for Pasig City; 13 April 2007.


Counsel for Plaintiff

[Address]

PLUS: [8] Verification and Certification against Forum ShoppingB. Answer with affirmative defense and counterclaim

1. Answer with compulsory counterclaim[1] Regional Trial Court


METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

Branch 33, Quezon City

ALIS DI-YAN COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 2222

- versus -

For : EjectmentYOKO NGA,

Defendant.

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

ANSWER

(With COUNTERCLAIM)

DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully states that:

Admissions/Denials

[2] 1. He admits the contents of paragraph 1 only insofar as his personal circumstances but specifically denies the contents insofar as plaintiffs personal circumstances for the reason stated in the Affirmative Defenses below.

2. He admits the contents of paragraph 2 only where it states that a Contract of Lease was entered into but specifically denies that the Contract reflects the true intent of the parties as explained in the Affirmative Defenses below.

3. He admits the contents of paragraph 3 only as to the fact that demand to vacate was made but specifically denies its contents as to the truth of the reasons for the letter for lack of knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable belief as to its truth or falseness..

4. He specifically denies the contents of paragraphs 4 to 6 for the reasons stated in the Affirmative Defenses below.

Affirmative Defenses

[4] 5. Defendant reiterates, repleads and incorporates by reference all the foregoing insofar as they are material and additionally submit that the Complaint should be dismissed because:

5.1. Plaintiff has no capacity to sue as it is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without a license.

5.2. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action as the Contract of Lease (ANNEX A) was, before its expiration, superceded by a Deed of Absolute Sale whereby plaintiff sold to defendant the parcel of land in question, a copy of which is attached as ANNEX 1.

Counterclaim

[5] 6. Defendant reiterates, repleads and incorporates by reference all the foregoing insofar as they are material and additionally submit that he is entitled to relief arising from the filing of this malicious and baseless suit, as follows:

6.1. Moral Damages amounting to One Million Pesos (PHP1,000,000/00) because his name and reputation were besmirched by this malicious and baseless suit.

6.2. Attorneys Fees amounting to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) because he was compelled to secure services of counsel to vindicate his legal rights.

[6] WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that judgment be rendered in his favor by dismissing the Complaint and granting defendants counterclaim by awarding defendant: (a) One Million Pesos as Moral Damages, and (b) Fifty Thousand as Attorneys Fees.

Other just and equitable reliefs are prayed for.

[7] Quezon City; 13 April 2007.

[8] (Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERE

Counsel for Defendant[Address][9 & 10] VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, YOKO NGA, of legal age, do hereby state that: I am the defendant in the case filed by Alis Di-yan Company for ejectment; in response, I have caused the preparation of this Answer with Counterclaim; I have read its contents and affirm that they are true and correct to the best of my own personal knowledge; I specifically deny the genuineness and due execution as well as the binding effect of the actionable documents pleaded by plaintiiff; I hereby certify that there is no other case commenced or pending before any court involving the same parties and the same issue and that, should I learn of such a case, I shall notify the court within five (5) days from my notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument on 13 April 2007.

(Sgd.) YOKO NGA

PLUS:

1. Jurat (IF any document is denied)

2. [11] Proof of Service (personal service or service by registered mail)2. Answer with counterclaim and cross-claim

See Form No. B-1, supra, but add--

[5] Crossclaim

7. Defendant reiterates, repleads and incorporates by reference all the foregoing insofar as they are material and additionally submit that he is entitled to indemnity and/or contribution from co-defendant MANGGA GANTSO in the event that he is made liable to plaintiff because co-defendant MANGGA GANTSO acted as the duly authorized agent of plaintiff in the sale of the property and, acting as such, received consideration, in the form of the purchase price, from defendant.

[6] WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that judgment be rendered in his favor by1. dismissing the Complaint, and2. granting defendants counterclaim by awarding defendanta. One Million Pesos (Php.1,000,000) as Moral Damages, andb. Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php.50,000) as Attorneys Fees.3. In the event that defendant is made liable to plaintiff on the Complaint, he further prays that co-defendant MANGGA GANTSO be made liable to indemnify defendant in the same amount under the Crossclaim.

[7] Quezon City; __________________.


Counsel for Defendant[Address]PLUS:1. [9 & 10] Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping2. Jurat (IF document is denied)3. [11] Proof of Service (personal service or service by registered mail)C. Pre-trial Brief


National Capital Judicial RegionREGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Branch 90, Quezon CityLAKISA LAYAW,

Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 97-31312

- versus -

LAKISA HIRAP,

Defendant.

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

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully submits her Pre-Trial Brief, as follows:

I. WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

AND POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY SUCH SETTLEMENT

1.1. Subject to a concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable and a reciprocal manifestation of openness from plaintiff, defendant is open to the possibility of amicably settling this dispute.

[1 & 2] 1.2. Pursuant to Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant respectfully submits that the desired terms of any amicable settlement would involve, first, a clarification of the actual extent of any obligation due and owing to plaintiff inasmuch as there is nothing to indicate defendants obligations to plaintiff and, second, a schedule of payments.

II. BRIEF STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

2.1. Plaintiff seeks principally to recover the amount of Twenty Two Million Eight Hundred Eighteen Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Eight Pesos and Thirty Centavos (PHP22,818,948.30) with interest at twelve percent (12%) arising allegedly from unpaid orders delivered to defendant variously in 1989.

2.2. Defendant resists plaintiffs claims based on a failure to state a cause of action because of :

2.2.1. Plaintiffs lack of personality to sue and, therefore, not being the real party in interest under Rule 3, section 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;

2.2.2. Extinguishment of the alleged claim made by the entity Regency Furniture.

2.3. Defendant also interposed a compulsory counterclaim for Two Million Pesos (PHP2,000,000.00) for moral damages and Two Million Pesos (PHP2,000,000.00) for exemplary damages and One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP100,000.00) as attorneys fees.

