REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Manila City, Branch 1

Ana Delos Santos,

Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE No.: 12345
For Damages

-versus-

Budget Buildings, Inc.,

Defendant,

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

A N S W E R

Defendant, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, and
by way of answer to plaintiff’s Complaint, most respectfully states:

ADMISSIONS

1.) Defendant admits the following allegations of fact in the Complaint subject
to the specific denials and special and affirmative defenses stated herein, to wit:

1.1. Paragraph 2 is admitted in so far as it pertains to the nature of the

business of defendant Budget Buildings Inc.

1.2. Paragraph 3, 4, 5, 6 is admitted as it pertains to the personal

circumstances of plaintiff and her deceased husband, Mark Delos
Santos.

1.3. Paragraph 7 is admitted only to the fact that around 3 p.m. of

December 23, 2017, Mark Delos Santos, together with Carlo Cruz
and Miguel Jurado, were performing their work as carpenters at the
elevator core of the 13th floor of Summit Building on board a
platform.
 DENIALS

2.) Defendant denies the following allegations of fact in the Complaint subject
to the specific denials and special and affirmative defenses stated herein, to wit:

2.1. Paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Complaint are
specifically denied, the truth of the matter being those stated in the special
and affirmative defenses herein below indicated.

SPECIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

3.) Defendant repleads and incorporates all the foregoing allegations in so far as
they are relevant thereto.

3.1. It appears in the Complaint that Mark Delos Santos, together with
Carlo Cruz and Miguel Jurado, were performing their work as
carpenters at the elevator core of the 13th floor of Summit Building on
board a platform made of channel beam and cable wires attached to its
four corners and hooked at the 5 ton chain block. That the bolt or pin
which was merely inserted to connect the chain block with the
platform got loose causing the whole platform assembly and Mark
Delos Santos to fall down to the basement of the elevator core,
thereby crushing him, and caused his immediate death.

3.1.A. The truth of the matter is that the daily routine safety inspection
conducted on the site and as stated in its report reveals that the
workspace was safe for the day of December 23, 2017. Specifically on
the elevator core, the report states that the same is safe and stable to
work on.

The standard procedure in doing construction work in the site,

as provided for in the S.O.P requires that the workers must have their
safety harness attached to the safety pin, that they are in proper attire
(wearing helmet and padded vest). All of the workers went through a
work safety orientation before commencing their labor with the
company.

However, the deceased failed to comply with the work-safety

procedures imposed by the company. The deceased was not wearing a
helmet when the unfortunate incident happened and more importantly,
he was not wearing his safety harness nor was it attached to the safety
pin.

3.1.B. That on-site supervisor Engr. Aruie Dimer and work-safety

inspector Engr. Angelica Romero were in the premises on the same
day. These officers are in charge of inspecting site conditions to
 determine if hazards are present and to establish procedures and
policies to overcome those hazardous situations. The safety officer
looks for broken equipment, defective tools, and other potential
hazards, focusing on worker safety. The safety officer determines
what type of personal protective equipment (PPE) is needed and
makes sure that workers know how to operate and use tools and
equipment.

Copies of the sworn affidavits executed by defendant witnesses

Engr. Aruie Dimer and Engr. Angelica Romero the on-site workspace
safety daily record, as well as images promoting safety in the
workplace will be attached hereto after it is made. Annexed in this
answer as Annex “A” and “B” respectively.

3.1.C. Negligence has been defined as “the failure to observe for the
protection of the interests of another person that degree of care,
precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,
whereby such person suffers injury. Verily, foreseeability is the
fundamental test of negligence. (R Transport Corporation vs. Luisito
G. Yu, G.R. No. 174161, February 18, 2015).

With respect to the supervision of its employees, the employer

should formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their
implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for their breach. To
establish compliance with these requirements, employers must submit
concrete proof, including documentary evidence. (Victory Liner, Inc.
v. Heirs of Andres Malecdan, G.R. No. 154278, December 27, 2002,
394 SCRA 520).

3.1.E. From the foregoing, defendant indeed used his utmost diligence
of very cautious man, and was not remiss in his duty to ensure the
safety of his workers.

3.2. Defendant vehemently denies the allegations contained in paragraph

15, that the leadman did not inspect the chain block before allowing
its use.

3.2.A. The construction site has an work-safety inspector in charge of

scrutinizing the work place before construction work begins at 7 in the
morning.

