Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
MANILA, BRANCH 23

KAYELYN MAE B. LAT,


Plaintiff,

-VERSUS-

CIVIL CASE NO. 14344


FOR: EJECTMENT

HAZEL B. REYES,
Defendant.
x--------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM


(In re: Summons, Received on April 1, 2016)

DEFENDANT, through the undersigned counsel, most respectfully files her


Answer in response to the Complaint of the Plaintiff and interpose as well as
her counterclaim against the latter, to wit:
1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Complaint are admitted.
2. Paragraphs 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the Complaint are denied for lack of
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the veracity
or falsity thereof, the allegations therein being matters known only to,
and are within the control only, of the plaintiff.
3. Paragraph 12 of the Complaint is admitted.
4. Paragraph 13 is denied for being untrue.
5. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Complaint is admitted.

6. Paragraphs 16 to 18 of the Complaint are denied for being untrue


having no basis.
SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

7. The Defendant did not incur unpaid rentals for the months of
November and December 2015, for the reason that she has been
continuously paying as a tenant of the residential apartment, as
evidenced by receipts, marked as Annex 1;
8. That it cannot be said that there was an information from the plaintiff
to deposit the payment for the month of November 2015 for the
reason that the defendant has advanced the said payment together with
the rental for the month of October 2015 because she would be
travelling to Singapore and would stay there until the last week of
December, as evidenced by a letter received by the son of the plaintiff,
marked as Annex 2;
9. That there was no reason at all to demand for the payment of the
rentals since such have already been paid by the defendant;
10.That paragraph 11 of the Complaint could not be possible because the
plaintiff was informed that defendant would not be around during
such time;
11.That the plaintiff has no right to institute this action for the reason that
her authority is only limited to collecting rentals from the tenant/s of
the residential apartments, as evidenced by a Special Power of
Attorney executed between the plaintiff and the real owner of the said
apartment, marked as Annex 3;
12. That the real owner of the said residential apartment is the plaintiffs
cousin, Janica Borja Catada, who was in Rome, Italy when the
leasing of the apartment has commenced, as established by the Special
Power of Attorney;
13. That the continuous possession by the defendant is not illegal and
unlawful because she has complied with the terms and conditions
specified in the Lease Contract executed between the plaintiff and the
defendant;

14. That being the case and thereby misleading the public as to the
interest of the plaintiff to the subject property, the plaintiff is not a
property party to institute the complaint.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM
15. By reason of the abuse of right committed by the plaintiff and by
reason of the instant precipitate and unfounded suit, the defendant was
constrained to hire the services of a lawyer to defend his rights and
interests for a professional fee of P20,000.00 plus P3,000.00 per court
appearance;
16. Similarly, the plaintiffs unfounded suit has caused the defendant
mental anguish and suffering and public humiliation and
embarrassment, for which the defendant claims moral damages of
P100,000.00.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the parties
be given ample time to reach an amicable settlement before the Manila City
Mediation Center; and that in case of a failure thereof, and after trial, the
complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and the defendants compulsory
counterclaim be granted, i.e.. Attorneys fees of P20,000.00 plus moral
damages of P100,000.00, plus costs of suit.
The defendant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be
deemed just and equitable in the premises.
City of Manila, April 2, 2016.

ATTY. ALVIN ANGELO RUFINO


Counsel for DEFENDANT
Unit 1624, Manila Residences Tower II, Malate, Manila
P.T.R. No. 23456 * Manila City * October 1, 2014
I.B.P No. 22222 * Manila City * July 16, 2014
MCLE No. III 7777 * Manila City * April 22, 2012
Roll No. 1234

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)


City of Manila, Metro Manila) SS.
VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATE OF NON FORUM SHOPPING
I, HAZEL B. REYES, of legal age and Filipino, after having been
duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state THAT:
Furthermore, in compliance with the Rules of Court, I hereby
certify that I have not commenced any other action or proceedings
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; and that
to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending
in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency. If I learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or
is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency, I shall notify the court, tribunal or agency
within five (5) days from notice.
AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this April 2,
2016.

HAZEL B. REYES
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this April 2, 2016; affiant


exhibited to me her Passport EB-23455.

NOTARY PUBLIC

DOC. NO. 4
PAGE NO. 3
BOOK NO. 21
Series of 2016.