III. FACTS AND OTHER MATTERS ADMITTED BY THE PARTIES

[3] 3.1. Defendant admits only those facts stated in her Answer, i.e., her personal circumstances, receipt of the demand letter dated January 5, 1997 and her reply to the demand letter.

3.2. Subject to a concrete proposal for stipulation of additional facts from plaintiff during pre-trial or even thereafter, defendant admits no other facts stated in the Complaint.

IV. ISSUES TO BE TRIED

[4] 4.1. Defendant submits that the following issues put forward by plaintiff are subject to proof:

4.1.1. Plaintiffs personality to seek legal relief;

4.1.2. Plaintiffs entitlement to the amount claimed;

4.2. Defendant submits that the following issues she put forward are subject to proof:

4.2.1. Plaintiffs bad faith in filing this suit;

4.2.2. Defendants entitlement to the claims made in her Compulsory Counterclaim as a result of plaintiffs bad faith;

V. EVIDENCE

[6] 5.1. Defendant intends to present the following witnesses:

5.1.1. Defendant herself, who will testify on the true circumstances leading to the filing of this suit against her;

5.1.2. An employee of Topless Enterprises with personal knowledge as to the true circumstances behind the alleged obligations due and owing in favor of plaintiff.

[5] 5.2. Defendant reserves the right to present any and all documentary evidence which shall become relevant to rebut plaintiffs claims in the course of trial as well as any other witnesses whose testimony will become relevant to belie plaintiffs witnesses, if necessary.

VI. RESORT TO DISCOVERY

[7] 6.1. Considering the relatively simple issues presented, defendant does not intend to avail of discovery at this time.

6.2. Subject, however, to a concrete and reasonable request for discovery from plaintiff, defendant reserves the right to resort to discovery before trial.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Quezon City; 13 April 2007.

(Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERE

Counsel for Defendant[Address]Copy furnished:

Atty. MA BOLA

Counsel for PlaintiffD. Motions

1. Motion to dismiss (with request for and notice of hearing)

Republic of the PhilippinesNational Capital Judicial Region

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT


LAKI ASSET COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 3333

- versus -

For: Sum of MoneyDAMI UTANG CORPORATION,

Defendant.

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

MOTION TO DISMISS

DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully moves to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action as [1] THE OBLIGATION SOUGHT TO BE ENFORCED BY PLAINTIFF IS NOT YET DUE AND DEMANDABLE, as shown by the following:

[2] 1. Allegedly, plaintiff has failed to reach the quotas agreed upon under the Marketing Agreement dated 1 January 2006; defendant now seeks to collect the sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00), representing the balance of the proceeds due plaintiff under the said Marketing Agreement.

2. The contract is for one (1) year and defendant is given that same period to reach the quota specified therein; the period of one (1) year has not expired. Consequently, plaintiffs claim is premature as there is yet no breach of the Marketing Agreement until the period expires and the quota is not attained. For this reason, plaintiffs Complaint states no cause of action and must be dismissed.

[3] WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays that the Complaint be DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.




Counsel for Defendant[Address]

[4] REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OF HEARING


Metropolitan Trial Court


Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Court for its consideration and approval immediately upon receipt hereof and kindly include the same in the courts calendar for hearing on Friday, 27 April 2007 at 8:30 in the morning.

ATTICUS FINCH

1 MockingBird Street

Timog Avenue, Quezon City

Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on Friday, 27 April 2007 at 8:30 in the morning.


2 The Firm

Laguna Street, Quezon CityPLUS: [5] Proof of Service

2. Motion for leave of court to file pleading (with explanation for service by registered mail)


SUPREME COURT

Manila

LAKI UTANG,

Petitioner,

G.R. No. ________

- versus -

DAMI LUPA,

Respondent.

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

MOTION FOR LEAVE

OF COURT TO FILE REPLY WITH

MOTION TO ADMIT ATTACHED REPLY

PETITIONER, by counsel, respectfully states that:

[1] 1. Petitioner received a copy of respondents Comment to his petition on 3 January 2006. The Comment contains several allegations of fact and misinterpretations of the record that may mislead the court and need to be corrected. For this reason, petitioner intends to file a Reply.

[2] 2. Under existing rules, a Reply can no longer be filed as a matter of course. Consequently, petitioner seeks leave of this Court to file the said Reply, a copy of which, pursuant to the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, is attached to this motion.

[3] WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that he be granted leave of court to file a Reply and for the Court to admit the attached Reply.

Quezon City for Manila; 5 January 2007.

(Sgd.) ATTICUS FINCHCounsel for the Petitioner

[Address]

PLUS:

1. [4] Request for and Notice of Hearing2. [5] Explanation for service by registered mail

3. Motion for judgment on the pleadings




LAKISA LAYAW,

Plaintiff,


- versus -

For: Sum of Money

LAKISA HIRAP,

Defendant.

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

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Plaintiiff, by counsel, respectfully states that:

1. On 6 July 2005, plaintiff sued defendant for a sum of money in the amount of Nine Hundred Thousand Pesos (P900,000.00).

[1 & 2] 2. In his Answer, defendant admitted the obligation and merely stated that he was asking to be given an extension of time to pay his obligation but that plaintiff instead filed this Complaint. The Answer admits the material allegations of the Complaint and has not tendered any issue; consequently, a judgment on the pleadings may be rendered.

[3] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays a judgment on the pleadings be rendered in his favor.



Counsel for the Plaintiff

[Address]PLUS:

1. [4] Request for and Notice of Hearing

2. [5] Proof of Service4. Ex parte motion to set for pre-trial




LAKISA LAYAW,

Plaintiff,


- versus -

LAKISA HIRAP,

Defendant.