Moreover, there is an alarm system installed in the elevator core

that is activated whenever the platform is unstable or any of its parts
are dislocated or missing. The alarm would have went off to send
warning signal if the chain block or platform.
 THE DAMAGES BEING CLAIMED
IN THE INSTANT COMPLAINT
HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION

4.) Under Section 1, Rule 2, Rules of Court, every ordinary civil action must be
based on a cause of action.

Rule 2, Section 2 of the Rules of Court defines cause of action as “the

act or omission by which a part violates a right of another.” Its essential
elements are the following: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff; (2) an
obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate
such right; (3) such defendant’s act or omission that is violative of the right
of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the former to the
latter. (Republic vs. Hon. Mangotara (2010))

It is well to point out that the plaintiff’s cause of action should not
merely be “stated” but, importantly, the statement thereof should be
“sufficient.” This is why the elementary test in a motion to dismiss on such
ground is whether or not the complaint alleges facts which if true would
justify the relief demanded. As a corollary, it has been held that only
ultimate facts and not legal conclusions or evidentiary facts are considered
for purposes of applying the test. This is consistent with Section 1, Rule 8
of the Rules of Court which states that the complaint need only allege the
ultimate facts or the essential facts constituting the plaintiff’s cause of
action. A fact is essential if they cannot be stricken out without leaving the
statement of the cause of action inadequate. Since the inquiry is into the
sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations, it follows that the
analysis should be confined to the four corners of the complaint, and no
other. (Eliza Zuniga-Santos, represented by her attorney-in-fact Nympha Z.
Sales vs. Maria Divina Gracia Santos-Gran and Register of Deeds of
Marikina City, G.R. No. 197380, October 8, 2014)

Article 2179 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines provides: When the
plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his
injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. The underlying precept of
the above article on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly
responsible for his own injury should not be and is not entitled to recover
damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence.
Inferrably, the defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages
actually caused by his negligence.

Applying the foregoing jurisprudence and the applicable provisions of law,

the Complaint in itself is insufficient as it is bereft of the factual basis for the
action.
 PRAY E R

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, defendant most respectfully pray

that the herein Complaint be dismissed in so far as the claim for loss of earning
capacity, moral damages, and exemplary damages is concerned.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

City of Manila, January 28, 2018.

ATTY. AZIEL MARIE C. GUZMAN

Administering Officer
DIFAGUROTA LAW OFFICE
71 Street, Recto, Manila
PTR No. Manila-2281984 – January 8, 2017
IBP O.R. No. 3271984 – January 16, 2017
IBP Manila Chapter VII
Roll No. 12323954
MCLE Compliance No. III-04191954
Issued on February 28, 2017
Tel. No. 453-6936

Copy furnished:

REYES LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Unit 23, Victoria Tower 1
Taft Avenue, manila
 VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, Ellaine L. Fallarcuna, Filipino, of legal age, single and presently holding

address at No. 145 Bayview Residence, Ocean Avenue, Manila, duly sworn,
depose and state:

1. That I am the President of Budget Buildings, Inc., the defendant in the

above-captioned case;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer;

3. I have read the foregoing Answer and hereby declare that the statements
contained therein are true and correct based from my own personal
knowledge and based on authentic documents;

4. I have been authorized by the Board of Directors of Budget Buildings,

Inc. to file this Answer in its behalf, a photocopy of the Secretary’s
Certificate is attached hereto as Annex “A”;

5. I further attest to the existence, due execution and authenticity of the said
Secretary’s Certificate;

6. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same
issues raised in the above-captioned case in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other court,
tribunal or agency;

7. To the best of my knowledge, no similar action or proceeding is pending

in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions
thereof, or any other court, tribunal or agency;

8. Should it come to my knowledge that a similar action or proceeding has

been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
or different Divisions thereof, or any other court, tribunal or agency, I
hereby undertake to notify the court or tribunal taking cognizance of the
above-captioned case of such fact within five (5) days from receipt
hereof of such knowledge.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 27 th

day of January 2018.

Ellaine L. Fallarcuna
Affiant
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 27th day of January 2018, in
the City of Manila, affiant exhibiting to me her Professional Driver’s License with
License No. D02-99-144223 issued in Makati City. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I
personally examined the affiant and I am fully satisfied that she voluntarily
executed her affidavit.

ATTY. WILL UY
Notary Public
Commission expires on December 31, 2017
Suite 213 Intramuros Corporate Plaza
Recoletos corner Cabildo Streets
Intramuros, Manila 1002
IBP Lifetime No. 51680/12-16-09/MANILA II
PTR No. 0234663/01/02/13/MANILA
Roll No. 59125514

Doc. No. 78
Page No. 10
Book No.XXIV
Series of 2017