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

EX PARTE MOTION TO SET CASE FOR PRE-TRIAL


[1] 1. On 1 June 2006, defendant submitted her Answer to the Complaint, thereby causing the issues to be joined.

[2] 2. This case is, thus, ripe for pre-trial. Complying with Rule 18, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, plaintiff respectfully asks that this case be set for pre-trial.

[3] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this case be set for pre-trial on a date convenient to this Honorable Court.


(Sgd.) ATTICUS FINCHCounsel for the Plaintiff

[Address][4] REQUEST AND NOTICE


Regional Trial Court


Please submit the foregoing to the Court for its approval immediately upon receipt hereof.

Copy furnished:

MITCH MCDEERE, ESQ.

2 The Firm

Laguna Street, Quezon City

Please take notice that counsel has requested for the approval of the foregoing motion immediately upon receipt.



PLUS: [5] Proof of Service5. Motion for postponement




DILA TORY,

Plaintiff,


- versus -

PASEN SYOSO,

Defendant.

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

MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT


1. This case is set for trial on 5 May 2007 at 8:30 in the morning.

[1] 2. On said date and time, the undersigned counsel will be unable to appear before this Honorable Court as he has also been directed to appear on this date and time before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 139 for People of the Philippines v. Bil Moko, Criminal Case No. 009988, where he is scheduled to terminate cross-examination of the prosecutions expert witness who will be available only on said date and time.

[2] 3. Without impugning the importance of these proceedings, plaintiff respectfully submits that his attendance in the Makati case becomes indispensable; otherwise, the accused in said case would be deprived of the opportunity to confront and cross-examine a vital witness against her.

4. This motion is prompted only by the foregoing reason and not for delay.

[3] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that the trial scheduled on 5 May 2007 be POSTPONED to another date convenient to this Honorable Court.


(Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERECounsel for the Plaintiff

[Address]

PLUS:1. [4] Request for and Notice of Hearing

2. [5] Proof of Service6. Motion for extension of time




DILA TORY,

Plaintiff,


- versus -

PASEN SYOSO,

Defendant.

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

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME


1. He has been directed to file a Reply to defendants Answer by 10 May 2007.

[1 & 2] 2. The undersigned counsel, however, anticipates his inability to file the Reply on or before the said due date because of the tremendous pressure of other equally urgent professional work requiring the preparation of pleadings and almost daily trial appearances before the various courts within and outside Metro Manila. For this reason, the undersigned is constrained to ask for an additional fifteen (15) days from 10 May 2007, or until 25 May 2007, within which to submit plaintiffs Reply.

3. This motion is not intended for delay but is motivated only by the foregoing reason.

[3] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that he be granted an additional fifteen (15) days from 10 May 2007, or until 25 May 2007, within which to submit plaintiffs Reply.



Counsel for Plaintiff[Address]

PLUS:1. [4] Request for and Notice of Hearing

2. [5] Proof of Service7. Motion to declare defendant in default




ANAKIN SKYWALKER,

Plaintiff,


- versus -

PADME AMIDALA,

Defendant.

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

MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANT IN DEFAULT


1. Plaintiff filed this Complaint against defendant on 1 March 2007; summons were served on defendant on 20 March 2007, as indicated by the Sheriffs Return of even date, a copy of which is attached as ANNEX A.

[1 & 2] 2. Defendants reglementary period to file Answer ended on 5 April 2007; no motion for extension of such period was filed nor was any granted motu proprio by this Honorable Court. Despite the lapse of time, defendant has failed to answer the Complaint against her; plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of default and the right to present evidence ex parte against defendant.

[3] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that defendant be declared in default and that plaintiff be allowed to present evidence ex parte before the Clerk of Court acting as Commissioner.


(Sgd.) DARTH SIDIOUS

Counsel for Plaintiff[Address]PLUS:1. [4] Request for and Notice of Hearing

2. [5] Proof of Service8. Motion to lift order of default




ANAKIN SKYWALKER,

Plaintiff,


- versus -

PADME AMIDALA,

Defendant.

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

MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT

DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully states that:

1. Five (5) days after service of summons and receipt of Complaint, she filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that plaintiffs claim is outside the jurisdictional amount of this Honorable Court under the new Expanded Jurisdiction Act and that the Complaint should properly be filed and tried before the Metropolitan Trial Court. The Motion to Dismiss, which was received by plaintiffs counsel on 25 March 2007, was set for hearing on 10 April 2007, as indicated on the Request for and Notice of Hearing.

2. Without waiting for the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, this Honorable Court declared defendant in default on 7 April 2007 based solely on plaintiffs Motion, filed two (2) days after the supposed lapse of the reglementary period, which, however, was tolled by the filing of a Motion to Dismiss.

[1 & 2] 3. Under the circumstances, the order of default is premature and without legal and factual basis as: (a) defendant has not failed to file an Answer within the reglementary period, (b) the reglementary period has not lapsed because of the filing of the Motion to Dismiss within the period, and (c) the pendency of the Motion to Dismiss is prejudicial to the issue of defendants default. Consequently, the order of default should be lifted.

[3] WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays that the Order of Default against her be LIFTED and that this Honorable Court resolve her Motion to Dismiss.


(Sgd.) OBI WAN KENOBI

Counsel for Defendant[Address]PLUS:1. [4] Request for and Notice of Hearing2. [5] Proof of ServiceE. Special Civil Actions

1. Certiorari (with Injunction and/or TRO), Prohibition and Mandamus

a. Certiorari

(Caption and Title)

PETITION


[2] 1. (State capacity of petitioner and respondent/s, citizenship, status and residence.)

2. (State the date on which copy of Decision was received and/or Resolution on Motion for Reconsideration, if filed, denied.)

[3] 3. (State briefly the facts and circumstances under which the respondent/s exercising judicial functions acted without, or in excess of, jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.)

4. (State entitlement to Injunction and/or TRO, i.e., [a] petitioner has a clear, legal right, [b] which is threatened by an act or omission of respondents, [c] and that, unless restrained, will cause grave and irreparable injury to petitioner. Allege also that petitioner is ready to post a bond in an amount to be fixed by the Court conditioned upon the payment to respondents of any damages suffered arising from the writ should petitioner be found not to be entitled to the writ.)

5. There is no appeal from such decision or any plain or adequate speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law, except this petition.

6. A certified true copy (or duplicate original copy) of the Decision under review is attached as ANNEX A.

[4] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued ANNULLING the (act, decision or finding) for being in grave abuse of discretion; in the interim, that a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order issue to ENJOIN any further proceedings by respondents.

Quezon City; [1] 7 July 2007.(Sgd.) ATTICUS FINCH

Counsel for the Petitioner

[Address]PLUS: [5] Combined Verification, Certification against Forum Shopping, and Statement of Material Dates

* Rule 65, section 6, par. 2 expressly makes Rule 56, section 2 applicable to petitions for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Rule 56, section 2 provides that Rules 46, 48, 49, 51, 52 and 56 apply. Rule 46, section 3 provides that the petition must be accompanied not only by a certified true copy of the judgment or order questioned but also by such material portions of the record as are referred to therein, and other documents, relevant or pertinent thereto.

b. Prohibition

(Caption and Title)

PETITION


[2] 1. (State capacity of petitioner and respondent/s, citizenship, status and residence.)

2. (If applicable, state the date on which copy of Decision was received and/or Resolution on Motion for Reconsideration, if filed, denied.)

[3] 3. (State briefly the facts and circumstances under which the respondent/s whether exercising judicial or ministerial functions acted without, or in excess of, jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.)

4. (State entitlement to Injunction and/or TRO, i.e., [a] petitioner has a clear, legal right, [b] which is threatened by an act or omission of respondents, [c] and that, unless restrained, will cause grave and irreparable injury to petitioner. Allege also that petitioner is ready to post a bond in an amount to be fixed by the Court conditioned upon the payment to respondents of any damages suffered arising from the writ should petitioner be found not to be entitled to the writ.)

5. There is no appeal from such decision or any plain or adequate speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law, except this petition.

6. A certified true copy (or duplicate original copy) of the Decision under review is attached as ANNEX A.

[4] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that an injunction or TRO be issued directing respondent/s to desist and refrain from further proceedings in the premises, and that after due notice and hearing, a writ of prohibition issue directing respondent/s to desist absolute and perpetually from further proceedings (in the said action or matter).




c. Mandamus

(Caption and title)

PETITION


[2] 1. (State the capacity of petitioner and respondent/s and their addresses.)

[3] 2. (State the facts and circumstances whereby respondent/s unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or unlawfully excluded the petitioner from the enjoyment of a right or office to which the petitioner is entitled.)

3. Petitioner has no appeal from such decision or any plain or adequate speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law, except this petition.

[4] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that, after due notice and hearing, a writ of mandamus issue commanding respondent/s forthwith to: (state the act required to be done), with costs against them.




2. Quo warranto, Interpleader, Quieting of Title, and Declaratory Reliefa. Complaint in Interpleader

NALI LITO,

Plaintiff,

SCA No. ____________

- versus -

UMA AGAW and INA AGAWAN,

Defendants.

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

COMPLAINT


[1] 1. Plaintiff and defendants are all of legal age; plaintiff resides at ________________ while defendants reside at _______________ and _______________, respectively, where they may be served with pertinent notices.

[2] 2. On 1 June 2007, plaintiff found a Gold Rolex Oyster watch, without knowing who its true owner is. The watch is now in plaintiffs possession. On or about 5 June 1999, defendants made similar representations to plaintiff as to ownership of the watch.

3. Plaintiff, who claims no interest in the watch, cannot determine the conflicting claims of defendants and thus seeks to compel defendants to interplead and litigate their several claims between themselves.

[3] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Honorable Court issue an order directing defendants to interplead with one another to determine their respective rights and claims and to allow plaintiff to recover his expenses for safekeeping and the costs of this suit, as first lien upon the subject matter of this action.

[4] Quezon City; 7 July 2007.


Counsel for Plaintiff[Address]PLUS: [6] Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping

b. Action to Quiet (or Remove Cloud on) Title

IN RE: QUIETING OF TITLE OVER THE

PROPERTY COVERED BY TCT NO. 12345

SCA No. 1357

NALI LITO, as Special Administrator of the

Estate of the deceased DAMI LUPA,

Petitioner,

UMA AGAW,

Respondent.

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

PETITION


[1] 1. He is the special administrator of the estate of the deceased DAMI LUPA.

[2] 2. The deceased, during his lifetime, executed a Deed of Sale of real estate in favor of the respondent dated _____________, and particularly described, as follows:

(Describe property)

covered by TCT No. 12345 in the Register of Deeds of Makati. The same is annotated on the title as the only encumbrance thereon.

3. The sale is fictitious and the Deed of Sale is forged, as shown by a judgment in Civil Case No. 2468, a copy of which is attached.

4. The existence of the alleged Deed of Sale is prejudicial and injurious to the title of the lawful heirs of the deceased upon the said property. Equity demands that the said Deed of Sale be surrendered and cancelled, as it is a cloud upon the title of the deceased and his lawful heirs.

[3] WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that this Honorable Court render judgment in the Estates favor by ordering the Deed of Sale surrendered and cancelled and the cloud on Title No. 12345 removed.



Counsel for Petitioner[Address]PLUS: [6] Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping

c. Action for Declaratory Relief

INA API,

Plaintiff,

- versus -

Civil Case No. 2468

THE CITY COUNCIL

OF QUEZON CITY,

Defendant.

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

COMPLAINT


[1] 1. Plaintiff is a Filipino citizen of legal age and resident of Quezon City; defendant is the City Council of Quezon City, the duly-constituted legislative body for Quezon City, its members may be served with notices at Quezon City Hall.

[2] 2. On 1 August 1999, defendant City Council passed Ordinance No. 2345 making it unlawful to operate cellular phone units while inside a moving vehicle and penalizing any violations with a fine of P1,000.00 for each offense in addition to impounding of the cellular phone unit. The relevant portions of the Ordinance are, as follows:

(Quote the relevant portions)

3. The above-quoted portion is ambiguous because it leaves unfettered discretion to the authorities to stop even urgent and important calls which may be made only while the person is in transit. It fails to consider that, due to the worsening traffic conditions in Metro Manila, majority of business is conducted in transit and over cellular phones. Plaintiff is a lawyer who frequently has to dictate important pleadings over the phone while in transit due to the worsening traffic condition. The Ordinance appears to bar his doing so but plaintiff is unaware of the limits of permissible action under the Ordinance.

4. Unless declaratory relief is granted, plaintiff will suffer grave and irreparable injury because he is unsure of the instances when he may lawfully use his cellular phone while in a moving vehicle and when such use may lead to confiscation and a fine.

[3] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court grant declaratory relief and declare plaintiffs rights and duties under the Ordinance.



Counsel for Plaintiff[Address]PLUS: [6] Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping

d. Quo Warranto

(Caption and title)

COMPLAINT


[1] 1. (State the capacity and address of both plaintiff and defendant.)

[2] 2. (State fully and clearly the facts and circumstances showing that defendant is unlawfully occupying a public office and that plaintiff is entitled to hold the same office.)

3. (State that plaintiff has demanded that defendant vacate said office and deliver it to plaintiff but that defendant has unlawfully refused to do so.)

[3] WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that a writ of quo warranto issue ousting and excluding defendant from occupying the office of ____________ and declare that plaintiff is entitled to the said office and that he be placed forthwith in possession thereof.

[4] Quezon City; 7 July 2007.[5] (Sgd.) ATTICUS FINCH


[Address]PLUS: [6] Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping

III. PLEADINGS AND OTHER LEGAL FORMS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

A. Complaint-Affidavit and Counter-Affidavit

1. Complaint-Affidavit


City of Makati

) s.s.

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

[1] I, MA SELAN, of legal age, Filipino, with assistance of counsel, and [2] resident of 4 Privet Drive, Triple X Village, Makati, do hereby state under oath that:

1. I am a member of the Triple X Village Homeowners Association (Association) and was formerly a Director and Corporate Secretary of the Association.

[3] 2. I accuse and hereby charge MR. MA INGAY, residing at 5 Privet Drive, Triple X Village, Makati, of violating Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code (Slander and Oral Defamation), committed against me when he publicly, maliciously and deliberately uttered defamatory remarks against me during the Board Meeting of the Association on 27 January 2007. This is attested to by the following exchange that transpired between Mr. Ingay and the other members of the Board in attendance:

(Quote Exchange)

Attached as ANNEX A is a copy of the official transcript of the meeting.

3. Prior resort to the Barangay conciliation system proved fruitless as Mr. Ingay did not retract his remarks. Consequently, a Certification to File Action was issued by the Barangay Chairperson, a copy of which is attached as ANNEX B.

4. There is no other person named Ma Selan residing at Triple X Village nor is there any other person named Ma Selan who has acted as Board Member of the Association. Consequently, Mr. Ingays public and defamatory utterance was clearly a reference to me and to no other.

5. Mr. Ma Ingays remarks, calling me a swindler twice over, uttered in a public meeting are clearly insulting and defamatory as they malign me and attribute to me a criminal act, nature and predisposition. There is, moreover, no doubt that Mr. Ingays use of the word swindled was deliberate as his explanation and clarification a few utterances thereafter would show. Mr. Ingays remarks are also very serious as they cast aspersions on my reputation, character and very person before my peers and fellow homeowners.

6. Mr. Ingays remarks have injured my name, reputation and character before my neighbors and peers. While my name, reputation and character are incapable of pecuniary estimation as these are the result of a lifetimes effort to build a name, reputation and character that my children and their children can be proud to bear, Mr. Ingay cannot be allowed to simply go scot-free without bearing the consequences of his acts. For this reason, I am also holding Mr. Ma Ingay liable civilly for defaming me in the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) in nominal damages, Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) in moral damages and Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) in exemplary damages.

TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Complaint-Affidavit on 13 April 2007.

[4] (Sgd.) MA SELANComplainant-Affiant

[5] SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 13th day of April 2007.

(Sgd.) Investigating Prosecutor

[6] CERTIFICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY EXAMINED THE AFFIANT AND AM SATISFIED THAT HE VOLUNTARILY EXECUTED AND UNDERSTOOD HIS AFFIDAVIT.

(Sgd.) Investigating Prosecutor2. Counter-Affidavit


City of Makati

) s.s.

COUNTER-AFFIDAVITRe: I.S. No. 1613

[1] I, MA LABO, of legal age, with assistance of counsel, do hereby state under oath that:

1. I am the Chief of Staff of the Mayor of Quezon City, and have been occupying said post since his election to the post in 1998. In said capacity, I am in charge of coordinating the day-to-day affairs and activities of his Office.

[2] 2. I recently learned that I have been made a respondent in I.S. No. 1613, a charge for estafa, filed by a certain MA GULANG on 19 January 2007 before the Office of the City Prosecutor for Quezon City.

3. The charge is based on a supposedly unpaid account for the purchase of seven (7) Nextel phone units by a Mr. MANGGA GANTSO of the Quezon City Rescue and Environmental Distress Unit, which made the Mayor their Honorary Chairman with no direct functions; he has been supporting their activities financially with voluntary contributions.

[3] 4. There is no truth to the allegations in MA GULANGs complaint. There is no factual nor legal basis to charge me with estafa. The Complaint must be dismissed. To rebut and contradict MA GULANGs malicious lies, I set forth the true circumstances leading to the transaction below:

4.1. Sometime last year, Ms. Gulang called the office of the Mayor, looking for him; I informed her that he was not around. I took a message from her saying that she was a friend of the Mayor and that she was selling Nextel units and if we wanted to buy units from her. I informed her that both the Mayor and I had our units already; she then told me if the Mayor could refer her to prospective clients. When the Mayor arrived, I relayed the message to him.

4.2. Quite coincidentally, Mr. Gantso had called the Mayor asking if he could assist in securing Nextel units. The Mayor asked me to call Ms. Gulang. Mr. Gantso and Ms. Gulang were able to meet, as a result.

4.3. On that day, Ms. Gulang brought the units to the Mayors Office; she met with Mr. Gantso inside the Mayors office. They transacted business inside the Mayors Office and only passed by my office on their way out.

4.4. Some time after that, Ms. Gulang phoned me and told me that Mr. Gantso had not paid her the amount of P11,000.00 for the units. Somewhat embarrassed by this, I called Mr. Gantso and told him to pay Ms. Gulang; he assured me that he would pay her but that he just needed to collect money from the rest of the group.

4.5. After persistent calls from Ms. Gulang telling me that Mr. Gantso had not yet paid, I gave her the telephone number of Gantso so that she could just call him directly. But even then, I would still get calls from Ms. Gulang; and when she started to get angry over the telephone, I set up an appointment for Mr. Gantso to meet with her at the Office.

4.6. Thereafter, I would still receive phone calls telling me that Mr. Gantso had yet to pay; I would follow up with Mr. Gantso but he simply gave me this promise that he would pay.

5. It is utterly inexplicable that Ms. Gulang would hold me liable for estafa when all that I did was to refer Ms. Gulang to Mr. Gantso; to a certain extent, I even exerted my best efforts to see that Ms. Gulang was paid due simply to my great embarrassment at the prospect of being accused of referring a person who does not know how to pay for an obligation.

6. For this reason, it is certainly incomprehensible that I should stand accused of estafa by Ms. Gulang. I performed no act of deceit or fraud against her in ordering the units. I performed NO ACT that even remotely resembles ANY of the acts punished under Article 315. If at all, any cause of action is PURELY CIVIL in nature and that liability does not pertain to my personal account in the absence of a showing that I benefited from the Nextel units (which Ms. Gulang does not even allege and cannot prove); any civil liability should pertain to the Office of the Mayor, not to me.

7. Considering the foregoing, I respectfully submit that there is no prima facie basis to conclude that the crime of Estafa or that any crime at all has been committed. The Complaint against me should, thus, be dismissed.

TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Statement on 3 February 2007.

[4] (Sgd.) MA LABOAffiantPLUS:

1. [5] Verification2. [6] CertificationB. Information and Complaint

1. Information (with Certificate of Preliminary Investigation or Inquest)

a. Bigamy

(Caption)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

Criminal Case No. 00567

- versus -

For: Bigamy

PI KUTIN,

Accused.

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

INFORMATION

The Undersigned accuses PI KUTIN of the crime of Bigamy, committed as follows:

That on or about 3 July 2006, in the City of Quezon and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, being then legally married to BIL MOKO, and without such marriage having been legally dissolved and thus valid and existing, did wilfully, unlawfully and felicitously contract a second marriage with ASA WA in the City of Quezon.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

ELLIOT NESS

Assistant City Prosecutor

CERTIFICATE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

I hereby certify that a preliminary investigation in this case was conducted by me in accordance with law; that I examined the Complainant and her witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that the offense charged had been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the Complaint and of the evidence submitted against him and was given the opportunity to submit controverting evidence; and that the filing of this Information is with the prior authority and approval of the City Prosecutor.

ELLIOT NESSAssistant City Prosecutor

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 9th day of August 2006 in Quezon City.

AL CAPONE

City Prosecutor

Bail Recommended: P10,000.00b. Theft

(Caption)


Plaintiff,


- versus -

For: Theft

KLEPTO MANIAC,

Accused.

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

INFORMATION

The Undersigned accuses KLEPTO MANIAC of the crime of Theft, committed as follows:

That on or about 3 July 2006, in the City of Quezon and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, then 11 years old and without any known address, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to gain, without force upon things or violence upon persons and without the knowledge and consent of MA ALAHAS, the owner, took a gold necklace studded with diamonds valued at One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) to the prejudice of said owner.

CONTRARY TO LAW.ELLIOT NESS


CERTIFICATION AS TO CONDUCT OF INQUEST

I hereby certify that the accused was lawfully arrested without a warrant and that, upon being informed of his rights, refused to waive the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code and, for this reason, an Inquest was conducted; that based on the complaint and the evidence presented before me without any countervailing evidence submitted by the accused, despite opportunity to do so, there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the crime of theft and should, thus, be held for said crime; that this Information was with the prior authority of the City Prosecutor.

ELLIOT NESS


SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 9th of August 2006 in Quezon City.

AL CAPONE

City Prosecutorc. Attempted Rape

(Caption)


Plaintiff,


- versus -

For: Attempted Rape

MAEL SIA,

Accused.

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

INFORMATION

The undersigned accuses MAEL SIA of attempted rape committed as follows:

That on or about 6 June 2005, in Quezon City, the accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter the house of SEK SEE, a married woman, and finding that her husband was away, with lewd designs and by means of force and intimidation, commenced directly by overt acts to commit the crime of attempted rape upon her person, to wit: while SEK SEE was cooking lunch, the accused seized her from behind, threw her to the floor, raised her skirt, pulled down her underwear and attempted to penetrate her with his sexual organ and would have succeeded in doing so had not her loud protests and vigorous resistance brought her neighbors to her assistance, causing the accused to flee from the premises without completing all the acts of execution.

CONTRARY TO LAW with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.

ELLIOT NESS


PLUS: Certification of Preliminary Investigation or Inquestd. Frustrated Murder

(Caption)


Plaintiff,


- versus -

For: Frustrated Murder

MAMA MATAY,

Accused.

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

INFORMATION

The undersigned accuses MAMA MATAY of frustrated murder committed as follows:

That on or about 21 August 2006, in Quezon City, the accused did then and there take a loaded .44 Caliber Magnum pistol, directly aim the same firearm at the person of VIC TIMA, an invalid septuagenarian, and, at point blank range, with intent to kill, discharge the firearm twice against the person of said Vic Tima, inflicting on said Vic Tima two (2) wounds on his chest and stomach, which wounds would have been fatal had not timely medical assistance been rendered to the said Vic Tima.

CONTRARY TO LAW with the aggravating circumstances of Evident Premeditation, use of firearm and disregard of age.

(Sgd.) ELLIOT NESS


PLUS: Certification of Preliminary Investigation or InquestC. Motions

1. Motion to Quash Information






Plaintiff,


- versus -

For: Theft

KLEPTO MANIAC,

Accused.

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

MOTION TO QUASH

[2] THE ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully moves to quash the Information for the crime of theft on the following:

[3] GROUNDS1. IT CONTAINS AVERMENTS WHICH, IF TRUE, WOULD CONSTITUTE A LEGAL JUSTIFICATION;2. THIS COURT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION.

In support, the accused respectfully states that:

ARGUMENT

The Information alleges that the accused KLEPTO MANIAC is eleven (11) years old and without any known address. Under Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, a person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he acted with discernment, is exempt from criminal liability.

There is no allegation that the accused acted with discernment. Even granting said discernment, the accused cannot be tried but instead proceeded against under Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that a minor, unless sixteen years of age at the time of the commission of a grave or less grave felony, cannot be tried but instead shall have the benefit of a suspension of all proceedings against him. The duty of the court would be to commit the minor to the custody or care of a public or private benevolent or charitable institution for the care and education of homeless and delinquent children or to the custody of the Department of Social Work and Development.

[4] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Information against the accused be QUASHED and that the accused be released immediately from detention.



Counsel for the Accused[Address]PLUS:1. [7] Request for and Notice of Hearing2. [8] Proof of Service2. Motion to Quash Search Warrant

[1] (Caption)


Plaintiff,

- versus -


For: Libel

VIG CHAN,

Accused.

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

MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT

The ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully moves for the quashal of Search Warrant No. 1122 issued by this Honorable Court on and dated 12 July 2006 based on the following considerations:

[2] 1. Rule 126, Sec. 10 or the Revised Rules of Court provides expressly that a search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date and that thereafter, it shall be void.

2. Search Warrant No. 1122 is dated 12 July 2006. It was served on the accused on 23 July 2006, the 11th day from its date; this is certified to by the Sworn Inventory and Return executed by Major Alang Alam, the leader of the searching team (a copy of which is already part of the records). A search was made on the same day, 23 July 2006; pursuant to said search, certain objects were seized and delivered to the court. Under the law, the Search Warrant is void and must, thus, be quashed.

[3] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Search Warrant No. 1122 be QUASHED and all objects seized under its purported authority be declared INADMISSIBLE under the exclusionary rule in Article III, Section 3(2) in relation to section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.


[5] (Sgd.) MA TAPANG

Counsel for Accused[Address]PLUS:

1. [6] Request for and Notice of Hearing2. [7] Proof of Service3. Motion to Suppress Evidence

[1] (Caption)PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus -


For: Libel

VIG CHAN,

Accused.

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

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE UNLAWFULLY SEIZED

The ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully moves for the suppression of objects seized on 23 July 2006, pursuant to Search Warrant No. 1122 issued by this Honorable Court dated 12 July 2006, based on the following considerations:

[2] 1. Search Warrant No. 1122 was served on the 11th day and is, thus, void.

2. The motor vehicle seized does not fall within the property that may lawfully be seized.

Discussion[1] Search Warrant No. 1122 was

served on the 11th day and is, thus,

void.

1. Rule 126, Sec. 10 of the Revised Rules of Court provides expressly that a search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date and that thereafter, it shall be void.

2. Search Warrant No. 1122 is dated 12 July 2006. It was served on the accused on 23 July 2006, the 11th day from its date; this is certified to by the Sworn Inventory and Return executed by Major Alang Alam, the leader of the searching team (a copy of which is already part of the records). A search was made on the same day, 23 July 2006; pursuant to said search, certain objects were seized and delivered to the court. Under the law, the Search Warrant is void.

3. No valid seizure may be made under a void warrant. For this reason, the following objects must be suppressed:

[list items]

[2] The motor vehicle seized doesnot fall within the property thatmay lawfully be seized.

4. On the occasion of the search, the searching party also seized accuseds green Jaguar XJE with license plate, No. 1", allegedly for being subject of the offense. Thereafter, it was impounded and kept at the PNP Motor Pool.

5. The motor vehicle cannot be subject of the offense as accused is charged with libel. There is no relation between the motor vehicle and libel.

6. Moreover, the motor vehicle is not mala prohibita that would justify a seizure thereof; neither could there be a seizure of evidence in plain view.

[3] WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that all objects seized under the void Search Warrant No. 1122 be declared INADMISSIBLE under the exclusionary rule in Article III, section 3(2) in relation to Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Furthermore, it is prayed that the Green Jaguar XJE with license plate No. 1" be immediately returned to the accused.


[5] (Sgd.) MA TAPANG

Counsel for Accused[Address]PLUS:

1. [6] Request for and Notice of Hearing2. [7] Proof of Service4. Motion for Bail

[1] (Caption)


Plaintiff,


- versus -

For: Murder

NAKA PIIT,

Accused.

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

MOTION FOR BAIL

[2] THE ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully moves to be allowed bail on the ground that the [3] prosecutions evidence of his guilt is not strong. In support, he respectfully submits the following:

1. The Information alleges that he raped the private complainant on 25 December 2005 at his residence in Quezon City. The prosecutions own evidence, however, belies this allegation as: (a) the medical certificate (attached as ANNEX A to the Information) states that private complainant is in a virgin state with no physical and outward signs of trauma; (b) the medical certificate issued by the NBI doctor (attached as ANNEX B to the Information) after a physical examination of the accused, two (2) days after the alleged rape, shows that he is suffering from erectile dysfunction and has been so afflicted for close to five (5) years now and (c) the sworn statements of the private complainant conflict with and contradict each other such that her credibility must be placed in doubt.

2. For these reasons, there is no basis to conclude that the accused raped the private complainant as there is less than circumstantial evidence of this fact. He is, thus, entitled to bail as a matter of right.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the accused be granted: (1) a bail hearing, during which the prosecution should be directed to present its evidence to show the strength of its evidence of the accuseds guilt, and (2) thereafter, grant the accused reasonable bail.


Quezon City; 7 July 2007.

(Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERECounsel for the Accused

[Address]PLUS: Request for and Notice of HearingD. Application for Bail

[1] (Caption)PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus -


RECY DIVIST,

Accused.

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

APPLICATION FOR PROBATION

THE ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully applies for probation pursuant to the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended.

In support of this application, the accused respectfully submits the following:

1. Accused-applicant is of legal age and currently gainfully employed at ASN Broadcasting Corporation located at Timog Avenue, Quezon City. On 23 February 2007, she pleaded guilty to the offense charged herein; consequently, this Honorable Court in its Order dated 8 March 2007 sentenced accused-applicant to an indeterminate penalty ranging from three (3) years to five (5) years of prision correccional.

[2] 2. Accused-applicant humbly submits that she possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications enumerated under section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 968, specifically:

2.1. She has not been convicted of any crime against national security or public order;

2.2. She has not been previously convicted by final judgment of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month and one (1) day and/or a fine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00);

2.3. She has not previously applied for nor had been previously placed under probation under Presidential Decree No. 968.

2.4. She has not started to serve her sentence and, to date, has not filed any Notice of Appeal from the Order of conviction.

3 Finally, granting this application will not in any way depreciate the seriousness of the offense charged nor cause any undue risk that during the period of probation, accused-applicant will commit another crime. Moreover, accused-applicant does not need any correctional treatment requiring commitment to an institution.

[3] WHEREFORE, accused-applicant respectfully prays that her application for probation be GRANTED and that she be placed under probation under such terms and conditions necessary to attain and ensure the objectives of the law and which, under the circumstances, are fair, just and reasonable in the sound discretion of this Honorable Court.

Quezon City for Pasig City; 12 March 2007.


Counsel for Accused[Address]PLUS:1. [4] Verification

2. [5] Request for and Notice of HearingIV. PLEADINGS AND OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS COMMON TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

A. Offer of Evidence and Opposition/Comment to Offer

1. Formal Offer of EvidenceRepublic of the Philippines





Plaintiff,


- versus -

RECY DIVIST,

Accused.

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

FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE

THE PROSECUTION, by the undersigned public and private prosecutors, respectfully offer their documentary exhibits in support of their case-in-chief:

1. Exhibit A, the sworn statement of Alang Kaso, the private complainant, and Exhibit A-1, his signatureto prove that on the date and time stated in the affidavit, the accused issued a post-dated check in the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) which, on presentment for payment, was dishonored for lack of insufficient funds; to prove authorship and the authenticity of the sworn statement; and as part of the testimony of the private complainant.

2. Exhibit B, the post-dated check dated 30 June 2004, issued by the accused in the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00); Exhibit B-1, the dorsal side of the check with notation DAIF; Exhibit B-2, the signature of accused on face of the checkto prove the issuance of the check, the amount stated, the reason for dishonor and the identity of the issuer. The marked copies of Exhibits A and B are already part of the record.

WHEREFORE, the prosecution respectfully prays that the foregoing Exhibits be ADMITTED as proof of the facts therein stated and in support of its case-in-chief and for all other relevant purposes.

Quezon City; 7 July 2007.

ELLIOT NESS

ATTICUS FINCH

Public Prosecutor

Private Prosecutor

Copy furnished:

MITCH MCDEERE

Counsel for Accused2. Comment/Opposition to OfferPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,


- versus -

RECY DIVIST,

Accused.

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

COMMENT ON THE PROSECUTIONS

FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE

THE ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully oppose the Prosecutions Offer of Evidence for the following reasons:

1. Exhibit A, the sworn statement of Alang Kaso, the private complainant, and Exhibit A-1, his signature are INADMISSIBLE because the private complainant was never presented to authenticate the document or subjected to cross-examination, thus, the document is hearsay and inadmissible.

2. Exhibit B, the post-dated check dated 30 June 2004, issued by the accused in the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00); Exhibit B-1, the dorsal side of the check with notation DAIF; Exhibit B-2, the signature of accused on face of the check are INADMISSIBLE for violation of the Best Evidence Rule as the original check was never presented; and no basis for the presentation of secondary evidence laid.

ACCORDINGLY, the ACCUSED respectfully submits that the Prosecutions Exhibits

legal forms theodore te 2009

Documents

legal forms

legal documents common

civil procedure

legal rights

criminal procedure

notice of appeal49

notice of hearing3

notice of appeal5